June Heatwave Was the 'Most Extreme' On Record For North America 125
The devastating heatwave that struck the Northwest US and southwest Canada in June was "the most extreme summer heatwave" ever recorded in North America, according to a new analysis from nonprofit research group Berkeley Earth. The Verge reports: Record temperatures in the region reached roughly 20 degrees Celsius (or 36 ÂF) hotter than average in June. Canada recorded its hottest temperature ever on June 29th when the village of Lytton in British Columbia reached an astonishing 49.6 degrees Celsius (121 degrees Fahrenheit). Typical temperatures there in June are closer to 20 to 30 degrees Celsius (68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit). The consequences of that heat are staggering. Scorching temperatures fed wildfires, which burned down 90 percent of Lytton. There were at least 570 heat-related deaths in Canada and at least 194 in the US. Thousands more people wound up in emergency departments.
For the entire Northern Hemisphere, it was the warmest June on record averaged across all land areas. Nearly 4 percent of the surface of the Earth hit record high average temperatures during the first half of 2021, according to the Berkeley Earth analysis. That's despite the cooling effect of a La Nina event. Looking at the first six months of the year, "Nowhere has been record cold," tweeted Berkeley Earth lead scientist Robert Rohde. Globally, the odds of more "record-shattering" heatwaves like the one that took such a huge toll in the US and Canada in June are likely on the rise.
For the entire Northern Hemisphere, it was the warmest June on record averaged across all land areas. Nearly 4 percent of the surface of the Earth hit record high average temperatures during the first half of 2021, according to the Berkeley Earth analysis. That's despite the cooling effect of a La Nina event. Looking at the first six months of the year, "Nowhere has been record cold," tweeted Berkeley Earth lead scientist Robert Rohde. Globally, the odds of more "record-shattering" heatwaves like the one that took such a huge toll in the US and Canada in June are likely on the rise.
Yes, climate change is very likely happening (Score:4, Insightful)
We can't definitively show that this is due to climate change but it looks really likely at this point. And things are just going to get worse from here. The question at this point isn't whether we have climate problems but how much and how soon. But reducing CO2 is still really important because it reduces the amount of damage, gives us more time to mitigate, and gives us more time to develop new technologies in the long run like geoengineering. We might be screwed, we might not be screwed, but if we give up now we'll definitely be screwed.
The good news is that CO2 output is essentially decoupled from economic growth at this point, so we know that trying to help doesn't create economic harm. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/absolute-decoupling-of-economic-growth-and-emissions-in-32-countries [thebreakthrough.org] Some countries have successfully reduced CO2 production even as their economies continued to grow, while others had increased CO2 well outside their economic growth. (Note that the data from that is pre-2020 so COVID doesn't enter into it at all.) So what can you personally do to help?
In terms of personal activity, you can use less carbon. Easy ways to do so are to eat less meat, use more public transit and drive less. I'm not going to ask people to completely stop eating meat; that's a big ask for a lot of people. But reducing how much helps a lot. In terms of cars, the ideal is not having a car, but that's not always an option. And a used car is better than a new in most circumstances. if you do need a new car, consider getting an electric car or hybrid. (In almost the entire US, an electric car will produce less CO2. West Virginia and Wyoming right now are two of the few possible exceptions due to their massive coal use https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/28/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state-election.html [nytimes.com]). You can also buy solar panels for your house, use less air conditioning, and get more insulation for your home, which will take less energy to then heat in the winter. All of these things are not just good for the environment but save you money.
In terms of politics, you can support candidates who support systemic changes which will reduce CO2. In the US, this largely means donating to Democratic candidates, although some are substantially better than others, and some may be actively not productive, so research into individual candidates may be important. While BIden is good on nuclear power, some others are not. The recent decisions to shut down the Diablo plant in California and the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts were clearly pushed for the left and are leading to more CO2 production.) Unfortunately, Republicans who supported dealing with climate change are often people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Christie Todd Whitman who have been largely pushed out of the party. (And that's even with Whitman being a very vocal supporter of nuclear power.) If you want to support clean energy without supporting any specific candidates or policies, then you can donate here to a group which lobbies for more government support for solar power https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/ [lets-fund.org] So you can also support dealing with this in a completely non-partisan fashion. I don't know politics outside the US well enough to recommend specific actions for most other countries.
