118 All-Time Heat Records Set Around the Globe (miamiherald.com) 503
"It's so hot, even parts of the Arctic are on fire," reports Vox, citing wildfires in Sweden, while Greece "has declared a state of emergency as raging forest fires have killed at least 81 people and injured more than 190."
But heat-related disasters are happening around the world. In Japan 86 people have been killed by heatstroke, while another 23,000 people have been hospitalized -- about half of them over the age of 65 -- in a heat wave forecast to continue for another two weeks. "Japan hit 106 degrees on Monday, its hottest temperature ever," reports the Associated Press, adding that "So far this month, at least 118 of these all-time heat records have been set or tied across the globe." An anonymous reader quotes their report. "We now have very strong evidence that global warming has already put a thumb on the scales, upping the odds of extremes like severe heat and heavy rainfall," Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh said. "We find that global warming has increased the odds of record-setting hot events over more than 80 percent of the planet, and has increased the odds of record-setting wet events at around half of the planet..."
"The world is becoming warmer and so heat waves like this are becoming more common," said Friederike Otto, deputy director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford.
"Death Valley, California, has set three consecutive daily record-high temperatures of 127 degrees," reports the Washington Post, adding that "Sometimes, like right now in the Western U.S., it's too hot for airplanes to fly" because of heat-related changes in air density at high-altitude airports. In Europe, nuclear power plants in Finland, Sweden, and German were forced to cut electricity production because high temperatures heated the seawater needed to cool reactors.
In northern California 38,000 people fled their homes as an 80,900-acre wildfire spread through the Shasta-Trinity area. Reuters reports the wildfire was caused "by hot, dry weather and high winds" -- and that it's one of 89 large wildfires currently burning in 14 U.S. states.
But heat-related disasters are happening around the world. In Japan 86 people have been killed by heatstroke, while another 23,000 people have been hospitalized -- about half of them over the age of 65 -- in a heat wave forecast to continue for another two weeks. "Japan hit 106 degrees on Monday, its hottest temperature ever," reports the Associated Press, adding that "So far this month, at least 118 of these all-time heat records have been set or tied across the globe." An anonymous reader quotes their report. "We now have very strong evidence that global warming has already put a thumb on the scales, upping the odds of extremes like severe heat and heavy rainfall," Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh said. "We find that global warming has increased the odds of record-setting hot events over more than 80 percent of the planet, and has increased the odds of record-setting wet events at around half of the planet..."
"The world is becoming warmer and so heat waves like this are becoming more common," said Friederike Otto, deputy director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford.
"Death Valley, California, has set three consecutive daily record-high temperatures of 127 degrees," reports the Washington Post, adding that "Sometimes, like right now in the Western U.S., it's too hot for airplanes to fly" because of heat-related changes in air density at high-altitude airports. In Europe, nuclear power plants in Finland, Sweden, and German were forced to cut electricity production because high temperatures heated the seawater needed to cool reactors.
In northern California 38,000 people fled their homes as an 80,900-acre wildfire spread through the Shasta-Trinity area. Reuters reports the wildfire was caused "by hot, dry weather and high winds" -- and that it's one of 89 large wildfires currently burning in 14 U.S. states.
And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
People are so fucking stupid it is infuriating.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But the longer you measure, and we haven't been measuring that long, you statistically expect new highs. That's just how the math works. You need wide-spread and decades-long measurements to make a conclusion.
Re: (Score:3)
So if, like here in Seattle, there's been two record breaking highs the past decade after over a hundred years of measurements that that doesn't mean it proves global warming? But shouldn't two record highs in a hundred years prove we're in run-away/hockey stick global warming?
Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:5, Informative)
Luckily, we have that data [nytimes.com], and it shows that not only is this year setting records for high temperatures, so did the previous three years in a row. And the longer term data shows a clear trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, I would like to see us drop the EV subsidies, and then have the feds increase gas/diesel tax by
There is one issue that will popup. In particular, as we head towards EVs, we have the grid/utility capacity. The problem is that ALL of AE, nuke, and even nat gas ar
Re: (Score:2)
My graduate level physics of the weather professor has proven temperatures are dropping
This sentence doesn't even make sense. You put the who in the what, now?
Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:5, Informative)
If the system was static, with constant average temperatures, then random events would produce an ever-decreasing number of new records each year, both high and low. The regular smashing of numerous high records (with the occasional low as well) is characteristic of a system with increased variability on top of a rising trend.
But we already know that, not through statistics but because the science has been hammering it home since the 80s, with analysis of not only new measurements but 200 years of temperature records from all over the globe, and proxy records for the last few millennia.
Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:5, Informative)
If the average is constant, you will record fewer new extremes as time goes on. We are recording more extremes suggesting that we have a real problem here.
In other words, you should expect regression to the mean, not divergence.
Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:4, Funny)
In other words, you should expect regression to the mean, not divergence.
You're talking to someone who just suggested using statistics to show the world isn't warming, I suggest you don't use such big complicated words.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But the longer you measure, and we haven't been measuring that long, you statistically expect new highs. That's just how the math works. You need wide-spread and decades-long measurements to make a conclusion.
You know jack shit about "how the math works". The easiest way to tell is that you obviously don't also expect new lows - funny, because the only new lows come from the likes of you, not from temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
But we know CO2 and other things are green-houses gases and we know that more of those should heat the world up and we know we let a lot more of them into the atmosphere and we know temperatures has been rising.
So as far as science go we've got the theory, we've got the variables and we've got the result and so far it's performing in line with the theory.
Re: (Score:2)
I missed when we decided that CO2 was a poison.
That's a nice straw-man you've got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been measuring temperatures since at least the 1800's. And you expect the records to actually fall off fairly quickly. For instance, you would expect a d20 to max out after 14 rolls.
I could go on, but these numbers indicate rising temperatures.
Re: (Score:3)
But the longer you measure, and we haven't been measuring that long, you statistically expect new highs. That's just how the math works. You need wide-spread and decades-long measurements to make a conclusion.
If there were no long term temperature trend you would expect to get as many new record lows as new record highs. Instead what we see is record highs outnumbering record lows by close to 2 to 1 since the year 2000.
And even more dramatic is the number of record high daily lows. That is the overnight low temperatures are going up even more comparatively than the daily high temperatures. It's difficult to find data for that but in the first half of 2015 record high daily lows outnumbered record low daily lo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Weather is not climate. There's plenty of proof of global warming, but this isn't part of it. "Global Warming" is a poor name, it's "Global Climate Change" and some places will actually get cooler, while others get hotter. Some places might stay the same temperature, just get more/less precipitation. The only thing known for sure is that it will suck for everyone, more if nothing is done, maybe less if we do something.
Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:4, Insightful)
Climate change and global warming are not the same thing. Human industrial activity is causing a rapid buildup of greenhouse gasses. This is causing the planet to warm. That's global warming. The global rapid increase in mean temperature is causing climates to change as more and more energy is shoved into the system, historical temperature regulators like the gulf-stream slow, move, or just change, reflective snow melts, permafrost melts releasing more GHGs, suboceanic clathrates collapse due to increased water temperature (also releasing more GHGs), and so on. These changes lead to things like "arctic vortexes" and regional drops in temperatures as well as other weather extremes. But the overall global trend is increased temperatures.
So to sum up:
1. Humans are causing global warming.
2. Global warming is causing climate change.
Global warming and climate change are related but they are not the same.
Increased levels GHGs are also causing the oceans to change PH, becoming more acidic. That's almost as serious an issue as climate change IMHO.
Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:2)
Better pesticides? Most insects live directly or indirectly off of crops from farm land.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Far right screams that AGW is not happening,
while the far left, wants to give passes for all nations except for the west, esp. America. For some odd reason, they believe that by stopping ~1/4 of the emissions, while allowing other nations, esp China, to add to their emissions by more than what the west was doing, is OK. Add to that, most of the far left, continue to fight Nuke power. Yet, the ONLY nations t
Re: (Score:3)
Giving developing nations more leeway is a centrist policy. Rather than demand everyone stops emitting CO2 a more realistic plan is to get developing nations on board with targets and low carbon tech.
