Still no snow on Mount Fuji, breaking record

This is not good.

October 31st, noon. Still no snow going into November.

https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/b85d24aec21da2364e5e88b7b4c6aa079039b538

This is not good.

Snow on the peak is forecasted throughout the evening and the rest of tonight. Snow is also forecasted throughout the week, too.

Why so down on energy providers aka fossil fuel industries ? How do you sleep at night when the food you are eating is by produce using fossil fuels. The transport use are using ( you might drive a EV but you are driving on a roads not made by non reusable energy ) and warmth and cooling comfort is provided all provided by energy providers aka fossill fuel industries. So stick your demonising the energy industries. They have provided society a product which is leading us into a future of reusable. It like kicking your grand father to death because he still smokes. So lighten up on demonising the legacy energy sector.

Evolution (assuming you believe in it, and I'm not going to make that assumption because, well, humans) doesn't just apply to life forms. It applies to industries. You either adapt to the current trends, or you get replaced and disappear.

The UK recently closed its very last coal plant. I doubt many people will miss it knowing that we can produce energy in a far cleaner way. Would you prefer that we just kept going with coal and creating filthy air?

Thanks for all those authoritative sources!

Well, still waiting for you to bring any example of institutions that disagree with the debunking of your personal theory, zero examples all over the world that say you are correct.

Finding examples that clearly say you are mistaken is on the contrary trivially easy.

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-4/

On one side the NOAA, NASA, Royal Society, on the other nameless people on the internet, it should be obvious who is in the wrong.

So we can say the weather is a bit warmer this year than in other years. Snow was recorded last year on October fifth. In 1955 snow wasn't recorded until October 26. The timing varies.

With a clear trend towards later times the more recent years, something that is predicted to happen thanks to climate change, this is not just "random" variation.

About 9C at the foot of the mountain now so should probably be snowing up there now.

Tomorrow afternoon looks like a peach.

The entire field is inflated by grants fueled by climate change fears, making it unlikely for any publication that goes against the trend to be accepted.

This is one of the dumbest coping methods by climate change deniers. Who do you think is willingly paying for bad news?

So we can say the weather is a bit warmer this year than in other years. Snow was recorded last year on October fifth. In 1955 snow wasn't recorded until October 26. The timing varies.

Easy, just repeating what the scientists in the field have to say about it means I don't have to make any appeal to my own authority, they are the ones that have that valid authority and that is what is being used as an argument. 

.

Thanks for all those authoritative sources!

>

Sciences are hard to understand for some, that show the failure of the education in their country, that all. But the real question is should we even try when their teacher failed?

The thing that's so pathetic about these denier people is that if they went to see their physician and he told them "you need to change your lifestyle starting right now, or you're going to be dead within 5 years", do you think they'd answer him with "oh yeah, and who's funding your conclusions? I can think for myself! You're on the payroll of Big Pharma! Why should I believe you when all you did was spend 6 or more years in med school? What's your agenda?"

The authority is from the scientific consensus, Which are funded buy who ?

By everybody, with tiny microscopic budgets compared with the money fossil fuel industries would dedicate to fund research in the opposite direction if they could, but they can't since peer review debunks flawed science very easily.

This body want funds to link whale beaching with climate change. 

Which body are you talking about, the scientific consensus is the collective conclusion that every institution in the world ends up having thanks to the evidence, not some imaginary monolithic organization. And no, getting funds to investigate if there is a link is not the same as forcing a conclusion as you misrepresent.

 The problems is whale have been beaching themself for eons but want us funders to believe their data of last 100 odd years.

Badly misrepresenting what the actual research is meant to investigate means you are aware you have no argument against it. So your only exit is to pretend it is something completely different. This is as valid as saying that people have died for eons, so there is no point in investigating why so much people die young around chemical waste sites since it has only happened for a few decades.

I am not a climate change denier, but I don’t recommend to blindly trust climatologists either. 

There is no need, they publish their studies so if you are interested you can dedicate the years of study and effort necessary to evaluate them as the professionals all over the world do (reaching the same conclusions).

The entire field is inflated by grants fueled by climate change fears, making it unlikely for any publication that goes against the trend to be accepted.

Still a completely impossible to believe excuse the moment the fossil fuel industry would give orders of magnitude more money to anybody that could publish studies that exculpate them from causing climate change (and survive peer review, which is the difficult part).

Again, what makes you think you understand more of the situation than the full scientific community of the world that say this is is a very serious problem that needs urgent action?

I am not a climate change denier, but I don’t recommend to blindly trust climatologists either. The entire field is inflated by grants fueled by climate change fears, making it unlikely for any publication that goes against the trend to be accepted.

A couple of years back (Dec 2021) there was a massive undersea volcanic eruption: Hunga Tonga in the South Pacific. It is estimated that this eruption pushed 60 million gallons of water up into the atmosphere. meteorologists expect this event will upset / affect weather patterns for several years.

As possible examples of the impact, you can note quite cool summers in the US / Canada and Europe in 2024, and an inconsistent warm cool warm here in Japan. Heavier rains in some regions and, perhaps, later snowfall on Mt Fuji.

Somehow this Hunga Tonga event has garnered very little media attention.

From Wikipedia -- *"One study estimated a 7% increase in the probability that global warming will exceed 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) in at least one of the next five years,[77] although greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy to mitigate them remain the major determinant of this risk.[78] Another study estimated that the water vapor will stay in the stratosphere for up to eight years, and influence winter weather in both hemispheres.[79] More recent studies have indicated that the eruption had a slight cooling effect.[80] [81]"*

I wonder what it is about the climate issue that brings out so many Dunning-Kruger types.

Beacuase... the premise of the deniers is moronic and there is no use to try to discuss with them or try to have an inteligent conversation.

Pretty much.

I'll bet the farm that this gets removed for "off-topic" (seems like allegory and indirect reference is too much for the mods to handle), but years ago in the UK there was a TV show called "Record Breakers", based on the Guinness Book of World Records. One of the presenters of this show was Norris McWhirter, who was one of the actual editors of that book, so he literally knew everything that was in it.

One part of the show involved audience members asking McWhirter questions about world records, which he would then answer with what was clearly an encyclopaedic level of memory and knowledge.

One day an audience member decided to try and argue with him over something. To argue about a world record with the man who literally wrote the book.

My first introduction to Dunning-Kruger, although this was way before I'd heard the term.

Pus ca change...

Virusrex hasn’t provided any proof of being able to speak on the topic of climate change with any degree of authority so I won’t pay much attention to his comments.

The authority is from the scientific consensus, which is the one that say the explanation you brought is false, you have been completely unable to refute that consensus, so pretending it all depends on the authority of anybody commenting here is obviously invalid. The scientisits of the world are the ones that prove solar activity is not the cause of climate change, so they are the ones that you have to disprove for your claim to be of any merit. Even if an elementary school child repeats this argument it would still be valid.

It's four degrees and rainy at the peak today. Global boiling?

Weather and climate are not the same thing.

I wonder what it is about the climate issue that brings out so many Dunning-Kruger types.

Beacuase... the premise of the deniers is moronic and there is no use to try to discuss with them or try to have an inteligent conversation.

I wonder what it is about the climate issue that brings out so many Dunning-Kruger types.

My guess is that they simply enjoy trolling and looking to upset people.

Some obviously prefer to align their evidence with what they want to believe. The only question they need to ask themselves really is why they want to believe it.

It's four degrees and rainy at the peak today.

It's well known that the peer-reviewed process is well broken and doesn't work. Vested interests are at work and researchers' funding depends on not biting the hand that feeds them. Now, let it snow.

That excuse is impossible to believe, not only because it has no merit or evidence behind it, but because it makes no sense, the fossil fuel industry would be able to pay orders of magnitude more money for any researcher that could publish something that survives peer review and exculpates the industry from causing climate change, they are the actual vested interests. Fortunately the whole point of scientific publication is to give enough details for any expert to quickly identify flawed publications and that is why the current consensus is so absolute and clear, people trying to court funding from fossil fuel industries inevitably end up ridiculed for their attempts to publish invalid reports.

And what makes you think YOU can say anything about this subject yourself? 

Easy, just repeating what the scientists in the field have to say about it means I don't have to make any appeal to my own authority, they are the ones that have that valid authority and that is what is being used as an argument.

You have no clue about the matter, just commenting about media news which play the hysterical card

So present the institutions of science that say articles like this are against the consensus,

You can't? that is because the consensus is clear and explicit and they do support the claims that the record high temperatures (and the consequences such as the record late lack of snow in the Mount Fuji) are expected consequences of the climate change disaster.

When you claim other people don't understand terms but make no effort to argue how this is the case you only make it clear you have no argument, just claim things expecting for others to believe it based on some supposed personal authority, which of course is irrelevant when comes from anonymous accounts.

It continues to disappoint me that the climate deniers still can't grasp the difference between weather and climate.

It's on a level with the phrase 'But it's only a theory.'

/facepalm

Stupidity is worn as a badge of honour in this era, unfortunately.

Again, what makes you think you understand more of the situation than the full scientific community of the world

And what makes you think YOU can say anything about this subject yourself? You have no clue about the matter, just commenting about media news which play the hysterical card. You use the term climate change as it is something inherently non existing by itself underlying the fact that you are using and mixing terms without any understanding of them.

You don’t understand how science works, you are just pushing an ideology like you did for other subjects without absolutely any understanding of the subject. So just stop it and go to touch grass.

The high temperatures are due to increased solar activity.

Debunked as false many years ago.

The high temperatures are due to increased solar activity.

Three peer-reviewed sources, thanks.

The high temperatures are due to increased solar activity.

Is going to be since this week. The weather forecast shows freezing temperature from 3000m and above.

I keep saying it again again and again, STOP BURNING your industrial waste at night when no one can see the smoke and things will get much better.

The plastic smell and stench every morning burns my nose and throat were I live. most companies and many farmers wait till the sun sets and they start their daily/weekly trash burning festivals, you can't even open you windows at night.

The same thing happened 11,000 years ago when the earth heated up and melted the ice.

No, it was not the same thing, nor does this in any way negates the huge negative consequences expected from climate change.

Again, what makes you think you understand more of the situation than the full scientific community of the world that say this is is a very serious problem that needs urgent action?

It continues to disappoint me that the climate deniers still can't grasp the difference between weather and climate.

It's on a level with the phrase 'But it's only a theory.'

/facepalm

I really want to believe that there is no such thing as global warming and that we can sail on releasing carbon from millions of year of accumulated stores put down millions of years ago with no adverse effect but I just can't. The evidence and the sheer unlikelihood of all that stored carbon, quickly released, not having any effect in seas and atmosphere forces me to challenge what I desperately want to believe.

Looks like a lot of snow to me!

We're slowly getting back to normal temperatures, pulling out of the Little Ice Age.

as extreme heatwaves fueled by climate change engulfed many parts of the globe.

And the fossils in control of the planet want to continue to extend the fossil era, want to keep burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, and continue fighting wars over the control of fossil fuels and other nonrenewable natural resources.

Just another confirmation of climate change.