World's hottest day since records began

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120934394#Comment_120934394

The OP you replied to didn't deny anything. They simply added some granular context on local stations figures.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120933819#Comment_120933819

Island- continent - not the same thing 😂

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120934710#Comment_120934710

Glad you finally get it.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120934722#Comment_120934722

Goway outta that you absolute chancer!

Are ya gonna answer what continent you live on or are ya still hiding? 😂

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120929666#Comment_120929666

Excluding Sicily, because it's an island and therefore not in Europe /s - the warmest European temp on record was 48°C in Athens, in 1977 - 46 years ago. The hottest temperature in Perth, Aus. was 47°C in 1991 - 32 years ago.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120933999#Comment_120933999

Cliff Mass, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Washington, said the public was being “misinformed on a massive scale”: “It‘s terrible. I think it’s a disaster. There’s a stunning amount of exaggeration and hype of extreme weather and heatwaves, and it’s very counter-productive,” he told The Australian in an interview. “I’m not a contrarian. I‘m pretty mainstream in a very large [academic] department, and I think most of these claims are unfounded and problematic”. …Professor Mass said the climate was “radically warmer” around 1000 years ago during what’s known as the Medieval Warm Period, when agriculture thrived in parts of now ice-covered Greenland. “If you really go back far enough there were swamps near the North Pole, and the other thing to keep in mind is that we‘re coming out of a cold period, a Little Ice Age from roughly 1600 to 1850”.

Global warming has become a global industry, with many people's jobs and income depending on it. It's self-perpetuating, like a diffuse bureaucracy. Science should always be open to input and alternative view points, but the politicisation and other factors, like the unfettered near instantaneous exchange of ideas and opinions, thanks to the internet, I think have polarised many topics making them near impossible to counter once they reach a self-perpetuating critical mass.

The latest recipient of the Nobel prize for physics called climate science, 'pseudo science', and promptly had some climate change worshiping dweeb cancel a talk he was due to give to the IMF.

Science is dead. There is no longer an ability to question or rebut when it comes to climate science.

You 'just believe'. I don't. There was massive hyping of the climate crisis in Australia during and after the large bushfires a couple of years ago. Australia was going to get hotter, drier and burn to a cinder. Everyone and everything was going to die. What has actually happened is that Australia has gotten cooler and wetter and agricultural productivity has boomed, with record harvests and usually parched and imperilled river systems are flowing like never before and are full to the brim.

The mass media hysteria using the fires in Australia to hype climate panic reminds me of what we are seeing now in coverage of a heat wave in Europe. Meanwhile my thermostat controlled heating has come on almost every day in July and trucks that deliver heating kerosene are out and about and seemingly quite busy.

I don't deny the climate might be changing, it probably is, it's done so before. My problem with climate science is the unquestioning attribution of events to CO2 produced by mankind. We do not understand in the slightest, what has caused climatic variations in the past, but all of a sudden we have a perfect understanding that current climate anomalies are only attributable to mankind? IMO, if you don't have a perfect understanding of what causes natural variability, then confidently declaring and attributing variability to an utterly minuscule anthropogenic input I find problematic.

So called scientists going on about tipping points and runaway heating leading to the Earth becoming Venus-like and other flavours of climate catastrophism just show how imbecilic some of these 'scientists' are.

The global average temperature for the 20th century was 13.9°C. If it rises 2°C, the planet and all life are fuc*ed, right? So even though the long term global average temp while life on Earth has thrived is more like 25°C - 15.9° and you can kiss your ass goodbye, Venus here we come? Bulldust.

Life on Earth has existed and thrived for far longer on a planet so much warmer there were no ice caps at all, than it has with ice caps in place. Release the CO2 locked up in hydrocarbon deposits and we will have runaway green-house warming. This one has to be one of the stupidest assertions ever. How and why did the carbon get into those deposits? It came from the air, because the 'normal' level for atmospheric CO2 is more like 2,500 ppm, not the current near plant starving 418 ppm. Putting a small fraction of the carbon that was once in the air as CO2, back where it came from, is not going to destroy the planet when 2,500 ppm is likely the norm and clearly didn't cause the planet to become uninhabitable.

Our planet has been so cold it has been frozen over and described as a snowball - twice, it's also been far warmer with a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere. Life on Earth was more nearly made extinct in the snowball scenarios than the warm no ice caps life optimums.

The Earth can and has managed with very large variations in climate and global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. It would seem likely that there are coping mechanisms. Scientists don’t know what they are but they are 100% certain that you need to stop whatever is you are doing, right now.

Thelonious Monk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120938810#Comment_120938810

i don't read your nonsense so i wouldn't bother responding to anything i post if i were you

magicbastarder

The latest recipient of the Nobel prize for physics called climate science, 'pseudo science'

oh, i didn't know they'd given the 2022 nobel prize in physics to a climate scientist.

oh, wait, they didn't. but we knew that. so the word scientist whose area of expertise is not climate somehow should be taken seriously?

would you quote the opinion of a dentist who claimed covid was a hoax?

and regarding cliff mass:

"Mass has stated publicly that he shares the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that human activity is a major cause of warming trend in the late 20th and 21st centuries.[9][10] According to Mass, "Global warming is an extraordinarily serious issue, and scientists have a key role to play in communicating what is known and what is not about this critical issue."[11] He has been critical of the Paris Climate accord for not going far enough to address the negative impacts of climate change.[12] Mass has also expressed concern when media outlets and environmental organizations have made, in his opinion, exaggerated claims about the current impacts of climate change. Mass has questioned statements of climate change as the cause of specific weather events.[13][14][15][16] For example, Mass concluded that global warming was not a central factor in the 2021 Western North America heat wave"

maybe he should have his wikipedia entry changed if he wants to be relied on as someone denying anthropogenic climate change.