China is demonstrating that it's possible. Exceeding its ambitious targets, passed peak coal years ago...
Re: (Score:3)
How about here [slashdot.org] from a few hours ago. Where you singled out China and Europe for not being at Indian levels. When you know America is 10 times higher but didn't mention it. Just conveniently slipped your mind did it?
How many times have you said America is doing good because it's decreasing. Far too many to count. Yet you know for a fact they are among the highest of the high.
Did you find a single lie yet WindBourne?
Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, most of those predictions "use by" date are still in the future. You can't really complain that they haven't yet come to pass when they weren't expected to yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Read again. A prediction talking about by 2050 (for example) cannot be said to have proven wrong today since we have years to go.
Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:2)
What's the agenda?
Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:5, Informative)
Not in the peer reviewed journals. But in pop-sci media.
Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax (Score:2)
How old are you? Because at least sine the 70's the consensus has been warming.
Re: (Score:2)
We need about 200k years of detailed temperature data to really see how we're trending.
So you want to wait around for another 200,000 years before we do anything? That's... well, that's just stupid. Honestly.
I say this because when I was a kid, the big thing was the coming ice age in our life times preached by the science of the times.
So, what you're saying is that because someone was wrong once a long time ago, you're going to continue to believe what they said back then?
Or are you saying that because someone was wrong once, you're never going to believe anything that anyone since then has said?
I can't quite get what you're trying to imply here. Can you spell it out for us who don't speak luddite curmudgeon?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the peer reviewed science in the 1960's and 1970's said the earth was warming. News media may have said differently, but even that is being exaggerated - for instance that Times magazine cover from 1977 is a fake.
As we watch the world burn (Score:5, Insightful)
We bicker about every stupid issue under the sun instead of taking the action we know is necessary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We bicker about every stupid issue under the sun instead of taking the action we know is necessary.
The Lone Ranger says to Tonto : "Tonto, we're surrounded by bloodthirsty Indians !"
Tonto replies : "What do you mean "we", white man ?"
The point is, some of us ARE taking action on a personal level. But we're not whining on Slashdot like you are, boy.
Re: (Score:2)
We bicker about every stupid issue under the sun instead of taking the action we know is necessary.
Enacting Net Neutrality?
Re: (Score:2)
A long term pessimistic approach:
Practice terraforming Mars and Venus. It's a good way to gain experience that might help in fixing the mess we have here on Earth.
Direct manipulation of Earth's atmosphere to counter rising CO2 and global warming may seem absurdly expensive, but the migration of approximately 40% of humans who live in coastal areas [un.org] might be far more expensive.
The current European Migrant Crisis [wikipedia.org] may be just the tip of the iceberg. [nih.gov]
Re:As we watch the world burn (Score:5, Insightful)
Massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Put less CO2 and methane in the air. And as a side effect you don't hear the oceans and fuck with their pH balance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What impact will not doing it have on our society? What happens when rain belts shift northward and major industrial powers suddenly have food security problems?
Re: (Score:2)
What impact will not doing it have on our society? What happens when rain belts shift northward and major industrial powers suddenly have food security problems?
The major industrial powers will not "suddenly" have food insecurity problems. The USA imports a lot of food. The USA also exports a lot of food. What is exported are things like beef, wheat, and corn. What's imported are things like coffee, bananas, and avocados. This might mean Americans have a shortage of caffeine and guacamole but they will be able to get enough calories and nutrients.
Other industrial nations have similar capacity to feed themselves. Maybe not to the extent of the USA but if they
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the direct result of CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
I did. The cost in a hundred years will be much higher than today, in several categories; property loss, social costs, food security, geopolitical stability. And really, you're already paying the costs, as the insurance industry is already costing it in for several types of insurance. But it isn't going to get any better, and even if the targets were met, it would stall out the warming, but we'd still have to deal with the damage done. I get where you're coming from, if you can somehow wiggle out a "well it
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are greenhouse gas emissions the cause of climate change?
