Antarctica Logs Hottest Temperature On Record of 18.3C (bbc.com) 229
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: A record high temperature of 18.3C (64.9F) has been logged on the continent of Antarctica. The reading, taken on Thursday by Argentine research base Esperanza, is 0.8C hotter than the previous peak temperature of 17.5C, in March 2015. The temperature was recorded in the Antarctic Peninsula, on the continent's north-west tip -- one of the fastest-warming regions on earth. It is being verified by the UN World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).
Temperatures on the Antarctic continent have risen by almost 3C over the past 50 years, the organization said, and about 87% of the glaciers along its west coast have "retreated" in that time. The glaciers have shown an "accelerated retreat" in the past 12 years, the WMO added, due to global warming. While 18.3C is a record for the Antarctic continent, the record in the wider Antarctic region -- which includes the continent, islands and ocean that are in the Antarctic climatic zone -- is 19.8C, logged in January 1982. Last July, the Arctic region hit its own record temperature of 21C, logged by a base at the northern tip of Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic.
Temperatures on the Antarctic continent have risen by almost 3C over the past 50 years, the organization said, and about 87% of the glaciers along its west coast have "retreated" in that time. The glaciers have shown an "accelerated retreat" in the past 12 years, the WMO added, due to global warming. While 18.3C is a record for the Antarctic continent, the record in the wider Antarctic region -- which includes the continent, islands and ocean that are in the Antarctic climatic zone -- is 19.8C, logged in January 1982. Last July, the Arctic region hit its own record temperature of 21C, logged by a base at the northern tip of Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic.
Buries Head in Sand (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not real! It's not happening! /s
It is! (Score:2)
Re:ITS ON THE DAMN TIP (Score:5, Informative)
This is at its far far edge, super high lattitude, hardly MAIN LAND
Of course it's at the tip.
Antarctica's interior climate is largely protected by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. As the Southern Ocean heats up, this is going to become weaker and more disrupted.
Weather extremes will happen there first.
Go closer in land , scientists doing 30 year studies have found ZERO change in temps, its 100% Steady
Completely false. The antarctic continent as a whole is experiencing around .05C/decade of warming, as measured since 1957, very close to the global average.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with that being true, it's immaterial to the fact we're having accelerated glacial melt. Also, much like the arctic polar current has weakened in recent years causing frequent cold pockets of air to be "burped" south towards the US, as the poster below mentioned, the same weakening will be seen in the antarctic as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The warming for the Antarctic will be very different to the warming for the Arctic. The Arctic will likely be much faster, due to the land masses feeding warm air directly up to the Arctic and also those land masses provided lots of organic materials to break down and generate methane and and awful lot of methane hydrates, tens of thousands of years worth, waiting to melt and really alter the atmosphere up there. The Antarctic is being warmed by the seas, with sudden rapid melts, brought about by altered su
Re:ITS ON THE DAMN TIP (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you measure the temperature at the center of the ice cube, you'll notice that it's 100% steady too. All that melting people go crazy about is just the conspiracy of the watery drink.
Re: (Score:2)
Over-simplified, snarky, short and easy to understand. Mod this guy up!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Buries Head in Sand (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it necessary for spot temperatures in Antarctica remain constant to a metric directly measured for only a hundred years or so?
It's not necessary or even ideal, and nobody has said that it is. That said, there are a large number of people who are convinced that there is no overall global climate change happening while the vast majority of people who are educated and informed on the topic are saying otherwise. Every publicized anomalous data point on the topic - on either side - is useful to steer us all towards truth. Put another way... "more data good".
Is there an ideal temperature range for every spot on Earth? If yes, what is the basis for that range?
In a word, no. And again, nobody has said that there is, or should be. But what things do exist are observed/measured norms and observed/measured trends. Both of those are useful to educate ourselves as to what is happening in our surroundings. When observations/measurements fall outside of expected values, that deserves attention, both in general and in specific. Meaning - with any topic - that any time values are anomalous, we should pay attention to determine if our measurement system is incorrect or if our expectations are false, or if there is some other insight to be learned from the cause of the anomaly. Meaning that also applies to climate measurement.
