Tuesday hit a record high of 119 degrees

Did you read the research?

 

What does it even matter anyways? What is it gonna prove if someone claims the reading was wrong? Furthermore, why would someone, anyone, in their right mind, challenge a 104 year old temperature reading? If that doesn't have "AGENDA" written all over it then nothing does.

 

No. Since you did, you're more than welcome to give me the short version though, because it's impossible to re-gauge a temperature reading from last week, much less over a century ago.

 

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. There's no hidden agenda here. It just happens to be this guy's main job to scrutinize past records.

 

So you're telling me that I'm not grasping the impossibility of it and that it's impossible to question a temperature reading from a week ago and you didn't even both to read the research. Why am I not surprised? Anyway, the short version is that the evidence does indeed indicate that Death Valley did not reach 134F in 1913 and the record officially recognized by the WMO will likely get invalidated. That process is pending right now.

And no, it's not impossible to "re-gauge" a temperature reading from last week or even a century ago. Take a look at the various atmospheric reanalysis projects. You can find a brief introduction to some of them including how to download them for yourself (they are HUGE though) here. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, it will take you years to fully understand and appreciate how they are maintained. But, you CAN do it if you're motivated. Please don't take this wrong way, but I doubt you will bother. Most people don't even try to understand. Again, nothing personal.

 

Ego. Fails, most of the time....

 

Again, what evidence? The only "evidence" provided was that the temperature deviated from a slope line that some blogger put together. And because there is a "deviation" from the slope line, it isn't "acknowledged" as factual? That's your evidence? Laughable.

The only thing that you seem willing to do is peddle this idea that facts are fungible, and that inconvenient examples of "facts" are reviewable, remediable, or otherwise dismissable as they become hurdles over which your agenda driven commentary must traverses.

Show me the photographic evidence that the thermometer at the site in question didn't read 134. We'll wait.

 

I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong a lot so ego isn't really an issue for me. I'll tell you what I told ButterBalls... If you know something I don't about the Death Valley record challenge then lay your cards on the table. I'd genuinely be interested in knowing. Has the WMO made a decision yet?

 

What then are the value of your ruminations? To purely conjecture or speculate about the veracity of a "fact" that frankly cannot be evaluated in any rational way?

The weather station in question is built to a standard of the day that was available. It was manned by a professional, ostensibly, who collected data. If you find that you are unwilling to accept the collected data, you or the WMO should be able to provide say pictographic evidence of the thermometer in question being wrongly read. LIke, he wrote 134 when he meant 124. If you don't have, or cannot produce, or the WMO doesn't have, or cannot produce, the "analysis" is purely subjective and speculative. Which begs the question of why they would want to "invalidate" the record in the first place. Why is it necessary to do so? Why couldn't the record in Libya be retained? Why do we now have to "prove" that the record from Iraq is the absolute record?

And frankly, what F'in difference does it make? It was hot. Yup. But, as a temperature record, who cares? It has been likely historically much hotter, but we weren't here to actually record it. So, why does this matter at all?

 

Ok, and it's been unusually cold in Wisconsin.

/thread

 

Yes, that's comparable to denying the widespread bee die-off because you recently were stung in your backyard.

The reality is that climatologists have confirmed what common sense also concludes - that spewing millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has an impact on the atmosphere. Thus, the regular occurrence of record-high annual global temperatures and the acceptance of nearly two hundred nations that what is happening is happening, and that it's prudent for humans to deal with it.

On the other hand, you have an ideologically dogmatic ilk in one nation that refuses to accept the scientific data or the responsibility.

It reminds me of Joshua Slocum, on his solo circumnavigation voyage in 1900, being presented to South African President Paul Kruger:

​

 

Really. That you cite it's been hot in Phoenix. In summer. Your CO2 claims have been debunked too many times to count.

Time to give it a rest, ecolyte. Your repetition is netting you losses in politics.

 

Sorry, but not a record.

 

They have confirmed squat.

.0004 Co2 is doing NOTHING to the climate, but helping green plants grow. Water vapor and the sun drive the climate. Always have.

 

Your ideological dogma is clearly bigly juju for you.

 

It's only a record for that day, which is statistically meaningless. I have lived in Phoenix. There were regular and common days where the high was 115 or so, and nobody was even talking about it.

 

We're using scientific fact, just like you're claiming to do. You're not going to bully us into believing the nonsense that you do, Bumpo.

 

Indeed. No anti-science rallies were held on the streets of Phoenix.

With the overwhelming preponderance of nations now acknowledging the scientific reality and indicating a willingness to take responsibility, such a demonstration would have had no impact anyway.

 

You are cherry-picking only what serves your ideological agenda. Climatologists and the global community are impervious to your dogma.

 

The real question is: what do we BLAME for this rise in temperatures? As usual, liberals blame white, male, conservative businessmen and their "evil" corporations. When the earth warmed and wiped out untold numbers of Ice-age species years ago, I'm sure the liberal Neanderthals at that time found a SIMILAR scapegoat.

 

Well, uh, Trump AND GW Bush.

 

Good thing liberals never do that!

 

If someone doesn't like the weather then just frickin' MOVE.
Sam explains the concept....it's not rocket science:

 

You can "blame" whomever you want, and your spewing your hyper-partisan bushwa only serves to confirm your ideological basis for science denial.

There is plenty of your "blame" to go around if that is your concern.

Honestly confronting the crisis and taking responsibility is a communal matter. This, the overwhelming consensus of the international community.

All but the most virulent deniers are finally, begrudgingly, accepting the reality.

Just because ideologues seize upon self-serving snippets of science does not make their dogma science.

 

I'm sure that there are other planets where you would feel much more at home. Nearly all nations on this one are taking responsibility for it.