Dear Nasrin,

Your question to Kenneth was very clear, however, you did not get a straight answer.

This is the problem in the world today, about half of the people either are not good observers or they want to hide simple observations for many reasons.

From listening to world conferences on energy, climate, etc over the years, I came to the conclusion that some people "invent" scenarios for the benefit of certain industries, especially the rich multinationals: Take the sugar industry as an example. They promote their industry by paying for experiments that show the benefits of using sugar. They even advertise that you should brush your teeth with sugar! That is how much the science is distorted.

As regards climate change, oil companies want to show there is no problem, so they select data to suit their arguments.

In the meantime all the ice will melt and we all be swamped by hurricane-strength winds, that is the latest fashion in the weather.

The effects of climate are only shown through weather, so it is possible that the scorpion attack is the result of warmer weather caused by climate change. However, it is not possible to be 100% sure that this event was not just caused by freak weather. OTOH, without climate change the weather would not have been so freakish!

Is it due to warm weather or possible of earthquake occurrence. One must check!

Thank you for your consideration

about this question "does this attack cause by height temperature?"

the scorpions attack to a village has unheard but in this year, this event has been occurred over some villages around Iran that they have faced with height temperature.

In Rigan  county the maximum temperature had been recorded is 50 c but at that day was 54 c

My university (FU)  is closed for one week due to warm weather.

It's unheard and crisis situation

however, my question isn't that "is climate change happening?" even though the climate change is  happening in Iran but for approving this we need more time and expense (or we can refer to other researches )

my concern is:  if climate change and global warming are happening what will be happen?

May be:

-  scorpions attack or another insects

- drying of wetlands and lakes

- increase of Aerosols

-Fire in jungle

- decrease of water resources

- change of crop pattern

- decrease of human habitat

honestly,  all of them are happening in Iran

consequently, do you think these reasons aren't adequately for making wars?

cheers

Sohrab 

Dear Ahmad

There wasn't any earthquake at that time.

Thank you Sohrab for sharing your observations in Iran. I agree with you and have similar concerns from happenings in North America. For example, recently Phoenix airport in Arizona was closed to flights of big planes due to a record temperature of 49 degrees (the allowable temperature was 48 degrees). That never happened before and shows you the higher frequency of extreme weather phenomena that one can observe worldwide.

It should be very interesting for someone to compile all extreme events and in particular to find unique events not observed before, such the scorpion attacks in Iran.

Hi everybody,

I agree with Michael Issigonis. I've run many models of CMIP5 for Iran and Pakistan under RCP scenarios. The result show that now we are living in global warming and arid periods. 

It is inevitable in short time. We should to find appropriate ways to adaptation with this situation. 

Regards,

Nasrin

Hi

Thank you Kenneth, Alastair, Stephen, Michael and Nasrin.

Kenneth, you're right, In your country climate change not perceptible for people but in Middle-East it is perceptible for all people. Rain deficit and high temperature have occurred for around 20 years. Recently I've traveled to Florida, I think in Florida Climate change isn't perceptible for people in compare to Iran.

Dear Kenneth

Do you agree with gridded dataset such as CRU, Agmerra, etc.. in many part of the world, we can find long period so it is better to use gridded dataset. By CRU data(1901-2015) my colleagues and I achieve that three or more times the most severe maximum temp has been recorded over 100 years ago up to now.

If you have a travel to Iran you can observe many evidence:

1-many gardens that have existed from the past(hundreds of years ago) now these are dried.

2- In some of states in Iran, 50% of villages have hunted due to drought

3-oncient rivers are drying such as Zayandeh-Roud that is unheard in history of this river

there are lots of evidence 

Regards Sohrab

Dear Kenneth

You wrote that " If, as a child, he had an unusual experience of wading through snow up to his hips on Thanksgiving Day, that fact clings to his mind for years;" So, May be the climate change has started from many years ago but nowadays it is so severe in compare to the past decades! All the things that you wrote, refer to this truth.

By the way, Could you (Kenneth) please tell us that in your opinion (according to your past comments and posts), Do you believe the climate change event?

Do you think that it is "fashionable" or "vague" concept?

Regards,

Nasrin

"In southeast Iran, also along the Persian Gulf, Jask, Iran observed a heat index of 156 degrees (69 Celsius) on Friday (air temperature 102.2 degrees with a dew point of 91.4 degrees)." Washington Post, 31st July 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/07/30/iran-city-hits-suffocating-heat-index-of-154-degrees-near-world-record/?utm_term=.f3929f04ee64

Dear Nasrin,

Your question to Kenneth was very clear, however, you did not get a straight answer.

This is the problem in the world today, about half of the people either are not good observers or they want to hide simple observations for many reasons.

From listening to world conferences on energy, climate, etc over the years, I came to the conclusion that some people "invent" scenarios for the benefit of certain industries, especially the rich multinationals: Take the sugar industry as an example. They promote their industry by paying for experiments that show the benefits of using sugar. They even advertise that you should brush your teeth with sugar! That is how much the science is distorted.

As regards climate change, oil companies want to show there is no problem, so they select data to suit their arguments.

In the meantime all the ice will melt and we all be swamped by hurricane-strength winds, that is the latest fashion in the weather.

Dear Micheal

Many thanks for your valuable comments. I've learned new things of them.

If all the people tell the truth -according to numbers and data records- then we can make a better decision.

Cheers,

Nasrin

Dear Kenneth

You have compared 1931-1940 with1968-2010 that actually you compare dry period with wet-dry period. we should compare  1931-1940 with 2005-2015

totally, It is better to compare climate change continuously since we can achieve dry and wet periods. 

however, in you sample the change is 0.6 deg.This value is enough for the station that the climate change on it, is less than other stations in Iran.

Thank you for your considerations

There is a full description of the consequences of climate change here:

The Uninhabitable Earth, Annotated Edition - The facts, research, and science behind the climate-change article that explored our planet’s worst-case scenarios. By David Wallace-Wells from the New York Magazine on July 19th.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html

Hi

Please watch this:

https://thinkprogress.org/no-el-nino-still-hot-39162a5cc5bc

Hi Sohrab,

some basic indicators are shown here with a few key figures to quantify the impacts so far:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/in-depth/indicators

Best regards

adam

The NOAA article clearly states that more recent warmer years now exist.  See here for another similar authoritative update:

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/climate-breaks-multiple-records-2016-global-impacts

Best

Adam

The NOAA and the MET office both don't include 1995 in the 15/16 warmest years. The temperature mentioned in NYTimes for 1995 was calculated with a different method than than is used now which has been mentioned to Kenneth many times before! 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/in-depth/indicators

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

If it exists or not, one of the consequences is to promote thinking and discussions! Want to improve the human situation in general? Lower hazards to health and spread well being for all, lower harmful gas emissions? Start by acting in every way possible against injustices, greed, and wars, think human and free human minds and potentials. We have a one and only planet that is better to preserve from nowadays or future climate changes and all other harmful challenges.

Dear Adam and Henrik

Both of you have added precious tips. Many thanks to your consideration.

And I agree with you Najib. The most important benefit of discussions will be guide us to get better results. 

Judging by this chart https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png the NH was 15.1C and the SH was 14.6C. In no way was it less that 1995.

Budyko shows 1945 as +0.6 and HADCRUT4 1945 as +0.15. I'll leave it to you to work ouI what it has to do with the NH in 1938. Note NH is not US.

It's important top use the best up to date data.  Actual numbers for the progression of warming can be seen in one of the leading datasets here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.5.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt

See the best estimates of global temperature in the first column - it is very clear that 1938 was much cooler than 1995, which was much cooler than 2016.

Best

Adam

The data you are looking at are out of date - better analyses now exist.  Note also that it is much easier to calculate changes than absolutes, hence the data in the link I provided above are all relative to the 1961-1990 global average.  This is the best way to determine if one period is warmer or cooler than another. 