While I'm all for reducing our impact on the Earth, climate alarmists
You should pause and reflect. Your language choice betrays a mind-set that you may or may not be aware of. By labeling people who release data as "climate alarmists", you inherently discard that data. You explicitly set yourself up as a person who is unwilling to accept insight on the topic. In generally if you're open to understanding a topic, the moment you apply negative or condescending terms to people involved with that topics, it's wise to check why you've done so. Yes, there are extremists, zealots, and ignorant in any topic, but even when applying those labels, it's important to take a moment to think. Heck, in some cases radicals are right. As a quick example, those who went against the grain on such topics as slavery, gender-equality, and ensuring that Lucifer got a fourth season.
who flip out
Again, language matters. Nobody (for rational values of 'nobody') is flipping out. Many (informed) people are - repeatedly - trying to publicize measured, observed data in massive quantities. Also, many (informed) people are trying get people to stop discarding, disregarding and dismissing that data out-of-hand.
every time Antarctica does something new make me want to do donuts on baby seals in a HMMWV.
And finally I'd recommend questioning what your emotional gut reaction offers for insight. Why does data cause you to (metaphorically or literally) vandalize the ecosystem? Seriously, to me that implies your conscious or subconscious position is that humanity cannot negatively impact the climate, and data supporting that climate-change is happening - let alone that we are causing it - frustrates that position. Flat-earthers evoke frustrated emotion in anyone who accepts the idea that the world is round, because the idea that flat-earthers are right is... effectively offensive. Are you that certain that climate-change is not happening? If so... should you be, or is there enough debate, enough data to support the idea that maybe... just maybe... it is happening?
Re: Buries Head in Sand (Score:3)
Every publicized anomalous data point on the topic - on either side - is useful to steer us all towards truth. Put another way... "more data good".
If you're doing science, yes, more data good.
On the other hand you're talking about publicity here, and there's two problems I can see:
1. Record highs tend to be publicized while record lows are much more likely to be ignored. "More data only if it agrees with my beliefs" is not good.
2. Even when the data is presented without such selection bias, it doesn't seem to have a great deal of effect on people's opinions. When we hit a record high, the popular interpretation is "see, global warming!". When we
It's "summer" in the antarctic (Score:2)
Re: Buries Head in Sand (Score:2)
He can't because he is lying.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaice... [nsidc.org]
Below average
Re: (Score:2)
Weather (Score:3)
We're all gonna die!!!!! (Score:2)
It's all because of my original sin!
Who do I make my cheque or money order payable to?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Who do you prefer to fuck up your life?
Wind, Solar, geothermal (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to start investing more in these technologies that don't have carbon or radionuclide externalities. There is no point doing to future generations what previous generations have done to us. Only worse.
To be sincere about creating solutions we, as in us, our generation, has to solve *both* carbon and radionuclide issues whilst there are people still alive that understand the industrial processes of the coal, oil and, nuclear industries that have got us into this mess.
Any speculation as to what solar and wind are capable of in terms of running our society are scaremongering FUD tactics that these industries have used to keep a tight grip on their economic monopolies whilst corrupting our democratic processes to ensure the survival of their profits over everything else.
Beside, considering the intellectual challenges in adapting our power grid to extracting energy from all around us, I think this will be one of the most exciting times to be doing all of the interesting tasks associated with the challenge of cutting tie to these industries that hold us in the past.
Wind, Solar, geothermal are the future, they're so 21st century.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind, Solar, geothermal, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion are the future, they're so 21st century.
FTFY.
Re:Wind, Solar, geothermal (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why this problem wasn't licked 3 decades ago. Do you know how much nuclear waste the U.S. generates? By volume it's about a tractor trailer's worth each year. That's it. 20% of the country's entire annual electricity consumption, at the cost of a single tractor trailer's volume of waste. That's why it hasn't been a problem that there's no long-term waste storage facility. The nuclear plants are simply storing their waste from decades of operation on-site - because there is so little of it. By comparison, generating the same amount of energy from coal generates more than a million times the volume of solid waste, and even more CO2. Any way you cut it, nuclear is vastly superior to coal.
