Actual temp was 104F, but the heat index in Rio was 137F today! An all time record. Summer doesn’t start in Brazil for another month.

Greta is going to need to sail that ship 48 hours a day/14 days a week/730 days a year starting the day before yesterday! SOMEBODY GET HER ON A BOAT!

*doublepromote someone else finally noticing global dimming as a significant factor in global warming.

Global dimming from excess sulfur dioxide may be responsible for cutting the current excess anthropogenic heat in the system by between 15% to 50% depending on the study.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/what-is-solar-geoengineering-sunlight-reflection-risks-and-benefits.html
What this means is, if we stop polluting tomorrow, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases will continue to warm us at the same rate for decades to centuries, but the sulfur dioxide that has blocked between .25 to 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise will be gone almost immediately, and a significant sudden rise in temp will be the result kicking off or feeding more feedback loops.

While it may seem he’s onto some global warming solution…just put more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere…that ignores the lower growth rates and lost solar production it causes by deflecting a significant percentage of sunlight, both adding to net CO2 added to the system.
The incredibly scary part is the whitehouse and other international governments are actively researching ways to inject sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere despite knowing it has so many issues.

There’s no easy fix.

I mean, it seemed pretty obvious that there was no way this would work. But I absolutely appreciate the thorough real-world proving of it.

I think the main operative failure here is that any slapping implement will be cooled by the air for most of its cycle. So there will be an upper bound after which the air-chilled surface of the "slapper" will cool the chicken by an amount equal to the friction-induced heating effect. Even if the high speed didn't destroy the machine or the meat, the air temp would make the effort impossible.

yep; as I understand it, the constraint on high speed touring cars and sports cars--is the tires and how long they can run at high speed and temps.

That was sort of scary.

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data is one of the more complete and user friendly sites ive come across regarding climate

and...

Being the fastest growing city isn't directly related to the number of deaths or the temperature in the city. He's the one who made that assumption not bloomburg. I believe that's called a straw-man argument.

As far as deaths from extreme temps are concerned, it's telling that he didnt take the time to isolate extreme temperatures from the natural disasters chart. Here, let me isolate it for you using the same source. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters?time=1936..2018&country=~Extreme%20temperature


Or, again using that same source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disasters-by-type focus on ONLY the extreme temperatures and it's clear that the natural disasters of that type are on an upward trend.

Your video, Global Dimming Paradox: Are We Facing An Abrupt Temp Spike?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I have adblock, just have this site whitelisted to try to let the sift get money from ads. I guess today was just brutal. I'll temp block for a bit.

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

You are correct, I was using NOAA numbers, not realizing they use a different start point to compare from. I honestly thought both would use 1890, pre industrial era start points, since that's what the 1.5C limit is based on. Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic.

No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report. You can accept their current estimate, that's better than the average person. I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine.

I have no horse in this race. I hit my best by date next year, and don't have kids...got fixed in my 20's. What happens after 2050 isn't my concern, and I have no problem if humanity goes extinct. It's all the other life we will take with us, or worse, that we survive as the last species standing, that gets me upset.

You’re reading it wrong. The IPCC is showing temperature anomaly relative to a specific time frame, you have to compare against the same starting time frame or it is meaningless. Which is by the by an extremely frequently repeated trope used by the hard core denial side.

If you cant find comparable reference frames, use change from a common year. Go look at NOAA’s temps for 2000 and 2019 and take the delta, then compare that delta to the IPCC, you’ll find both fall around the sub 0.5C of change from 2000 to 2020, close ish at least to one another.

Edit:
That may have been a lazy explanation. I went and looked for your 0.83 for 2018, which looks like it is referencing a NOAA release, it lists it's values as calibrated against the 1951-1980 mean.
The IPCC however lists their own numbers as calibrated against the 1986-2005 mean.
Obviously, the mean temp from 1951-1980 is gonna be much lower than the the mean from 1986-2005, so you can't to a direct comparison. If you look at the instrumental portion of the IPCC results you'll see how much it 'under' hits the NOAA data too, just because it's calibrated to a warmer baseline.
Make sense?

@newtboy,

"Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections"
Hogwash

IPCC AR5 predictions we can go check out are here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

Surface temp is in Fig. 11.9 page 981. They only graph for their 'middle' 4.5 case, not the worst 8.5 case that you call wildly optimistic. You can see even at the time they graphed it, the instrumental record sat on the extreme cold end of their projections, almost threatening to leave the margins of error. If you take today's today for 2019 and check it out we are sitting about dead center on their projected path. Doesn't seem like current temperature data shows their 'middle' case scenario underestimating anything, let alone their worst case.


If you look at the same for sea level rise in AR5 here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

You can look for fig 13.11 on page 1181. Again, it shows projections approx 100mm sea level rise from 2000-2020, which more or less matches the instrumental record as we approach 2020 to verify. Again, not grossly underestimating.

The sea level rise is especially important to your alarms over Greenland being grossly underestimated by the IPCC. If they did grossly underestimate Greenland, it seems likely they also grossly overestimated something else if they more or less are on track with the overall sea level projections.

Again, if you just cherry pick a couple results and declare everything the IPCC did has been proven to over/under estimate things so they must be ignored, you aren't helping.

Yes, yes and no so much anymore. The delamination / damage from bumps and potholes have been pretty much resolved in the Michelin and Bridgestone designs (according to Michelin and Bridgestone - ahem...) Haven't seen any reports on whether running temps are worse lately, but hard to make the comparison (the #1 root cause of tire failure today is under-inflation so tires running hotter than design). Now with 10 or more of the big boys in the hunt for the best airless design, will be an interesting ride. The concept out of SciTech Industries in Florida is neato, but they are a (relatively) smaller startup, so might get lost in the scramble, though producing a lighter tire with less heat build (quite a different concept compared to Michelin). cheers

@Ginrummy33

I'd also point to the Hot Coffee case as THE clearest example of tort reform propaganda that I'm aware of.



McDonald's had hundreds of burn complaints and it was their policy to keep the coffee at scalding temps to stop old people from drinking it too fast (they have to wait for it to cool) when they meet for their morning Blue Haired Neighborhood Committee meetings.

THEN this woman got burned. She only sued for the cost of her medical expenses, the jury awarded the extras for pain and suffering (she couldn't walk without a limp after when she was a spry tennis-playing old lady prior).

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES NSFW
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES NSFW

https://travis.pflanz.me/wp-content/uploads/stella_liebeck_burned_by_mcdonalds_coffee.jpg

https://justineelkhazen.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/liebeck01.jpg?w=1400

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES NSFW
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES NSFW

These videos are great.

Are they pouring the concrete at night due to temp/humidity, or is it just because this is a 24/7 operation?

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MO ! ! ! ! ! ! !

I hope you get everything you want.

LAISSEZ LES BONS TEMPS ROULER ! ! ! ! !