They are a cause, and whether they are the primary cause or not, physics says they are a significant cause.
How do we make massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?
Duh. If you cared you'd already know. Ask google if you want to pretend to care, there's no shortage of material.
What impact will it have on our society?
It gets to continue to exist.
What impact will it have on developing countries?
They get to continue to exist.
Who's going to benefit the most, and who is going to lose the most when these reductions take place?
The masses will benefit the most, and the wealthy who are profiting from raping the biosphere will lose the most.
What if it doesn't work?
We rewrite physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. See, that response and the rest of your reply is really not conducive to convincing someone who is skeptical of climate change.
The person who posted that comment didn't want to be convinced. They either wanted to troll, or wanted to make the other side of the argument look dumb. Instead, they wound up looking dumb. Mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
>Massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
Are greenhouse gas emissions the cause of climate change?
Yes, there is plenty of unbiased science that doesn't come from the oil and coal industries. Historically Carbon, methane and CFCs have been the most potent chemical mechanisms that trap heat in the atmosphere.
Additionally geological sciences showed us that the Earth itself stopped giving up heat to radiate into space around 2003 in exchange for absorbing it which tells us the atmosphere reached heat saturation over a decade ago.
Our only saving grace for the moment is the oceans which will also reach
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up a good point Mr AC. Ore quality is a major factor in the viability of nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What action is necessary?
More nuclear power.
I can hear it now... "WTF? Nuclear power? But nuclear power plants had to reduce output because of the heat! Jackass!"
If the problem is carbon emissions from electricity then the solution is more electricity from energy sources with the lowest carbon emissions. That would be nuclear power. The nuclear power plants had to reduce output but that's not the same as no output, they still produce power.
Also, any power plant that uses a heat differential between the sea water and the heat so
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What action is necessary?
More nuclear power.
Relentless rhetoric from blindseer the rhetorician of Nuclear Ideology.
I can hear it now... "WTF? Nuclear power? But nuclear power plants had to reduce output because of the heat! Jackass!"
No, I would call you a Nuclear Idealist that transposes that idealism onto reality. A nuclear idealist that can't see people have woken up to the rhetoric from the nuclear industry as nothing more than a false reality. People aren't as naive as you need them to be to be receptive your Nuclear Ideology and events like these are just another nail in the coffin of your nuclear ideology.
The nuclear power plants had to reduce output but that's not the same as no output, they still produce power.
As the bogus Capacity Factor measurement goes down w
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload (Score:2)
Reduced output of solar and wind from the heat is not something any dinosaur news source is willing to write. Or rather not a headline Slashdot moderators would be wiling to bring up.
Because that is your Nuclear Ideology, it is your ism, your belief system that wants to make us believe the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing when it is hot. Only people who subscribe to your Nuclear Ideology would allow themselves to become stupider the way you want them to.
Solar Thermal is an immediate, viable, long term, economical and technologically underdeveloped base-load replacement for nuclear power. Domestic Solar is the perfect peaking solution to replace nuclear power. Wind is a
Re: (Score:2)
That ridiculous mental image is what I suggest your nuclear ideology is.
Citation needed.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com... [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, that until businesses/gov change, such as:
Utility companies all over the world drop fossil fuels for electricity;
all car makers are producing general purpose EVs and dropping ICE except for special case;
Carbon tax on all goods consumes, esp. those imported;
Once nations put carbon taxes on goods based on where parts come from, it is measured by sats, and not by nations simply giving numbers, and intelligent normalization is used, then we will see changes.
Oth
Meanwhile, in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully the American public will start to realize that the GOP and their current president are not representing ordinary citizens, but influential corporations, especially the ethically flexible ones, such as those highly invested in military and oil.
This is why the GOP and their friends at FOX have been climate change deniers, and the current president is calling it a hoax. It's all about protecting profits right up until the point the entire world goes to shit.
The US is the only country in the world where a large percentage of the population still does not believe in climate change even though 99% of scientists support it. This sick situation thanks to GOP politicians, lobbyists and the media that supports them, especially FOX News.
Can you please tell them to fuck off before it is too late?