Remember, nuclear doesn't have to be the end solution. All we need (needed) to do is transition our energy production from fossil fuels to nuclear, to go from decades to a century before destroying civilization and the environment, to several millennia before destroying civilization and the environment. And in that millennia of time we bought, we could've worked on perfecting wind, solar, geothermal, and battery technology to where they could take over nuclear for us.
But one fanatical* group is staunchly opposed to nuclear, and does everything in their power to block it, filing lawsuit after lawsuit driving up its costs to create the illusion of economic unfeasibility. Forcing us to remain on fossil fuels since renewables still can't handle base load yet. Which keeps us on track for climate doomsday within a century (which is looking more and more like 50 years). All of this could've been avoided if we'd spent the last 3 decades converting our power generation from fossil fuels to nuclear (both are base load). But instead they manipulated economics and public opinion, forcing us into a game of chicken which results in ecological disaster in decades. So if climate change destroys the environment and civilization, it'll be their fault for blocking a perfectly good solution that could've been used as a temporary measure to buy us centuries more time to figure out how to solve it their preferred way.
* (Yes, fanatical. fa-nat-ic. noun. a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal [google.com]. Amusingly, someone referred to nuclear proponents as fanatics in a previous discussion. Ask any nuclear power supporter - they're perfectly fine with renewables if we can get them to work. Heck, they're fine with fossil fuels if we can figure out a way to sequester the carbon [bbc.com]. It's the renewable energy proponents who reject any solution other than renewables. Single-minded. Fanatical.)
Re: Wind, Solar, geothermal (Score:3)
Coal ash is also mildly radioactive, in addition to being heavy with mercury.
Search for mercury poisoning from fish downwind from coal plant, there was a case in S.C. while I lived there, poor bastard fished everyday in a river near a coal plant, and being a good sportsman, ate what he caught and died a horrible death for it
Re: (Score:2)
You are mixing up spent fuel with waste. ...
And you are off by a factor of 1000
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues... [gao.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Ask any nuclear power supporter - they're perfectly fine with renewables if we can get them to work. Heck, they're fine with fossil fuels if we can figure out a way to sequester the carbon [bbc.com].
I kind of wonder what blindseer (a user here) would say about that.
Re: (Score:2)
To be sincere about creating solutions we, as in us, our generation, has to solve *both* carbon and radionuclide issues whilst there are people still alive that understand the industrial processes of the coal, oil and, nuclear industries that have got us into this mess.
What mess are you referring to that was caused by nuclear power? An energy source that is the safest known to human civilization. An energy source with the lowest CO2 emissions of any known. An energy source with the highest known energy return on investment, and with plenty of room for improvement. Tell me, what mess did nuclear power cause?
I'm not going to claim that nuclear power is perfect, it is not, but all evidence suggests that if we do not continue to use nuclear power, and grow our use of nucl
Re: Wind, Solar, geothermal (Score:2)
Umm, Fukushima? Chernobyl?
Re: (Score:2)
Windmills are 14th century give or take. Probably much earlier if I researched it. Solar goes back uhm well to the start of life. So does geothermal.
These rationalizations don't live up to the expectations your pseudonym sets.
Not is very earnest and heartfelt even though completely fact free.
Specifically which parts are you referring to?
However, I am confused by your statement that we somehow have to change the power grid to use non carbon/non nuclear energy sources.
Specifically, what are you having difficulty cogitating Way Smarter Than You?
Re: Wind, Solar, geothermal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any speculation as to what solar and wind are capable of in terms of running our society are scaremongering FUD tactics that these industries have used to keep a tight grip on their economic monopolies whilst corrupting our democratic processes to ensure the survival of their profits over everything else.
That is well documented. To an extent, it obviously goes the other direction as well, though the resources are so far from parity that it's forgivable to not mention that.
Well documented practices are not a subjective opinion just because they don't align with your political beliefs.
Solar minimum, Solar maximum (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it maybe worthwhile considering these two phenomena. NASA's Solar Cycle Prediction [wikipedia.org] suggests we are in a period of Solar Minimum [wikipedia.org] and a period where the sun is less energetic. The sun has been dropping into a cooler phase since 2015 and now seems to be approaching the bottom of this cycle according to NASA [nasa.gov].
I wonder if we will see increased acceleration of warming events as the sun starts becoming more energetic and goes into Solar Maximum [wikipedia.org] sometime during the 2020s? The reason I postulate this is I also wonder if climate models take the "hard to predict accurately" cycles of the Sun when attempting to predict the *rate* of climate change. The Sun gets hotter during solar maximum, enough to heat our atmosphere up enough to clear low earth orbit of satellites due to drag of an expanded atmosphere.
This lends credence to arguments I've seen opponents of the science of AGW and how human influence on the earth is trivial compared to the forces of nature, so how can humans be having an influence. It's a valid argument that I never really had an answer to until I started considering the Sun's influence because, by the same logic, if we are in a period of solar minimum, when the sun is coolest, then the Earth shouldn't be heating up. We've had consecutively hotter years during solar minimum, we should be having the coldest winters, however in the last two years it's been the warmest winters and hottest summers in what looks like the coldest solar winters we've had for some time.
How is this possible if humans don't have an influence on the Earth?
We maybe at an apex in time where we still can do something to reduce our influence on Earth whilst the Sun gives us a little time to change our laws, that change our industries so they stop changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere.
In any case I thought that maybe the missing piece that opponents of AGW science had not considered and not unsurprisingly if the people building the climate models hadn't considered it either.
Who knows? As we enter solar maximum we may find ourselves in a situation where we are forced to extract much more than our trival requirements for energy from the atmosphere to dispel destructive weather systems.
Re:Solar minimum, Solar maximum (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This lends credence to arguments I've seen opponents of the science of AGW
It really doesn't. A 5 year cycle doesn't in any way counter what the long term trend of AGW has shown.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between solar minimum and maximum is not even 1% in energy difference.
However it might have influences in the upper atmosphere, e.g. due to more UV radiation - I don't know, never looked it up. However your idea the atmosphere would expand greatly does not really sound plausible.
You want a war? (Score:2)
YeeHaw! (Score:2)
Shorts Weather (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have actually done this in places that in historical times have been buried deep in glacial ice: Svinajokull, Dawes, Franz Josef.
Build the nukes. Seed the oceans.
Re: (Score:2)
I said historical times, not back in the Ice Age. Even I am not that old. All of the aforementioned glaciers have markers that show where the ice was in years like 1900 and even 1950. Today's snout is not even visible from those points.
This is why I know that we aren't going to make it (Score:2)
We can prove in any number of ways that greenhouse gasses trap heat. We can observe the build up of greenhouse gasses and a corresponding increase in temperature. We can see all the signs, we can hear all the experts and yet.... Science, literally "the search for truth", expertise and empirical data is being ignored while opinions are being formed by clear propaganda.
At the very least, considering the potential global consequences, why hasn't erring on the side of caution kicked in yet? Our species is doome
hysteria by morons (Score:2)
This is from northernmost tip (direction of warmer temperature on this Earth) peninsula of Antarctica, and we only have records from 1960s. Other stations have recorded temperatures in the 60s F over the years. Whoop de doo, it's called weather.
Stop the hysteria, it's over nothing
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Both outposts are near the tip of the Western Peninsula, which was shown to have geothermal sources under it.
While, according to NASA, Antarctica overall has been gaining ice for decades.
Literally nothing to see here. Move on.
Re: (Score:3)
Got a link to those sources, because that's not what the places I've been reading said.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And how does that discredit this research? I'm sure these researchers would be able to take much better measurements and account for all the variables if they consulted the slashdot trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
They are both located near the tip of the Western Peninsula, where indeed, you can see they are very near one of the areas of highest geothermal activity [postimg.cc].
There is not much more to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But that doesn't substantiate the claim that the amount of ice is increasing. I realize his claim had two parts, but that was the part I was looking for a link to NASA about. And, as I expected, there was no such link offered.
