Canada Records All-Time High Temperature of 49.5 Degrees: Weather Service

It is beauty of the free market and capitalism that as the price of CO2 will increase everyone will start looking for ways to reduce emissions without even thinking about emissions. Including innovators and investors.

There is also nice political side of Emissions Trading Schemes. It had no effect when it was introduced and it's impact increases little by little each year. Not everyone who would be opposed realized effects of that system when it was introduced. They are slowly gaining awareness, but the positions have reversed. Now, they have to fight against the status quo.

I see that quite clearly in Poland. Polish coal miners have a lot of political swing, but they did not realize the consequences of Emissions Trading Scheme. Now as the effects are increasing Polish government is not capable of changing it. But they have money from selling emission rights so they can use that money to appease coal miners and other politically important groups.

> But why would systemic solutions get suggested or implemented if individuals didn't show they wanted a solution? Where would these initiatives come from if they're not influenced by the voices, voting power and buying power of individuals?

It's easier to convince people that climate change needs to be addressed than to educate them on how --all-- industries work. E.g. how much do you know about concrete curing, steel and related emissions? Would you be able to make informed decisions with regard to building materials and CO2 emissions? Do you even know if viable alternatives exist? Do you expect companies to spend more to emit less?

Just give it some time. The reasonable ones will follow.

But that's the thing. You have to realise many people can't reason about events that take a 100 years to unfold. It's like when you hear on the news "the sea levels will rise by the end of the century". For an average person it's as far in the future as the thermal death of the universe. People won't wear a mask in the middle of the pandemic, and somehow we expect everyone to forever change their habits for the better future past their lifetime.

To other commenters: Of course, there wouldn’t be a straight line but rather the curve would flatten out the longer the random sampling would take place. This is due to the fact that it gets increasingly unlikely that a random „temperature“ would be higher than any drawn before.

As the paper explains the ratio between the number of maxima and the number of minima decays in a 1/n law if there is no underlying temperature trend and approach 1:1. What is observed is that the ratio between maximum and minimum temperatures indeed approached this limit until the 1970s but since then increased to almost 2:1 — at least for the US. Simulations suggest the number to increase up to 100:1 by the end of the 21st century. However, this would not so much be due to ever increasing extreme high temperatures but due to a decreasing number of extreme temperature lows.

If 1.57 is "just less than 2", I am just less than 8 ft tall.

I am a staunch believer in the dangers of climate change, but it's easy to see why people are skeptical of arguments like this. The evidence is compelling enough that it doesn't need to be massaged into more.

(To clarify: I'm specifically asking about your use of a binomial distribution, not about the linked paper).

If your decades period is biased towards record high then the original evidence stands.

Let's compare two scenarios: (1) no warming and (2) warming.

With no warming, when a heat wave hits we get a few new highs. This is because (a) heat waves a rare events, so we may not have one in the record for that exact day and (b) due to microclimates in the area, the exact conditions will affect which sites are able to beat the record. And (c) there aren't that many records to compete with.

With warming, problems (a) (b) and (c) still apply. But you get a nice little bias up which should increase the number of sites obtaining new records. Yay except... the amount of warming so far means that it won't be a complete wipe out of new records, but rather just "more."

The question is how to distinguish the two cases. How do you tell if it's just the expected number of records being broken vs an increased number? The answer is stop doing that! Instead we should look at all daily temperatures -- rather than focusing on the count of record breaking highs -- because then we have a lot more data to work with.

In any case, the PNW heat wave does not match any reasonable expectation for the types of records we expect to be set by global warming because records would have been smashed regardless of warming.

None of this argument is an "anti-global warming" argument. Too many people conflate "science says this particular event was not a sign of warming" with "this person is a climate denier." If we're going to follow the science, that means less panic over individual events and more concern over the ongoing changes.

(This was government action)

Yeah, this is generally called "collective action" when it is contrasted with "individual action".

In fact, you have a moral imperative to stop doing this, since you are covering for the actual actors with bad morality by misrepresenting where the moral failing lies.

You don't tell the public "Drink driving is really bad, so please be considerate and don't do it". Instead you ban drink driving and vigorously enforce the ban.