This Might Be the Hottest Year You've Ever Experienced
But there may come a time when you remember it as cool.

Globally, the hottest June, July, August, and now September since modern instrumental surface temperature records started being kept in the 19th century occurred this year. Zeke Hausfather, a climate researcher associated with the ecomodernist Breakthrough Institute, noted that the global average temperature for September reported by the Japanese Reanalysis (JRA-55) of global temperature trends "beat the prior monthly record by over 0.5C, and was around 1.8C warmer than preindustrial levels."

Similarly, Europe's Copernicus Climate Change Service reports that its ERA5 reanalysis calculates that the average surface air temperature for last month was "0.93°C above the 1991-2020 average for September and 0.5°C above the temperature of the previous warmest September, in 2020." Combined with earlier surface temperature warming, the result is that September "as a whole was around 1.75°C warmer than the September average for 1850-1900, the preindustrial reference period." In addition, Copernicus researchers note that "the global mean temperature for 2023 to date [January through September] is 1.40°C higher than the preindustrial average (1850-1900)."
Climate reanalyses, like the JRA-55 and the ERA5, combine weather computer models with vast compilations of historical weather data derived from surface thermometers, weather balloons, aircraft, ships, buoys, and satellites. The goal of assimilating and analyzing these data is to create past weather patterns in order to detect changes in climate over time. Since climate reanalyses incorporate data from a wide variety of sources, they must be adjusted when biases are identified in those data.
Satellite temperature data trends basically mirror those of the JRA-55 and ERA5 datasets. University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologist Roy Spencer reports that the "global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2023 was +0.90 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean." Spencer adds that this "establishes a new monthly high temperature record since satellite temperature monitoring began in December, 1978."

Consider that 6,500 years ago, during the earlier warmest post–ice age period called the "Holocene thermal maximum" by climatologists, average global temperatures are estimated to have been around +0.7C above the 19th-century average. A 2023 review article in Nature concluded, "Proxy evidence reported in several studies indicates that GMST [global mean surface temperature] was roughly 0.5 °C higher during this millennial-scale period [6,500 years ago] compared with 1850–1900, with most of the warming occurring at middle to high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere."

Citing other global surface temperature datasets, Hausfather estimates that September 2023 temperatures will fall "somewhere between 1.7C (HadCRUT5) and 1.8C (Berkeley Earth) above the 1850-1900 average."
Some researchers have suggested that the current big boost in global average temperature is related to the massive amount of vaporized seawater that the January 2022 explosion of the undersea Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai volcano injected into the atmosphere. After all, water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas that warms the Earth's atmosphere. A January study in Nature Climate Change calculated that the extra water vapor would boost average global temperatures by up to 0.035 degrees Celsius over the next five years. But another study in the September Geophysical Research Letters estimated that in 2022 the sulfur dioxide plume from the volcano cut the amount of sunlight reaching the surface and thus cooled down average surface temperatures in the southern hemisphere by around 0.037 degrees Celsius. In other words, the 2022 volcanic eruption is having a relatively minor effect on current global temperatures.
It's worth comparing the recent global average temperatures to the Paris Climate Agreement's goal of "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." However, global weather fluctuates in response to various natural climatological phases such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the eastern Pacific Ocean. As it happens, a developing El Niño is warming the Pacific Ocean, thus contributing to the increase in current global surface temperatures. When the current El Niño wanes, average global temperatures are likely to fall back below the Paris Agreement's aspirational long-term 1.5-degrees-Celsius global average temperature threshold later this decade.
The upshot is that 2023 is highly likely to be the hottest year in the modern instrumental record.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What is "pre-industrial"? Looks like we are still well below the bronze age temperatures. Comparing to 1850-1900 seems like an awfully convenient cherry to pick as that looks to be about the coldest time since the Younger Dryas.
Pre industrial was a mini ice age. Oh the good ole days.
Are you trying to shift the blame to your ancestors or your posterity?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/09/why-didnt-they-think-of-climate-week.html
Are you trying to get people to your shit website?
Are you still trying to censor it ? As The Climate Wars :
“curates scientific and cultural atrocities perpetrated by climate deniers, activists, inactivists, ideologues, social entrepreneurs, propagandists , United Nations functionaries, lobbyists and cranks of all persuasions”
you should fit right in !
There are no ads.
“Climate deniers” the fuck does that even mean?
People who notice that the science is not settled, complete, or even particularly verifiable.
People who don't believe in radiative forcing or ordinary geophysics and favor alternative explanations that by the merest coincidence coincide with fossil energy playbooks, thus making life hard for Reason editors and easy for Guardian greens.
L Ron Huburd wrote better science fiction than that.
I am profiting (400$ to 500$/hr )online from my workstation. A month ago I GOT cheque of about 30k$, this online work is basic and direct, don't need to go OFFICE, Its home online activity. By then this work opportunity is fbegin your work....★★
Copy Here→→→→→ http://Www.Smartcash1.com
Go peddle your discredited bullshit at WaPo. You can find the circle users you’re looking for there.
"“Climate deniers” the fuck does that even mean?"
Those who aren't nearly as stupid as Public Ignoramus
People like Entelectual who think that CO2 being less than 500ppm in the atmosphere has more of an effect on temperature than the Sun being at a high point of solar activity.
https://www.science.org/content/article/peak-solar-activity-arriving-sooner-expected-reaching-levels-not-seen-20-years
How is he censoring your stupid website?
He’s censoring it with his mean evil thoughts you hater!
Negative vibes man!
Nothing to see here, just move along.
Seriously. How did Jesse "censor" you.
Yeah, I want to know, too.
Maybe "censor" means the same as "I think your blog is shit and am willing to say so".
"There are no ads"
The whole thing is an ad for crackpot theories and pathological science.
That is what you get when you collate cautionary examples of climate hype and denial alike.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Earn money in USA, high scores from trusted resources. Work at your own pace. Regular Payments. Search in different job categories. Work anywhere on your vs03 computer, laptop or mobile phone. Update your profile at any time.
Detail Here———->>> http://Www.Easywork7.com
If you'll go back and read the article, you'll see how wrong your comment is.
You're mistaken. Don't you think it's rather disingenuous to disregard the little ice age and before?
Using roughly 100 years of data to extrapolate anything of merit from Earth's several billion year long history is perhaps the king of fools errands.
"Using roughly 100 years of data to extrapolate anything of merit"
Survival of human civilization is a topic of merit. It doesn't have to go back 4 billion years.
Nice try. But your diversionary bullshit is obvious. Your response is idiotic and irrelevant.
I disagree. It is clever and relevant. Future survival of human civilization is more pressing and important that what the whether was like 4 billion years ago. BYODB is diversionary and you don't even recognize it.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
If you're trying to argue that RIGHT NOW is extremely out of sync with history --- yeah, you do.
Human civilization didn't exist 4 billion years ago. What the weather was back then is not relevant to the issue of the continuation of civilization over the next century or so given current trends. If you think otherwise, make your case. I'll check back later.
Human civilization existed long before 1979.
"Human civilization existed long before 1979."
Did it exist 4 billion years ago? That's the period BYODB tells us we need to thoroughly investigate before coming to any conclusions about today's climate and future trends.
No. He was pointing out how miniscule a percentage of information we have of our planet's environment long-term.
Feel free to go back 3000 years. Human civ was quite healthy.
Why are you carrying water for this moron? You know very well that the weather 4 billion years ago has no bearing on the future survival of human civilization.
Mtrueman, show one accurate prediction. Just one.
After that, tell us why our elites like Kerry have to fly to a climate conference
Yes, and just because you haven't been breathing for 5 minutes doesn't mean you are dead averaged over your lifetime of breathing.
No plant or animal species existing today existed 500 million years ago.
Why do you think that the Earth's climate a billion or more years ago matters to the well being of the biosphere today?
Your reasoning is like a home owner who's home is on fire, trying to convince a fireman to put out the fire, when the fireman insists that there can't be a problem because the history of the house fire prior to 20 minutes ago is uncertain.
Maybe the house was burning a year ago and the fire is it's natural state. Maybe it was built on fire.
Besides 4.5 billion years ago, the house didn't even exist so the fire is not significant.
Why do you think that the Earth’s climate a billion or more years ago matters to the well being of the biosphere today?
Because it would give us more complete information with how the Earth works. 150 years isn’t gonna cut it.
Your reasoning is like a home owner who’s home is on fire, trying to convince a fireman to put out the fire, when the fireman insists that there can’t be a problem because the history of the house fire prior to 20 minutes ago is uncertain.
Maybe the house was burning a year ago and the fire is it’s natural state. Maybe it was built on fire.
Besides 4.5 billion years ago, the house didn’t even exist so the fire is not significant.
It would certainly be helpful to know what the house is made of if there’s gonna be any fire prevention. In your analogy, the fire hasn’t happened despite you crying all wolf about it.
Learning about the structure of the Earth is important for the foundation of the house. Because of geology, we’re able to learn what type of ground best supports homes. Learning about the age of the Earth gives additional insight as to why that may be so.
Your arguments do not stand. Stop being out of touch with reality.
“pre-industrial” pre = before industrial = industry
pre-industrial = pre-industry == Before steam power.
"Looks like we are still well below the bronze age temperatures."
