Japan Today
environment

Climate records keep getting shattered

29 Comments
By SUMAN NAISHADHAM

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


29 Comments
Login to comment

This should be headline news. The fact that it's not is part of the problem and why the climate crisis will continue to get much worse. .

6 ( +10 / -4 )

1.5ºC temperature increase in 5 years.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Watch The cold truth! The temperature rise and climate change is not just because humans. Yes humans have an influence but the earth has it's own way for many, many centuries!

We should preserve the earth and reduce environmental impact, but with good and real sustainable solutions. Wind farms, EV's are not the way forward, these are only costing us huge amounts of money and taking the earth's resources.

The media should stop making panic messages, it is not helping at all. Start using the right data and comparisons.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

The temperature rise and climate change is not just because humans.

And what are you suggesting the breakdown is between human-caused and other? Percentages?

2 ( +8 / -6 )

wallace:

1.5ºC temperature increase in 5 years.

No, no, no.

1.5ºC temperature increase since pre-industrial times; that is, 1.5ºC increase in 200 years.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The world is likely to hit 1.5C of warming within the next five years because of rising carbon emissions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65602293

0 ( +6 / -6 )

The burning of fossil fuels — oil, gas and coal — is the main contributor to global warming caused by human activity.

It's as simple as that. The physical and chemical properties of carbon aren't subject to political debate. There isn't a right wing 'alt-carbon' that doesn't result in a warmer atmosphere.

Once you grasp that then you can start to figure out solutions instead of hoping it can all be dismissed for you by thick, fat, criminal billionaire politicians.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

I don’t worry about it, I’m eco friendly and if I’m too hot I put on the AC. I don’t feel guilty because I use much less energy than average.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

I don’t feel guilty because I use much less energy than average you see

This,is good,thing. Google good thing.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

if I’m too hot I put on the AC

An air conditioner cannot work when the humidity is very high, because ice accumulates on the evaporator coil and blocks the air flow. Also, no AC would function when the temperature is 70 degrees Celsius. If tress are burning outside your house, you will not be able to use your AC.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

An air conditioner cannot work when the humidity is very high, because ice accumulates on the evaporator coil and blocks the air flow. Also, no AC would function when the temperature is 70 degrees Celsius. If tress are burning outside your house, you will not be able to use your AC.

It would behoove you to listen to this guy Steve.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Wind farms, EV's are not the way forward, these are only costing us huge amounts of money and taking the earth's resources

EVs are the way forward: They are much more economical, safe, comfortable and powerful than those retarded and silly petroleum wagons. Solar electricity is the way forward: It is now cheaper than the electricity produced using fossil fuels.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

An air conditioner cannot work when the humidity is very high, because ice accumulates on the evaporator coil and blocks the air flow. Also, no AC would function when the temperature is 70 degrees Celsius. If tress are burning outside your house, you will not be able to use your AC

I’d give that a grade D.

The grade A silly science post was when someone linked to Alex Berenson.

Still the gold standard.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

It seems to me that the climate deniers are pretty good about explaining how humans aren't contributing to the problem. Since that's the case, my question is: You know about climate better than climatologists, so you should be able to tell us how long this heat will last and if we will be able to live, or are all of us going die?

I'll go with science. So far everything they predicted 10 years ago is happening. Exxon might be angry with the scientists, but I'm angry about Exxon and all the robots that repeat what their cults tell them.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Mother Nature taking action again.

We've seen this time after time.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

Public transportation powered by electricity, like the old Red Line in South Cal, would be preferable, but since that is no longer an option, EVs are better than ICE cars.

A small part of the USA is still in very good weather.....where we live, along the Pacific coast.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

gcFd1

Mother Nature taking action again.

We've seen this time after time.

Owners of large SUVs in cities also add to it.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

There exists an opinion according to which the disruption of the temperature is small, and proportionate to the amount of added CO2. But there exists also another opinion, according to which there exists a non-linearity in the system. This second opinion deserves to be sounded.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Mother Nature taking action again.

We've seen this time after time.

Both claims are wrong, first because this is a product of climate change, which is not a natural process, and second because breaking the existing record means this is the first time we have seen this by definition.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Both claims are wrong, first because this is a product of climate change, which is not a natural process,

Wrong. Mother Nature knows otherwise.

and second because breaking the existing record means this is the first time we have seen this by definition.

Wrong again--unless you believe average temperatures have been the same year after year since the beginning of time, and this is the first time the avg. temps have risen.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Wrong. Mother Nature knows otherwise.

Seeing how you were unable to argue how this is wrong this clearly means this is not wrong, you just like to think it is without being able to prove it.

Wrong again--unless you believe average temperatures have been the same year after year since the beginning of time, and this is the first time the avg. temps have risen.

That argument do nothing to negate the fact that records being shattered explicitly means the registered temperatures are not something "seen time after time" but instead something that is being registered for the first time. Again, that is the meaning of "breaking records".

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

the fact that records being shattered explicitly means the registered temperatures are not something "seen time after time" but instead something that is being registered for the first time.

Exactly, the registered temperatures are going up. The temperatures around the sensors being registered are apparently going up.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

That argument do nothing to negate the fact that records being shattered explicitly means the registered temperatures are not something "seen time after time"

Any time there is a record average annual temperature means that time differs from the previous time. As we've seen over and over again.

Can't fool Mother Nature.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

As we've seen over and over again

Untrue. Something like this has never happened in the past: Watch the video with the title "This Will Be My Most Disliked Video On YouTube | Climate Change" at the Astrum YouTube channel.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Any time there is a record average annual temperature means that time differs from the previous time. As we've seen over and over again.

But the head line is not "climate recordings are different from previous years" it is "Climate records keep getting shattered" is it difficult for you to understand the difference between temperatures being just different and them being the highest ever recorded? that could explain your mistake.

Can't fool Mother Nature.

As you recognized when you could not find any argument to defend this claim, this is not a natural occurrence, it is instead product of human activity, by definition not natural.

Exactly, the registered temperatures are going up. The temperatures around the sensors being registered are apparently going up.

Since the sensors are positioned in a way to accurately represent temperatures in general that is an irrelevant distinction. It may surprise you but people that collect and analyze data in a scientific and professional way do understand the importance of proper sampling.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Exactly, the registered temperatures are going up. The temperatures around the sensors being registered are apparently going up.

Yes, good point.

Since the sensors are positioned in a way to accurately represent temperatures in general

How do you know?

It may surprise you but people that collect and analyze data in a scientific and professional way do understand the importance of proper sampling.

Oh, I'm sure they understand it. They also know how to carry out "proper" sampling to get their results published and get future funding.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yes, good point.

Already debunked, measuring sensors do not have any significant difference with the temperatures of the region in general.

How do you know?

Because they are described precisely this way, it is part of the design, as said before, it is not rational to think professionals taking care of much more delicate sources of bias leave this obvious one without being considered. I mean, it is completely irrational to think the scientific community of the world is incapable of thinking something so obvious.

Oh, I'm sure they understand it. They also know how to carry out "proper" sampling to get their results published and get future funding.

Which is the whole point, scientist taking care of getting proper and valid recordings so their data is not debunked on the first round of peer review is part of the system, even when this mean contradicting the interests of the fossil fuel industry, which would be capable of funding more research than any other source in the world as long as scientist accepted falsifying information, something that fortunately is not the case in general.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites