Confirmed: July 2021 was the hottest month ever recorded in 142 years

[JamesBlond]

Laughable... its a 150 yr cycle hottest to coldest... nothing changes, the earth will defend itself, man has no power to break it, any ***** who thinks the Earth is not capable of defending itself only needs to look at the last 150yrs what it has done ... brainless sheep believe that giving money will fix the climate problem

 

[paul1122]

We're so important it had to be us.

 

[pcnthuziast]

Targeted act of racist aggression caused by white supremacy. -random lefty

 

[paul1122]

Why are 99.9% of Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers and Climate Change deniers also Donald Trump supporters? It's become this weird 'cult of the stupid' a celebration of deep stupidity and a race to the bottom lead by the most stupid of them all.

Why are 99% of the people who won't listen to anyone else who doesn't think like them in college? Kids these days, lol.
P.S. Not interested in your personal story at all. You are not as important as you think you are. None of us are.

 

[paul1122]

We rock! Broke another record! WTG everyone!

 

[Uncle Al]

Amazing how many people ignore the obvious and claim that all data and science is "fake news". Until they learn there is a difference between facts and the claims of a self promoter, things won't change and our children & grandchildren will pay the price.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Heck this has probably been the coolest July in recent memory for me. I dont recall a single day here over 100 and many days it never even hit 90. If anything its been one of the coolest summers here in south Alabama.

Ayy I moved to Eastern Alabama from California earlier this year and was wondering if Alabama it was just me or cooler than everyone’s said. We had a high of 88 most days and it rarely got to the 90s. I think our hottest day so far was 96.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

I wonder if the elite do sit down sometimes and ponder how they manage to get away with these scams...climate change... covid etc.

 

[Toju Mikie]

And in 2100 the line will be "we may run low on seafood by 2200" and "we only have 20 years to flatten the climate curve!"

Even if you support climate change (which I believe the climate is indeed changing and mankind has a hand to play in it), one has to admit that for over 50 years now climate alarmists have made hundreds of predictions, not a single one of which has actually happened. "we may" "their could" "it might", none of this means anything. Meteorologists are more accurate then climate alarmists, and the fact they refuse to go after the biggest players of CO2 output, actively oppose nuclear power, and push feel good measures that repeatedly do nothing while texting from their new $1000 iphones speaks louder then any megaphone.

We were going to have a new ice age by 1994. Global starvation by 1997. Water shortages worldwide by 1999. Florida underwater by 2020. Now we'll have "irreversible damage" by 2050 and "may have no seafood" by 2100.

Think about it.

Our tools are getting better over time. They were just making predictions based on the current tools they had at the time. Geologists just measure the pH of the ocean over time and see it's going down, causing concern. It's ok to be wrong, but at least in the future, better tools will be available.

They are just simply trying to prevent more wildlife from going extinct, to preserve the biodiversity of the planet. You say "irreversible damage," but we have already done irreversible damage in some ways, one of which are species going extinct, starting from the dodo bird.

 

[wiyosaya]

And I'm sure the media will play it up as the fault of people not getting vaxxed and supporting trump in 2020, and push for further crippling of the American economy while ignoring the rampant pollution put out by China, India, and increasingly Africa.

Just bein' ridiculous? Excellent tactic, ridicule.

And in 2100 the line will be "we may run low on seafood by 2200" and "we only have 20 years to flatten the climate curve!"

Even if you support climate change (which I believe the climate is indeed changing and mankind has a hand to play in it), one has to admit that for over 50 years now climate alarmists have made hundreds of predictions, not a single one of which has actually happened. "we may" "their could" "it might", none of this means anything. Meteorologists are more accurate then climate alarmists

That's the difference between weather and climate.

, and the fact they refuse to go after the biggest players of CO2 output, actively oppose nuclear power, and push feel good measures that repeatedly do nothing while texting from their new $1000 iphones speaks louder then any megaphone.

Humans are vain, aren't they? Who's pushing those iphones. What matters is that the biggest CO2 producers are working towards reducing that output - at least those who give a crap and do not want to milk it for every penny that they can.

We were going to have a new ice age by 1994. Global starvation by 1997. Water shortages worldwide by 1999. Florida underwater by 2020. Now we'll have "irreversible damage" by 2050 and "may have no seafood" by 2100.

At least they admit they were wrong. There are plenty of other effects attributed to climate. Think about it - or better yet, do some research.

Most US heat records were set in the 1930's. Death Valley's record is from 1913. Claiming that this was the hottest July is silly.

To someone who does not understand the difference between local weather, such as that in Death Valley, and climate which is the measure of global temperatures.

