WolfStock1

Look at the context here though - the climate change discussion thread. If this were a "weather events" thread - I would agree that there's no implication of a tie-in between the big France wildfire spike, and I wouldn't have made my point about having to look at the bigger picture. But since this is in fact a climate change discussion thread, and since there are lots of assertions out there that CC causes increase in wildfire activity - it seems reasonable that there's an assertion of implied tie-in with that set of stats that was posted; vis a vis France's big spike in wildfires being due to CC. My point then of course being that no - it's not due to CC (the context of the thread), it's due to a localized weather event (and possibly other factors such as bad fire control management).

How about we look at *all* areas: Africa: Americas: Asia: Europe: Oceania:

So you're saying CC's effect are somehow limited to the EU, and do not include Russia? Sorry - that's still cherry picking data. The more data you include, the better picture you get. Stop excluding data that doesn't fit your narrative. (Also Nature isn't exactly an unbiased reliable source. Also - "is expected to"? Since CC is already here - if it results in wildfire growth - shouldn't this already be happening? Why would this need to be a prediction, rather than an observation?)

Indeed - not an expert on the subject but that's almost certainly the case. Not just better firefighting equipment so much, but better detection and tracking methods (primarily satellite). Of note is that, in the US at least, there are essentially no more manned fire towers - they're all just obsolete and for tourists these days. That plus there are more people living in areas that used to be remote, thus it's less likely that given fire will grow to unmanageable size before it gets noticed. To the subject at hand though - in general it's completely invalid to point to localized (time or region) flare-ups of wildfire activity and blame them on climate change, since the overall trend is downward. MMGW deniers will point to this and assume / assert that the data cherry-picking is done for all data. As such - my advice to anyone trying to use data to prove MMGW - don't use wildfire data, because it's not a valid indicator.

Re: "Wildfire swept" - I hope people don't think that's due to CC. Because if so - look what Europe as a whole shows: It's an extremely low wildfire year across Europe as a whole. https://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/apps/gwis.statistics/seasonaltrend

OK thanks. I see the description of the two: "Sea ice extent is the integral sum of the areas of all grid cells with at least 15% ice concentration, while sea ice area is the integral sum of the product of ice concentration and area of all grid cells with at least 15% ice concentration." I *think* I get the distinction but not sure. Is it the case that "extent" include 100% of every grid cell, for cells with > 15% concentration; whereas "area" includes only the area of ice itself within all those cells? (thus why extent is larger than area) (I had been using the NSIDC page which only shows extent - https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph)

Guess I haven't seen the other - the actual area thing. Got a link? I'm wondering how they would define that. Presumably the 15% thing is because there's no well-defined line of the "edge of the ice" eventually the ice starts just breaking up into a bunch of floating icebergs, that extend out for hundreds or even thousands of miles (all the way down to Bermuda even sometimes); how would one measure the "area" of such a thing, especially on a daily basis? Would they just sum up the total of the surface area of all icebergs? (including "the big one in the middle") That seems like an impossible task.

Not sure what you mean. There is no "versus". It is area - that's what km^2 is. The extent is the measure of the area - i.e. over how much area the ice extends, with coverage of 15% or greater. Perhaps I'm missing something?

One thing of note is that data doesn't take into account demographics. Specifically: - The rate of change is not population-adjusted - It does not account for age As our population ages (boomer bubble) the rate of deaths from both heat and cold, all other things being equal, are going to rise, since older people are more susceptible: https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/out-cold-most-common-wintertime-injuries-warming-world It's also very much a measurement problem. Whether or not someone has died as a cold-driven or heat-driven factor is very subjective. E.g. that same data shows a far lower number - and decreasing not increasing - for worldwide cold-related deaths:

Related how? The data presented shows they very much are related, in time. I didn't intend to address/imply a *causal* relationship - that increased CO2 / global warming actually causes increased food supplies. While there is probably some driver there (e.g. myriads of data shows that higher levels of CO2 generally results in more plant growth, and warmer temperatures could open up new areas to agriculture that were previously too cold) - the main driver has been simply higher levels of production - more yield per acre. As you say this is due to a myriad of factors including hybridization etc. One big factor certainly has been mechanization - the development and more ubiquitous use of more efficient harvesting and processing tools (combines etc.), more efficient transportation (trucks, trains, ships, etc.) - things that rely on fossil fuels. The main point of the data presented is to disprove the notion that climate change will not be causing "food shortages" - i.e. making food production trend downward relative to population. There is zero evidence of that, as the data makes clear.