InAtFullBack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120931673#Comment_120931673

Automation of stations have been a royal pain in the *** for Met Eireann as the digital replacements for what once was manual human observations prove less reliable. We even seen it last year when the 33.1c at Phoenix Park had to be pared back by 0.1c within a few hours. That might be one occurrence that was notable because it coincided with one of Dublin's record high temperatures, scenarios such as that occur alot more without much notice. Beware of automation reports, especially record breaking ones - they often die out once investigations happen and headlines have faded.

InAtFullBack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120933079#Comment_120933079

Unlike some, I prefer to base my statements upon verifiable fact. I'd hold out, hold well out, until all the data is in, compiled and QC'd before making claims one way or the other.

Jackiebt

Never mind the latest religion, I'm still traumatised and worried by the fear of acid rain and holes in the ozone layer.

OldRio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120945416#Comment_120945416

He's back on his favourite hobby horse. Re regs yet again. Tis awfully sad.

Igotadose

Seemed timely.

Rikand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120946034#Comment_120946034

I'm sure it's actually very interesting stuff. It's just spoken in a language that nobody understands

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120948867#Comment_120948867

The problem with this is that the original climate predictions were made way before modelling became a thing and were based on hard empirical physics/chemistry principles. They have been around for about 150 years at this stage and the original calculations are proving to be incredibly predictive of current trends. So the modelling is very useful for refining our understanding but is not the basis of climate science and the predictions of anthropogenic climate change.

TedBundysDriver

It's depressing how many supposedly intelligent people are falling for this climate change guff.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120948969#Comment_120948969

Its depressing how many aren't. I'll go with the experts though.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120948976#Comment_120948976

If your basing your understand on science of 400 years ago - you have identified your own problem.

Newton was demonstrably wrong in his understanding of the universe (but his ideas are still somewhat useful if you understand their limitations).

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120949073#Comment_120949073

Thats a lot of words to say almost nothing.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120949115#Comment_120949115

Again plenty of words - little meaning. I understand perfectly well what you are attempting to say but it lacks a certain credibility.

Modelling is an important part of climate science but only part.

Akrasia

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/desantiss-florida-approves-climate-denial-videos-in-schools/

the republican party are the absolute worst

Supercell

Thought this was on point, not matter what...people will need the call.

https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1689185161001275392?s=20

magicbastarder

https://www.rte.ie/news/2023/0809/1398817-health-body-temperature/

as pointed out in the article - the frequency of these events has doubled.

InAtFullBack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120956849#Comment_120956849

From the article -

This critical limit, which occurs at 35 degrees of what is known "wet bulb temperature", has only been breached around a dozen times, mostly in South Asia and the Persian Gulf, said Colin Raymond of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

...

Joy Monteiro, a researcher in India who last month published a study in Nature looking at wet bulb temperatures in South Asia, said that most deadly heatwaves in the region were well below the 35C wet bulb threshold.

It's no wonder these wet bulb temperature frequencies have doubled when you take into account the rapid urbanisation of southern Asia and much of the coastal Persian Gulf.

See - Southeast Asia and Sustainable Urbanization > Articles | (globalasia.org)

Between 1950 and 2014, the region's urban population increased 11-fold from 26 million to 294 million. Since 1990, Southeast Asian cities have added 154 million inhabitants — more than the combined populations of Brunei, Cambodia, Malaysia, Laos and the Philippines. There is no historical or Western parallel to such a massive demographic shift toward urban areas.

Such rapid urbanisation requires unthinkable amounts of concrete poured over land that was historically mostly marshland or forest in the case of southern Asia and desert in the case of the Persian Gulf. I don't think I need wasting anyone's time on here elaborating about how concrete, metal roofs [in the poorer cities] will create an acute UHI [urban heat island]. Land use changes such as these are the biggest contributor to regional temperature changes.

Akrasia

The most rapidly heating places in the world are around the 2 poles. Notably lacking in concrete and steel

highdef

42° being reported in Sion, Switzerland. If confirmed, then it could be a new all-time record. The previous high being 41.5° in Grono on 11th August 2003.

magicbastarder

More from Switzerland

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/21/zero-degree-line-record-height-switzerland-heatwave-wildfire-europe?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Darwin

Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in France, the national average was 26.63c, 5.8c above seasonal norms. It was also the warmest night ever recorded in some regions, e.g. 28.6c minimum in Nice and 30c in Menton.

Thelonious Monk

You'd wonder how bad things will be in 10 years. With all the records being broken and fires and drought at the moment, it'll only get worse and worse.

I know it was hot in 1976 and all but it does seem like things are turning for the worst.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121011422#Comment_121011422

El-Nino means this will probably be the hottest year in the next decade (unless the El-Nino sticks around). But over that decade temps will probably creep up to make this year the new normal by decades end.