It's getting hot in here!

[Guest]

This weather is class.

[craigkillie]

I think we went from there will be no 40 degrees as predicted to posting an image of the Met Office claiming 95% certainty or records being broken in England and Wales to a “provisional” breaking of a record in Wales by a massive 0.1 of a degree. 
Do try to keep up.

Was the record in Wales broken or not?

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Again, they didn't "confidently predict" it, they said it had a 50% chance of happening, which is literally the least confident any prediction of 40 degree heat could be.

Forecasters have been spashing confident predictions of 40 degree plus heat all over the place since last week, right up until last night. A last minute change to "50% chance" because they were ultimately wrong does not change that.

[doulikefish]

Just a few posts away from oaksoft claiming to owning a weather prediction service 

[dorlomin]

48 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The argument is that whilst the overwhelming majority of climate change is natural, man-made effects account for around 5%, and it's this 5% which is enough to push the climate out of balance. I understand that argument and it's persuasive. Unfortunately they can't provide a smoking gun (as they had to do with the ozone layer) so there is always room for doubt.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

We have broad estimates of the natural forcings over the past 120 years. There is no change to a major component of the system that can explain the changes we have seen other than CO2. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

Quote

 Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8,9,10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11,12,13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

 

[coprolite]

12 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

What straw man? 

"the Met Office A - confidently predicting 40°C"

[Billy Jean King]

 
"look at this funny "me me", darling"

Yogi looks well

[coprolite]

6 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

I think 50% was a revised prediction today. Wasn’t it? 
Prior to this it was confidently predicted.

 

5 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Forecasters have been spashing confident predictions of 40 degree plus heat all over the place since last week, right up until last night. A last minute change to "50% chance" because they were ultimately wrong does not change that.

The press release from 3 days ago when the warning was released included the 50%. 

You guys are just making shit up

[Billy Jean King]

Forecasters have been spashing confident predictions of 40 degree plus heat all over the place since last week, right up until last night. A last minute change to "50% chance" because they were ultimately wrong does not change that.

Don't put Radio 2 on. You would explode at the number of times Steve Wright has told the nation this is "The hottest Day Ever". (Caveat he could be broadcasting from Wales I suppose)

[coprolite]

3 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

We have broad estimates of the natural forcings over the past 120 years. There is no change to a major component of the system that can explain the changes we have seen other than CO2. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

 

This is much better than mine. Good job. 

He'll be along with his general purpose dismissal of averages and why they should be ignored any second. 

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The press release from 3 days ago when the warning was released included the 50%. 

You guys are just making shit up

Fair enough, I did not see that

[DAFC.]

Stuck in an office in this heat, without any air con. Our buildings are meant for heat to be kept inside to the max. This is genuinely fucking hellish. We aren't allowed to wear smart shorts/chino shorts with a shirt either, but women can wear skirts. Seems reasonable. 

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

10 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Just a few posts away from oaksoft claiming to owning a weather prediction service 

It going to turn out that he's Piers Corbyn.

[Guest]

Stuck in an office in this heat, without any air con. Our buildings are meant for heat to be kept inside to the max. This is genuinely fucking hellish. We aren't allowed to wear smart shorts/chino shorts with a shirt either, but women can wear skirts. Seems reasonable. 

Get a skirt on then.

[Venti]

Nice breeze on the Clyde Riviera now.

[Todd_is_God]

7 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

We have broad estimates of the natural forcings over the past 120 years. There is no change to a major component of the system that can explain the changes we have seen other than CO2. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

Cherry picking data over such a small sample period is, as we saw from Covid modelling, filled with confirmation bias. It correlates to the desired hypothesis and therefore must confirm it.

The problem with focusing on the last few hundred (or even thousand) years is it ignores the vast majority of Earth's life cycle, and completely ignores the causes of prior periods of extreme heat and cold.

If CO2 is the sole driver of the current warming of the climate, then it must be shown firstly what was responsible for previous periods of warming and cooling and also why they do not apply at all here.

