And all the while, a certain political party can't agree amongst themselves that climate change is actually happening.
My gut feeling is that if it is exceptionally high then model will hardly predict it.
Anyone here knows ?
The temperature at the moment is weather; annual and multi-year statistics is climate.
Another commenter posted https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1410157638109872134?s=19, which shows this is a statistical anomaly; only when this kind of weather happens year on year, and when the averages go up, can you speak of climate change.
(disclaimer: just being devil's advocate, climate change is real and "freak weather events" are becoming so common now that you can't deny it being a trend and the direct effect of global climate change)
In recent years many places around the would appear to be setting new temperature records on a rather regular basis.
You will inadvertently find that around half a dozen extreme events happened in the last two decades.
Since a giant political movement seems to be based on the unwillingness to read more than ~24 characters at a time, here is a beautiful chart that really shows this: [0]. It does not even have text!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warming_stripes#/media/File:20...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
The nice thing about that page is when you scroll down to the continent/country table data there is an option to sort by date column.
Sorting by date shows most of these records were set in the 21 century.
More worryingly many of those records were set in the last half decade.
While this might be coincidence, it could also be a trend and if it is the later then things are starting to look rather ominous. Time will tell.
A substantial one too, here's a very very rough map (which only measures one aspect, and has terrible resolution)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_effects_of_climate_ch...
500-year floods, 100-year storms, 100-year heat waves, etc. are becoming almost annual / decennial events. We absolutely should be willing to change our prior probability that global warming is A Real Thing from "very high" to "very, very high" for one more data point; that's how Bayesian inference works.
It's entirely plausible that it's related, but the fact that these things are happening more often in a 5 or 10 year period is not sufficient evidence alone.
Your comment reads like a hammer looking for a nail, like freak weather is obviously a natural consequence of rising global temperatures. I'm not sure that it is.
You should probably examine your assumptions a little bit more closely, and look for a testable link rather than a confirmation of an existing belief.
I just don't have anything to suggest that all this recent freak weather is related to it. It's entirely possible that it is! It's also entirely possible that it isn't.
Freak weather is not, itself, some irrefutable proof of anthropocentric climate change. (We have plenty of that already.)
It could be that all the warming and sea ice loss that humans have caused (which no doubt has a bunch of cataclysmic stuff waiting in the wings for us, likely related to oceans and centered on plankton and other such planet-scale bio processes) is unrelated to the fact that we've had a bunch of bad weather lately, and that we've just been somewhat unlucky.
now the problem with climate change is that emissions now will yield indisputable evidence 20-30-50 years from now - a blink of an eye in climatology and likely point of no return for humanity.
note we do not lack evidence of global warming. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/22/memorial...
Are you sure?
In the IPCC report, the authors have high confidence in more hot days and nights, but they are less sure about other forms of extreme weather increasing due to climate change. In fact, they mention that, globally, hurricane activity might decrease. Snowfall, forest fires seem to hanging steady.
Two sides of the same coin, we're fucking up our climate.
Freak events don't show anything, that's why they are freak events.
The trends are clear for anyone interested in discussing facts rather than ideology.
U.S. climate ads by conservatives, for conservatives, shift views
In anticipation of some international event, like the Olypmics, the city government put in new streetlights with integrated solar panels but the solar panels were never hooked up. It is important that they look like they are doing something without regard to it having any actual effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)
That’s propaganda. The industry is vilified, for good reasons as well as bad ones. The people working in this industry are just pawns in a politics game. There aren’t that many of them in the first place, and there are just as many jobs to be had in non-fossil fuel energy production.
> not to mention essentially raising prices on everything for the regular person.
What do you think will happen to the prices of everything once climate change seriously perturbs agriculture, and once you need either heating or cooling all year round just to live in most of the world? Where will the money come from when we’ll need to build flood walls and levees, and all the infrastructure near the coasts will need to be overhauled. Or when water runs out in the American West? Climate change is coming to cost orders of magnitude more than preventing it.
> It'd work to everyone's favor if a sound transition plan is agreed on, …
Assuming you’re American, that’s not going to happen, because
> … which gives the folks in the legacy industries preference to clean energy jobs/businesses.
This was part of the platform of one party and the other still was not interested. Instead they whined about guns and abortion. Well, enjoy the future.