Earth Just Had Its Hottest June On Record (therecord.com) 212
Layzej shared this article from the Washington Post:
Boosted by a historic heat wave in Europe and unusually warm conditions across the Arctic and Eurasia, the average temperature of the planet soared to its highest level ever recorded in June. According to data released Monday by NASA, the global average temperature was 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.93 Celsius) above the June norm (based on a 1951-to-1980 baseline), easily breaking the previous June record of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.82 Celsius), set in 2016, above the average.
The month was punctuated by a severe heat wave that struck Western Europe in particular during the last week, with numerous all-time-hottest-temperature records falling in countries with centuries-old data sets. Notably, 13 locations in France surpassed their highest temperature ever recorded. The heat wave's highest temperature of 114.6 degrees Fahrenheit (45.9 Celsius), posted in Gallargues-le-Montueux, was 3.2 degrees above the old record, set during an infamous heat wave in July and August 2003.
The month was punctuated by a severe heat wave that struck Western Europe in particular during the last week, with numerous all-time-hottest-temperature records falling in countries with centuries-old data sets. Notably, 13 locations in France surpassed their highest temperature ever recorded. The heat wave's highest temperature of 114.6 degrees Fahrenheit (45.9 Celsius), posted in Gallargues-le-Montueux, was 3.2 degrees above the old record, set during an infamous heat wave in July and August 2003.
Re: (Score:1)
Which part of "on record" are you struggling with?
Maybe we can help.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably "on record" means something like "in the past 150 years, according to extremely various and recently much improved instruments of the time".
Whereas the history of the human species goes back 2 or 3 million years, and of the Earth 4 billion years (give or take).
Re:Nope (Score:4, Informative)
Presumably "on record" means something like "in the past 150 years, according to extremely various and recently much improved instruments of the time".
That kind of is what 'on record' means. Recorded. As opposed to calculated, projected, discovered.
Whereas the history of the human species goes back 2 or 3 million years, and of the Earth 4 billion years (give or take).
Well, I'd say 200,000 for humans: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Yeah, the earth was super hot about 4.5 billion years ago. No reason to worry!
Re: (Score:2)
according to extremely various and recently much improved instruments of the time".
The increase in temperature far exceeds the error bars of the instruments.
Re: (Score:2)
If we base things on your measure, we could end up with an atmosphere with no oxygen to speak of and only anaerobic microbes and you'll say it's fine because it's nothing new to the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
You should try the Weather Channel and international news. Believe it or not there's a huge world out there.
Re: (Score:1)
It was okay for liberal hero FDR. Why not the Don?
And it's its farthest point from the Sun (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hysteresis? Lakes, rivers and coastal waters are usually at their hottest in autumn, long after the hottest weather is past. Because their temeperature tends to vary as the integral of the heat they have absorbed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:And it's its farthest point from the Sun (Score:5, Informative)
And this is something most school children learn in the northern hemisphere, that the summer is actually when the sun is furthest away from the earth. It's hotter because of the angle of the earth and the length of the days.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, several things;
The overall temperature of the Earth is higher at aphelion because the northern hemisphere is more land than water, and so has a lower heat capacity, ie, it heats up faster, while the opposite is true in the southern hemisphere.
But
It was the hottest June ever, not the hottest month ever.
And
Apehelion is in July
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out that the earth's tilt is more important than a tiny difference in orbital difference. You might be familiar with the common term for the result of this tilt at this time of year; summer. Whoever modded you up is apparently not.
Re:That doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
The distance between Earth and Sun is about 92 million miles and the change in distance due to the eccentric orbit of Earth around the Sun is around 3 million miles
3 out of 92 is quite large actually.
Far more of an effect is had by things like solar activity
Changes in solar activity are about 0.1%, so much smaller.
Projections don't mean just out to the election (Score:2)
Just typical, I was left out. (Score:2)
My spam inbox offered me the "Hottest April" . . . but not the "Hottest June".
Sounds like the hottest summer on the record... (Score:1)
get hot (Score:2)
Then we'd better get hot (pun intended) on finding technological solutions.
