I considered, but that would be very bad faith. I'm unsure Mikie needs to cloak anything. Pretty outwardly incapable of being civil. Maybe time will tell..

Maybe time will tell.. — AmadeusD

yep

So you want to be surrounded by "yes men". Perhaps you should change your name to Donald Trump. — Agree-to-Disagree

Neither yes men nor no men such as yourself are of any value to a discussion.

So what next, Troll? — unenlightened

You have given me the perfect opportunity to show how leaving out relevant details can create an incorrect picture or impression about what the truth is. In this case it is about global warming.

''The number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century, noted the meteorologist.''

That's significant.

(Research time necessary to discover this: 3 minutes) — Baden

The following information took me 10 minutes of research time. Perhaps you should have spent an extra 7 minutes checking the meteorologist's claim.

There’s nothing they’ve said that’s inaccurate. — John McMannis

That is probably correct. The problem is with what they didn't say.

If the number of days over 50C has tripled since 2000, as was pointed out, then that by itself appears significant. — John McMannis

Yes, that does appear to be significant. But what does it signify?

I am not disputing the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. I am pointing out that there is more information that is relevant to the claim and that the meteorologist has not mentioned it.

The meteorologist's claim creates the impression that global warming has caused record high temperatures in Kuwait. But wait, could there be another explanation for the record high temperatures.

First, a few things about Kuwait:
- with the discovery of oil, Kuwait has undergone a transformative urban boom from a small Arab maritime town to a modern-day metropolis in less than half a century
- Kuwait City itself is a concrete metropolis, and as such, retains the heat

I immediately considered the possibility that the record high temperatures were caused by the UHI (urban heat island) effect, rather than being caused directly by global warming.

There are a number of scientific articles about the UHI effect in Kuwait. Here are 2 of them.

Diurnal and seasonal dynamics of the canopy-layer urban heat island of Kuwait
RMets - Royal Meteorological Society
International Journal of Climatology
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.8560?af=R
From Abstract:
Mean positive UHICL intensities, ranging from 1.1°C to 3.8°C at night, are observed consistently across all months, owing to the prevalence of clear skies from winter to summer. Negative UHICL intensities, indicating a typical daytime urban cool island (UCICL), are most prominent on summer days, exhibiting a mean hourly magnitude range between 0.6°C and 2.6°C that extends into the early parts of the evening.

Spatial Distribution of Land Surface Temperatures in Kuwait: Urban Heat and Cool Islands
National Library of Medicine
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246769/
From Abstract:
During the day, the temperature difference (urban/suburban minus versus governorates) was −1.1 °C (95% CI; −1.2, −1.00, p < 0.001) indicating a daytime urban cool island. At night, the temperature difference (urban/suburban versus rural governorates) became 3.6 °C (95% CI; 3.5, 3.7, p < 0.001) indicating a nighttime urban heat island.

Conclusion
If there is a UHI effect at night of up to 3.6 °C or 3.8°C then that could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. It is not necessarily caused directly by global warming.

It is not necessarily caused directly by global warming. — Agree-to-Disagree

That's true. This is why they use computer models to discover anthropogenic climate change. Pointing to today's weather is not the way to convince non-believers because we're always just one volcano away from cool weather than can last a decade.

Focus on the computer models. Not this year's weather.

During the day, the temperature difference (urban/suburban minus versus governorates) was −1.1 °C (95% CI; −1.2, −1.00, p < 0.001) indicating a daytime urban cool island. At night, the temperature difference (urban/suburban versus rural governorates) became 3.6 °C (95% CI; 3.5, 3.7, p < 0.001) indicating a nighttime urban heat island.

Conclusion
If there is a UHI effect at night of up to 3.6 °C or 3.8°C then that could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. It is not necessarily caused directly by global warming. — Agree-to-Disagree

Well no it couldn't. On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C.

On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C. — unenlightened

Where is your evidence to support these statements?

I spent the past three years sailing through storms and visiting research labs around the world to learn about the recent increase in extreme cyclones. I spoke to captains who logged changes in the Gulf Stream, the jet stream, trade winds and storm seasons. I interviewed scientists who studied amplifying typhoons in the Pacific, whose barometric pressure could drop so low that they triggered a spider web of earthquakes. I studied major cyclones that hit parts of the Middle East for the first time and some of the first hurricane landfalls to strike Europe. Experts consistently tied storm intensity, range and destruction to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and said that if we reduced it, storm intensity would also diminish in lock step.

