Heat wave strikes Northeast

U.S. Daily Record Highs Outnumber Lows 5-to-1 Since 2010
Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.

 

Both the left and the right need to get their story straight. The media is the problem. Both mainstream and blogger articles are consistently incorrect and misleading.

 

Well, that was a prediction of AGW. That is, record highs would outnumber record lows. That's what's being observed so...

 

To which I would reply so what? The Earth's kind of old and looking for a normal temperature fluctuation is a fools errand

 

Flip a coin prove a hypothesis?

 

Yes. If the hypothesis is a statement with an inherent probabilistic nature then absolutely. This concept is ubiquitous in nearly all disciplines of science. For example, two such disciplines in which this concept rules the roost is quantum mechanics and the medical sciences. Those two fields are very dependent on statistical and probabilistic analysis. So it's not climate science is unique here.

 

The secret to surviving high heat is to start staying outside most of the time in the spring, then stay out in it most of the time every day until mid-September. If people retreat to unnatural air conditioning the heat will kill them.

 

Warmers said warm events will outnumer cold events and since the planets been warming since the last ice age that's a pretty safe bet. If you want to claim warming is speeding up feel free but it proves nothing because we are in another stage of the post glacial period and there is no way of knowing what is "normal" for the era wera we are in. Past statistics are meaningless.

 

People have become soft due to AC and they even close schools if it stops working. When I was a kid no school I ever went to had AC and in heatwaves we had class outside under a shade tree.

 

How many people areas this year have suffered from higher than normal, or record, heat waves? Refer to the numbers for me

 

Once again there's no such thing as normal. Get over that.

 

You seem to find the notion of numbers problematic. Try standard deviation to catch up!

 

No such thing with climate. Climate is chaotic and ever changing and looking for standard deviation is a fools errand.

 

So you have no data to cheer? Cheer a Trump post truther dear wannabe!

 

Drinking already? Lol

 

I'd need to be in double pint figures to miss the failure to adopt evidence based argument...

 

What evidence? All your so called evidence points to nothing but correlation and none of it is about causation. If you want to believe and live your life accordingly be my guest, just don't demand the rest of us do too. Problem is you believe but don't live your life based on those beliefs. All you do is condemn non believers. How does that stop your global warming again?

 

Things called "thermometers". Are you familiar with them? Possibly not. Fanatical dead-ender religious cults like yours tend to reject all modern technology.

Look, if you want to live in a cave and hug trees while you pray to mother Gaia, feel free. Just don't expect us to join you. We like electricity and plumbing. That's why we're working so hard to keep the lights on, while you work so hard to leave humanity shivering in the dark.

 

OK so that made absolutely no sense. Once again if you think our use if fossil fuel is destroying the planet feel free to stop using it, just don't demand that the rest of us do so. Problem is you don't "work hard" as you say and all you really do is attack us non believers for not believing as in your last post.

 

Fossil fuel runs out eventually. You'll leave the world shivering in the dark when that happens.

But we're not demanding that. You're lying about that.

We are saying that fossil fuel use has to be gradually reduced, a totally different thing from what you claim. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Even you can figure out something that simple, which means you're just choosing to lie. Understandable. Cultists believe it's justifiable to lie for the glory of the cult.

Now, run along. You've got work to do. That tree isn't going to hug itself.

 

Trees on a public school ground? Unthinkable. Kids might hurt themselves and trees deplete the toxin CO2.

 

In the 70s we were told we had reached peak oil but now we have more proven reserves than we did then. Yes eventually fossil fuels will indeed run out but it's not going to happen anytime soon and as new technology comes on that makes it obselete fossil fuel will die a natural death. What you true believers want to do is put the cart ahead of the horse and force us off fossil fuels before a replacement that is as cost effective is on line and you want to do this based on your beliefs that fossil fuels are destroying the planet. As I said if you truly believe this then stop using or drastically reduce your use of these fuels instead of wasting your time attacking those of us who are not true believers. Funny part is I'm sure my C02 footprint is much smaller than yours but you're the good guy and I'm the bad guy in your world because I don't "think right"

 

It's definitely more than just correlation. There is a definite causative effect. I think it's probably time to go into detail about how we know the effect is causative.

The cause is mired in the details of quantum mechanics. Specifically molecules have vibration modes. The more atoms in the molecule the more vibration modes it has and the more opportunity is has to interact with photons of varying frequency. Generally speaking the number of vibration modes for non-linear molecules is 3N-6 and for linear is 3N-5 where N is the number of atoms in the molecule. Diatmoic molecules like O2 and N2 only have one mode of vibration and neither is activated by incoming shortwave radiation nor outgoing longwave radiation. This is why even though our atmosphere is composed of mostly oxygen and nitrogen we aren't concerned with the specific concentration of either because they do not participate in any EM spectrum interaction typically encountered in Earth's atmosphere. However, triatomoic molecules like H2O and CO2 have 3 modes of vibration and it just so happens that all 3 of them are activated by outgoing longwave photons. Incoming shortwave photons do not activate any of the vibrational modes and that's why they pass right though. The specific frequency at which a vibrational mode is activated depends on the strength of the chemical bonds and motion of the molecule itself (which dictates the doppler blue/red shift effect).

For example, the bending vibration mode has a certain harmonic frequency that is only activated by photons of that frequency. All other photons pass through the molecule as if it doesn't even exist. Once activated the kinetic energy of that vibration is added to the molecule and the photon is said to be absorbed. When the molecule is ready to relax it's vibration a photon is then emitted at that frequency to conserve the energy. This photon is scattered in a random direction mean when viewed in aggregate the emission of photons by molecules in the atmosphere are in all direction. Some are emitted towards to the ground whereas some are emitted upwards where they interact with yet another molecule higher up and heat it up. It's this precise behavior of absorbing and reemitting photons in the IR spectrum that cause the thermal profile of the atmosphere to become warmer down low and cooler up high. It makes sense because longwave photons pool in the sections of the atmosphere where they probabilistically more likely to exist. And because these triatomic molecules work to prevent these photons from scattering higher up the stratosphere cools.

Note that CH4 has 5 atoms and thus has more vibrational modes and thus even more opportunities for photon interaction than CO2. That's why it's said that methane is even more potent on a per molecule basis than carbon dioxide. But, there's vastly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as compared to methane. Nevermind that carbon dioxide exists for hundreds of years whereas methane only exists for a few years.

Refer to the HITRAN database for the specifics of which frequencies activate which vibrational mode. There are hundreds of molecules in the database. Refer to the wikipedia article molecular vibration for details of what I described above.

The debate isn't about whether CO2 causes warming. It does and that's undeniable. What's debated is how that warming works to reinforce or destroy other feedbacks in the climate system. If the CO2 warming reinforces another warming factor (like H2O) then the net warming will be increased. If the warming reinforces another cooling factor (perhaps volcanism due to less ice) then the net warming will be reduced.

But, make no mistake. CO2 absolutely and undeniably produces a constant positive radiative forcing or warming effect. It's definitely causation and that is a fact.

 

Fine and I've said repeatedly that nobody disagrees our C02 has some impact the question is does it amount to a hill of beans in the scheme of things on this planet with so many climate driver's some of which we know about and who knows how many we don't know about. That's the question here that nobody can answer.

 

Highly unlikely.

You're the only one here trying to base morality on a carbon footprint. You keep making up these stories about what we supposedly believe, all because you're too chicken to address what we actually say.