Heat in Europe

[Howardh]

In the old days it used to get to 25c before they turned it red.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSukrhwcik1WRYZwaNJfmaLQW1I588atqfEgMiO3tThO00SkCO4gnonvaRg3Gt5wHJHWVA&usqp=CAU

Old BBC weather chart with degrees c in circles, yellow for under 25, red for over.

 

[PTR 444]

When BBC weather had a makeover about 5 or so years ago, they adopted a red palette for temperatures above 30c. Before then anything above 23c or so was always in orange.

 

[bahnause]

Has nobody else on here noticed that maps on TV weather forecasts seem to have unilaterally changed their colour palette?
There was a tweet doing the rounds earlier showing a forecast (in Germany) from 2017 using a green palette, and one from 2023 using a red palette... guess which one had the highest temperatures displayed.

I'm not denying that temperatures are getting warmer, but blatant propaganda like this is going to increase the levels of climate change scepticism.

For many years now. In different variants. And has since been refuted several times: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32FF6BK

But apparently people are stupid enough to fall for such liars again and again. Opinions are not facts.

None of which isn't to say there isn't warming happening or that humans are responsible for at least some proportion of it, because I think that is still very likely, but I do think we need to take a more critical look at the claims being made and the ways we are being manipulated, and as ever ask cui bono?

Nobody forces you to trust the data. The basic data is available and accessible, so you can check or disprove the science with a normal schoop education.

Cui bono from denying man made climate change is the question. Possible answers:

Gas boiler lobby
Shell, Exxon, BP

 

[VauxhallandI]

For many years now. In different variants. And has since been refuted several times: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32FF6BK

But apparently people are stupid enough to fall for such liars again and again. Opinions are not facts.

Why does the fact checker website then go on to say this:

Climate change worsens heatwaves​

Climate scientists agree that carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels are heating the planet, raising the risk and severity of heatwaves and other extreme weather events.

The World Weather Attribution service has conducted several studiesthat show how climate change has made heatwaves more likely.

What has this got to do with the fact check? Fair enough comment on the images but what’s this statement about? Looks like it needs fact checking time.

”Climate scientists” mmmm like Dentists who are covid scientist….

 

[bahnause]

If you want to check the fact check, feel free to do so. I'm looking forward to it. By the way, climatology/climate science started with the ancient Greeks. If you have never heard of it until now, better be careful with your insinuations.

 

[liam456]

After covid, I'm sceptical of anything that is a scientific 'consensus' based largely on modeling, where this sort of government-media-scientist self-reinforcing circle is trying to 'nudge' us to change behaviour, where the apparent changes we 'need' to make in order to deal with the issue will make our own lives considerably poorer even though there is very little evidence they'll have any effect, and that 'coincidentally' gives the state significantly more power to monitor, control and micro-manage our lives.

There's a lot of people, like myself, who rather accepted this sort of thing on trust before 2020. I've never trusted government and haven't trusted media for decades, but I did generally believe scientists were telling the truth. After the rubbish they came out with during covid, and we saw that the way that they formed a 'consensus' was to de-platform, ban and/or ridicule dissenting voices (who largely turned out to be correct), I think it unwise to take such things on trust anymore and instead try to examine what is going on as much as possible individually.

I could not agree more with this excellently put point. I (like many others I hope) learnt exactly what the dangers of blindly accepting government messaging/nudging/diktat were, and the pitfalls in believing scientific "consensus" on what "obvious" issues with "easy" solutions were from March 2020 onwards.

That's before even getting to what I can only consider to be calls to legislate a reduction in living standards for citizens of many developed countries, with different people trying to outdo each other on just how much to reduce living standards by.

The thin end of the wedge, I'd say...

 

[GusB]

Why does the fact checker website then go on to say this:

Climate change worsens heatwaves​

Climate scientists agree that carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels are heating the planet, raising the risk and severity of heatwaves and other extreme weather events.