Here is a glimpse of where we are headed. The heat accumulating in the ocean from global warming will make tropical cyclones last longer than they once did, and occasionally move slower, making damage many times worse. Rapid intensification — in which storm winds increase by 35 miles per hour or more in 24 hours — will continue to rise, especially in coastal waters.

A 2021 study by Yale University researchers shows that warmer waters in the north and south will soon draw extreme storms toward the poles, threatening to inundate densely populated, and especially unprepared, cities like Washington, D.C., New York and Boston. A northwestward migration from the region where most Atlantic tropical cyclones originate could result in an uptick in landfalls along the East Coast later this century.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/opinion/hurricane-milton-florida-storm-surge-climate-change.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Q04.RYJo.4A9XWKePGo6H&smid=url-share

If only we listened.

If only we start listening.

Where is your evidence to support these statements? — Agree-to-Disagree

You just gave it to me.

From Abstract:
During the day, the temperature difference (urban/suburban minus versus governorates) was −1.1 °C (95% CI; −1.2, −1.00, p < 0.001) indicating a daytime urban cool island. — Agree-to-Disagree

A daytime urban cool island is produced by basic physics. Dry sand has air pockets that are a net insulator as compared to solid rock or concrete and the urban environment is therefore going to absorb more heat during the day and emit more heat during the night. Perhaps you ought to try and understand what you are reading, before trying to use it in an argument.

Yet another report: a valediction for the natural world.

https://livingplanet.panda.org/en-GB/

On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C. — unenlightened

The following information describes how the temperature at night can be higher than the temperature during the day. In certain circumstances it is possible for the temperature at night in Kuwait to exceed 50°C.

Yes, there have been instances where nighttime temperatures have been higher than daytime temperatures, especially in certain climates or weather conditions. This phenomenon can occur in desert regions where daytime temperatures soar due to intense sunlight, but at night, the temperature might not drop significantly due to factors like cloud cover or humidity.

In summary, while it is uncommon, there are specific conditions under which the temperature at night can exceed the temperature during the day. — Quora

This could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century.

You are talking rubbish.

No one has suggested that nighttime temperatures in Kuwait at night exceed those during the day, though it is conceivable that it could happen there rarely.
Your desperation to find an excuse for your obvious failure to make any kind of a case here is pathetic. I'm quite sure you are not even convincing yourself, never mind anyone else. Time to concede, or at least end the futile continuation of a lost cause.

The following information describes how the temperature at night can be higher than the temperature during the day...
This could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. — Agree-to-Disagree

There has never been an official nighttime temperature of over 50°C recorded ever anywhere. And I would challenge you to find even one unofficial after-dark temperature in Kuwait of that level that beat the daytime temperature. So, the claim that such temperatures happen so regularly in Kuwait at night rather than the day, and are higher than the day, so as to account for that statistic is so fabulously, stupidly wrong that you deserve an award in barefaced audacity just for trying to pull it off. Sadly (for you) the trophy ought also to be your parting gift as your credibility is so shot now any attempt to limp on would be Pythonesque.

Two pythons on one page! I think we have broken the nonvenomous snake record. It must be global warming leading to an excess of hot air. :nerd: :sweat:

It must be global warming leading to an excess of hot air. :nerd: :sweat: — unenlightened

Exactly !!!

There is an enormous lack of critical thinking when it comes to global warming. Many people are gullible enough to accept what they are told without thinking. :vomit:

There has never been an official nighttime temperature of over 50°C recorded ever anywhere. — Baden

Where is your evidence for this? Have you just made up this claim because you want it to be true? I have done a lot of researching about this and the biggest problem is that they don't specify the time of day that the maximum temperature occurs. So you can't tell if the maximum temperature happened during the day or during the night. Can you prove otherwise?

No i didn't. — AmadeusD

Ok!

The problem is with what they didn't say. — Agree-to-Disagree

Ok and what is that?

. I am pointing out that there is more information that is relevant to the claim and that the meteorologist has not mentioned it. — Agree-to-Disagree

Ok but why would he leave it out? Do you think it’s deliberate and what would the motive be?

Many people are gullible enough to accept what they are told without thinking. — Agree-to-Disagree

But not me. I scrutinise your every word. And I trust, by and large, the published temperature figures of meteorological departments, because I don't have time to personally inspect their facilities, but I see that their work is used by farmers and weather forecasters and so on who find their figures useful, and I see no evidence of or reason to suspect any conspiracy to inflate the figures.
On the contrary, there is strong evidence that powerful interests have for credible reasons of power and profit sought to undermine the evidence for global warming over many years. So when gullibility is in question, well right back at you, kiddo.