Suggest you use the data in the link above if you want the best quantitative measures of changing global temperature rather than these very old estimates.

I don't see anything misleading.

There is an development in the method of calculating the global average temperatures and the yearly variations. Each method change is published with peer-review and result in the entire series of temperatures being recalculated according to the modified method resulting in a consistently calculated series of temperatures.

Within the limits of scientific perspective on the key facts , it providides mor than is share of surprise along the way where society goes.

Kenneth, there are no changes made to the measured temperatures. You show global averages. Averages are calculated according to different methods by different organisations and researchers.

The core of the matter is that the time trend in the measured temperatures are problematic to climate change denialists. Essentially the data prove the denialist are wrong and have no scientific platform left. For the uneducated there appear to be a loophole that denialists can make up alternative temperature curves by cherry picking average temperatures from different sources that have used different methods to calculate averages.

Denialist pick older values from datasets that use methods that yield higher averages and modern values from other datasets based on averaging methods that yield lower average temperatures. This creates an apparent lower temperature increase or even decreasing global temperature that isn't connected with the trends in measured temperatures and therefore also not seen in the trends of any of the sets of averages used to pick temperatures from to fabricate the denialist dataset. Essentially the difference is fabricated from the different methods of calculating averages and not from the measured values.

Kenneth, no temperatures have been changed. It only occured in your denialist fantasy. You are a denialist because you construct temperature graphs from combining datasets as I described and use them here on RG along with claims that the global temperature has decreased the last 20 years.

This would not be accepted in any scientific journal or by any public university. Here on RG such falsification have no consequences other than being called names.

I'll exercise this and repeat that you are both a denialist and a scientific fraudster.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/March_for_Science-should_we_all_go/27

https://www.researchgate.net/post/March_for_Science-should_we_all_go/58

https://www.researchgate.net/post/March_for_Science-should_we_all_go/9

Bring prove that temperatures have been changed, not only calculated averages which are clearly calculated differently by different sources.

Otherwise, remove your falsified graphs from RG.

It takes a scientist to handle data and apparently you do not have this skill.

Really very big problem and I do not know why are we do not care?

Every thing on Earth in a continuous dramatic change toward the dangerous level, for example the huge mass of plastic materials (bottles, cups, others)...see the attached file

Emad

These are some of the consequences of climate changes according to Melissa Denchak in her paper entitled Are the Effects of Global Warming Really that Bad?

Frequent and severe weather

Higher temperatures are worsening many types of disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. A warmer climate creates an atmosphere that can collect, retain, and drop more water, changing weather patterns in such a way that wet areas become wetter and dry areas drier. 

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in 2015 there were 10 weather and climate disaster events in the United States—including severe storms, floods, drought, and wildfires—that caused at least $1 billion in losses. For context, each year from 1980 to 2015 averaged $5.2 billion in disasters (adjusted for inflation). If you zero in on the years between 2011 and 2015, you see an annual average cost of $10.8 billion.

The increasing number of droughts, intense storms, and floods we're seeing as our warming atmosphere holds—and then dumps—more moisture poses risks to public health and safety, too. Prolonged dry spells mean more than just scorched lawns. Drought conditions jeopardize access to clean drinking water, fuel out-of-control wildfires, and result in dust storms, extreme heat events, and flash flooding in the States. Elsewhere around the world, lack of water is a leading cause of death and serious disease. At the opposite end of the spectrum, heavier rains cause streams, rivers, and lakes to overflow, which damages life and property, contaminates drinking water, creates hazardous-material spills, and promotes mold infestation and unhealthy air. A warmer, wetter world is also a boon for food-borne and waterborne illnesses and disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes, fleas, and ticks.

Higher death rates

Today's scientists point to climate change as "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century." It's a threat that impacts all of us—especially children, the elderly, low-income communities, and minorities—and in a variety of direct and indirect ways. As temperatures spike, so does the incidence of illness, emergency room visits, and death.

"There are more hot days in places where people aren't used to it," Haq says. "They don't have air-conditioning or can't afford it. One or two days isn't a big deal. But four days straight where temperatures don't go down, even at night, leads to severe health consequences." In the United States, hundreds of heat-related deaths occur each year due to direct impacts and the indirect effects of heat-exacerbated, life-threatening illnesses, such as heat exhaustion, heatstroke, and cardiovascular and kidney diseases. Indeed, extreme heat kills more Americans each year, on average, than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and lightning combined.

Dirtier air

Rising temperatures also worsen air pollution by increasing ground level ozone, which is created when pollution from cars, factories, and other sources react to sunlight and heat. Ground-level ozone is the main component of smog, and the hotter things get, the more of it we have. Dirtier air is linked to higher hospital admission rates and higher death rates for asthmatics. It worsens the health of people suffering from cardiac or pulmonary disease. And warmer temperatures also significantly increase airborne pollen, which is bad news for those who suffer from hay fever and other allergies.

Higher wildlife extinction rates

As humans, we face a host of challenges, but we're certainly not the only ones catching heat. As land and sea undergo rapid changes, the animals that inhabit them are doomed to disappear if they don't adapt quickly enough. Some will make it, and some won't. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2014 assessment, many land, freshwater, and ocean species are shifting their geographic ranges to cooler climes or higher altitudes, in an attempt to escape warming. They're changing seasonal behaviors and traditional migration patterns, too. And yet many still face "increased extinction risk due to climate change." Indeed, a 2015 study showed that vertebrate species—animals with backbones, like fish, birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles—are disappearing 114 times faster than they should be, a phenomenon that has been linked to climate change, pollution, and deforestation.

More acidic oceans

The earth's marine ecosystems are under pressure as a result of climate change. Oceans are becoming more acidic, due in large part to their absorption of some of our excess emissions. As this acidification accelerates, it poses a serious threat to underwater life, particularly creatures with calcium carbonate shells or skeletons, including mollusks, crabs, and corals. This can have a huge impact on shellfisheries. Indeed, as of 2015, acidification is believed to have cost the Pacific Northwest oyster industry nearly $110 million. Coastal communities in 15 states that depend on the $1 billion nationwide annual harvest of oysters, clams, and other shelled mollusks face similar long-term economic risks.

Higher sea levels

The polar regions are particularly vulnerable to a warming atmosphere. Average temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere on earth, and the world's ice sheets are melting fast. This not only has grave consequences for the region's people, wildlife, and plants; its most serious impact may be on rising sea levels. By 2100, it's estimated our oceans will be one to four feet higher, threatening coastal systems and low-lying areas, including entire island nations and the world's largest cities, including New York, Los Angeles, and Miami as well as Mumbai, Sydney, and Rio de Janeiro.

Your question was clear.  By the climate change every person facing bad situation.  Health conditions are also bad.

Dr. Tole --

I respectfully disagree that weather is unrelated to climate. Climate is the average observed weather, isn't it? So the question isn't whether an event has or hasn't happened before, but the frequency at which it is observed, and whether those changes can be attributed to climate change. So if scorpions are invading a village in Iran at a certain frequency today, we can check historical frequencies to see if, based on the length of the historical record, a statistically significant increase of scorpion invasions now. As I'm sure you know, this analysis can be performed for any quantitative event/measurement. 

The problems of course, are taking into account

• Whether the climate change over the period been statistically significant
• Environmental changes such as the size of a village
• Other exacerbating or mitigating factors affecting the behavior of scorpions that need to be taken into account. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation

It may not be climate change impacting the scorpions  

So Sohrab, that should give you some parameters to determine whether or not climate change/global warming is likely causing this environmental impact.

Cheers!

Hi Researchers

Thanks for all.

I faced to various graphs and data that have been presented by respondents. Because of this, I’ve decided to develop a software to present graphs for any desirable coordinate based on CRU data. I’ve uploaded it in: http://agrimetsoft.com

The name of this software is CRU Presenter (CRUP). It’s free, trial Version, and not complete. It can be apply just for near-surface temperature maximum. I hope be useful.

I plot two graphs for Jask in Iran and New Hampshire in USA (respectively) by CRUP. 

Dear Prof. Kenneth

According to the comments of Sohrab, obviously the source of data is from CRU gridded dataset and the unit of data is in Celsius. The weather variable is maximum temperate.

Regards

Nasrin

Hi Kenneth

The CRUP has database from CRU(Climatic Research Unit) with resolution 0.5-deg*0.5-deg.

The above plots are sample for maximum temperature. You can plot graphs for any Lat$Lon with the CRUP.

Please download CRUP in: http://www.agrimetsoft.com 

Hi

I think we discuss about a long-period phenomena. In my opinion, when we want to analyzing climate change it's better the selected period at least over 30 years. 

It's a sample of run for Concord

Kenneth, why did you pick 1998?

Since, during this discussion (61 answers) in this post just two samples have been discussed Jask and New Hampshire, so I decided to use them  for the first run of my software. Just this!!!

I think you didn't attention to answers and apparently you just follow your goals.

i can't understand!

After Prof. Scaife mentioned that: "It's important top use the best up to date data. The data you are looking at are out of date - better analyses now exist. ", I decided to develop a software with MetOffice data and I'm trying to add  regional scale, other variables, and other plots (same as zoning maps, contours, etc.)

New Hampshire is Just a sample for presenting the tool without any reason.

I think we got away from my question.

If we assume that climate change is happening then what are the consequences of climate change?

Some of the consequences are clear but i'm trying to find unclear consequences. If we know them obviously we can make better decisions for determine the title of scholars projects. for example:

Drying wetlands in Iran and Iraq has let to the creation of aerosols that the habitat of 20 million people  are at risk.

If we know it a few years ago,  definitely,   we could do better....

According to survey: Belief in climate change depends on your level of education but also on your ideology (democrat versus conservator)

I recently found this interesting picture on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_(statistics)#/media/File:GSS_sealevel_interaction.png

Other useful information on the same subject

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change#Education

If you encounter people that ignore observations (tremendous amount of observations in favor of climate warming and a need to act now) chances are that they are member or vote Tea Party (or strongly Republican) (see attached figure).

Cheers

At present, it is impossible to give a clear and unambiguous answer: too many "research" with contradictory results on the subject.

Regarding the scorpion attack on the Iranian village, I do not think it is the first time.

 Ken,

You outlined in red "In 1986 and 1987, temperatures averaged about 0.6 degrees above the benchmark." They are a lot higher than that now.

Scorching summer temperatures bring worst heat to south-west US in years. See:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/20/heatwave-south-west-us-arizona-nevada-california

Australia's angry summer:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-08/summer-heat-part-of-ongoing-extreme-weather-climate-council-says/8332740

India facing another summer of deadly heat:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/24/asia/india-heat-wave-deaths/index.html

Heatwave Lucifer is making Europe ‘hot as hell’

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/04/heatwave-lucifer-is-making-europe-hot-as-hell-6829236/

Iraqi workers sent home, as 'ungodly' heatwave hits Middle East with temperatures over 50C

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/11/iraqi-workers-sent-home-ungodly-heatwave-hits-middle-east-temperatures/

Historic Heat Wave Sweeps Asia, the Middle East and Europe

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/historic-heat-wave-sweeps-asia-middle-east-and-europe

Up here northwest Canada 🇨🇦 increased forest fires 🔥 on their way deaths,health and environmental,economic problems.

Kenneth,

People cannot start forest fires unless there has been drought conditions. There is always another facet which causes a wild fire: a dropped cigarette end or a dry lightning strike. But the underlying cause of the present day increase in wild fires is global warming. And it will only get worse.

Because atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing!

Optimism is bad science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias

We will be well above the +2 degrees Celsius that is considered safe by the time we have burnt all the fossil fuels.

Cooling will not begin when we halt burning fossil fuels because of the climate change commitment https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

For instance, even with CO2 stable the ice sheets will continue to melt, increasing global albedo and raising temperatures.

It can only get worse :-(

I agree population will shrink. As vast swathes agricultural land is destroyed by droughts, floods and sea level rise the population will decimated by famines and wars, which are already happening among the nations on the borders of the Sahara, the first to suffer the droughts.

Yes Kenneth... summers are warmer and can be drier. That's global warming.

PS Yet again, you don't give reference for your cutting stating 1929 was the worst fire season, so I have no idea how old it is, but like most of your stuff is probably well out of date.

"2015 becomes the worst US wild fire year on record" See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11932329/2015-becomes-worst-US-wildfire-year-on-record.html

Thanks " ALL " for your supportive inputs , up north outstandin facts about so called "climate change " influenced the runoff  of melting ice of glaciers "instantly" not going any more to the lake/river ecosystems , bigger parts of " landscape " is floating on water ,and mass extinction of life's " evolutionary " biology structure/developments.

Artur

I thought you were a scientist: Wikipedia is for the plebs

Artur,

We have certainly prevented the onset of the next glaciation, although that was not predicted to happen for another  40,000 years.

On the other hand we do know what happened the last time carbon dioxide was added  to the atmosphere in vast quantities - the PETM!

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pal%C3%A4oz%C3%A4n/Eoz%C3%A4n-Temperaturmaximum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Harry, there is a list of scientific references at the end of most Wikipedia articles, so citing Wikipedia saves adding all those references here,

Alastair

I have a very bad experience with Wikipedia with respect to my own expertise in cloud formation (and also in archaeology)

One way to find out is to read entries on the same subject in different languages.

As for Climate Change there is already the encyclopedia in the form of the IPCC reports with thousands of references; and here I mean the report of WG1 "the physical science basis"

@Artur

You know me by now to use one-liners

Still I think one should be careful to refer to Wikipedia; as mentioned in my other reply some entries are dead wrong, and one only knows when part of the in-crowd not the "plebs"

I ask you: do you consult Wikip. in your own areas of expertise?

Harry, I agree with you that one should not trust the contents of Wikipedia, but it does give a good introduction to a range of subject, and academic citations are encouraged.

In this case where all we (Artur and I) were attempting to do was establish that an ice age and a hyper-thermal had occurred in the past, then I feel that Wikipedia is a suitable source.

I recently read an appeal, I think in  Science mag., for more professional scientists to contribute to Wikipedia.

Ken, you still have not provided a source for you clipping about Chamberlin's ideas, but it obviously older that the 1938 clipping from Callendar.

When are you going to get up to date and accept that the hiatus has ended and global temperatures are beginning to soar again. Arrhenius from Sweden and Callendar from England both believed that warmer temperature would be better for North Western Europe. They were not considering the fate of countries with Mediterranean type climates which are already suffering from the effects of a global 1C temperature rise.

It is 1C on average globally but in these places and at times such as summer it is much greater. And if we keep pumping out CO2 it will only get worse!

I have seen a very drastic change in temperature and rainfall rates in southern part of India around hilly towns of Coorg and Mysore. The change in rainfall pattern and intensities have been very sharp. But no detail study have been carried out so far. The change in weather is apparent from dry and empty lakes which use to be be full and overflowing throughout the year. This has been the case from past one decade. The general observation I have observed rapid change in land use pattern by conversion of cultivable land to commercial non irritated land and also excess deforestation and conversion of such lands to housing layouts. 

The groundwater reserves have also sunk deep underground and much of the land mass is getting dried up due to change in climatic conditions.

Ken

Try to amend a Wikipedia entry: I have; within a second the original version appeared

And this was in a lemma in which the Dutch version had obvious errors that were absent in the correct English/German/French  version.

Summary: Some conrtributors make the lemma their property and do not communicate for instance on my suggestion to read the English version

Artur

Very comforting that in some areas Wikipedia is doing OK. Also in medicine as I was told by experts. In climate/weather/spectroscopy there are just basic errors that anyone working in the field immediately notices.

Summary: the climate lemma's are of a questionable level