120 yesterday and we aren't even to the middle of summer. Is anyone sure there isn't Global Warming?
Summer in _Phoenix
- Thread starter Bert Poliakoff
- Start date
Last edited:
Well, our friends at NASA consider it to be a trend:
“The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit (1.18 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and other human activities. Most of the warming occurred in the past 40 years, with the seven most recent years being the warmest. The years 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year on record.”
“The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit (1.18 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and other human activities. Most of the warming occurred in the past 40 years, with the seven most recent years being the warmest. The years 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year on record.”
Bert,
The long term history of earth temperatures is something everyone should be aware of. There is a documented ~125K year cycle between two lows or two highs. The peak of the last cycle was about 125K years ago, and average temps were about 4-5 degrees above the average of the last couple of decades. Low cycle is when glaciers extend down into about central USA region, and much of Europe and northern Asia.. 10K years ago the Calgary area was covered with nearly 3 Km of ice. Scientifically documented history goes back 4 cycles to ~500K years ago. A combination of over 80 physical aspects of the solar system and universe as a whole (gravitational attractions of earth by other planets, stars, etc., ) govern the actual path of earth's orbit, thus the amount of heat it receives from our sun (the wobbling of the earths rotation is also a contributor). Lots of mini-perturbations between each low and subsequent high.
Of course, carbon based fuels weren't much of an issue 125K years ago. Postulation about it's effect is all we have. Some esteemed scientists do not agree on the aggregate of the total effects for increasing CO2. There are some who say the science is settled, but there were those who thought that before Copernicus as well.
With a 3 degrees in the physical sciences, I'm not sure (not sure that medical science knew a lot about the Covid 19 virus 18 months ago either!).
References: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/impacts/i4-sea-change/exp1a-past-comparison.php
Gary
PS: Spent 4 years about 10 miles south of you in the '60's, it was pretty hot then as well!
The long term history of earth temperatures is something everyone should be aware of. There is a documented ~125K year cycle between two lows or two highs. The peak of the last cycle was about 125K years ago, and average temps were about 4-5 degrees above the average of the last couple of decades. Low cycle is when glaciers extend down into about central USA region, and much of Europe and northern Asia.. 10K years ago the Calgary area was covered with nearly 3 Km of ice. Scientifically documented history goes back 4 cycles to ~500K years ago. A combination of over 80 physical aspects of the solar system and universe as a whole (gravitational attractions of earth by other planets, stars, etc., ) govern the actual path of earth's orbit, thus the amount of heat it receives from our sun (the wobbling of the earths rotation is also a contributor). Lots of mini-perturbations between each low and subsequent high.
Of course, carbon based fuels weren't much of an issue 125K years ago. Postulation about it's effect is all we have. Some esteemed scientists do not agree on the aggregate of the total effects for increasing CO2. There are some who say the science is settled, but there were those who thought that before Copernicus as well.
With a 3 degrees in the physical sciences, I'm not sure (not sure that medical science knew a lot about the Covid 19 virus 18 months ago either!).
References: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/impacts/i4-sea-change/exp1a-past-comparison.php
Gary
PS: Spent 4 years about 10 miles south of you in the '60's, it was pretty hot then as well!
You meant "we are not even through with Spring."
Could be but I am very relaxed laying in my pool.
Ahh yes, I’ve been watching the weather in Arizona and it’s quite warm. I hear that the pool helps!
But remember it's "dry heat", so 120° in Phoenix is only like 106° anywhere else... ;-)
Some, as in almost 100% of actively publishing climate scientists. Extensively documented and peered reviewed, international resource from those scientists here:
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
Regardless of whether or not humankind is a major contributor to global warming, rational risk management suggest we act is if it were. The highly asymmetric up/downside if ignoring the possible role of humans on climate make the intelligent course of action unambiguous. I have fond friends for who this is not clear, but none of them understand the first thing about gambling or risk management. I sometimes also wonder about their intelligence as well, despite the fact they are all highly educated.