Re: (Score:3)
Read the article, idiot. Sheet ice is ice that has flowed off of Antarctica and is floating on the ocean. The more of such ice you have, the more the continent has lost. It's possible for such loses to be offset by gains from new snow, but there no evidence, or even suggestion, that such a thing is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
That are not NASA sources.
Afaik nasa still has: www.nasa.gov as their web page ...
Re:Nothing to worry about, folks! (Score:5, Informative)
While, according to NASA, Antarctica overall has been gaining ice for decades.
According to NASA the exact opposite of what you said is true. [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The Orange Pastry is already on record saying he might not have any debates with a Democrat challenger. He'd have to defend himself and he cannot do that without lying his ass off.
Re: (Score:2)
Actual solutions come from private businesses spending their own money to build things, and to free up this money takes a government willing to regulate instead of tax and spend.
Go on then, show all the private investment in unsubsidised nuclear. Meanwhile unsubsidised wind (especially offshore) is doing just fine, on an exponential growth curve. Unsubsidised solar is doing even better.
The only nuclear investments are either done in order to get subsidies from governments (funnily almost always in places with a military nuclear program or aspirations for such a program) or done directly by dictatorships.
Re: Elections matter (Nothing to worry about, folk (Score:2)
If you listened to his state of the union address then you'd have heard him mention more of what he plans to do about global warming.
I googled and couldn't find a damn thing about this. Could you expand on it? Perhaps with some quotes and/or links?
Re: Nothing to worry about, folks! (Score:2)
You know it used to be a tropical environment....
Re: (Score:2)
So did you.
Re: Nothing to worry about, folks! (Score:2)
Some of you still are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nothing to worry about, folks! (Score:4, Funny)
But weather is climate when it supports my narrative!
Come sail away!
Re: (Score:2)
"Weather is climate" under circumstances like this when it forces the hypocritical fucktards who deny global warming is happening (and human-caused) to either admit it's happening or acknowledge that their argument has been a lie all along.
Win - win for rational people. Lose - lose for deniers.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you referring to the "hypocritical fucktards" that tell people to stop flying on jet while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on private chartered jets?
https://climatechangedispatch.... [climatecha...spatch.com]
They want me to believe that their $10,000 contribution for carbon offsets is supposed to absolve them for a quarter million spent on flights? If that's all it takes to offset our carbon then put a carbon offset tip jar next to the pumps at all the filling stations. After every time I fuel up my little SUV I'll d
Re: (Score:2)
Because in the end if it's true, and indicators are pointing towards that, we're all losers no matter on what side of the argument we were on.
Re: Nothing to worry about, folks! (Score:4, Informative)
The impact of this virus thus far is a miniscule fraction of CO2 emissions.
Worldwide, all flights (of which affected flights are also a miniscule fraction of) produce around 915MT of of CO2.
Total human output is 42000MT.
Furthermore, it's unlikely that even an actually important reduction in CO2 would become apparent in circulating atmospheric CO2 levels until years later.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone "helpfully" decided to mod this completely accurate post by DamnOregonian as Troll, so I will reproduce it here:
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
The impact of this virus thus far is a miniscule fraction of CO2 emissions.
Worldwide, all flights (of which affected flights are also a miniscule fraction of) produce around 915MT of of CO2.
Total human output is 42000MT.
Furthermore, it's unlikely that even an actually important reduction in CO2 would become apparent in circulating atmospheric CO2 levels until years later.
Re: Nothing to worry about, folks! (Score:5, Insightful)
You clearly have a loose relationship with facts and logic.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hold up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowhere in that, did anyone attribute this mark in the temperature to climate change. Just like no one marks any massive mark in coldness to climate change. What was said however is this:
Temperatures on the Antarctic continent have risen by almost 3C over the past 50 years, the organisation said, and about 87% of the glaciers along its west coast have "retreated" in that time. The glaciers have shown an "accelerated retreat" in the past 12 years, the WMO added, due to global warming.
And as you can see from that, that they base those not on any single day, but as a trend over years of time.
a big part of the reason why climate change isn't taken seriously by so many.
Incorrect. The vast majority of people today agree with the scientific consensus. Clearly, you do not which places you in a ever decreasing minority of people. However, that's fine if you wish to turn your eyes to established science. No one forces you to accept fact if you so wish to live in fantasy.