That is because the image is only 736 pixels wide and spans 13,000 years, so each pixel thin vertical bar represents 17 years worth of data. Further the last almost invisible bar is from data that cuts off 10 years ago as shown by the inset and each bar from that set shows a 120 year running mean. So it's median value is from 70 years earlier than that.
So the image shown does not show the warming over the last 100 years or so.
If only you had paid attention during your grade 6 math class.
If only your weren't an ignorant lefty shit.
You're one of those people who think the end of an ice age is actually marked by a period of warming. Thank goodness we have common sense "scientists" who know better.
Republican activist and electrical engineer Tony Heller takes time our from bullying girls and defending prohibition to point out that the the 30s and 40s were the warmest time since the invention of newsprint. All temperature records published after the failure of the Kyoto panic to overcome tens of thousands of accredited and degreed scientists in the "Petition Project" (search for it) are dense with data as fake as the "studies" we Republicans used to ban harmless LSD over the entire planet. The site is realclimatescience.com
You'd be mistaken.
It's not "girl bullying" to expect accountability out of one's actions. Prohibition has also helped many drunkards become sober and improve their health.
And contrary to what you say, LSD is not harmless:
https://bibliography.maps.org/bibliography/default/resource/16892
I suggest you read this article with regards to climate change. It seems like those who signed the "Petition Project" were actually on to something:
https://fee.org/articles/4-catastrophic-climate-predictions-that-never-came-true/
Tony Heller has a program called the Cherrypicker that searches temperature records for dramatic lows followed by increasing temperature "data." Choose January 2009 as a starting point and anyone can see that after the Bush faith-based asset-forfeiture Crash, the Dems did a good job of "restoring" the economy. Observe that the Gee-Oh-Pee never mentions economic change after beer and liquor prohibition were repealed in 1933, any more than the Dems mention DEA and Flash Crash in the same sentence.
Actually, the U.S. government did keep track of the economy after 1933--it was horrible. Why are you spinning the blame at the GOP?
Tony Heller also has been very thorough on his research.
I would also not that the first graph in Ron’s article is grouped by decade spanning 1950-2023, but all of his sources are either 1850ish-1900ish or 1991-2020.
Typically, in the literature, this would be regarded as between self-aggrandized cherry-picking and lying. Literally only showing a picture of the data you want people to see.
It was actually quite comfortable this summer here in Michigan, thanks for asking.
Very mild summer in Missouri, except for a couple of weeks in August.
A lot cooler in California than it has been for the past several years, and finally with a decent amount of rain.
Same in Illinois. One week in the 90s otherwise on the cool side. We did get a nice indigenous peoples summer last week of September. Even hit 80 first couple days of October. Heated up the pool and felt like Florida man!
It was a wetter than normal summer in Michigan. That helps keep the temperature down.
Only one 90 degree day here in Ohio this summer,
The contiguous U.S. average temperature during August was 74.4°F, 2.3°F above average, ranking ninth warmest in the 129-year record.
Generally, temperatures were above average across much of the contiguous U.S., with below-normal temperatures in parts of the Great Lakes, Ohio River Valley, Northeast and southern California.
For the month of August, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida ranked warmest on record for August while Texas ranked second warmest on record. An additional seven states ranked among their top-10 warmest August on record.
U.S. land area is only 2.4 % of the total global land area.
129 YEARS!
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Actual scientists measure temperature in degrees Kelvin, Celsius or Fahrenheit. Warmunist scientist-impersonators prefer "anomalies" with no convincing definition in the fine print axis label. That Red China has managed to infiltrate Petr Beckmann's favorite Reason magazine with a scientist impersonator is evidence that libertarians are as big a threat to international soviet socialism as to eugenically moralized christian national socialism. Tax-funded climate Sharknado documendacities are as true as tax-funded reefer madness and LSD-defenestration documendacities. Remember the Bozone Layer?
Hank, read this:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
None of this can be placed on the "eugenically moralized christian national socialism". How do you get your history spectacularly wrong?
Coolest summer in five years up here in northwestern Canada. Didn't have a single day over 30 (86 American) which is unusual.
It might been the hottest summer we've ever experienced because of all the shit you motherfuckers lit on fire!
Very, very mild in June and early July in Georgia. Mid July there were a few peaks, and it was hot in August. Hotter than last year I'd say from mid July-1st week of September, but last year might have been a relatively cooler year here.
If this year became the new median, it wouldn't be alarming. Lots of rainfall and sunshine, good for growing. Got tons of blackberries and tomatoes this year.
Our summer here in SC was more like spring, didn't hit 100 even once I don't think. And our spring was an extension of winter, was abnormally cold this year.
"It was actually quite comfortable this summer here in Michigan"
You enjoyed the smoke from the burning Canadian forests?
Beautiful sunsets...
I’m shocked, shocked! that an El Niño summer resulted in higher temperatures in some places.
Might is carrying a lot of the load.
Bailey... how about informing readers how much of global temps are done through actual measurement compared to how much is modeled to fill in the gaps?
It is by far not the hottest I've ever experienced. That was 87 for me. Long summer, highes about 8 degrees hotter than this summer.
Oh. Maybe also a little pruner of urbanization around the data measurement boxes. I know UA went from a green law to next to a university vehicle parking lot in the last decade. No effect on official Temps though.
UAH is a satellite temperature data set, and does not use ground based measurements.
You silly boy.
As to ground temperature measurements the official site selection used to compute warming over land omits badly placed and maintained weather stations.
When those stations are included in the analysis, estimates of global average land temperature go
Can you PROVE that?
Like photos of the sites used and the address changes of other sites?
"Phoenix this summer experienced the hottest July and the second-hottest August since records started being kept in 1895. The daily average temperature of 97 F (36.1 C) in June, July and August passed the previous record of 96.7 F (35.9 C) set three years ago." Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arizonas-biggest-city-driest-monsoon-season-weather-service-103643378
So we’ll ignore that the satellites are measuring temps differently than they were before?
Also, that’s a .3 *Fahrenheit* difference in a massive city.
The global satellites used to measure global average temperatures, are just weather satellites that were not designed to provide consistent measurements over long periods.
Considerable corrections and modeling must be added to their measurements in order to produce a consistent record,
The satellite measurements that are used do not come from the satellite looking down, and hence can not come from looking down into a city. There is also insufficient resolution to do so.
The satellite record comes from measurement where the satellite sensor is looking horizontally through the atmosphere as it rotates.
After multiple passes are taken These measurements are then processed like a CT scan to produce a computed temperature profile of the atmosphere.
Looking directly down can't provide a temperature of the surface of the Earth, obviously, since you are looking through a gas that has it's own temperature.
Thank you for confirming that it's not actual data
I’m not in phx. And if you actually looked at phx data it is warmer at night, not day time. Due to the number of roads. It doesn’t cool at night there like most other cities in the desert. Asphalt retains heat.
But try again if you want to.
Vegas I like that too. Doesn’t cool down much at night during the summer. Which is the reason I don’t go there in July and August.
It is also warmer over forested areas, the polar regions - ice caps melting - and on top of mountains - glaciers melting.
The ocean is also warming.
The heat island issue is real, well studied, and not part of the global land temperature data set.
If someone tells you it is. You are being lied to.
You conveniently left out this:
https://www.science.org/content/article/peak-solar-activity-arriving-sooner-expected-reaching-levels-not-seen-20-years
How do you explain all those catastrophic predictions that didn't happen?
The Altruist Broadcasting Corporation is where physicists go for the latest advances in applied mathematics and mensuration techniques. Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker are examples of ABC network's commitment to objective truth and scientific evidence.
Yep, like calling a woman a woman. That’s more accurate than what climate alarmists have been predicting with regards to climate change!
At this point, I've no trust in the government-controlled climate science, given the fudging of data sets, the failure of all the climate models (all the same direction of more global warming), and the fact that since there's no control with which to compare, it's impossible to determine what if any effect man has on the overall temperature of the planet. Instead, they're left to computer modeling, the evidence of which shows the scientists all overestimated the change in temperature, which shows they were all biased.
I'll also note the complete avoidance of any discussion of "human adaptation" which has already occurred over Ice Ages and hot periods. We could likely grow more crops on a warmer planet which is a good thing, especially compared to what happens in an Ice Age.
Solar scientists (from Russia, which had the most accurate climate model) are predicting a 60% reduction in solar output starting around 2030 and potentially lasting for decades or longer. Maybe we should be warming the planet to protect ourselves from an Ice Age. On the other hand, an Ice Age would lower the sea level back to where it was 400' lower, and we'd have above water access to all the "civilization" sites that existed near sea level before the end of the last Ice Age that brought on the great flood. Somehow, I don't see solar panels and wind farms working well during an ice age, given snow cover and ice on much of the surface except near the equator.
Putin's puppet posting now.
/S
I giveth not the rectum of a rodent.
Then you and your children can die in ignorance.
Fuck off, slaver.
wasn't even the hottest Texas I've experienced in the last 27 years.
The summer of 2023 will go down as Texas' second hottest ever, with an average temperature of 85.3 degrees between June and the end of August, the state's climatologist said, just behind the blistering hot and extremely dry summer of 2011 when the average temperature hit 86.8 degrees.
On the contrary, there have been hotter days at Texas long before humans existed. The data is there.
Don’t believe your lying eyes and experiences. Trust Venni.
Even the upshot is an oxyomronic confirmation bias. Our *re* analysis *and the instruments we calibrate and operate* agree with our foregone conclusion, the upshot is that they all agree with us that we're right!
If your instruments are giving you the right answer, you don't need the *re*analysis. If your instruments aren't giving you the right answer, the *re*analysis doesn't mean they are giving you the right answer, it just means you agree. And that's setting aside the issue as to how and why the instruments agree with the *re*analysis but, seemingly, not the original analysis or underlying metrics.
Just mash and smear enough data together and it will produce some true knowledge and understanding, that's how science works, right?
One of the most insidious things they did is instead of taking the average of the hottest hour, they now take the hottest minute. So get a long wind gust in death valley and the highest temp will be higher.
It’s all just “lying with statistics” with the climate change crowd. They’ll never owe up to a margin of error because their methodology is nonsense, thus their margin of error is higher that the magnitude of their results. Shitty “science” that should be ignored.
Why would we trust proven liars? Why the fuck would we put them in positions of authority?
What ever happened to that old Phoenix pol who went around asking:
“Will man bring himself to accept a substitute for the internal combustion engine, if that proves necessary, or at least a more expensive, less efficient fuel?
“Will man be willing to restrict the consumption of electrical power until a safe and nonpolluting source of production can be found?”
"One of the most insidious things they did is instead of taking the average of the hottest hour, they now take the hottest minute. "
Not all of us are 60 minute men.
That doesn't give you an excuse to be dishonest with the data.
"If your instruments are giving you the right answer, you don’t need the *re*analysis. "
What is the right answer and how do we know it's right? I have a thermometer that gives an accurate reading, but is it the 'right answer?' More expensive and accurate instruments will certainly give better answers. And the instruments give measurements, not answers.
"and the instruments we calibrate and operate* agree with our foregone conclusion,"
Has anyone calibrated and operated instruments which disagree? Is there a candidate for a hotter year during the past couple hundred years?
Have you considered what the results might be if the people running the experiments already know what the results should be?
"Have you considered what the results might be if the people running the experiments already know what the results should be?"
It's normal in social sciences. There are times when the results that come in surprise everyone. It's probably similar in physical sciences. If every hypothesis in every experiment was wildly wrong, we'd have abandoned the scientific enterprise long ago.
It’s normal in social sciences
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replication-crisis-peer-review-statistics
Social sciences are notoriously shitty for coming up with studies that nobody else can replicate. So maybe that's a model to stay away from, where nothing can ever be validated and everything is pure shit.
"Social sciences are notoriously shitty for coming up with studies that nobody else can replicate. "
All humans, the subject of social sciences, are unique. Don't let the name fool you, economics, sociology, linguistics aren't really sciences. That said, most of the results are common sense, and not surprising. Sometimes though, the results are counterintuitive and interesting. But my question, "What is the right answer and how do we know it’s right? " remains unanswered.
That said, most of the results are common sense, and not surprising.
It really isn't. That's why people call out those "experts" who think that their field of study professes more than they really know.
1934
"Just mash and smear enough data together and it will produce some true knowledge and understanding, that’s how science works, right?"
Yes, that is exactly how the quantum mechanics that governs the operation of the computer you are using right now was developed.
You should have paid attention in your Grade 6-8 science classes. Maybe then you wouldn't be so ignorant about how science works.
Yes, that is exactly how the quantum mechanics that governs the operation of the computer you are using right now was developed.
You should have paid attention in your Grade 6-8 science classes. Maybe then you wouldn’t be so ignorant about how science works.
No, not even close. You're delusional to think computers are a result of mashing and smearing the data together. You can't seem to grasp the thought that data alone is not meant to be toyed with, but to be used correctly. Without this, scientific experiments would have far more failures.
Learn with how procedures are created and then enforced. That's the key to scientific advances. As mad.casual points out, the climate alarmists have not done this.
Nah, Leonard Nimoy told us in the 70s we were getting an ice age. Spock’s a better scientist than the climate crazies.
Probably factually accurate.
" Leonard Nimoy told us in the 70s we were getting an ice age. "
When Nimoy visited the University of Illinois around that time, he was introduced to PLATO, their forerunner to the Internet. The nerds there were shocked and disgusted when their discovered that Nimoy's knowledge of chess didn't even extend as far as how a knight moves.
Did he have a beard?
*That* Spock knew how to play *4*d chess.
We ARE in an ice age. We’ve just been been in a warmer period for the last 12,000 years. It’s a certainty that this warm period will end and we will return to expanding glaciation. We just don't know exactly when.
"We just don’t know exactly when."
Do we know why? And it's cop out to attribute it vague 'natural cycles' without getting more specific.
“Wow it’s hotter than when I was a kid, better throw someone in a volcano to appease the climate god.”
Satellite data has only been a thing since I was a kid.
And the question is serious. Why? Is the return of glaciation inevitable? What's the basis for that claim?
In the 70s they thought industrial civilization was causing an ice age, now it’s doing the opposite. Fucking pick a side.
"Fucking pick a side."
Science is about letting the data pick the side. If by 'they' you mean scientists, they tend follow the data. It's not adversarial combat. For that you've got lawyers, politicians and people from the world of sports.
Fascinating.
Well that is what you get for listening to Capitalist's lying to you to make a dime or two.
Capitalists are the only goddamn reason that co2 emissions have reduced you retarded commie fuck.
What comes after " The gates of Hell have opened", and " Gobstoppingly Bananas" ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/10/are-they-fahrenheit-bananas-or-kelvin.html
Fraud charges.
Now stop shilling your scam site and go away.
Censorious , isn't he ?
Return to start:
Are you trying to get people to your shit website?
Reply
Public Entelectual 1 day ago (edited)
Are you still trying to censor it ? As The Climate Wars :
“curates scientific and cultural atrocities perpetrated by climate deniers, activists, inactivists, ideologues, social entrepreneurs, propagandists , United Nations functionaries, lobbyists and cranks of all persuasions”
you should fit right in !
One thing not highlighted in the graphic or the text is that the vertical axis is labeled "Delta Global-Mean Temperature" which is meaningless out of context. Change from what? Why is "change from" important in the context of climate change generally? What we might want to know is whether the current global average temperature is higher now than then previous inter-glacial high points before temperatures started dropping towards the next Ice Age.
Global temperatures are now, and have been for the last couple of decades, higher than at any time in the last 120,000 years.
It is known. No need to actually prove any of this and have your assertions tested.
I’ll tell you that any assertion you can make is limited by the fact that evidence of past temperatures is insufficient. It’s performed by examining sediment in large bodies of water, but:
1) There is no precision in this even down to the century level. You can’t go back to 89,200-88,500 BC and estimate an average temperature for any year in that stretch, nor any decade, nor any century.
2) The methods in which we measure temperatures now aren’t even consistent.
3) comparing the mean of a large sample to a single data point is very shitty math. You don’t compare the height of the tallest man in China to an average American to conclude that Chinese people are taller.
"There is no precision in this even down to the century level. "
There is no precision in predictions of tomorrow's weather, either.
"The methods in which we measure temperatures now aren’t even consistent."
Methods producing internally consistent results is perhaps the best we can hope for. Different methods producing identical results should raise suspicions. ie the numbers are cooked, pardon the pun. Inconsistency across differing methods should be a given.
"comparing the mean of a large sample to a single data point is very shitty math."
Yes, but it's not math, but science we're talking about. Yes, it's only climate science, and not proper science, and it's certainly not math. Science follows the evidence.
Time scales for climate are huge. 200K years between ice ages. A measurement in the scale of 1000 years seems appropriate. I don't think an ability to drill down to individual years or decades is realistic, necessary or cost effective to get a handle on the long term trends. You don't use the same equipment to measure both grams and tons.
Yes, but it’s not math, but science we’re talking about. Yes, it’s only climate science, and not proper science, and it’s certainly not math. Science follows the evidence.
Seriously, the level of cope necessary to even say these things.
Science follows evidence of natural phenomena. Math follows logic. Two different disciplines.
Not really. Math is a tool to provide explanation to science. They are part of the same discipline in that regard.
"Global temperatures are now, and have been for the last couple of decades, higher than at any time in the last 120,000 years."
How can you verify this?
Isotopic systemics using high resolution accelerator mass spectroscopy.
How do you explain the contradictory information from data between the ice ages?
You are (mis)quoting something you read on a website a couple of months ago without even the slightest understand of what the source is of that assertion.
Except for the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Dust Bowl
Any time you have to go to a "reanalysis" to get your desired results, you should maybe go back and check the original data.
I thought weather wasn’t the climate?
Climate is roughly defined as changes in weather averaged over 30 years are more.
No. Climate does not have a set amount of time.
So here's the deal. Even if we go with the cherry picked time periods and say burning carbon is 100% responsible for an increase post industrial revolution. You still have to contend with the following points:
- natural disasters, contrary to the narrative, are not increasing, they are stable over time. The mega-hurricane year predicted (either 21 or 22 was supposed to be it) never happened. We aren't underwater. And we have wild fires that occur because incompetent govt isnt managing land not doing controlled burns, or incompetent govt electrical companies, or people that burn shit near a tinder box (that is there due to above govt incompetence)
- if they were increasing (they arent) the technology provided by the industrial revolution and tech advances have significantly mitigated death due to natural disasters (which again, are steady not increasing)
- warmer temps create more farm land and better growing atmosphere, and also are better for humans. People thrive when its warm and they die when its cold.
