Is It Hotter Where You Live Now?

[mso489]

Old folks and heat don't do well together, but our a.c. has held up well this summer. I think statistically it has been one of the warmest summers in history in this area, central North Carolina, but compared to some friends in the Southwest and even in the Northeast where a.c. is not standard, this summer has been rough.

One of the most unusual weather patterns I have seen is today when thunder has been continuous since about eight this a.m. and still at after 2 p.m. I don't mean we've had thunder storms, that is usual. I mean thunder has been continuous, moving from far away to near, then far, then near again, continuously for six hours, not as a feature of an evolving rain incident, but with accompanying rain and flash flooding warnings. All of this happens in moving weather patterns, but I have never heard six hours of thunder with and without rain for such an extended period before anywhere I lived.

I've been through two hurricanes here, Fran in '96 and Floyd in '98, and a typhoon in the South China Sea in 1969, but not this ongoing thunder sequence parked nearby overhead. Along with reports from Maui from a friend who lives there, luckily not in the fire zone, I believe weather patterns have changed and are changing.

 

[monty55]

Bullshit. The weather records that you are referring to have only been kept since 1940, there have been many warmer periods in the past, notably in the 1880s

I don't know where you get your info, but your flat out wrong.

Climate change (global warming) is a fact, not a conspiracy theory.
I have a degree in Geology, which for those that don't know, is the study of the Earth, not rocks.
There are several Geologist and Geophysicist on here that can back this up.

If you're not a Paleoclimatologist, or a Geologist, you are simply guessing and probably just repeating what you hear from others who are also misinformed and are simply guessing or repeating others who are ignorant of the facts.

Leave the science to the scientist. If you don't want to believe it, that's your problem. It doesn't change the facts.

 

[canucklehead]

Do you have a source for that claim?
View attachment 245651

The 1800-1860 period was colder than normal, referred to as a little ice age even. The period from 1880-1930 saw rapidly increasing temperatures, with most heat records being set in the early 1900s leading into the great depression/dustbowl period. These former records have only been broken in recent times due to changes in measurement techniques and the removal of several previous records because they were deemed "not scientific enough" (Eg, Death Valley and Libyan records).

I personally can't credit most modern news reported weather information that has been recorded from the hottest surface areas available, the middle of airport tarmacs, which is where most weather recording stations are located in US and Canadian cities.


Mosquitoes are absolutely swarming where I live, and I see bats out on clear nights, FWIW.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

I don't know where you get your info, but your flat out wrong.

Climate change (global warming) is a fact, not a conspiracy theory.
I have a degree in Geology, which for those that don't know, is the study of the Earth, not rocks.
There are several Geologist and Geophysicist on here that can back this up.

If you're not a Paleoclimatologist, or a Geologist, you are simply guessing and probably just repeating what you hear from others who are also misinformed and are simply guessing or repeating others who are ignorant of the facts.

Leave the science to the scientist. If you don't want to believe it, that's your problem. It doesn't change the facts.

I know your reply wasn't directed to me, but is this like saying: Hey, I'm a doctor, so you should believe me about this or that medical issue, i.e. "science." There are plenty of other doctors who have the same credentials but disagree. The same thing is true when it comes to scientists and the climate issue.

 

[canucklehead]

"scientific consensus"

IBTL

That doesn't actually exist. Anyone that claims that there is scientific consensus on ANYTHING is mistaken.

 

[monty55]

The 1800-1860 period was colder than normal, referred to as a little ice age even. The period from 1880-1930 saw rapidly increasing temperatures, with most heat records being set in the early 1900s leading into the great depression/dustbowl period. These former records have only been broken in recent times due to changes in measurement techniques and the removal of several previous records because they were deemed "not scientific enough" (Eg, Death Valley and Libyan records).

I personally can't credit most modern news reported weather information that has been recorded from the hottest surface areas available, the middle of airport tarmacs, which is where most weather recording stations are located in US and Canadian cities.