Re: Hold up... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
At no point does The Scientific Method refer to consensus
No. A consensus is a consideration of the published material on a particular topic of scientific interest. While there's nothing wrong with your statement as it applies purely to science, what we humans find of note to study in science brings about a consensus.
If all humans ceased to exist, all the things that science explains and has yet to explain still keep ticking. Science doesn't need humans. That's your end of the story here. That there are verifiable and falsifiable things. However, humans need
Re: Hold up... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's lots of things in science where the consensus is that certain theories are mostly correct. That the Earth has a iron-nickel core, the mechanisms for most super nova and regular nova are a couple of examples where no one has actually observed the Earths core or created a super nova.
Sometimes the consensus proves to be wrong, like the ether, which was based on the observation that all waves need a substance to travel in and light was a wave. Eventually the instruments got good enough that it became obvious that the theory was wrong and after a lot of re-measurements, the consensus changed. Perhaps the same will happen with climate change but until new information becomes available, it is the best explanation so far.
As no one can test all the various hypothesis's and theories, we are left with some level of belief in everything. It is only through belief that I belief in the existence of atoms for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the same will happen with climate change but until new information becomes available, it is the best explanation so far.
This is unlikely to happen. The ether was a theoretical construct to help explain observation. Climate models demonstrating climate change on the other hand are based on physical underpinnings and testable hypothesis, and the complex models show to accurately take into account externalities.
I wouldn't hold my breath on scientific consensus on climate change changing.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't hold my breath on scientific consensus on climate change changing.
I'm not, but new knowledge can change any theory or scientific consensus or more likely expand the knowledge. Newtons law of gravitation turned out to be not quite right but we can send a spacecraft to Neptune using them but not to Mercury so they're not that wrong. Earth was considered round at one time and even though wrong, it's not very wrong. Climate change is complicated enough that adjustments will probably happen without changing the predictions by much.
Re: Hold up... (Score:2)
There are pictures of atoms
Re: (Score:2)
Could be fake. I trust in them but there is still an element of trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the same will happen with climate change but until new information becomes available, it is the best explanation so far.
More likely we'll find that CO2 caused some warming, but didn't cause any disaster.
Re: Hold up... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there's a 1% chance of a disaster
Now you just made up a number.
There's a 30% chance that disaster will be avoided if everyone on Slashdot put $20 in my pocket. I just make up that number, too. But you can't deny there's a possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what is considered a disaster. Look at the disaster that goat grazing did to parts of the middle east. Doesn't seem bad from here but for the people living there at the time, it may have seemed a lot worse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First let me go ahead and say. The volumes of scientific work that is published that indicates that you aren't even in the same ballpark of what actual science says. I point at that as my proof. That a multitude of that work is cited in the UN IPCC and agreed upon by pretty much every country on this planet. I point to that. That a multitude of the things predicted have come to pass, that a multitude of models from Exxon-86 to IPCC-18 have proved out their values, that a variety of events that are accu
Re: (Score:2)
If you seem to understand the science so well perhaps you can take the published data and disprove the agreed upon theories?
Re: Hold up... (Score:5, Interesting)
The term "scientific consensus" is untidy, but any scientist knows that it means a broad (even overwhelming) acceptance of an evidence-backed theory, not a democratic vote. The naysayers may be small in number, but if they can provide compelling evidence that defeats a theory, the consensus will no doubt shift to their position.
Re: Hold up... (Score:4, Funny)
What you said is correct. The consensus agrees that the climate is changing due to man made phenomena. NASA seems to agree. Are you saying they are mistaken as well? Perhaps they're also mistaken about the moon or even the earth being round...
Re: (Score:2)
Science has necessary uncertainty.
The scientific method does not reference consensus, because the scientific method is not for establishing knowledge. It's for ruling out falsehoods.
Human knowledge is based upon scientific consensus. That's not a political concept to anyone other than little shithead partisans such as yourself who have beef with what the science says.
Re: (Score:3)
conclusion and consensus are synonyms.
Also nitpicker and idiot are synonyms for me :P
Your pick ...