If you want real info on average world temps, check out the satellite data, which has much better world coverage. It shows that 2021 is about even with 1997.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

The climate changes all by itself. For example, the earth cooled and then warmed dramatically during the Little Ice Age, a period of 480 years between 1440–1920 AD. This happened without any human intervention.

Yes, it did. But why? Could volcanos have had anything to do with that? https://instaar.colorado.edu/research/projects/cause-and-onset-of-little-ice-age/
At least scientists admit they are not sure of the cause.

So, are you suggesting that humanity create a few volcanoes, or perhaps nuclear winter to resolve climate change? Or do you just believe humanity is doing nothing and/or can do nothing to affect the environment?

Doomsday predictions should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Check out this compendium of mind-boggling climate predictions from the 1970's.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

As time goes on, science is about improving wait for it, science. Yes, that's how science works. Scientists recognize the uncertainty in their assessments, but you are certainly welcome to keep ignoring scientists.

 

[wiyosaya]

Because you see what you want to see and believe all the nonsense the media like CNN tell you. Most "Anti-Vaxxers" you are probably referring to are not against vaccines in general just wary of the covid one. And I have never met a single person in real life who is actually dumb enough to think the world is flat.

Logical fallacy because its outside of your experience does not mean it has not and does not happen. For instance - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51602655

 

[wiyosaya]

It seems I have to correct this discussion with a real argument.

What real argument are you referring to?

 

[wiyosaya]

Laughable... its a 150 yr cycle hottest to coldest... nothing changes, the earth will defend itself, man has no power to break it, any ***** who thinks the Earth is not capable of defending itself only needs to look at the last 150yrs what it has done ... brainless sheep believe that giving money will fix the climate problem

Keep thumping...

 

[wiyosaya]

Amazing how many people ignore the obvious and claim that all data and science is "fake news". Until they learn there is a difference between facts and the claims of a self promoter, things won't change and our children & grandchildren will pay the price.

Yes, the hubris is thick in this thread. I guess remaining ignorant is just too easy for most people to want to push beyond ignorance.

 

[waclark]

We had a decent July here in the NW, but I would hardly say it was the "hottest" I've ever seen. June was much hotter with temps pushing into the 100s and above in places like Portland and Seattle.

 

[Fearghast]

What real argument are you referring to?

Argument of a meme this discussion has become.
I wonder if the flat earthers will be the next topic.

 

[Cubi Dorf]

It is hottest month recorded in 142 year. 142 is not very much data while there is 100,000 year climate cycle and Earth is 4 billon year old. sea level has been up and down many time in before. I am hope we are not destroying planet, but I am not having knowledge to say if it is true or false. Climate change is real, but are human destroy planet? I do not know.

 

[Lew Zealand]

It is hottest month recorded in 142 year. 142 is not very much data while there is 100,000 year climate cycle and Earth is 4 billon year old. sea level has been up and down many time in before. I am hope we are not destroying planet, but I am not having knowledge to say if it is true or false. Climate change is real, but are human destroy planet? I do not know.

Yeah, 142 years is not a long time but something to consider is: Has the climate for the past 142 years been reasonable for most people, are we used to how it works (ie: food production), and will our quality of life get worse and more expensive if that changes too much? If so, is it reasonable to do something to mitigate that change if we have the information and technology to do so? And of course: Who's gonna pay for it?

Generally speaking when there's a problem, doing maintenance on the problem is cheaper than waiting and spending on the reactive fix after things are really broken. Except that few people want to put up the money for a global thing unless everyone's doing it. Getting all nations on board? Good luck with that.

 

[waclark]

It's almost as if that's because we changed how we were behaving in order to avoid the predicted scenarios. Think about it, thinking is not as hard as you're making it up to be.

But is that really true? Sure, the US has begun to move towards alternative energy and non-fossil fuel vehicles. But that has only been happening for maybe 10-15 years. This would suggest that the imminent collapse of the earth's ecology isn't quite as imminent as we think and that we can, in fact, reverse the trends. Covid showed that.

Further, if you look outside the US developing countries haven't changed. China says it will continue to increase greenhouse gas emissions until 2030 and won't be carbon neutral until 2060. China outputs twice the CO2 that the US does. India is also on an increasing trajectory, though relatively small right now.

I think the point is that the dire predictions haven't really panned out, so some people are skeptical when new predictions come along.

 

[Cubi Dorf]

Let us hope earth is not dooming.