Herewith, some more lies and propaganda from the new scientist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG_iHwEn33I

Herewith, some more lies and propaganda from the new scientist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG_iHwEn33I — unenlightened

Please list the things that you think are "lies and propaganda".

The YouTube video that you link to is a New Scientist weekly podcast (Oct 12, 2024). The discussion about overshooting 1.5 degrees of global warming is based on a paper published in Nature that week. The paper has been peer reviewed.

The authors of the paper are:
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Gaurav Ganti, Quentin Lejeune, Biqing Zhu, Peter Pfleiderer, Ruben Prütz, Philippe Ciais, Thomas L. Frölicher, Sabine Fuss, Thomas Gasser, Matthew J. Gidden, Chahan M. Kropf, Fabrice Lacroix, Robin Lamboll, Rosanne Martyr, Fabien Maussion, Jamie W. McCaughey, Malte Meinshausen, Matthias Mengel, Zebedee Nicholls, Yann Quilcaille, Benjamin Sanderson, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Jana Sillmann, Christopher J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Emily Theokritoff, Rachel Warren, Jeff Price & Joeri Rogelj

But you decided that their work is "more lies and propaganda". Are people meant to take you seriously?

Where is your evidence for this? Have you just made up this claim because you want it to be true? I have done a lot of researching about this and the biggest problem is that they don't specify the time of day that the maximum temperature occurs. So you can't tell if the maximum temperature happened during the day or during the night. Can you prove otherwise? — Agree-to-Disagree

Ummm....have you noticed that it's colder when the sun isn't up?

Especially in the desert it's so. And when the highest temperature recorded temperatures are 54 Celsius or so, then it's quite reasonable to assume that the highest records are taken DURING DAYTIME.

But you aren't talking total rubbish. Night time temperatures have measured near 50 Celsius:

(New Scientist, 2023) Between 12am and 1am on 17 July, a weather station in Death Valley, California measured temperatures of 48.9°C (120°F). If confirmed it would be the hottest recorded temperature at that time

See Death Valley may have just had the hottest recorded midnight ever

So @unenlightened is right. But a record to be close is still a long way from Kuwait having regularly +50 Celsius nights.

(Death Valley National park, picture from National Park Service)


But if you're living up to your name, then I can understand.

Are people meant to take you seriously? — Agree-to-Disagree

No. they are supposed to smile at the sarcasm. Like this : :grin:

No. they are supposed to smile at the sarcasm. Like this : :grin: — unenlightened

So should we assume that everything that you say is sarcastic?

No. they are supposed to smile at the sarcasm. Like this : :grin: — unenlightened

[sarcasm] Hey man, are you, like, being sacastic? Are you, like, really saying we're not supposed to smile? Can you just, like, indicate whenever you're being sarcastic with, like, some square-brackety notes or something, so I just, like, know. It's just, like, sooooo confusing. [/sarcasm]

So should we assume that everything that you say is sarcastic? — Agree-to-Disagree

You should, but everyone else, not so much. :grin:

I mean, the other way round.

Oh, let's just agree to disagree about it all.

This is info from Wikipedia about fertility rates by country. The ones that are blue are negative. The darker blue countries are headed for demographic crisis where the economy starts shrinking due to smaller demand, and the birth rate drops even more due to a shrinking economy. South Korea, for instance, with a birth rate of 0.7, has passed a tipping point where they can't have a baby boom. They don't have the material means to reverse the trend. The cause of this population decrease is basically freedom and opportunity available to women. When women can choose not to have children, a pretty high percentage of them don't.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Fertility_Rate_Map_by_Country.svg

With a decreasing but high-tech country, mobility might not be as big a challenge.

When women can choose not to have children, a pretty high percentage of them don't. — frank

Perhaps child-rearing is an undervalued contribution to the economy; a cost that individuals choose not to bear unaided in support of a society that does not reward it.

In other news ...

I've only been harassing you about the AMOC for years now, mainly because if it shut down, you'd have to move to Montana.

Although you would then be just north of the Yellowstone caldera, which is due to destroy N America. :worry:

A quickie, something for the weekend, to make you me, anyway, smile.

A quickie, something for the weekend, to make you me, anyway, smile. — unenlightened

How can they get such good results when they are being destroyed by climate-change/global-warming?

It appears that the threat from climate-change/global-warming can be greatly reduced without the need to stop using fossil fuels. A little bit of adaptation and conservation work can achieve amazing results.