- whatever small increase in temp has happened, if due to carbon, would be a tiny price to pay for THE LARGEST ADVANCEMENTS IN TECH, QUALITY OF LIFE, LIFE EXPECTANCY, AND HUMAN PROGRESS IN ALL OF KNOWN EXISTENCE.
- all offered solutions, thus far, have been a combination of exorbitantly expensive, unproven, inadequate solutions to even make a dent, and that is aside from the fact that said money wasting solutions also come with a massive power transfer to the people promising to solve this "existential" problem.
...and all that relies on starting from the climate nazi's premise that we are in times of unique warming that is caused specifically by burning carbon, that is an existential threat, which is a pretty rocky premise to start from.
You forgot to mention the dozens of fires set by.... climate activists, to try to reinforce the climate catastrophe narrative.
Well said Mike.
Addendum to point 3:
- Carbon starvation for all plant life occurs at ~200 ppm and is relatively absolute (you can't water to make up for CO2 the way you can water or shade to ease excessive temps). Carbon suffocation for all plant life *begins* to occur closer to 8-10,000 ppm. Carbon suffocation for most animal life begins to occur at ~5,000 ppm. We're currently at 400 ppm.
"Carbon
suffocationsmothering" is probably the better term/conceptualization.Combined with earlier surface temperature warming, the result is that September “as a whole was around 1.75°C warmer than the September average for 1850-1900, the preindustrial reference period.” In addition, Copernicus researchers note that “the global mean temperature for 2023 to date [January through September] is 1.40°C higher than the preindustrial average (1850-1900).”
So it looks like we’ve now hit that 1.5c threshold that the entirety of climate focus has been on. The origin of Greta Thunberg panic, etc. Sure, it’s not a sustained increase yet – but obviously it will BECOME sustained. Temperature ain't going down in any trend in future. And it’s obvious that there is no magic number at which denialist frogs will ever admit that the temperature is even increasing.
The biggest problem with basing proposed decisions/changes on some magic temperature line ‘in future’ was precisely what has happened now. Folks who panic about that artificial and arbitrary line lose their credibility when the line is crossed because they overhyped the meaning of that line and Folks who deny the reality itself will continue to deny the reality because their denial was never based on whether there is some disagreement over facts.
So we are exactly where we were a decade ago re this issue. Except there’s now more heat and less light.
People have been moving to warmer climates ever since air conditioning was invented. Warmer weather is better for plant life, better for agriculture, and better for humanity. The worst years to be alive were the coldest years (see 536AD, which kicked off the Plague and the Dark Ages, or 1816AD, the "year without a summer," both following major volcanic eruptions with global impact).
Slightly nicer weather isn't a catastrophe, it's a blessing.
Well that is certainly a statement – People have been moving to warmer climates ever since air conditioning was invented – that is falsifiable.
And it will become a false statement as/when those ‘warmer climates’ actually become uninhabitable. That will happen – decades sooner than is [not being] predicted [because of the excessive focus on 1.5c] .
Air conditioning does not matter one whit once it becomes fatal for people to work outside for any length of time. The Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and India are likely to be the first parts of the globe that hit that point as they have already hit those temp spikes for 1-2 hours at a time. So has the Baja Peninsula / Gulf of California, and parts of northwest Australia. The Gulf Coast of the US will also hit that.
If you're pulling the 'it becomes fatal to work outside for any length of time thing then you're discrediting yourself.
They work outside for extended periods in the tropics. They do it in the ME. They do it where I live - all these are places where the temps routinely exceed 100f and/or 90 percent humidity.
Where I live we're routinely working in the sun in. 115+ temps. In the ME it can hit 140.
I do triathlons and continue to train all summer. I ran, consistently, almost every day this summer, for anywhere from 6-15 miles per day. It was regularly in the high 90's with very high humidity where I live. Somehow, I survived in said heat, while burning thousands of calories and putting significant physical strain on my body, in JFree's "fatal" summer heat.
As you said, Jfree's ridiculous statement just shows he is a pants shitting hack.
Jfree is a fearful idiot. See all his COVID pants shitting.
"Where I live we’re routinely working in the sun in. 115+ temps. In the ME it can hit 140."
The killer is when the heat lingers over the night. As long as there's an appreciable difference between day and night time temperature, we can handle day time heat with reasonable precautions. Trouble is when that difference disappears. Overheating can lead to death.
This isn't true at all.
1. We don't heat and cool on a 24 hour cycle. You don't store heat all day and then dump it from your body at night.
2. It's fucking over 90 at midnight here (outside of town where I live) in the middle of summer because it's humid AF. People survived this before air conditioning.
Keep talking for another decade and you should be able to add another 14,000 Frenchman and 60,000 other Europeans Fourteen to the list of hyperthermia victims no longer able to disagree with you.
The survivors however can testify that Intelligence and memory test scores decline with Dunning-Kruger consequences as temperatures rise past 70 F. How do we know? Because the US Army researched the subject thoroughly before staging the invasion of North Africa in WWII>
And then the battle of the Kaserine pass happened .
Goddamn you’re dumb.
Are you saying that cooler heads did not prevail ?
And we'll have 10 times that many who didn't die of hypothermia - which kills more people.
" You don’t store heat all day and then dump it from your body at night."
This is my point. If the temperature differential between night and day is minimal, the body isn't given the chance to cool down at night.
"We don’t heat and cool on a 24 hour cycle. "
Thanks to air conditioning. Everything else does follow a 24 hour cycle. I suspect the rising and setting of the sun is to blame.
The body doesn't store heat all day to radiate away at night.
If you can survive the day temps then you will survive the night at the same temp.
"If you can survive the day temps then you will survive the night at the same temp."
Not necessarily. If temperatures at night are too high (or too low) it can be fatal. A short and easy to read article on the subject:
https://weather.com/safety/heat/news/2019-07-19-nighttime-heat-wave-deadly-dangerous
"Without relief from the heat at night, heat stress can continue to build and increase the risk of heat illnesses and death. In fact, there are indications that nights can be more deadly than the daytime during a heat wave."
Perhaps you can take comfort in the fact that extremely cold night temperatures can also be deadly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave
Cold spells are associated with increased mortality rates in populations around the world. Both cold waves and heat waves cause deaths, though different groups of people may be susceptible to different weather events. More temperature-attributable deaths occur during a cold wave than in a heat wave, though the mortality rate is higher in undeveloped regions of the world.
Warm climates are more beneficial to humans than cold ones.
"It’s fucking over 90 at midnight here (outside of town where I live) in the middle of summer because it’s humid AF. "
You are confusing humidity with temperature.
The difference should have been taught to you in grade 4 science class.
Were you absent?
You're just not aware that clouds trap heat?
Vendi isn’t aware of a lot, except they hate capitalism and libertarians.
In the ME it can hit 140.
It’s already hit a 178 heat-index in the ME. And I repeat, it doesn’t matter how heat-adapted you are, once the outside hits a wet-bulb temperature of 95 or more, see those areas on the edge of the black areas on this chart, the human body can no longer cool itself by sweating. Heat stroke and organ failure is going to happen sooner or later with even nominal activity.
And honestly, your opinion doesn’t matter one fucking whit either. Insurance companies understand the risks here. Those risks are now within the time-window of what they are called on to insure even though the humid heat stuff still tends to fit into a ‘slaves don’t have life insurance’ mindset. Rather than an ‘uninhabitable location’ mindset.
They will be jacking up insurance costs related to climate stuff. No matter how much you assclowns want to blame it all on Biden or GretaThunberg or inflation. Or deny it. That’s how actual markets work. Deal with it.
Heat Index is defined as what? Definitely not a mercury thermometer. They are grasping at any straw to show a high temperature. I think this measure is in a parking lot without shade and how it makes you feel.
I remember watching the news feed on my PC at work this summer. Several days the newsfeed announced record temperatures. Nope, the news was lying. I looked up days in 1988 that were hotter on record at the same location. So our fabulous media was just lying to push an agenda.
I remember racing bikes in 1980's midsummer in 95+ degree temperatures. No problem if you get used to it. No heat stroke. No organ failure. Certainly, if I did not prepare and plan correctly, bad things could have happened, but I was prepared.
Bunch of wussies in Minneapolis last weekend canceling a marathon because it was 90 degrees outside. This (the cancelation, not the temperature) wouldn't have happened back in the 1980's.
Well - let's test your memory. Picking a random year from the 1980's - 1985. Minneapolis had 4 days that year that were hotter than 91F - June 8 (102), July 7 (97), July 6 (93), June 25 (93). So either the marathon was run on one of the hottest days of summer then - or it was scheduled for the early fall when the temperature high ranged from 45F - 65F. You people are like the Four Yorkshiremen without the slightest understanding of parody as humor.
As for heat index, wet-bulb, dew point, etc - there are calculators online with formulae. The heat index is the 'feels like' reading on different sites. The wet-bulb is the temperature you can sweat down to (or that a swamp cooler can cool to).
That 178F heat index day - equal to 97.5F wet-bulb - was on a day with 108F dry-bulb (exposed to air but not sunlight/radiation - so in-the-shade) and 63% humidity. IDK what the Persian Gulf water temp (the source of a potential cooling breeze) was that day but it gets to 93F or so now.