As the planet's been warming food supplies have been going up. Way up. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/food-supplies-have-grown-even-faster-than-the-population-on-every-continent Try again. *Please* don't be so brainwashed by the scaremongers. Look at the data behind the claims. It simply does not support the claims of some growing apocalypse.

Part of the means of having the resources to have AC is access to abundant inexpensive energy. In less-wealthy countries that means one thing - fossil fuels. Deaths from heat are often caused by excessive strain from physical activity. Activity that can be relieved by machines that are powered by fossil fuels. But that aside - let me reiterate that more people die of cold than from heat each year. You seem to be willfully ignoring that fact.

Holy moley - this thread is starting to get quite extremist, I have to say. You folks do realize that a lot more people die of *cold* each year, than die of *heat* - right? I don't think you really want to go where you're going. Let's be pragmatic here. MMGW, while certainly an issue, is not a practical threat to human life, in any way, shape or form. People are going to die from extreme heat waves - just as they have since the beginning of time. As the planet warms *less* people will die (and have been dying) due to weather events, not more.

Orlando is the only one of those cities that's inland, and thus is by its nature hotter than almost every other Florida city. Florida had almost no inland population then; so best comparison would be to some cities in Georgia. (there wasn't a single city in FL off the coast - including Orlando - that was over 10k population) (I used to live in FL, and noticed how the coast of FL rarely got into the 90's compared with inland; they got less 90+ degree days in fact than central NC where I had come from)

Google is your friend. https://www.agweb.com/opinion/doomsday-addiction-celebrating-50-years-failed-climate-predictions https://bradleyhook.com/why-extreme-climate-change-predictions-failed-what-we-can-do-now/ https://reason.com/2025/04/16/3-apocalyptic-climate-change-predictions-that-failed-to-come-true/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/ (does include some Al Gore stuff) etc. etc. Just search on "climate change failed predictions"

Wow. But... he's a climate scientist with over 55 peer-reviewed publications! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson Al Gore on steroids

You said "I don't have time to write my own posts." That sounds to me like the whole post, not just the headline.

Wait - so we're basically having discussion with AI, with TCC as a proxy? No thanks. Can we perhaps start a separate "No AI" thread?

OK thanks - that's the raw data at least. Don't want to provide a link to a larger more readable version of your analysis?

Can you be more specific? There's a ton of stuff on their site, and I'm not finding that. https://www.weather.gov/buf/ There's a Rivers and Lakes page, but generally that just seems to have gauge data for water levels and flows - not seeing anything with regards to temperatures, including those charts.

Any chance you could post a link to the data and/or a full-size pic of that? Pretty hard to read as is.

OK fair enough. I see there are factors that result in differences between the hemispheres, though 3 degrees C (about what's shown on that chart) just seems like a bigger range than one would expect as variation. It doesn't seem like the physics would be such that land-vs-water heating rates would be a factor - it should even out should it not? Yes the land heats faster than water, but it also cools faster at night. I could be wrong but I wouldn't think that the cause of heating faster during the day is due to higher level of actual heat absorption, but rather due to the higher level of thermal conductivity of the oceans (they absorb just as much heat - it just spreads out mostly across the depth vs remaining on the surface) Biggest factor though would probably be Antarctica reflecting the energy from the sun back to space. I see another factor is currents; one would think that factor would be minimal, as most currents don't cross the equator; though I know it's complex and there is some crossing.

Yes I know. I was talking about the annual seasonal fluctuations. E.g. if you set up a series of sensors in Iowa and monitored them for 86 years you could show the same type of data, with the same chart showing the seasonal variability as well as a general yearly upward trend. My point is that you wouldn't call that "global air surface temperature", because you're not measuring the whole globe with evenly-spread sensors - you're just measuring Iowa; and that explains why it goes up and down with the seasons - because all of your sensors are in the northern hemisphere. If instead the data was actually the whole global temperature - you shouldn't see the seasonal up-and-down like that, because the temperature rise in the southern hemisphere in the winter should match the temperature rise in the northern hemisphere in the summer - because that's the way the seasons work on earth.

No offense but - seems like you ought to know such things if you're posting so much on the subject. It's hard not to be skeptical of the data you post otherwise. If it's just a general global singular heating trend - shouldn't we just cross 16C once or twice and be done with it, forever more above that level? (Aside from ENSO, which would cause us to cross that level a couple of times during the transition)

Hmm - this implies annual oscillation of the Earth's temperature, does it not? I didn't think that was a thing. I know there are oscillations, but they tend to be correlated with ENSO cycles and such, do they not? IOW - seems to me this is just a subset of global mean temperature - e.g. the northern hemisphere only, is it not?