It may not be that humankind is a major contributor but the fact that population is growing exponentially.
Humans have no natural predators, so there is no natural limiter to their growth like other species have. When pathologies proportional to human density arise (like Covid-19) science and governments step in with their brute force fixes and the party goes on.
Care about the environment? People are the enemy.
Humans have no natural predators, so there is no natural limiter to their growth like other species have. When pathologies proportional to human density arise (like Covid-19) science and governments step in with their brute force fixes and the party goes on.
Care about the environment? People are the enemy.
Arde, I don't care if you believe people or the smokestack from your local utility company or the 65 or so chemicals we consume every day are the enemy. Something big is happening, and we humans have to do something about it.
I suggest you all read the article about how Las Vegas is suffering and will continue to suffer the deadly and devastating effects of climate change in today's "The Guardian" newspaper.
The title: "'It's brutal.' Las Vegas Cooks amid blazing heatwave and it's only going to get worse." "The Guardian" was set up by the "Scott Trust" which owns "The Guardian" a US based non-profit organization. I read it on my phone; sadly, I will probably never hold a paper copy in my 79 year old hands.
My take away from the article, the Southwest has reached the upper temperature limit for human habitation. And if you do read this article I suggest you stay around and read some of the other pieces. It is the best written newspaper I have come across.
I suggest you all read the article about how Las Vegas is suffering and will continue to suffer the deadly and devastating effects of climate change in today's "The Guardian" newspaper.
The title: "'It's brutal.' Las Vegas Cooks amid blazing heatwave and it's only going to get worse." "The Guardian" was set up by the "Scott Trust" which owns "The Guardian" a US based non-profit organization. I read it on my phone; sadly, I will probably never hold a paper copy in my 79 year old hands.
My take away from the article, the Southwest has reached the upper temperature limit for human habitation. And if you do read this article I suggest you stay around and read some of the other pieces. It is the best written newspaper I have come across.
California (and the west) is experiencing a change in climate, at least in the last ten plus years. There is no doubt that it's different. "Why" is the debate. Cyclical, natural, man accelerating it, all of the above? All we know for sure is it's changing.
105 today, 107 yesterday. That happens every summer here, but the lack of rain for years and years is taking it's toll.
105 today, 107 yesterday. That happens every summer here, but the lack of rain for years and years is taking it's toll.
Didn’t read the article, but drove through Vegas in May. Lake Mead is under 40% full, and has fallen 140’ since the year 2000.
I disagree that people can’t live in Phoenix. Regardless of warming however, it isn’t particularly inhabitable in the summer. The rest of the year if is quite nice. One can live in the heat, but not sustainably. You need to run the AC from April to November.
I am quite familiar with persistent 110+ degree Arizona heat. You can still operate in that heat if you keep moving. If you get stuck or your AC dies, it can get scary quick. Honestly it is easier to deal with than a Chicago winter. Everyone is still out and about. Again the catch is that to live like this, you are consuming vast amounts of energy and water.
Fully agree. And real life usually presents multi-dimensional phenomena with chains of causes and effects.
Given my limited neurons I simplify the analysis to:
1) Generally the resulting effect counters the cause that triggered it, making the natural system stable in the long run.
2) Prosperity may be more important than growth, and we should be willing to act accordingly.
Unfortunately I cannot even control these two...and then I must admit that politically triggered cataclysms may not benefit from 1).
I know many young people believe that humans can act without sacrificing 2). And that the next big wave is clean tech. I have one son enlisted in that cause.
120 is still 120. It's like skiing in CO. The locals say it is "dry" cold but tell that to your toes when it is below 20
The problem is: long term stability does not preclude short term variation that are not good for us humans. A stable mean means little of the standard deviation is too big.
The point about young idealistic kids and their irrational thinking seems irrelevant.
I hope I’m correct to say you simply think human activity has no impact on global climate trends, so you see no reason to change our behavior. I am not as sure about this as you and am willing to make the ‘sacrifice’ just in case folks like you are wrong.