Minneapolis Marathon canceled this year. 2-3 weeks ago due to 90+ temps. Again, this would have been held 40 years ago.
And 108 degrees without scaremongering qualifiers is reasonable.
Sorry that you are a coward and dumbass. Might be best to keep that to yourself.
40 years ago (1982 - the first one), it was scheduled to run on Oct 3. When high temperatures of 60F or so were expected (and achieved).
And 108 degrees without scaremongering qualifiers is reasonable.
It's completely reasonable. That temperature - at 63% humidity - means that you personally can complete a marathon there because you're not a wuss. You should certainly try. Unless you're a wuss.
“In 1984, participants in the New York City Marathon – the country’s largest – experienced temperatures of up to 79 degrees and humidity as high as 96 percent.
Fred Lebow, the marathon’s founder and director, would later refer to it as “the disaster of 1984.” The race is held each year on the first Sunday in November. "
I took an un-airconditioned NASA grand tour of Cape Canaveral
in July, as did many other media folk, all but one dressed for the time and place, an elderly Czech journalist dressed in a black wool suit, but without a hat, who succumbed to heat stroke around three hours in and died the same afternoon.
That year saw the first fatality on the course, a French runner who collapsed 14 miles into the race and later died.
@Public Entelectual
And yet everyone else survived just fine. Seems like weather might not be the problem after all.
All summer I've seen people telling me that where I live was uninhabitable without air conditioning because they can't understand how a WBGT works.
You're not any different.
300-500 people are dying each year from heat in Phoenix. Probably half homeless and half poor/elderly. But that is a pretty fucking good indicator of uninhabitability limits.
The highest temp in Phoenix this summer was 119F. I don't know if that was the dry-bulb temp (meaning in-the-shade) but let's pretend it was. At that time of that high temp, the humidity was 11%. For a wet-bulb temp of - 75F. Quite comfortable. Swamp coolers work really well in Phoenix. But jack up that humidity to 35% and the wet-bulb temp will be - 93F. And people will start keeling over in large numbers.
Take a different city - Houston. On Aug 24 this year, the high temperature was apparently 109F - the humidity at that time was 30% - for a wet-bulb temp of 82.5F. A lot more unpleasant than Phoenix. Jack up that humidity then to 55% (which was achieved earlier that day and later that night) - and hey presto a wet-bulb temp of 94F and people start keeling over.
Those places are no longer about temperature increases. They are about water/rain/humidity patterns. Which is probably more a problem for Houston than Phoenix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave
Cold spells are associated with increased mortality rates in populations around the world. Both cold waves and heat waves cause deaths, though different groups of people may be susceptible to different weather events. More temperature-attributable deaths occur during a cold wave than in a heat wave, though the mortality rate is higher in undeveloped regions of the world.
More people die from cold waves than heat waves. There's no evidence that the heat in your anecdote is causing people to die anymore than the reported cold waves have.
"Air conditioning does not matter one whit once it becomes fatal for people to work outside for any length of time."
Would you look at that. JFree, resident "trust the experts" pants shitter and chicken little, trusting the experts and chicken littling that it will be "fatal to work outside for any length of time"
LMAO. You would be funnier if you weren't such an obvious parody of a bog standard know-nothing progressive.
"Air conditioning does not matter one whit "
It matters if you're a person. If you're a field of wheat or potatoes, you're on your own.
Jesus god you’re stupid.
To make it clear, air conditioning can't save the crops we rely on from withering under scorching heat waves.
It actually can if you set it up that way. But plants aren't all that vulnerable to heat, contrary to what you claim.
Sure and it's the Discomfort Index talking.
Does temperature matter if you are a wild animal, a pet, a cob of corn or a field of wheat?
Yup.
Actually no, temperature does not matter as much as you think, even for “a wild animal, a pet, a cob of corn or a field of wheat” There’s other factors like wind, humidity, precipitation, lighting, etc.
You forgot that there is more vegetation and fewer people die from extreme weather events.
How terrible! Panic in Detroit! We’re all gonna die!
…oh, wait…life is better than ever.
Life is better than ever, said the fruit fly as the orange it is living on runs out of juice and is overrun by maggots.
You're mistaken. The fruit fly sees that plenty of juice remains on the orange as the maggots did not arrive as predicted.
Read this:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
A Newsweek (?!) op-ed this week (oh, from the Heritage Foundation) totally demolished the "warmest year ever" narrative.
https://www.newsweek.com/summer-weather-data-dont-amount-climate-catastrophe-opinion-1829952
The "warmest year" is only since 1979, when the satellite data started. (Lots of us remember how hot it was in the 1970s.) In U.S. surface temperature data, this was only the 15th warmest year since 1895, and two of the warmer years were pre-1940 (the 1930s were hot too, almost like there's a 44-year solar cycle on top of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Which is why a lot of the local records that were broken were from the 1890s.)
It's all dishonest, and cherry picking data. Texas, Alaska and Canada were warmer than usual this year, the other 48 states were not.
The op-ed is by the doyen of climate model deniers, Dr. Roy Spencer and in it he has the good grace to expose CE as a climate blowhard by observing :
"And the satellite-based dataset that global warming skeptics often point to will likely see 2023 as the warmest year since the record began in 1979."
Read the rest of the article. The author is the guy who invented satellite weather modeling. And "warmest year since 1979" doesn't sound quite so catastrophic. I was expecting it to go back at least 200 years. Which still isn't much, after 10,000 years of human civilization and 300,000 years of humanity.
Looking at just the surface thermometer data in the United States for June, July, and August of this year, this summer ranked as only the 15th warmest since 1895. Two of the years warmer than 2023 were before 1940.
I've known Roy for 17 years and first cited his work in 1990.
He and his Huntsville colleagues have been assembling satellite data into maps since 1979, and their main claim to scientific fame was loosing track of which way the radiometers were pointed relative to the satellites' precessing orbits , a source of cumulative error that culminated in their getting the sign of global climate change wrong. Here's a summary of the details:
https://skepticalscience.com/A-history-of-satellite-measurements-of-global-warming.html
Roy to his great credit published a retraction and subsequently corrected the erroneous work .
Roy Spencer has made a whole raft of errors in his satellite temperature reconstructions.
Not realizing that satellites orbit's decay was another one of his doozies.
Another was his assumption that satellites that follow the terminator on each orbit do so forever.
Hilarious.
These errors are why his satellite temperature record is seen as the least accurate record of global temperature.
As he improves his method decade, by decade, he is getting better at it though.
But his record doesn't produce a surface temperature. Satellites measure air temperature, and with vertical resolutions of miles.
The surface temperature record is measured at a fixed height of a meter or so above ground level.
The numbers don't lie. They point to Roy Spencer being credible. You are wrong yet again.
If anyone else wants to refute VendicarD, have the honor.
"Looking at just the surface thermometer data in the United States for June, July, and August of this year, this summer ranked as only the 15th warmest since 1895. Two of the years warmer than 2023 were before 1940."
The U.S. represents only 6.5 percent of global land area and only 2.4 percent of global surface area.
What does the word "Global" mean in the phrase "Global Warming"?
Do you have that much figured out yet?
If the US is not warming --- then, by your own definition, it sure as hell ain't global.
USHCN is most often used because it has the longest lived, most widespread network of sensors. Nearly every other region of the world is such a patchwork of sporadic and poorly collected data that the temperature "records" are almost entirely from proxy data and computer modelling.
Moishe Doyen?
Hahahahahahahahahaha
" Texas, Alaska and Canada were warmer than usual this year, the other 48 states were not."
I was talking to a friend who was in Phoenix this summer. 31 continuous days of high temps over 110F.
That proves both jack and shit.
Proof is for mathematicians. Science is about observing and measuring natural phenomena. The temperature of Phoenix in this case.
A single data point isn’t science.
"A single data point isn’t science."
You got to start somewhere. And 31 days is 31 data points, as any mathematician can prove.
In the vast history of the earth it still doesn’t mean anything.
The heat wave ended lives. I treasure life. I can't vouch for its meaning, but I value it nonetheless.
Cold kills 9x as many people as heat. You should be cheering the warmth more than anyone.
Maricopa County confirms 331 heat-associated deaths this year so far. Sun in the West Valley on Aug. 23, 2023. Maricopa County has confirmed 331 heat-associated deaths this year.
Public health officials in Maricopa County, Arizona's most populous county and home to Phoenix, said this week that 202 heat-associated deaths had been confirmed for 2023 as of Sept. 9; far more than the 175 confirmed by the same time last year. Another 356 deaths this year are being investigated for heat causes.
@VendicarD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave
Cold spells are associated with increased mortality rates in populations around the world. Both cold waves and heat waves cause deaths, though different groups of people may be susceptible to different weather events. More temperature-attributable deaths occur during a cold wave than in a heat wave, though the mortality rate is higher in undeveloped regions of the world.
Warm climates are not more deadly than cold climates.
Cold ends more lives every year - bit you don't care about their lives.
It's not a competition.
"In the vast history of the earth it still doesn’t mean anything."
Neither do your kook-fart proclamations.
Actually, the "kook-fart proclamations" are quite credible--they're asking for more information on the subject matter and have not made any catastrophic predictions of the Earth. Care to explain Paul Ehrlich's wildly inaccurate predictions?
Yearly Global average temperatures are obtained from millions of data points.
You must be from planet Stupid.
"Millions of data points" mean NOTHING if you're just testing out one city. You don't think your posts through, do you?
He seems to have developed a mild case of sevo
When a bunch of Californians flee to Arizona, they find out not everywhere has no weather. Then they assume it is climate change. More perception bullshit. Normal.
“When a bunch of Californians flee to Arizona, they find out not everywhere has no weather. ”
I think appreciation of weather is baked into the ancestral memory of Californians. The people fleeing the Californian climate today, their forebears are the Okies who fled Oklahoma’s dust bowl of the 1930s.
Apparently not for someone who thinks high temps *in a desert* would be unusual.
But they are unusual. ie not usual. There has never been a year until now that recorded 31 continuous days of temps 110 or hotter.
It's that way literally every year.
Literally? The written records show otherwise. What point are you trying to make by clinging to the fantasy that Phoenix didn't undergo an unprecedented heat wave this year?
We didn’t start recording temperatures until the 19th century you dolt.
Are you claiming a mystery heat wave beat the record in the 18th century? Haven't you got anything better to do? These tergiversations of yours are unseemly.
What you mean we?
Isotopic proxies began writing a disinterested temperature record into terrestrial materials when the Hadean froze over.
@mtrueman
Uh, yes? There’s a possibility that the 18th century may have had a heat wave hotter than this year. You are claiming otherwise; to claim that Arizona had its hottest summer ever is disingenuous from you considering we don’t have any temperature records for the other near 4.6 billion years of Earth’s existence. The Newsweek opinion article has a point.
Because it didn't.
"Because it didn’t."
So, which year had a longer heat wave for Phoenix? There are many sources claiming 31 days was unprecedented in the historical record. If you've got access to the secret prehistorical record that shows otherwise, share it here. Else you've got nothing of substance to contribute.
High temps in a tropical desert ar not unusual.
Highest temps ever recorded in a desert of any kind are by definition unusual.
You did know that... Right?
You can't even get your climate correctly. It's not unusual for deserts to record the highest temperatures.
Yeah, that's fucking known as 'July' mate.
I grew up in Tucson and live in Yuma. Perfectly normal.
31 days of continuous highs over 110 was never recorded until this year. Your definition of normal is due for a tweaking.
How long have we been recording temperatures you idiot?
A lot more than 31 days. I leave it to you to find out the exact number.
Nature has been recording temperatures for 13.5 billion years at least.
You did know that... Didn't you?
Okay then, if nature has been recording the temperature for billions of years, then tell us what the temperature was at the area of what is now called Pendleton, Oregon, 6,404,382 years and 202 days before the day the Cretaceous extinction happened.
You can give us the answer either in Fahrenheit or in Celsius. We'll wait.
Really?
How much rain so far this monsoon ?
"Canada were warmer than usual this year"
This is a lie. In fact as I pointed out above this is the first year in a long time we didn't have a day over 30c this summer in my neck of the woods. Unusually cool.
"we didn’t have a day over 30c this summer in my neck of the woods."
Were your woods on fire like they were all over Canada?
Do you think that the smoke from those massive fires reflected sunlight back into space?
Do you think that your personal experience represents the temperature of the entire Earth?
Do you think at all?
This was incoherent.
You mean disasters, natural and man-made, get ignored by people making claims about how destructive man is to the environment?
Tell him he needs to move his thermometer off of his concrete patio...
True. Eastern Washington did not have an especially hot summer.
Satellites do not measure surface temperatures. Never have and never will.
Satellites can't measure surface temperatures because the surface is covered by 50 miles of atmosphere which has it's own temperature.
How do you think the satellites magically distinguish between the ground and the air?
Magic?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MOD_LSTD_M
If satellites can't measure temperature, then why are scientists using it to record temperature? Maybe, just maybe, they CAN read surface temperature after all? Has that thought every occurred to you? You are not thinking this through.
They either changed some definitions again or changed that way temperature is calculated, because this is bullshit. It was the coldest summer I've experienced in years.
The U.S. land mass has an area that is only 6.1 percent of global land area.
The phrase "Global warming" has the word "Global" in it for a reason.
Can you tell me what that reason is?
Again, if it is not EVERYWHERE, it is not global.
Shhh, you’re disturbing his narrative.
Well, it's not. Not even the hottest year this decade.
And they changed how they do temperatures so it was hilarious to have the news suddenly telling us Yuma was over 120 when our own thermometers were still in the normal 115 range.
I cringe every time I see pseudoscientists citing temperature as evidence of planetary warming (or cooling).
In the science of thermodynamics, warming is measured by heat capacity which is determined by both composition and temperature.
A quick example is if you place an ice cube in a container with the same amount of air at 50 deg F & 50% relative humidity and another with air at 55 deg F and 25% RH, which container will have more melted ice when brought to equilibrium. Surprise, it's the 50F container. But, but, 55F is hotter! Like I said, temperature is not heat.
And none of their historic data combines both temperature and humidity information. If you think you can just assume that humidity is constant, Google the RH for your area in the last 24 hours. It is typically much more variable than temperature.
And that's the problem with these pseudoscientists who are nothing more than glorified statisticians and who have little or no understanding of the physics underlying their numbers.
While you are correct that heat capacity is important, your example is incomplete because it does not specify the size of the container or the ice. Different relative sizes give different results. And absolute humidity is the feature of interest.
You seem to have missed my qualifier "same amount" in the comparison. Meaning the same mass of air & ice in each container.
"I cringe every time I see pseudoscientists citing temperature as evidence of planetary warming"
No they should be using dollars, or quatloos, or Pints.
Meanwhile here in the real world temperature is measured in these things called degrees.
What world are you from?
The answer to your question is "Earth". You're putting words in his mouth. He never said money or volume measurements were used to measure weather conditions. What he did say is the temperature alone is insufficient to determine any trends in the climate, and he's write.
Temperature does not tell the whole story of the whether conditions. You're missing factors like wind, humidity, precipitation, etc. Degrees alone is inadequate to describe the weather, let alone predict global warming. You are not telling the truth when you say "meanwhile here in the real world temperature is measured in these things called degrees."
Repent of your evil lies.
Your analysis ignores something physicists generally take care to include in theirs.
It is called " time."
Heat content or enthalpy is measured in units like kJoules/kGram and Btu/lb. Time is not one of the parameters. For example from above, the 50% RH sample is 16.1 BTU/lb while the 25% RH one is 15.7 BTU/lb.
You're engaging what can be charitably labeled as Public Ignoramus; like nearly all lefty shits, he choses a handle which he hopes his mommy might give him, rather than a descriptive one.
i’m old enough to remember that folks (glibertarians and neoliberals) actually used to deny climate change was a thing, or occurring at all…
in a just world, you’d all get your throats slit first
Cato Institute were Luke-warmers since at least 2001 or so. As in, “It’s kinda happening, but it’s not that bad and you can’t regulate your way out of it.” How early are you talking about?
Libertarian think tanks have been promoting Climate Change denial from the very beginning.
If a Libertarian has their throat slit on those grounds, it is justified.
I would never vote to convict.
Libertarian think tanks, and anybody with half a brain, isn't denying that the climate is changing. What rational people point out is that even if everything climate activists and progressives say about climate change were true, their policies don't address it.
The correct policy response to climate change is to build large numbers of nuclear fission power plants. That's the only feasible and effective solution.
Everything else (fusion power, renewables, efficiency standards, carbon trading, carbon taxes, etc.) is either worthless or harmful.
"Everything else (fusion power, renewables, efficiency standards, carbon trading, carbon taxes, etc.) is either worthless or harmful."
I'm drawn to geothermal. It powers Iceland's aluminum smelting industry, and that's saying a lot. Kenya is also developing geothermal. They are not blessed with uranium or fossil fuels and don't want to be beholden to unreliable foreign supplies.
" if everything climate activists and progressives say about climate change were true, their policies don’t address it."
But they do address it. You may not like the solutions they offer. They are global in scale and tend to favor the world's children and the future over your day to day comfort and convenience.
"build large numbers of nuclear fission power plants. That’s the only feasible and effective solution."
It's also a statist solution. China and France, perhaps the countries with the most active nuclear programs, have massive state involvement. Careful what you wish for.
"I’m drawn to geothermal."
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Geothermal can't meet the world's energy needs.
Uranium and Thorium are more widely available. Kenya has Thorium reserves.
No, they do not: they fail to achieve even their own stated goals, let alone being sufficient to actually affect the climate.
There is nothing intrinsically "statist" about nuclear power. Nuclear power plants in the US and Europe are largely owned and operated by private companies. Such plants are heavily government regulated because of proliferation concerns, but even if that is a concern, Thorium reactors address it.
As usual, mtrueman, you don't know what you are talking about.
"Geothermal can’t meet the world’s energy needs."
What are the world's energy needs?
"they fail to achieve even their own stated goals,"
Can you be more specific?
"Nuclear power plants in the US and Europe are largely owned and operated by private companies. "
You know that owners are shielded from liability by congress, I hope. And I thought you were against socialism and cronyism. And to repeat, the world's most active nuclear programs, China and France, are up to their necks in state involvement. Again, I thought you were against socialism and cronyism.
" because of proliferation concerns, but even if that is a concern, Thorium reactors address it."
Iran is not investing in thorium reactors.
Much larger than they are now.
The policies will cause massive economic damage without commensurate benefits to lives and the economy. Obama's own analysis concluded this, so does the IPCC report.
We can and should easily fix that, along with removing a lot of the other useless regulations surrounding them.
Yes, and China and France are also up to their necks in state involvement in agriculture and green energy. So, I suppose, according to you, they should stop producing food and solar power too? What exactly would be left in those two countries?
And nuclear proliferation in Iran will continue even if the entire rest of the world were powered by green energy. But since the rest of the world would be dirt poor if powered by green energy, we stand a far better chance to defend ourselves if we switch to nuclear energy.
"Much larger than they are now."
Still not clear what you think the world's energy needs are, or will be.
"The policies will cause massive economic damage"
Still not clear what policies you have in mind. I'd like to see something more than vague handwaving if you can manage it.
"We can and should easily fix that, along with removing a lot of the other useless regulations surrounding them."
Do you believe that removing the liability shield will motivate the private sector to invest in nuclear power? Again, your reasoning seems faulty.
"Yes, and China and France are also up to their necks in state involvement in agriculture and green energy."
Nuclear power is green energy in so far as it's not based on fossil fuels like oil, gas or coal.
"So, I suppose, according to you, they should stop producing food and solar power too?"
I'm not saying they should stop producing anything. My point is that the state is deeply, deeply involved in nuclear energy in France and China, just as it always has been the world over. The USA, USSR, Canada, Britain, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, Israel, South Africa, Finland. You can't name a single country on the planet where this wasn't the case. Yet you cling to the pose that you oppose socialism and cronyism.
"And nuclear proliferation in Iran will continue even if the entire rest of the world were powered by green energy. "
Will Iran ever have nuclear weapons? I think they've been developing them for decades now. Do they already have them? Is Iran the only nation working to develop nuclear weapons or are there others?
“Much larger than they are now.”
Still not clear what you think the world’s energy needs are, or will be.
Is trueman really this stupid, or is it willful ignorance in the hopes of advancing his bullshit?
Well, climate change activists say energy needs are smaller than they are now. I say they are much larger than they are now. If you want more specific, every human on the planet should be able to consume the same amount of energy as current Americans.
Read the IPCC reports and the reports from the Obama administration: they have both policies and costs. Those are what I am referring to.
I believe that the liability shield is irrelevant because nuclear power is easy to make safe with modern technologies. But, hey, if you think it helps, the state can continue to limit liability for nuclear power, just as it does effectively for all other power sources.
No, I am saying that the state should stop overregulating nuclear power and treat it like other energy sources. That alone would guarantee a rapid transition to nuclear power, because it is safe, cheap, and plentiful.
“If you want more specific, every human on the planet should be able to consume the same amount of energy as current Americans.”
That would take 10s of thousands of nuclear power plants, hundreds of years and trillions of dollars. Undoubtedly it would also trigger endless wars over uranium.
“Read the IPCC reports and the reports from the Obama administration:”
There are 10s of thousands of pages. I’m curious which policies specifically have in mind. Can you point to some?
“I believe that the liability shield is irrelevant because nuclear power is easy to make safe with modern technologies. ”
And your solution is to make it less safe by removing regulations. Allowing construction with concrete using sea sand, for example. I’m not sure why protection from liability is irrelevant. Your opposition to cronyism and socialism is awfully spotty when it comes to defending your hobby horses.
Actually, the magic of the market will accomplish that in less than a century, and trillions of dollars is peanuts to bring up the world to US living standards. Glad you realize it!
We have plenty of Uranium and Thorium.
Both contain extensive analyses of the costs and benefits of different forms of climate mitigation. You can follow the entire argument. Then you only have to switch from the incorrect discounting to the correct discounting to see that their policies are economic b.s.
No, that is not my solution. Try again.
" the magic of the market will accomplish that in less than a century,"
I don't believe in magic.
"We have plenty of Uranium and Thorium"
Not everyone does. So, wars, like the ones that have plagued the middle east, seem inevitable. Wars over control over scarce resources.
"You can follow the entire argument. "
I thought you might have something specific in mind other than vague hand waving.
"No, that is not my solution."
Your solution, removing the government's liability shield for the nuclear industry to spur investment, is idiotic.
Iran isn't interested in carbon free power generation. That isn't why they are developing nuclear technology.
Very mildly interested is probably more accurate given the snail's pace of their program. The CIA has been warning of Iran's development of nuclear weapons since the 1970s, years before the revolution and the coming online of the first power station.
They seem much more interested in developing more conventional weapons like drones and missiles, spurred on by tensions with neighbors and international economic sanctions. The efforts are more recent and more productive.
"...The CIA has been warning of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons since the 1970s, years before the revolution and the coming online of the first power station..."
Almost as long as shits like you have been warning us of the coming climate rapture!
Yup. Much throat slitting is needed.
I won't vote to convict.
And I'd vote for you to get the Rainbow Six treatment
Ok, go do it, asshole.
My god, you bitches are self righteous. Luckily you’re also gutless.
You won't do shit, faggot.
"Yup. Much throat slitting is needed."
Starting with yours, steaming pile of lefty shit.
Well, if you do it to yourself, you will have reduced your carbon footprint to nearly zero.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
^ Care to explain this, VendicarD? Are you gonna cut their throat slits too?
No serious person denied that the climate is changing; the climate is always changing. The dispute is about the degree to which human activities contribute to it and what to do about it.
We're at the end of an interglacial warming period. Rapid temperature spikes are normal and inevitable. Furthermore, warming and higher CO2 concentrations are good.
In a just world, people like you would be deported to North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba. In a just world, people like you would be forced to live "zero emissions", and suffer the consequences.
No, in a just world the Karen’s who shriek that we all must live by their rules because of their fears would be the ones getting their “throats slit”, if anyone.
Since that’s messy, I would prefer you all just fuck off.
"i’m old enough to remember that folks (glibertarians and neoliberals) actually used to deny climate change was a thing, or occurring at all…"
I'm old enough to remember lying piles of shit like you claiming we're all gonna die in 8 years!!!!
30 years ago.
Fuck off and die; make your family proud and your dog happy. But please have your grave marked so I know where to shit.
Look at you promoting violence when you never even broke so much as a screen door in your life.
I’m sorry some libertarian Chad fucked your wife while you cried in the corner like the pathetic fuck you are.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
^ Care to explain this? Will you cut their throat slits too?
I'm having my hottest year. I'm up $1100+ betting on sports. What does that tell you?
"What does that tell you?"
Double that and you've got next month's rent covered.
Always with the negative waves, Moriarty.
Actually always with the stupid; trueman is known for that:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
“Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
Ask him for a cite once in a while. You won't be surprised to find the stupid shit has none.
"...create past weather patterns..."
Yes, much as I thought.
The plots you are looking at are global average temperatures. They mean shit when it comes to "the summers people remember".
Climate change mostly produces higher temperatures in high latitudes. So if you live in Lapland or Antarctica, you may indeed be experiencing a "hot" summer.
This is clearly not the hottest summer I have been in throughout my life.
Furthermore, growing up, I didn't have air conditioning, now I do; that makes hot summers much easier to deal with.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ……
Detail Here—————————————bitecoinsallar12.COM
lol, so definitely not then.
The more certain "journaLisTs" sound when they tell me about climate in the future the more certain I am it will be something else.
The more certain “journaLisTs” sound when they tell me about climate in the future the more certain I am it will be something else.
Beginning to think it's even more of a "Joe's in trouble, we need to haul out the old shibboleths so we can find the next/better candidate(s)."
GREAT!!!
Warmer temps mean longer growing seasons and MORE FOOD for everyone!
HOORAY!!
"MORE FOOD for everyone!"
Lack of food isn't the problem. More than enough food is produced every year to feed the planet with some left over. The problem, rather, is maldistribution. Some get too much, some too little. About a people people according to my internet sources. Longer growing seasons aren't going to address this.
"...Longer growing seasons aren’t going to address this."
Blind assertions from lefty shits =/= arguments or evidence.
Well, yes, due to the widespread adoption of socialism by poor nations and the global trade system created by cronyism in the West.
Well, longer growing seasons result in more food, and that can only be a good thing even if it can't fully fix the problems created by socialism and cronyism.
"Well, yes, due to the widespread adoption of socialism "
India has abandoned socialism in favor of neo-liberalism. I think it's seen the biggest increase of malnutrition in the world. You should check for yourself if you are curious.
"and that can only be a good thing "
I'm not sure. We already have more than enough food produced to feed the planet. I don't see the demand for yet more. A better thing would be more equitable distribution.
"India has abandoned socialism in favor of neo-liberalism."
See? I warned ya:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Neo-liberalism isn't free market capitalism.
As for India, whatever they have is better than what they had before:
Less than 2% better than socialism? Is that the hill you’re prepared to die on?
Even if you are, the promise of yet more food production is hollow when it's maldistribution that's the problem.
"Less than 2% better than socialism? Is that the hill you’re prepared to die on?"
For those who do not know it:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
“Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
Further:
"Even if you are, the promise of yet more food production is hollow when it’s maldistribution that’s the problem."
Blind assertions from lefty shits =/= arguments or evidence.
(1) As I pointed out, India does not have free market capitalism today, it has a social market economy with a huge public sector. The harm caused by socialist policies still lingers; it takes a long time to undo them.