Hectoring, using the issue for political fodder, and calling names don't seem to be working too well.
Unusually chilly summer for me (Score:1)
Hopefully it will start warming up soon but it's practically August!
Nukes (Score:2)
when?
While we're waiting for you to make up your minds, East coast liberals need to unplug their AC units now. Until the green power comes on line.
Minus 25F? (Score:1)
Not where I live (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Another denier who thinks his anecdote disproves millions of rigorous datapoints collected from all over the globe.
Let's "science" a solution (Score:1)
Yet another story about global warming, about how we are all going to burst into flames before we drown. Can we get some science on solutions instead of more and more science on the problem?
Let's take all the energy sources we have today and rank them on how the data shows on metrics important to us. What might those metrics be? Here's a few metrics I have in mind... (Oh, and in no particular order.)
What gets us the lowest CO2 per energy out? I said I'm not putting this in any order but this is kind of
Re: (Score:3)
Yet another story about global warming, about how we are all going to burst into flames before we drown.
That appears nowhere in the article. I don't really know why you think simply making shit up will actually help anything.
Can we get some science on solutions instead of more and more science on the problem?
Science is about knowing. Solutions are the domain of engineering and politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Science is about knowing. Solutions are the domain of engineering and politics.
But are the engineers and politicians listening to what the scientists know? The engineers are because it's the science that makes their work possible. The politicians are showing no evidence of actually listening to the science as a whole, they just pick out the "science" that is convenient for them. When people pick and choose the facts that are convenient then it is not science any more.
Re: (Score:2)
But are the engineers and politicians listening to what the scientists know?
Some are, some aren't.
The politicians are showing no evidence of actually listening to the science as a whole, they just pick out the "science" that is convenient for them.
They're not all that bad, but yes, and the more successful ones tend to be worst unfortunately.
70 years? Include the Medieval Warm Period! (Score:1)
Any student of climate history knows the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250) was far hotter than this. And that Southern California has just been through an exceptionally wet period according to the geologic records; when it dries out, that's not a drought, but a return to normal. Reference the California mega-droughts of 850-1090 and 1140-1320.
South America had a massive warming around 12,300 years ago,
Re: (Score:2)
Any student of climate history knows the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250) was far hotter than this.
Your confidence is a big lie. Any student of climate history would easily find the big compilations since 2006. Real climate scientists are pretty confident, due to actual data and studies, not some radio-jockey, that global temps are hotter in the last 20 years than even your MWP. There is data strongly supporting regional warming 950-1250, not global. And the mechanisms that caused those regional increases have been ruled out for our current trend.
https://www.nap.edu/read/11676... [nap.edu]
It was "news for nerds", but now.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
They seem to be okay letting China ramp up their pollution while whining that the United States withdrew from the Paris accord. China is polluting at a faster rate and just doesn't give a damn. Neither does India. Why is Europe allowing China and India to pollute while whining incessantly about the United States?
The USA is the one making claims about being "The Leaders Of The Free World", not China or India. Why aren't they leading in anything other than military spending? (shrug)
We should really be complaining about Kuwait though, they're the biggest producers of greenhouse gas per capita:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The fact is, it's because Europeans are racist against Americans.
No, it's because China is far ahead of the USA in renewable energy investment.
Even India is snapping at the USA's heels here, despite being much poorer.
Re:Europe can blame themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA is the one making claims about being "The Leaders Of The Free World", not China or India. Why aren't they leading in anything other than military spending? (shrug)
While you have a point, but it is the military spending of the USA that keeps the world free. Do you doubt for a second that China would hesitate to clam all of the South China sea as its own if there wasn't an American Carrier battle group parked in Japan?
But I do agree with you that we do spend way to much on military spending than we should, and bragging about it. What we, the USA, should be bragging that we are the leading reducer of CO2 and the leading researcher on green energy.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
"While you have a point, but it is the military spending of the USA that keeps the world free. 2
LOL.
Re: (Score:1)
No, unfortunately none of you anonymous types have identified yourselves. There is a friend/foe function to block but it doesn't work unless you want to block all ACs.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA is the one making claims about being "The Leaders Of The Free World", not China or India. Why aren't they leading in anything other than military spending? (shrug)
While you have a point, but it is the military spending of the USA that keeps the world free. Do you doubt for a second that China would hesitate to clam...