Yeah, 142 years is not a long time but something to consider is: Has the climate for the past 142 years been reasonable for most people, are we used to how it works (ie: food production), and will our quality of life get worse and more expensive if that changes too much? If so, is it reasonable to do something to mitigate that change if we have the information and technology to do so? And of course: Who's gonna pay for it?

Generally speaking when there's a problem, doing maintenance on the problem is cheaper than waiting and spending on the reactive fix after things are really broken. Except that few people want to put up the money for a global thing unless everyone's doing it. Getting all nations on board? Good luck with that.

 

[OortCloud]

Even if the scientists did turn out to be wrong (which seems highly unlikely to me) wouldn't it be prudent to listen to what people who know a 1000 times more than any of you about something as important as this and make the changes they recommend just in case? For the sake of your children for example?

 

[waclark]

Even if the scientists did turn out to be wrong (which seems highly unlikely to me) wouldn't it be prudent to listen to what people who know a 1000 times more than any of you about something as important as this and make the changes they recommend just in case? For the sake of your children for example?

I think that was the point of one of the previous comments. The "scientist" have been predicting doomsday for years and so far it hasn't come in the timeframe they have predicted. It's not that we don't want to make changes to reduce the impact humans have on the environment, it's that some of those changes are not particularly good for the economy. For example, artificially raising gasoline prices to induce people to move to electric vehicles can be very costly. Consider that just about every product you use, including food and clothing, is transported in a vehicle using petroleum fuel. When gas prices go up a lot of other product prices go up as well. We're seeing that now with gas pushing into the $4/gal range.

When you look at developing countries and economies you need power to sustain that and fossil fuels have been the most plentiful and cheapest power though that is changing. If you want a thriving economy you need cheap power sources and finally we are seeing major declines in renewable energy startup cost. That is a good thing.

 

[Cubi Dorf]

Yes that would making sense as long as you believe there is not political influence in the scientist reporting. What person become climate scientist? Where is funding from? Can we trusting them? Although renewable energy is exciting me and need to be future before oils depleted. So I will being happy if it can advancing renewable.

Even if the scientists did turn out to be wrong (which seems highly unlikely to me) wouldn't it be prudent to listen to what people who know a 1000 times more than any of you about something as important as this and make the changes they recommend just in case? For the sake of your children for example?

 

[Lew Zealand]

I think that was the point of one of the previous comments. The "scientist" have been predicting doomsday for years and so far it hasn't come in the timeframe they have predicted.

Extremists have been claiming that. The consensus of scientists have not. But the general public clings to a juicy story, which the extremist position always delivers.

It's not that we don't want to make changes to reduce the impact humans have on the environment, it's that some of those changes are not particularly good for the economy. For example, artificially raising gasoline prices to induce people to move to electric vehicles can be very costly. Consider that just about every product you use, including food and clothing, is transported in a vehicle using petroleum fuel. When gas prices go up a lot of other product prices go up as well. We're seeing that now with gas pushing into the $4/gal range.

Gasoline prices are already kept artificially low with over $10 billion/yr in government subsidies. I'm not aware of the gov't artificially increasing prices on gas to sell more electric vehicles, as perceived functional limitations like range anxiety, time to charge, and charging availability are the factors that hold many people back from an electric vehicle.

When you look at developing countries and economies you need power to sustain that and fossil fuels have been the most plentiful and cheapest power though that is changing. If you want a thriving economy you need cheap power sources and finally we are seeing major declines in renewable energy startup cost. That is a good thing.

Yes! The only way renewables will outcompete traditional fuels is on price. In the end price is what sways most consumers to make a choice, or in this case a big change.

 

[waclark]

Extremists have been claiming that. The consensus of scientists have not. But the general public clings to a juicy story, which the extremist position always delivers.

I don't think all of them were extremists. Some just had bad or unrefined models.

Gasoline prices are already kept artificially low with over $10 billion/yr in government subsidies. I'm not aware of the gov't artificially increasing prices on gas to sell more electric vehicles, as perceived functional limitations like range anxiety, time to charge, and charging availability are the factors that hold many people back from an electric vehicle.

Yes subsidies have kept prices low in the US, as compared to other parts of the world. But, there are states, like Washington, where the State government continues to raise gas taxes. Not to mention shutting down pipelines and importing foreign oil doesn't help.

Yes! The only way renewables will outcompete traditional fuels is on price. In the end price is what sways most consumers to make a choice, or in this case a big change.

It almost always comes down to cost. Hence why I think it's important to consider what happens when energy prices go up. It hurts low income families disproportionally. Higher fuel cost drives up cost for everything. Hence, why I believe alternative energy cost need to come down. Lower energy cost would be a boon to the economy.