The World Weather Attribution service has conducted several studiesthat show how climate change has made heatwaves more likely.

What has this got to do with the fact check? Fair enough comment on the images but what’s this statement about? Looks like it needs fact checking time.

”Climate scientists” mmmm like Dentists who are covid scientist….

You haven't posted a link to accompany the "quote" that you've posted. Could you also explain the dentist reference?

 

[VauxhallandI]

You haven't posted a link to accompany the "quote" that you've posted. Could you also explain the dentist reference?

The link was in the previous post

Posts misuse weather maps to back false climate claims

Images shared on social media purport to show a German television channel changed the colors of its weather maps to exaggerate the effect of climate change. This is false; the images show different types of maps, one photo is doctored and a broad majority of scientists say climate change is...

factcheck.afp.com

If you want to check the fact check, feel free to do so. I'm looking forward to it. By the way, climatology/climate science started with the ancient Greeks. If you have never heard of it until now, better be careful with your insinuations.

If you think any fact checking service that goes on to issue it’s own facts engenders confidence in their fact checking then go ahead and keep believing in your narrative blindly

There a millions of us in this country that know the game and have the backbone to stand up and question things

 

[bahnause]

Question things based on what? Provide some data if you can to prove your point. No backbone needed, just a bit of brains.

All the facts mentioned above are facts, not opinions. You might not like them, but they are poven to be true.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Question things based on what? Provide some data if you can to prove your point. No backbone needed, just a bit of brains.

All the facts mentioned above are facts, not opinions. You might not like them, but they are poven to be true.

Thanks for the insult.

There is no known whole story for the climate, it’s all opinions and models.

There’s a fact for you.

 

[MikeWM]

Nobody forces you to trust the data. The basic data is available and accessible, so you can check or disprove the science with a normal schoop education.

Temperature data may well be available, but the science behind what is causing those temperatures is largely theoretical and the projections as to what will happen in the future are almost wholly based on modeling (which we saw the massive limitations of during covid). Does the science behind the climate predictions satisfy Popper falsification, for example?

Cui bono from denying man made climate change is the question. Possible answers:
Gas boiler lobby
Shell, Exxon, BP

Are the gas boilers really that major a lobby? I agree that Big Oil etc. clearly are a massive group of influential people who have it in their clear interests to argue the status quo is just fine, but in this case (unlike with covid) there are big interests on *both* sides of the debate, which makes it harder to tell who is more likely to be telling the disinterested truth, if either.

 

[bahnause]

Another Factcheck about climat models then:

Factcheck: Climate models have not 'exaggerated' global warming

Carbon Brief shows why media claims that climate models are significantly 'wrong' misrepresent the main results of a new climate science study.

www.carbonbrief.org

By the way: Gravity is only a theory. Does this make you doubt gravity and jump out of the window?

 

[MikeWM]

By the way: Gravity is only a theory. Does this make you doubt gravity and jump out of the window?

The scientific theory of gravity makes very specific and accurate predictions that have been tested trillions of times and - so far - hasn't been found to be lacking in any way.

That can't be the case with climate science theories, because there is only one planet available to observe and experiment on. So - by definition - it can't be as precise a science. That doesn't mean that it can't make hypotheses that we can then evaluate for accuracy, and indeed many climate scientists have attempted to do that at various times over the past few decades, with what appears to be rather mixed results.

 

[bahnause]

The climate models are evaluated since 1970 on a regular basis and they show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account. No mixed results I am afraid.

Zeke Hausfather did a great job comparing different models. He found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

 

[RailWonderer]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned https://www.ventusky.com/ yet. It displays the temperature, wind speed and direction, precipitation and gives perspective on where and how winds and the vortexes move but as said before, doesn't explain why everything is getting warmer.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The climate models are evaluated since 1970 on a regular basis and they show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account. No mixed results I am afraid.

Zeke Hausfather did a great job comparing different models. He found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

So do tell me how you are saving the planet? Bar preaching