Mmm. Clams.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Do you doubt for a second that China would hesitate to clam all of the South China sea as its own if there wasn't an American Carrier battle group parked in Japan?
Yes. Japan either has, or in a matter of months could build nukes.
Re: (Score:3)
Japan hasn't made any such claim, the government that is. It would take Japan longer than a few months to ramp up to where they could protect themselves, much less the rest of the region.
First of all, it is written into the Japanese constitution, Article 9, that prevents them from having more than token defense force. The reinterpretation that happened a few years back would allow them to have a greater defensive force but is still not enough to protect mainland Japan from a aggressive China. No whe
Re:Europe can blame themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course Japan hasn't made that claim, it would raise tensions in the area. It's well understood though, just like Israel and SA having nuclear weapons too.
Abe, the current Prime Minister, is trying to get the constitution changed, in order for Japan to become a "normal" country, as he describes it. It's part pride and part economic reasons (think how much money they could make when they invent those giant war robots), and partly because many want to ween Japan off US support.
There are a few reasons for that. There has long been a feeling that it's unwise to rely on another country that may change its priorities and positions every 4 years. TTIP was a bit of a wake-up for that, the US being for it and then after a change of government strongly against it. Japan loves stable politics, to a really extremely degree.
There is also a worry that longer term, China will come to rival and even surpass the US. Given the size of the Chinese population there is a certain inevitability about it, some say. In which case the US may lose interest in defending Japan, or may simply be unwilling to risk all-out war with China for the sake of Japan. Even if it seems unthinkable now, one day it may not be. So they argue that Japan should be able to stand on its own.
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree. I would love to see the US pull back its military forces and concentrate more of that budget at home. An their concerns are justified. It is bad to rely in another power to protect you. There will be a point where the US will be unable or unwilling to defend Japan. It may be 10 years, 100, or even a 1000 years but it will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking about nukes.
Japan hasn't made any such claim, the government that is.
I don't really see why what the government says is relevant.
It would take Japan longer than a few months to ramp up to where they could protect themselves, much less the rest of the region.
Are you sure about that?
I mean they have some pretty nice satellite launch vehicles. Like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
that's a multi-stage, 100% solid fuelled satellite launcher. Most people go to orbit with liquid fuels, s
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is well known that Japan could rapidly build nukes.
And Saudi could acquire them too, after financing Pakistan's nuclear program, which of course is a major reason why Iran wants nuclear capability.
But nukes would be useless in defending the South China Sea. Japan is not going to escalate to nuclear war over a shipping channel.
They are only useful for deterring a first strike by China, or full invasion of the Japanese mainland. It would not be the first time nukes prevented a bloody invasion
Re: (Score:2)
Mod correction: The OP shouldn't be modded as -1,Troll. The correct modification for this would be +1, Interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's a troll.
When a nuke is racing towards you from across the sea, a counter attack is months and billions of R&D away...
Re: Europe can blame themselves (Score:3)
Among large countries we are one of the top reducers of CO2 pollution
Re: (Score:2)
Do you doubt for a second that China would hesitate to clam all of the South China sea as its own if there wasn't an American Carrier battle group parked in Japan?
Yes but unless Potus is eating cake at mar-a-lago with Shinzo when it happens, there's even money we attack Japan by mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's because China is far ahead of the USA in renewable energy investment. Even India is snapping at the USA's heels here, despite being much poorer.
This is simply because the US existing infrastructure doesn't need much expanding, so we keep using what we already built. Those nations are still developing and building their infrastructure, so of course they will be using the newest technology available.
Re: (Score:2)
This is because one can be leader of the free world while simultaneously being petulant and stubborn.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks for the link.
The devil's in the details but still... Sweden's per capital greenhouse gas emissions are impressive.
If Sweden can do it, most of the countries ranked worse than Sweden should be able to.
And this includes my own country which ranks worse than the USA. And people in my country love to complain about the USA while ignoring our own issues.
Why aren't they [= USA] leading in anything other than military spending? (shrug)
The USA is not leading in per capita military spending. Furthermore, criticism of military spending per capita or overall military spending is not particu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The USA is not the worst CO2 emitter per capita.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-... [ucsusa.org]
Could the USA improve from where it is? Sure.
Has the USA reduced it's CO2 emissions per capita? It looks like it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Could the USA increase the rate of this reduction? I imagine it could.
We'll just need to find energy sources that are low in CO2, inexpensive, safe, and not require excessive disturbance of the environment from mining for raw material. What could those energy sources be? I'll giv
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, it's because Europeans are racist against Americans. And the racism will interfere with taking any serious action to curb carbon emissions.
Actually it's about money and political power: Increasing government control over industry. Raking off the big bucks by creating toll booths on energy supplies with "carbon credit" and "carbon tax" schemes and extracting a rakeoff with the taxes and credit-exchange brokerage fees. Crippling the competition so a country can increase its world market share.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, it's because Europeans are racist against Americans.
It's impossible to be "racist against Americans", because Americans are of all races, and come from everywhere under the sun. That's one of the most interesting facts about the USA: it deconstructs the ideas of "race", "nation" and "nationality".
To be an American (in the common sense of a US citizen) you don't have to possess any specific genetic profile, or come from any specific foreign country. The only thing that all Americans (except for the Native Americans) have in common is that until 500 years ago
Re: (Score:2)
To be an American (in the common sense of a US citizen) you don't have to possess any specific genetic profile, or come from any specific foreign country.
To be an American, you have to constantly confuse the words "racism" and "xenophobia".
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to be "racist against Americans",
A lot of us here are on the spectrum, and really need to learn to recognise when a word is not intended literally.
Or maybe the AC really does not know what the word means, but at best you are making a semantic argument.
Is Europe really "prejudiced against Americans"?
No. We complain because you are our friends, and we expect better.
Re: (Score:1)
The best summation I have ever heard is:
Isms are schisms.
Ask any Trotskyite if Stalinism is not a right wing idea.
Or don't you know what a Trotskyite is??
Re: (Score:2)
The best summation I have ever heard is:
Isms are schisms.
Ask any Trotskyite if Stalinism is not a right wing idea.
Or don't you know what a Trotskyite is??
After extensive communications with the right wing fringe I have determined that their attitude is that any political philosophy guilty of any kind of war crimes is automatically labelled the left-wing.
Re: (Score:2)
"Rascist" could certainly be an outdated term in that context, but what other word suitably describes the prejudice expressed in a phrase like "Everyone in the USA is fat, loud, and dumb, I won't let my daughter to marry one, and I'm not going to bake a wedding cake for a pair of them"?
Re: (Score:1)
You know jack shit about what unites Republicans.
But enjoy living in a comic book fantasy world where the bad people are all super villains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You seriously believe there aren't blacks, asians, hispanics, native Americans, Indians, etc. who are Republican?
Whites tend to be more liberal, and blacks, hispanics and Asian immigrants much more conservative. If the Republicans cannot win their support, surely the party is in deep trouble? Especially when the working-class whites realise they've been screwed again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be de-fused by economic equality.
For all the problems in Cuba, there's no obvious signs that people are treated differently based on skin colour, nor that there are groups of friends or drinking buddies that tend to be of one skin colour or another.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to be okay letting China ramp up their pollution while whining that the United States withdrew from the Paris accord.
When you guys stop producing the largest amount of CO2 per capita in the world then you can come and complain about being marginalised. In the meantime we would kindly request you to stop fucking up our planet. Be more like China who outspend you on green initiatives despite producing a small fraction of the CO2 per capita.
But hey must be good to have less people within an abitrary line on your map to give you some absurd high horse from which you can shout your bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop buying plastic crap from China and their CO2 emissions will lower dramatically. You have outsourced your industry to China.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact is, it's because Europeans are racist against Americans.
You do not understand what "racist" means. You should stop using the world until you educate yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
China is polluting at a faster rate and just doesn't give a damn.