Re:Meanwhile, in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meanwhile, in America (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that these Christian supremacist types and the libertarians were for a long time Conservatives' useful idiots. And then the useful idiots took over the party, and every dog whistle slogan Republicans had been using for a couple of generations to get that base to the polls suddenly is political reality. Now they're stuck between the reality they know is happening and a base that took what was a load of bullshit seriously.
Not that governments that take the reality of AGW seriously are doing that much either, but even acknowledgment is something. But we'll do what we've done before, basically hand it off to our children and grandchildren, make them pay the economic and social price.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wonder whose modding me down. Dominionists or libertarians.
Libertarians are dominionists. They just think that they personally are the most worthy, and thus will end up with the most wealth and the most slaves, instead of winding up slaves themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, it is only the fault of Republicans.
The above is ( of course ) something only a simple-minded fool would either claim or believe.
Plenty of Democrats have more than two children per family. Plenty of Democrats drive gas-hog vehicles. Plenty of Democrats live in houses which are much bigger than they need. Plenty of Democrats use air conditioning when a fan would suffice.
The overly consumptive habits of western society would be a more realistic place to lay the blame. Of course if you were not a s
Meanwhile, America met CO2 goals. (Score:2)
America is on track [voanews.com] to meet CO2 reduction goals.
If you truly want to save the planet, protest to China, India, or even Russia...
Now you might not live through the experience, unlike protesting in the U.S. But if you don't try you never cared about the planet anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you really wanted to solve anything, you'd leave the politics out of it. Making it political is the surest way to tell half the US public not to listen.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me, we're trying. It's a bit hard since some of these idiots are so regressive they'd still be claiming it's cold and fake shivering even if you left them in death valley and set their asses on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too late.
I'm still in favour of doing what's sensible, but that ship sailed 30 years ago.
Humans will survive. That's not the issue.
The issue is that those in warmer or flooded areas will have to migrate.
Plants will not migrate with them because it's all moving too quickly and they can't take the bus.
Worms and soil bacteria and chemicals that aid in nutrition for plants don't have bus passes, either.
Animals other than human will be migrating also, but their food supply will not be there to meet them.
And
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, while probably 75% of the GOP fight against dealing with this issue, the GOP is less than 30% of the VOTING population, which means that around 20% of voting population is against dealing with AGW. So, 80% want us to deal with it.
Thirdly, of the 75% of the GOP that are fighting against dealing with this issues, most simply are opposed to the solutions that are being pushed
Re: (Score:3)
You might be able to call a week or two weather, but this is widespread across the northern hemisphere, and is part of a general trend of seasonal highs. And do you think the universe cares about Liberals and conservatives? CO2 has the properties it has, and doesn't change based on political affiliation.
The direct result of overpopulation (Score:4, Interesting)
Please prove me wrong.
Re:The direct result of overpopulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We've had these "population outstripping the resources" projection arguments for decades; since the world population was 3 billion... guess what, we keep outperforming the grading curve with technological advances.
Sure, conservation efforts are necessary, but if humans are able to overcome our own innate shortsightedness, it will be our innovation that wins the day, rather than our ability to sacrifice now for a better future.
Re: (Score:3)
Innovation has to be funded. Trying to make coal profitable again is not innovation.
Re: (Score:2)
With exponential growth in third world country populations as well as rapid industrialisation of China etc. this is only the beginning. What needs to be done is to make a choice: More humans helped into this world through aid and relief efforts for irreversible damage to the environment, or a sustainable future for those that will be left of us. Please prove me wrong.
"Is that you, Thanos?" Perhaps, using your infinite power to multiply resources is preferable to the extinction of a significant portion of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
What needs to be done is to make a choice: More humans helped into this world through aid and relief efforts for irreversible damage to the environment, or a sustainable future for those that will be left of us.
How about we provide aid which is sustainable? Help people and nations build sustainable solutions? That seems like a third option to me.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not our problem.
Not only is it our problem, it's everyone's problem. If we don't share our wealth with them, they will share their poverty with us... as well as their pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
> More humans helped into this world through aid and relief efforts for irreversible damage to the environment, or a sustainable future for those that will be left of us.