Mosquitoes are absolutely swarming where I live, and I see bats out on clear nights, FWIW.

What is your source for the information and figures you quote?

There are hundreds of weather stations all over the place in big cities, and thousands more outside big cities, not just at the airports.

Temps in question are an average across the globe, and gathered by weather and earth scientists, not your local news stations, and certainly not just from the tarmacs of airports.

 

[David D. Davidson]

Something like 95% of all climate related publishing scientists are in agreement that climate change is real and is primarily caused by humans. Thats pretty darn close to a consensus in my opinion.

 

[monty55]

That doesn't actually exist. Anyone that claims that there is scientific consensus on ANYTHING is mistaken.

Wow

I'm done

 

[JOHN72]

Well, there are the fluctuating files. I can't tell you. Maybe I notice more humidity than before. Generally, we don't go above 33º degrees (91.4 °F).
The wettest period of the year lasts 3.4 months, from June 23 to October 2, and during that time the comfort level is muggy, oppressive or unbearable for at least 12% of the time. The month with the most muggy days in my city, is August, with 14.2 muggy days or worse.

 

[canucklehead]

Something like 95% of all climate related publishing scientists are in agreement that climate change is real and is primarily caused by humans. Thats pretty darn close to a consensus in my opinion.

Just for discussions sake, who chooses who gets published? A lot of stuff is published that is based on flawed premises. There was seemingly scientific consensus on Alzheimers until recently, for a completely unrelated to the weather example.

https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease

 

[telescopes]

Wow

I'm done

Yeh, I am as well. I don't know why I allow myself to get into this binary debates of political science - literally, not figuratively. I keep thinking a civil discussion might occur that is interesting to follow. I am not sure why both extremes in the debate feel it necessary to view the weather through the lens of a political identity and perspective. But it is like devotion to a religion. All discussion ends in some type of Jihad that results in all caps, people being banned, forgotten, or cancelled by the ignore button. One thing is for certain, the need to use denigrating names, insult intelligence, and quote research are all trademarks of a discussion going bad. It is clear that we still need fossil fuels. It is also clear that at some point we need to use cleaner fuels. Until we have the technology to use clean fuels in a manner that is actually clean, we are going to use a bit of both. No need to demonize, no need to make accusations. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get a cleaner environment." No truer words have been said since the riots.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

Yeh, I am as well. I don't know why I allow myself to get into this binary debates of political science - literally, not figuratively. I keep thinking a civil discussion might occur that is interesting to follow. I am not sure why both extremes in the debate feel it necessary to view the weather through the lens of a political identity and perspective. But it is like devotion to a religion. All discussion ends in some type of Jihad that results in all caps, people being banned, forgotten, or cancelled by the ignore button. One thing is for certain, the need to use denigrating names, insult intelligence, and quote research are all trademarks of a discussion going bad. It is clear that we still need fossil fuels. It is also clear that at some point we need to use cleaner fuels. Until we have the technology to use clean fuels in a manner that is actually clean, we are going to use a bit of both. No need to demonize, no need to make accusations. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get a cleaner environment." No truer words have been said since the riots.

In fairness, it has been the extreme left that has framed the entire debate and tone of the conversation on this topic. Everyone else has merely been trying to have a legit voice at the table.

 

[telescopes]

Just for discussions sake, who chooses who gets published? A lot of stuff is published that is based on flawed premises. There was seemingly scientific consensus on Alzheimers until recently, for a completely unrelated to the weather example.

https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease

I agree with you, which is why I won't open your link. And I am not joking. Your link is as bogus as those that would refute your link. That's the joy of using a link to disprove other links.

But to answer your question since I spent a bit of time in the academic world - peer review has become poisoned by the same political agency that has poisoned much of our culture, and honestly, that isn't a laughing matter. Access to hard reliable facts and science is a high-water mark of our civilization and subjecting it to politics, as we once did by subjecting it to religion, is not anything to feel good about.