As I said earlier, if the natural cycle of the Earth's climate dictates that it is going to heat up moving forward, then trying to slow the rate of change (which may or may not have any meaningful impact) to ultimately arrive at the same destination a little bit later really isn't the best use of time or resources.

[doulikefish]

That's the runway melting at Raf Brize Norton in Oxfordshire

[Thorongil]

30 minutes ago, Steve_Wilkos said:

 

 

"look at this funny "me me", darling"

[dorlomin]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

as we saw from Covid modelling, filled with confirmation bias. It correlates to the desired hypothesis and therefore must confirm it.

The problem with focusing on the last few hundred (or even thousand) years is it ignores the vast majority of Earth's life cycle, and completely ignores the causes of prior periods of extreme heat and cold.

If CO2 is the sole driver of the current warming of the climate, then it must be shown firstly what was responsible for previous periods of warming and cooling and also why they do not apply at all here.

As I said earlier, if the natural cycle of the Earth's climate dictates that it is going to heat up moving forward, then trying to slow the rate of change (which may or may not have any meaningful impact) to ultimately arrive at the same destination a little bit later really isn't the best use of time or resources.

Quote

Cherry picking data over such a small sample period is,

From Marcott 2013

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1228026

Longish story but our climate has been dominated by orbital cycles over the past 3 million years. This is due to our CO2 being so low vs historic norms. This made us very sensitive to small changes. So we built major ice sheets over both polls. Small changes in orbit change the energy at high northern latitude and pushed us in and out of glacials (what everyone thinks of as ice ages). 

About 11 000 years ago the Earth was in northern hemisphere summer when closest to the Sun, this is what pushed us out of the last glacial. But over those 11000 years we now have our norther hemisphere summer when furthest from the Sun. This caused a long term cooling that we see in Marcott 2013. That cooling would allow snows to last longer in the high hills, so cooling springs and reinforcing etc. This is the long term causes of the glacial interglacial phases we see. 

Our release of CO2 since the mid 1800 has seen that trend reverse. 

Other forcings obviously work. Over the longer time frames the Sun heating up is the dominant climate forcing. 

https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf

(astrophysics nerds, as it burns hydrogen into helium, the helium is much more dense so the core gets denser and burns faster).

Royer 2004 compares the slow warming of the Sun with the CO2 feedback to show that CO2 and the Sun explain most of the long term changes. 

tldnr, human CO2 has disrupted long term cycles. 

 

[Thorongil]

Just now, dorlomin said:

From Marcott 2013

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1228026

Longish story but our climate has been dominated by orbital cycles over the past 3 million years. This is due to our CO2 being so low vs historic norms. This made us very sensitive to small changes. So we built major ice sheets over both polls. Small changes in orbit change the energy at high northern latitude and pushed us in and out of glacials (what everyone thinks of as ice ages). 

About 11 000 years ago the Earth was in northern hemisphere summer when closest to the Sun, this is what pushed us out of the last glacial. But over those 11000 years we now have our norther hemisphere summer when furthest from the Sun. This caused a long term cooling that we see in Marcott 2013. That cooling would allow snows to last longer in the high hills, so cooling springs and reinforcing etc. This is the long term causes of the glacial interglacial phases we see. 

Our release of CO2 since the mid 1800 has seen that trend reverse. 

Other forcings obviously work. Over the longer time frames the Sun heating up is the dominant climate forcing. 

https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf

(astrophysics nerds, as it burns hydrogen into helium, the helium is much more dense so the core gets denser and burns faster).

Royer 2004 compares the slow warming of the Sun with the CO2 feedback to show that CO2 and the Sun explain most of the long term changes. 

tldnr, human CO2 has disrupted long term cycles. 

 

Aye, I’m sure we all really believe that science can accurate state temperature trends from 12000 years ago. They simply travelled back in time with their thermometers.