It is true that they're not doing enough
But they are implementing policies that limit their emissions. The same cannot be said for the USA on a national level.
China is implementing significant policies in multiple sectors to address climate change, and also aiming to restrict coal consumption. China’s 13th Five-Year Plan stipulates a maximum 58% share of coal in national energy consumption by 2020 (NDRC, 2016), among other energy related targets. China is implementing an emissions trading system,
Re: (Score:1)
They are excluding 1930-1935 from their average baseline. That is done on purpose. If you add those years in this was a normal year.
They're also excluding the time period after the meteor killed off the dinosaurs and plunged the planet into a heat wave for a hundred or so millennia. If you add those years in this was not just a normal year but a positively chilly one.
The sad truth is that what Europe and the east half of the US is suffering through will be completely forgotten next winter, when the temperatures will drop to new historic lows and Republicans will renew their chorus of not just how climate change isn't happening but how w
Re: (Score:1)
They are excluding 1930-1935 from their average baseline. That is done on purpose. If you add those years in this was a normal year.
Look at the global record (not just the USA): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. If the 1930s were included in the baseline the current anomaly compared to it would be greater as the 1930s were significantly cooler than now.
Re: (Score:2)
What will make large majorities trust this stuff? Maybe nothing. No one seems to even be trying.
They'll start to trust it when they can experience the effects in their own backyard.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll start to trust it when they can experience the effects in their own backyard.
Warm weather in the summer? They already have experienced it. I don't think experiencing weather is convincing anyone who wasn't already convinced by the stories about weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Warm weather in the summer?
Not just that, but exceptionally warm weather in the summer. It needs to be hot enough that they are sure they've never experienced something similar in their life.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just that, but exceptionally warm weather in the summer. It needs to be hot enough that they are sure they've never experienced something similar in their life.
Even in that event, maybe people will decide they can mitigate hot weather easier than having people who treat them as enemies in positions of authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What will make large majorities trust this stuff? Maybe nothing. No one seems to even be trying.
I expect a majority will believe this when the Democrats start acting like it's a problem.
The US Navy wanted some new nuclear powered surface warships to replace some aging ships that are guzzling fuel oil. The Democrats voted that down, but they funded more fuel guzzling ships instead.
The US Coast Guard has wanted new icebreakers for decades. Democrats refused to fund them until very recently. I guess they believe the polar ice will just melt away. Oh, they burn fuel oil too. Quite the missed opportun
Re:Why baseline on 1951-1980? (Score:5, Informative)
Why are they limiting the comparison of June 2019 to the cool period between 1951-80?
It's arbitrary. Any other baseline would only change the offset of the entire graph, but the relative changes from time A to time B would still be the same, and that's what we are really interested in.
Re: (Score:2)
What, all of them? Hundreds of major temperature records, thousands of working climatologists, dozens of countries - they're all in on this global conspiracy to... what, exactly? Nobody's ever presented a coherent motive here.
Tell me, what exactly do all these scientists get in return for destroying their reputation? It's not just keeping their jobs, coz the climate will always need studying (and anyone caught actually falsifying data would never work again). They don't get rich from "building the narrative
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they limiting the comparison of June 2019 to the cool period between 1951-80? Why not extend it to 1930 of 1919? They used to compare 100 years back. But, that doesn't seem to help the narrative.
Quite simply because we don't have reliable global records before the 50s so it's taken as the gold standard. We do have reliable North American records to the 1900s which is why American science is often compared to back then. But then when you take the global data from 1900s-1950s and compensate for the inaccurate temperatures people complain that data has been "tampered" with because unfortunately some people made it through school without actually learning science.
Either way it doesn't change the narrat
Re: (Score:1)
some people made it through school without actually learning science.
Learnin' science. Gee, kleetus, you use those big words.
What exactly is ';learning science'? The scientific method is fairly complex, itself really a not fully settled matter.
Is it about Tenure and Credentials? How long has it been that? In the middle ages was an appeal to authority valid, too?
Re: (Score:2)
But since you're stupid fuck, you will fail and continue to believe all sorts of crap.