We can have both. Just do nothing and wait awhile and most of the humans will die off, leaving a sustainable future for those that will be left of us.
127 degrees? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 127 degrees? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically to irritate people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, you have to adopt to it. There are organisms living on water that is at 98C.
Re: (Score:2)
In 1913, the temperature in Death Valley, California reached 134. Life is pretty persistent. See the aquatic life that live next to volcanic vents in ocean.
Yeah but water is boiling at 100 degrees!?!?!
Re: (Score:2)
It's begun (Score:3, Interesting)
The methane is releasing in Siberia now.
It's on, I believe the runaway effect is going on. It's still going to be slow for us as humans, since the world moves at a slower pace.
Shit is hitting the fan, now. Little tiny flecks have already hit the blade, but huge lumps coming soon.
Don't breed, we're going to see some serious shit in the next 20 years. Not 200, the next 20 will be shocking.
and yet.... (Score:3)
Worse, so many will act like this is OK for all these nations.
We have trump in America, but in spite of him/GOP, our coal consumption and CO2 continues downward (though not as much).
Re:and yet.... (Score:4, Informative)
That Germany is adding coal plants is a myth.
This is power generation from coal and lignite in Germany from 1990-2017 in TWh.
coal 140,8 147,1 143,1 138,4 134,6 146,5 140,8 134,1 137,9 142,0 124,6 107,9 117,0 112,4 116,4 127,3 118,6 117,7 112,2 92,6
lignite 170,9 142,6 148,3 154,8 158,0 158,2 158,0 154,1 151,1 155,1 150,6 145,6 145,9 150,1 160,7 160,9 155,8 154,5 149,5 147,5
Source: https://www.ag-energiebilanzen... [www.ag-ene...ilanzen...]
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, here we have a far left that does not get it. India is likely at the level we all need to be at. China is already way over. Heck, most of Europe is still above where the globe needs to be.
Why do you try so hard to avoid the elephant in the room?
Graph of CO2 polluters [economicshelp.org]
India is at the level you think we need to be at... ok....seems a bit extreme to most people but lets go with it.
China is 'way over'..... ok if you say so....seems to be about the average...
Most of Europe is above, ok it's similar to China so no real reason to single China out other than your hatred of them.
And America?
Did you forget to mention that America is 2-4 times as bad as the countries you are complaining about?
Twi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the temperature records set in the Arctic over the last few seasons. One of the reason for harsher winters in North America has been massive outflows of cold air out of the Arctic as it warms. We are literally watching the world warm, and you still have people vomiting out that idiotic "weather" meme. And yes, unless is a complete idiot, you have to know you're spouting nonsense when you go "it's summer so it's warm, so no global warming!"
Re: (Score:2)
It's not, nobody said it was...
This guy said it:
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
May I ask, what the fuck are you talking about?
Re:Yeah, it's summertime (Score:4, Interesting)
"Here are a few maps that illustrate this. Over 1,100 daily record low temperatures have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along with over 1,100 snow records. The last week of records broken, tied, or approached is shown in this animation from CoolWx.com"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Over 1,100 daily record low temperatures have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along with over 1,100 snow records. The last week of records broken, tied, or approached is shown in this animation"
"Weather is not climate," indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to ask. Are you functionally retarded?
Re: (Score:2)
> Just another troll, paid to sow doubt and dissent.
Nobody pays trolls on slashdot. Trolls have plenty of motives on their own. Don't be idiotic, it makes you look like part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Hobo cooking fires in Seattle. Fortunately, most have been small.
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary isn't running again, shit heel. But yes, vote Democratic, and the people in office will work to improve things. Nobody ever claimed "suddenly global climate change will go away", you fuckwad.
Re: (Score:2)
What, like Ken Salazar (as eager to rape the land as James Watt did under Reagan), Hillary Clinton (exported fracking to the world) or Barack Obama (opened up seaboards to drilling, bragged about the US producing oil faster than it could be processed)?
Re: (Score:2)