In terms of charitable work, you can donate to charities which help get more solar and wind power. For solar power, there are two good ones. Everybody Solar https://www.everybodysolar.org/ [everybodysolar.org] helps get solar panels for non-profits like science museums and homeless shelters. The Solar Electric Light Fund https://www.self.org/ [self.org] hel
Re: (Score:1)
You may want to expend that angst on China. Surely, they'll listen.
They release approximately twice the carbon of the United states these days and about 4X that of India.
I'm sure they'll get right on that if you just patiently explain the consequences.
Re: (Score:1)
China emits about the same carbon as the next 4 or 5 largest emitters combined.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resourc... [ucsusa.org]
Re: (Score:1)
China emits about the same carbon as the next 4 or 5 largest emitters combined.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resourc... [ucsusa.org]
Not per-capita they don't.
Me? I'd thought anybody trying to point the finger at other countries would get their own house in order first but let's see what the rest of this comments section brings....
Re: (Score:1)
per capita is irrelevant, the planet only cares about absolute emissions. China has central government in control of that, therefore what they choose to do determines much of Earth's carbon load. Soon India will also rise to that level over next 30 years.
What the USA does won't matter at all, what those two rising powers do will be the entire story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
you're funny, China is where things are made. They determine what is sold, what is made, and where the energy comes to make it. The USA and Europe can mandate magical tech by rainbow pooping unicorns and means nothing. China is ramping up coal, with plans for ramping up more coal.
https://e360.yale.edu/features... [yale.edu]
Tail does not wag dog! China is the big dog and they say COAL.
Re: (Score:2)
you're funny, China is where things are made. They determine what is sold, what is made
It's consumers that determine what is made as without consumers retailers aren't going to sell things so manufacturers are unlikely to make them.
Re: (Score:2)
What the US and Europe can do is run their countries so as to reward technologies that reduce emissions.
They could also stop buying all their consumer goods from China. I bet that would make China's emissions go down.
Re: (Score:2)
China emits about the same carbon as the next 4 or 5 largest emitters combined.
Yes, China is big.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't really do much about China, that's obviously the point here; we do what we can actually accomplish. But, aside from China not listening or responding to anything you I do, they aren't really the highest priority by themselves. The US has much higher per capita CO2. Now, obviously nature and the laws of physics care about total levels, not per a capita, but per a capita does reflect in part where there's room for reduction and productive work. (Imagine a country which had only a hundred extremely we
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The per capita construct is interesting, but as you concede, not particularly relevant to mother nature.
One need only look at what China has done to it's own environment to see how it will treat the global environment.
Re: (Score:2)
The per capita construct is interesting, but as you concede, not particularly relevant to mother nature.
One need only look at what China has done to it's own environment to see how it will treat the global environment.
That would mostly be made a mess of it, realised that's not a good idea, and started to improve things. Mostly like Western nations went through between 150 and 50 years ago. So there's some hope here.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's NOT between 150 and 50 years ago now, wumao.
What is 'wumao'?
The world doesn't have time for China to copy the mistakes that were made in the industrial revolution.
You are right.
China is building more new coal plants right now than the total number of existing coal plants in the US.
It is building plants, this is true, although some replace older ones, but it is building at a much lower rate than was planned, so things are heading in the right direction pretty quickly. Would it be good if it was heading in the right direction faster? Yes, but it seems China is going to avoid at least some of the industrial revolution errors, thank goodness.
It looks like global emissions of CO2 may be heading for a plateau. Let's hope that at least that is true, and that t
Re: (Score:2)
China is concerned about climate change as everyone else.
Or do you think the climate is not changing there?
Re: (Score:1)
what nonsense, China has been growing and is projected to grow carbon emissions, these token solar efforts mean nothing and are statistical noise.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
China is also building fossil plants in other countries,
https://investmentmonitor.ai/b... [investmentmonitor.ai]
It doesn't matter what the USA does, only what China and then in coming decades India.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yes, climate change is very likely happening (Score:2, Troll)
But MOM! Tommy drew in the wall with crayon, so surely that meant I could too! My drawing was smaller as well, so why am I in as much trouble?!
Fucken simple minded children.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Ok, Ive had enough of this blame China for CO2 crap. The vast bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere NOW did not come from China, it came from the industrialised western nations since the start of the industrial revolution. Sure China is a big contributor in absolute terms now, but still far less on a per capita basis than western countries, particularly the US.
Im no fan of the Chinese govt either, but they are taking climate change far more seriously than the US, and trying to act.
Re: Yes, climate change is very likely happening (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Saudi Arabia can live in a desert [youtu.be] so can we.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They release approximately twice the carbon of the United states these days and about 4X that of India.