(2) Socialism was failing India, so the difference today would be much, much larger because under socialism, India would have declined badly.
" As I pointed out, India does not have free market capitalism today,"
Nowhere does.
"it has a social market economy with a huge public sector."
Everywhere does.
"much larger because under socialism, India would have declined badly."
Like Vietnam? It's probably the best example socialism has to offer in today's world. There is poverty but socialism there has taken care of the problem of maldistribution of food that plagues some billion people in the rest of the world.
"Nowhere does."
Oh, oh, look over there!
The asshole trueman once more proves his inability to respond to an argument.
Oh, and:
"...Like Vietnam?.."
Definitely. Let's compare the economies of a country of 1.5B people and an area of 34M sq K, to a country of 98M people and an area of 331,000 sq K.
To brain-dead shits like trueman, this is a valid comparison! There is a reason trueman is held in such contempt here, and this is but a small part of it.
And that is why India, as well as Western nations, has anemic growth.
Under socialism, its economy would be imploding.
Under free market capitalism, they would be growing rapidly.
Vietnam's current economic success is due to the transition from a backwards, uneducated nation with a high birth rate to a modern, educated nation with skilled workers. All nations grow fairly rapidly during that transition, even if they are socialist.
"Under socialism, its economy would be imploding."
The economy is not the issue. Socialism vs. Capitalism is not the issue. I'm discussing the maldistribution of surplus food and the shocking prevalence of malnourishment. A longer growing season isn't going to change that.
Out of curiosity, what has the sun been up to while this was going on?
Do you think that climate scientists are unaware of natural infliences?
Natural mechanism explanations do not lead to increased or continuing funding, and therefore may be safely downplayed or ignored.
Some of them were apparently unaware for a while that the freaking *oceans* could affect their models. I wouldn't assume they've taken anything into account unless they've specifically said so.
"...The upshot is that 2023 is highly likely to be the hottest year in the modern instrumental record..."
And nothing happened and little can be done about it anyhow.
Exactly. The biggest advocates of destroying the economy sure love products that require fossil fuels. They use a computer, a phone, clothing, shoes, automobiles, steel and so many other things brought to them by fossil fuelz.
With all their screeching and alarmism, you would think they’d be wearing straw clothing, wooden shoes and living in a hut without power to stave off the warming.
Since coal usage has gone down, it’s gotten hotter. So it’s time to burn more coal in order to quiet the alarmists. They can stick that bituminous in their enviro ass pipe and smoke it.
There is no amount of evidence that would convince some of you that AGW was happening because you are faith-based denialists.
For others, eventually you will be persuaded it's happening but will respond either that it will be a good thing, or it's too late to do anything about it, or it's our fault for being insufficiently persuasive.
There is no amount of evidence to convince authoritarian shits like you that this is not an existential problem; you were not convinced that it is by evidence, but by faith.
You will continue screaming about the falling sky, even though, after 30 years, the sky is still in the heavens.
Stuff your post-Mosaic religion up your ass, and then make the world a better place: Fuck off and die.
This is indeed the best case communism and anarco-communism can make for antinuclear (meaning imaginary) energy. The same people who swore under oath before Congress that LSD "will" mutate your chomiums and "could" destroy your ability to solve diff eqs and "might" cause lesser mortals to question moronic laws also assure Congress that civilian nuclear energy DOESN'T kinda sorta maybe to those same things. Televangelism is the superstitious albatross around the neck of science.
"anarco-communism" is an oxymoron.
And contrary to what you think, LSD is not a safe drug:
https://skywoodrecovery.com/lsd-abuse/what-makes-lsd-use-so-addictive/
NOYB2 also makes a strong case to the usefulness of nuclear energy.
Why you brought up televangelism out of nowhere seems odd, but at least they didn't false predict catastrophic climate predictions under the guise of science. Do you have a Anti-Christian derangement syndrome? I believe it.
You are not a libertarian.
Actually, I'm a scientist and an atheist. It is clear that some warming is happening. It is likely that humans contributed to it, but nobody can say by how much. It is also nearly certain that we would be experiencing much higher temperatures in the coming centuries even if humans didn't exist, because such spikes occur at the end of interglacials.
But that's not even the point. Even if AGW is happening, it simply isn't a problem. Several degrees C warming over a century is perfectly fine, beneficial even. Primates evolved under much warmer conditions than we have today.
You know, it's possible to oppose the policies demanded by the Global Warming crowd without embarrassing one's self by claiming the science is wrong.
Compare misanthropic global warmunist Sharknado predictions made by Gore et ilkii since the 1997 Kyoto debacle with actual measurements. THAT is "the" correct science?
https://realclimate.science/2023/09/26/forecasting-climate-change/#gsc.tab=0
Yes. Objections?
No it's not possible. idk why it's not possible but it's obvious from this thread that it's not.
For those who claim this is an existential risk, tell us, IN SPECIFICS, what you propose, how it is to be accomplished, what you hope will be the result. Please include a schedule.
This entire issue has the stench of several failed morality plays; at least the 'rona chicken-littles had the worthless masks they could point to; you bozos got nothing.
Oh, and if we continue our sinning ways, when is the rapture?
I propose you call your ex-wife and apologize to her for being a s***** husband. Then, you should break your computer and start exercising to stop being so fat. Next, find a hobby or something to do with your life other than pointlessly commenting on every single reason article.
I propose you make the world a much better place: Stuff your head up your ass, and take a very deep breath, shitbag.
Or at least fuck off and die.
Oh, and given I've never seen your handle before, but you seem to have followed my posting in "...every single reason article...", I wonder which pile of shit has hoped to hide his/her identity behind a new sock, shit-for-brains.
Care to explain this, Scotterbee?
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
This summer had the fewest number of really hot or humid days of any summer since I moved to Pittsburgh forty two years ago.
I used the air conditioner in my bedroom window just one day and only two nights the entire summer.
Climate alarmists and news media propagandist are pathological liars who never acknowledge nor apologize for any of their many previous false claims of environmental disaster, gloom and doom.
And of course, none of the climate alarmists or liars throughout the media have ever been held accountable for any of their lies.
We had a couple days touch on 100 F here in St. Louis, which is pretty normal and not particularly hot.
In August. Most of our summer was pretty mild, if a bit dry.
I remember playing tournament baseball games in the mid-90's in July at Manchester ballfields where the starting game time temperature for the final game was 99 degrees at midnight. (long days, god bless my parents)
Associated Press is getting $7 million per year to push the climate alarmist narrative. How much did you guys nab?
It is difficult to create a global average temperature for the Holocene Thermal Maximum, because we have only very partial and low resolution proxy records. However, it appears the arctic was 3 to 9 degrees C. warmer than present, mid-northern latitudes 1 to 3 degrees warmer than present, and mid southern latitudes (southern China, India, etc.) similar to mid-northern temperatures. However, these were all affected by pulses of glacial melt waters, so one area might be much warmer than today while another area, subject to major glacial outflows, pretty equivalent to today. So trying to create an average (and 0.7 degrees above pre-industrial is lower than any individual study I've seen) is questionable.
I can’t speak for the planet as a whole, but for me personally, 2023 hasn’t remotely felt like the hottest I’ve ever experienced. In fact, it’s felt below average with a much milder summer than normal. But, I’m not even sure how anyone could actually “feel” any difference when the temperature differences that are being discussed are only one to two degrees. I get that a two degree temperature difference is huge on a global scale, but I’d be hard pressed to notice the difference between an average temperature of two degrees on a local scale.
Hunga Tonga is the real story, and should be the lead.
https://therootsofliberty.substack.com/p/hunga-tonga-blues
More climate hoax from another climatard. Here in Michigan it was a normal summer. Normal temps and normal rainfall.
But,but.....all you need to do is stop eating meat, stop driving the car, live in a fifteen minute city and eat bugs and we will all be happy. Der Fuhrer Schwabe said so.
The weather patterns for the past year is due to the eruption of the Hunga Tonga undersea volcano. Not from eating meat, driving your car or firing up the BBQ.
I'm afraid though the climate alarmists will convince congress to pass laws that criminalize climate change denial. Hillary wants to send you all to a re-education camp along with people who wear red MAGA hats.
The likelihood is that rent-seeking "researchers" will publish imaginary data to support the objectives of those who fund them, even as intelligent consumers increasingly disregard their work product.
It certainly is "hotter" where the instruments are -- urban areas -- that are taking out all of their trees. Cities hold heat. Rural measurements show significantly less warming.
Secondly, the planet's climate is cyclical, and we're not going to stop it by living like paupers. There's a giant ball of fire about 93 million miles away that's bombarding the planet with its light, heat, and radiation. Cosmic scales outweigh what we can do. Better to just be smart and efficient and conserve, but the WEF program of making paupers of everyone but the well-connected should be rejected.
Third, hottest summer? I remember it as the WETTEST summer in a long time. Starting in June, and continuing well into September, I don't think there was a single instance of it not raining for even THREE days straight. There was a day with 4+ inches of rain and another with 7+ inches of rain, and I'm well north of the Mason-Dixon line. But... hot? Nah, just kind of humid and gloomy. Other than a 2 week period in the dog days of August, which happen EVERY SINGLE YEAR, and needing it for a few days in mid-June (I can often make it to July before even putting them in), we hardly ran the AC all summer.