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud your optimism.
Re: (Score:2)
Because shut up, that's why!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Before you wet your panties (Score:5, Informative)
You can't simply pick a similar latitude elsewhere in the world and assume the same climate. Esperanza Base gets an average of 4 hours sunshine in summer due to constant storm systems coming off the Antarctic continent. The average daily high temperature Dec-Feb is 4C. Alaska on the other hand gets an average of 20 daily hours of sunshine in summer, giving a average daily high of 15C. The same latitude in eastern Canada is blessed with the same summer climate as Alaska, but on the other hand is not in a warm ocean current, so in winter when temperatures are not driven by warming by the sun, it gets daily highs of -27 compared with the -7 of Alaska and -6 at Esparanza Base.
Re: (Score:2)
Just waiting for one responding to you: but that is weather not climate!! Rofl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Latitude doesn't mean much when it comes to climate. You'll notice that Wichita in Kansas is at about the same latitude as Tunis in Tunisia. The average temperatures are ... slightly different.
And that's even on the same hemisphere...
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the same latitude as Irkutsk whereas the average winter high here is 6C. The average winter high in Irkutsk is -14C.
You can't really be *that* ignorant of the world around you can you?
Re: (Score:3)
What about if the temperature is not constant, with variations other than statistical noise? How many record highs per year could be expect then?
Re: (Score:2)
If records have only been kept for, say, 50 years:
They have, starting with whaling ship's logs
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the temperature is constant, with variations only from statistical noise, with 365 days per year you can expect about seven "record highs" in any given year.
That's simply not true.
Assuming a zero trend-line, you will eventually hit all conceivable maximums.
That's ignoring the fact that you're assuming a perfect population distribution in the statistics, which only screams that you have a child's understanding of the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Though we disagree, I commend you for actually posting a reply, rather than (as the deplatformers have done) trying to down-moderate my previous posting into oblivion.
And as you add more samples, the divisor continues to rise, reducing the compute
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about BOTH SIDES JUST SHUT IT ALREADY!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I BELIEVE THAT HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND WE NEED TO FIX OUR SHIT. That clear enough for you and whoever else? Lovely. But that and five bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks, nobo
Re: How about BOTH SIDES JUST SHUT IT ALREADY!? (Score:2)
One thing is for sure, the climate change deniers are not going to shut up.
You and I (and they) may have made up our minds. But there are lots of people who are undecided or who are susceptible to having their minds changed. It is a war of ideas. I wish the idea with the most basis in reality and reason would always win, but (as the last four years plainly show) some people are more easily convinced by things *other* than logic and truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Vaccines are exceedingly effective in lowering the risk of disease. Nuclear fission power plants are exceedingly effective in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. There's plenty of history to back up both.
I'm interested in hearing from these banshees screaming about this supposed climate crisis their feelings on using nuclear fission power to prevent the crisis from getting worse.
There is no crisis. There is global warming, and human activity is contributing to it, but that does not make it a crisis. It m
Shut up about radioactive waste! Build things! (Score:2)
Since you're so giddy about Nuclear, I'm sure you won't mind if we store the waste in your house.
Would you look at that? It's another triggered science denier.
Are you saying we don't have better ideas on where to put the waste? That we should fear nuclear power more than global warming? I have a nuclear waste dump in my backyard because some Democrat fuckers in Congress can't get their act together on funding a proper radioactive waste site. The nearby nuclear power plant is stacking up spent fuel on site because Democrat fuckers keep holding up construction at Yucca Mountain. We had a treaty with
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I see people here don't like it when the hypocrisy is exposed for the most popular Democrat candidates for POTUS.
Maybe we can see Buttigieg and/or Yang get more votes in the upcoming polling, they support nuclear power. Having been convinced on the need for more nuclear power shows that they are thinking logically and therefore I believe that they'd be open to carbon neutral synthesized fuels.
It would also be nice to have someone running under the DNC banner that won't be over 80 years old before they fini
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that we cannot look at the last few decades to say "we are currently in at the very least a short term warming period"?
And if we are supposed to be in a cooling period why are the temperatures actually increasing?