 

[brian64]

Access to hard reliable facts and science is a high-water mark of our civilization and subjecting it to politics, as we once did by subjecting it to religion, is not anything to feel good about.

Well said...I couldn't agree more.

 

[telescopes]

In fairness, it has been the extreme left that has framed the entire debate and tone of the conversation on this topic. Everyone else has merely been trying to have a legit voice at the table.

Did you live through the 90s?

Have you ever met Newt Gingrich and some of the Right Leaning leaders of that time.

I have and I have met leaders on the other side. I spent about a decade involved in local and national politics and I walked away understanding that political parties are nothing more than well dressed street gains.

They are each hostile and angry and friend, choosing a side is like saying I would rather have arsenic than cyanide. But, if it makes you feel good to have a side, then you can rest assured the people on the other side feel no differently about their view points than you.

This thread has some importance. I hope we can rule out once and for if pipes are heating up the environment.

 

[canucklehead]

I agree with you, which is why I won't open your link. And I am not joking. Your link is as bogus as those that would refute your link. That's the joy of using a link to disprove other links.

But to answer your question since I spent a bit of time in the academic world - peer review has become poisoned by the same political agency that has poisoned much of our culture, and honestly, that isn't a laughing matter. Access to hard reliable facts and science is a high-water mark of our civilization and subjecting it to politics, as we once did by subjecting it to religion, is not anything to feel good about.

This might make you laugh, or cry. I have been doing some reading up lately on varicose veins because I have a hereditary condition and a damaged vein in my left knee that I am considering surgery on. I wanted to research the medical facts to figure out the best treatment option without letting my personal feelings interfere with my decision, and this is what the government website advises me:

 

[David D. Davidson]

peer review has become poisoned by the same political agency that has poisoned much of our culture, and honestly, that isn't a laughing matter. Access to hard reliable facts and science is a high-water mark of our civilization and subjecting it to politics, as we once did by subjecting it to religion, is not anything to feel good about.

I couldn't agree more. One of my degrees is in statistical analysis, and I went that route because I thought it was a noble pursuit - knowledge for knowledge's sake, free if the pettiness and politics of the business world. After all, numbers couldn't lie, right? Math is one of the purest forms of expression there is.

How wrong I was! It was an extremely disillusioning eye opener going down the scientific career path. Eventually I jumped ship, deciding that if I was going to have to work in a corrupted space, I might as well make some real money while I was at it, and moved into tech. Genuinely, a very dark time for me, coming to terms with the political realities.

Just for discussions sake, who chooses who gets published? A lot of stuff is published that is based on flawed premises. There was seemingly scientific consensus on Alzheimers until recently, for a completely unrelated to the weather example.

I do agree, and it's important to remember that our understanding of the world is constantly evolving and iterating on itself, but without poring through decades of climate data myself (or any data for that matter), I'm going to generally defer to the experts, even taken with a grain of salt. I don't take it as gospel, but I'll take it as a statistical likelihood that an overwhelming majority-held opinion by experts is more likely to be correct than not

 

[mikethompson]

Genuinely surprised this thread has lasted so long.

 

[brian64]

Did you live through the 90s?

Have you ever met Newt Gingrich and some of the Right Leaning leaders of that time.

I have and I have met leaders on the other side. I spent about a decade involved in local and national politics and I walked away understanding that political parties are nothing more than well dressed street gains.

They are each hostile and angry and friend, choosing a side is like saying I would rather have arsenic than cyanide. But, if it makes you feel good to have a side, then you can rest assured the people on the other side feel no differently about their view points than you.

This thread has some importance. I hope we can rule out once and for if pipes are heating up the environment.

Once again, I couldn't agree more. But I think it must be pointed out that left and right have changed radically since the '90s. IMO there is no left and right anymore. There is really only the establishment elite vs populism...and both of the major parties treat any populism in their ranks with the same scorn, derision and disenfranchisement.

 

[LeafErikson]

Next time one of these threads pop up I'm gonna pop some popcorn before scrolling through..