The irony of it all is climate change deniers wouldn’t change their beliefs one iota even if 90% of humankind were wiped out by extreme human induced climate change…. They will simple say, there were other causes. Simply put, There is no way to change the minds people who operate purely on faith. Wintenss the folks who denied the existence of covid-19 as they died of the virus….
100° F in Brunswick Maine is not normal in early June. Neither were the 95° & 93° days. Winter was the warmest we've had, it rained more than it snowed. Maine is in a drought & wells have gone dry. For the first time there are Alert! Fire Danger on the message signs on the highway.
I joke that I live in the Perpetual Winterlands, yet it's becoming less so. Yes we are able to deal with snow & freezing temperatures better than Texas yet heat is dangerous here. "I can barely see the road from the heat coming off" - Panama, Van Halen
I joke that I live in the Perpetual Winterlands, yet it's becoming less so. Yes we are able to deal with snow & freezing temperatures better than Texas yet heat is dangerous here. "I can barely see the road from the heat coming off" - Panama, Van Halen
a little poignant levity:
I don't deny climate change, rather I'm interested in, and follow the debate regarding human contribution. I am also intrigued by the real history of climate (earth scientists consider a period of a few hundred years to be similar to that of a 1 minute news clip in our lives that we see on TV). We as 'mankind' (ooops - politically incorrect) don't often consider history too seriously (and there is a lot of history in a 6 billion year old planet). Since the population of our planet has more than doubled since I was born, there is double the amount of CO2 just from inhaling and exhaling. I am amused at the politicians who are totally convinced the change is all the result of human activity, yet they live in very large houses with lots of energy consumption, travel in limousines, private jets, etc..
Regarding the multitude of research scientists who come up with the severe CO2 predictions, if you haven't spent a good bit of your life in 'research oriented' major universities, you may not be aware of the need for funding that the research scientists there have (the U's don't really fund much, regardless of tuition costs. as administrative costs have soared!). Thus, the scientist can continue their research IF they get funding from outside. That funding frequently comes from organizations with a political agenda. If the subsequent publications from the researcher demonstrate the results the funding organization desires, funding can continue. With the incentive to build publication resume's, increase the number of grad students in the 'principal's' domain, etc., it may be very hard to be a TRULY objective scientist. Somewhat like political survey questioning, the research programs can probably be tweaked to get the results the 'seeker' prefers. This system that has evolved over the past 100 years (I think Einstein, et al had funding from the universities in the early part of the 1900's) causes me to have a bit more reservation about 'settled science' than I had when I chose the study of physical sciences 65 years ago.
Finally, I question whether there are many (if any) truly objective people. Essentially all of us have a perspective that is built on 'where we were when we were', That perspective can change over time, but it doesn't necessarily become more objective, just modified by circumstances. Now - I'm trying not to break my leg as I jump off my soapbox.
Regarding the multitude of research scientists who come up with the severe CO2 predictions, if you haven't spent a good bit of your life in 'research oriented' major universities, you may not be aware of the need for funding that the research scientists there have (the U's don't really fund much, regardless of tuition costs. as administrative costs have soared!). Thus, the scientist can continue their research IF they get funding from outside. That funding frequently comes from organizations with a political agenda. If the subsequent publications from the researcher demonstrate the results the funding organization desires, funding can continue. With the incentive to build publication resume's, increase the number of grad students in the 'principal's' domain, etc., it may be very hard to be a TRULY objective scientist. Somewhat like political survey questioning, the research programs can probably be tweaked to get the results the 'seeker' prefers. This system that has evolved over the past 100 years (I think Einstein, et al had funding from the universities in the early part of the 1900's) causes me to have a bit more reservation about 'settled science' than I had when I chose the study of physical sciences 65 years ago.
Finally, I question whether there are many (if any) truly objective people. Essentially all of us have a perspective that is built on 'where we were when we were', That perspective can change over time, but it doesn't necessarily become more objective, just modified by circumstances. Now - I'm trying not to break my leg as I jump off my soapbox.
Last edited: