Very strong' climate change signal in record June heat - BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40449234

Dr Friederike Otto from the University of Oxford, one of the study's authors, told BBC News.
"We found a very strong signal."
That signal, according to the authors, made heat waves at least 10 times more likely in Spain and Portugal.
Fires resulted in the deaths of 64 people in Portugal, while in Spain they forced the removal of around 1,500 people from holiday accommodation and homes.
In Central England, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands the intensity and frequency of such extreme heat was four times as likely because of climate change, the study says.
"We found clear and strong links between this month's record warmth and human-caused climate change," said Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, senior researcher at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI).

I told you sooo!!!!!!!!!!
Everything is melting!
Climate change means extreme weather, to hot summers (forest fires) and too cold winters (flooding in areas, freezing, hurricane, tornado)!
What if we had 200 F deg summer in the soon future?

On Friday, 30 June 2017 02:06:38 UTC+2, StarDust wrote:

What if we had 200 F deg summer in the soon future?

Liberal rant/

There would be nobody left alive to read the thermometer. The only reason AGW is happening [at all] is global sociopathic GREED and sheer bloody laziness. Most car journeys are very short and involve only the often-obese driver. Most vehicles are at their worst for pollution when they are travelling slowly or stuck in the traffic jams or drive-ins queues they themselves manufacture.

Oil production and its global _protection_ is by far the largest global industry and drives most wars, arms sales, injustice, abuses of human rights, slavery and terrorism. It is far too profitable and far too personally lucrative for the perps to just give up their day jobs.

If renewables became the norm, with solar panels on domestic roofs, electric cars and battery for storage in every home, there would be no need for armed forces to protect oil abuse.

The total democracy of energy production could even lead to massive global unemployment amongst newly pointless jobs. All the energy "producers" and all their support staff would become redundant. Car spares outlets and workshops would be in much less demand with simpler electric cars stopping pollution while idling in a built-up area. Health care needs would drop like a stone if the billions of victims are no longer suffering from chronic, vehicle air pollution.

The vast and pointless advertising of minor annual vehicle styling changes to force sales amongst the deluded and naive would become unnecessary. All those jobs would have to be replaced with something to keep the masses off the streets.

What about the armed forces? The protection of oil production, the dirty politics involved and oil's global abuse is a major part of their job description. Take out the oil sheiks and the funding for loony religious terrorism and deranged oligarchs literally dries up overnight.

Fund a new aircraft carrier, build new nuclear power stations or simply insulate all people's homes properly with all the real employment that would generate? Now there's an awful conundrum! Save countless pensioners from hypothermia and heat stroke and make their lives far healthier and easier? Nah.. That would never do! ;-)

/Liberal rant.

1 year ago: "Great Lakes drying up!" Said climate kooks.
Today. Great Lake water levels at historic highs.

Wrong again, enviroqueers.

RichA wrote:
1 year ago: "Great Lakes drying up!" Said climate kooks.
Today. Great Lake water levels at historic highs.

Wrong again, enviroqueers.



Isn't that what you'd expect with greater snowmelt?

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:45:57 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

1 year ago: "Great Lakes drying up!" Said climate kooks.

Well, that isn't what climate scientists were saying. What they said
is that there has been a long term trend downwards in the water level
of Lake Michigan, which is very possibly attributable to global
warming.

That says nothing about individual high and low years.

On Friday, 30 June 2017 19:00:23 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:45:57 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

1 year ago: "Great Lakes drying up!" Said climate kooks.

Well, that isn't what climate scientists were saying. What they said
is that there has been a long term trend downwards in the water level
of Lake Michigan, which is very possibly attributable to global
warming.

That says nothing about individual high and low years.

100 YEAR high.

On Friday, 30 June 2017 18:50:33 UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:
1 year ago: "Great Lakes drying up!" Said climate kooks.
Today. Great Lake water levels at historic highs.

Wrong again, enviroqueers.



Isn't that what you'd expect with greater snowmelt?

Snow volumes haven't been any higher lately.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:11:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 30 June 2017 19:00:23 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:45:57 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

1 year ago: "Great Lakes drying up!" Said climate kooks.

Well, that isn't what climate scientists were saying. What they said
is that there has been a long term trend downwards in the water level
of Lake Michigan, which is very possibly attributable to global
warming.

That says nothing about individual high and low years.

100 YEAR high.

Which again, says nothing about the long term trend, which is what
matters. You're like that idiot in Congress holding up a snowball to
refute the existence of global warming.

On Saturday, 1 July 2017 07:34:38 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:11:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 30 June 2017 19:00:23 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:45:57 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

1 year ago: "Great Lakes drying up!" Said climate kooks.

Well, that isn't what climate scientists were saying. What they said
is that there has been a long term trend downwards in the water level
of Lake Michigan, which is very possibly attributable to global
warming.

That says nothing about individual high and low years.

100 YEAR high.

Which again, says nothing about the long term trend, which is what
matters. You're like that idiot in Congress holding up a snowball to
refute the existence of global warming.

Are you sure it was a snowball and not his brain frozen with fear at the obvious truth?

Or, perhaps it was the combined brain of all of his electors?
They store the mush in the freezer between elections and it always turns to ice.
Thereby safely disproving any relationship between daily temperatures and AGW.

For the mathematically inclined, like 1461, I offer the following proof:

AGW = Anthropological God's Will = 0.

Or, for Southern Republican voters:

AGW is just Average God's Will.

QED? ;-)