Very convincing. Why wouldn't people trust a message like this?
Human existence is insignificant in geologic time (Score:4, Informative)
Human existence is insignificant in geologic time; what we care about is human time.
Venus is hot. Mars is cold. Global Warming explains why. Jets cruise above about 80% of the atmosphere; due to comprehensibility of gas and gravity. Gas is very low density.
Known facts since the 70s. This is simple stuff for a laymen to conclude we have a problem; much easier than smoking causes cancer.
Re:Insignificant record in geologic time (Score:4, Informative)
This is a insignificant measurement in geologic time We've been only able to measure world wide temperatures maybe in the last 50 years or so accurately. So this measurement is nothing but hysterical and laughable.
The temperature measurements since about 1850 have a wider error bar than recent measurements [metoffice.gov.uk], primarily due to coverage. But the error band (the 95% CI on the linked graph) don't dominate. The measurements are still accurate to within 0.4 or 0.5 of a degree as far back as 1850. So that's nearer 170 years than 50 years.
That the current warming is so rapid that we are seeing it over a time period that is geolocially insignificant, doesn't imply to most people that the measurement is laughable. Quite the opposite.
Can you make that arguement a little bit clearer?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, Greenland is melting. If it melts entirely, that's approx. 7.2 meters of sea level rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they say a little about the temperature in Greenland, and the region defined by where the evaporated water travels before being precipitated on Greenland, and less about the global mean surface temperature?
And yet even so, depending on what you consider "on record", temperature reconstructions for greenland show it's pretty warm overall [twimg.com].
Re: (Score:2)
This is obviously a Danish person making fun of a previous Danish Foreign Secretary, with limited English skills.
It may (or not) be funny for other people, but it is especially funny for his adversaries, even as he was trying to do a good job for the country.
Saying this, I am not even voting for his party, SF, but I think that still making him a laughing stock is silly!
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Well, anyway, it's true if you ignore all of the "adjustments" to historical data [blogspot.com].
About 0.2 degrees of adjustment are because the old temperature stations were measured in the afternoon, and the new ones are measured in the morning. The other 0.2 degrees of adjustment are because the new automatic weather stations are a bit different in design as the old manual ones.
See, if the type of thermometer was changed, or the measuring method was changed, but the data was not adjusted, people would be screaming that you can't compare the two. But if the data is adjusted, people will scream that "
Re: (Score:1)
for weather stations at airports (surrounded by asphalt), etc, should - if anything - result in adjustments in the opposite direction.
Yes, this is done.
Nope. It's the other way. The "gold standard" becomes the poor sited Stevenson screen, and it's used to HEAT the surrounding suburban/rural thermometers. Poor maintenance [wattsupwiththat.com] is also documented as an issue, and yet those stations are not excluded. It's why most of the ground station based temperatures are running a LOT hotter and increasing a LOT faster than the satellite record - corrupted data. But instead of tossing the data out, it's massaged and manipulated to continue the mantra.
Re: (Score:1)
And in a few decades when your shrill chicken-little scree proves false, the egg will have dried on your face.
But you'll have shitty infrastructure. Hope you wanted to go where the gubbermint transit will take you.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel sorry for the lemmings buying into this fable.
They'll be happy to have people like you to buy up their uninsurable properties when the time comes.
I too well remember the "global cooling" hoax of the '70s and '80s.
You should know that unlinke the "global warming science", the "global cooling" hoax never had the support of the scientific literature. There was a scholarly paper [core.ac.uk] looking at that, published in BAMS back in 2008 about that.
So there were important differences between that and this that would affect most people's analysis of plausiblity.
The only people benefiting from this scare are the rich oligarchs like Al Gore who have reaped a fortune off the gullibility of people.
On the contrary. The money is being made by the denialist industry, try
Re:On Record (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure when the planet was being bombarded by meteors, comets, and all manner of other space debris, during its formation, the temperature was just a wee bit higher on average.
We're fine in this heat. Chill out.
Humans might not have done well in the late heavy bombardment, no matter how chill they were.
One think they would have noticed right before getting out their thermometres, would be the total lack of oxygen in the atmosphere.