Because of this, China is doing most of the development on large-scale clean sources.
Re: (Score:1)
And which idiot modded that troll?
Where is the meta mod button ... ah, I found it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and the subtext of your post is the U.S. cannot do anything on climate change unless China does. So, you'd have U.S. climate change policy yoked to China. Whatever happened to America Firstlike, or whatever the hell that was?
Re: (Score:2)
They release approximately twice the carbon of the United states these days and about 4X that of India.
With 5 times as many people than the USA and roughly 2x of India.
Re: (Score:1)
irrelevant, the Earth's biosphere doesn't care about "per capital", only absolute carbon emissions. China is centrally controlled and already more than 2.5 times the emitter of the USA and growing. Soon India will join as emitter leaving USA emissions behind.
Bringing up "per capita" is illlogical and foolish, it doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
irrelevant, the Earth's biosphere doesn't care about "per capital", only absolute carbon emissions.
The biosphere does not, but we humans do.
If you have 2x the output I have: it is easy for you to reduce yours. Simple. If you do not want to, you are the asshole, not me.
Bringing up "per capita" is illlogical and foolish, it doesn't matter.
It just does not matter because you are an "per capita super emitter" - and do not want to do anything about it.
Re:Yes, climate change is very likely happening (Score:5, Insightful)
The question at this point isn't whether we have climate problems but how much and how soon.
No, that is not the question. The question is what are we going to do about it.
In terms of personal activity, you can use less carbon.
Anything we do individually is pissing in the ocean.
Any nation that is not building nuclear power plants right now is not taking global warming seriously. Anyone opposed to nuclear power today is worse than a global warming "denier". At least a "denier" will just go about their day doing no real harm to others. People actively opposing nuclear power is removing from us the largest lever to lower CO2 emissions.
Advocating for nuclear power does not mean opposing renewable energy sources. We can do more than one thing at a time. We had in the US federal government a minority in leadership that tossed wrenches in the works on the building of new nuclear power plants for 50 years. That opposition effectively ended last August. Now we have a bipartisan majority in favor of nuclear power, and this means we will slowly see the nuclear power industry pick itself up and move to making large gains in lowering CO2. This will be a change from the teeny tiny gains made for the last few years.
Why debate the problem when the solution does not change in the slightest? There's no "deniers" on the problem, just disagreement on the solution. The largest disagreement ended in the federal government, all sides now agree that nuclear power is needed. That means we just solved the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
we know that trying to help doesn't create economic harm.
Who's "we"?
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming (Score:4, Funny)
Yay! My property value in Colorado will go up when it gets an ocean view.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Salt water easier to process than no water at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Get into moisture farming. That always ends well.
Re: Global warming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it will be a Post Toastie after the wildfires get through with it. Then most of it will get washed down into your new waterfront because the vegetation will be gone. Yup, you'll be first on top of the hill.
oh well (Score:3)
Probabilities (Score:3)
It's just math, really. You are statistically unlikely to get severely ill from a corona virus infection if you've had the the vaccine, or a prior infection.
Wait, wait, wait... not off topic yet.
We are in an era of rapidly changing climate and weather patterns. It is statistically likely the human outbreak infestation of Earth is responsible, and if you're able to digest that logic, it seems quite reasonable to suspect the release of sequestered carbon in the form of burning fossil fuels is playing a substantial role in that play.
It's not calculus, or even algebra, but since the science itself is being politicized, we're plausibly hitting the barrier that keeps civilizations from exploring the stars.
Re: (Score:1)
We are in an era of rapidly changing climate and weather patterns.
Probably not.
It's not calculus, or even algebra, but since the science itself is being politicized,
This is a serious problem. Science as a tool is often useful, but science as an institution is always problematic. Not sure there's a way out of it.
we're plausibly hitting the barrier that keeps civilizations from exploring the stars.
Politics didn't stop us from discovering the shape of the solar system, it won't stop us from exploring the stars. (One might argue that science will keep us from exploring the stars, since FTL travel is impossible).
Re: (Score:1)
We are in an era of rapidly changing climate and weather patterns.
Probably not.
Why does your science say that when the temperature records and the science of actual scientists say otherwise. Or is it feelings rather than science you are referencing?
Re: (Score:2)
What analysis do you have that shows the recent temperature records were a result of AGW? If you have some, I will happily read it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
ok, so that's you admitting you just made stuff up. If you don't want to read the science that's fine, but you shouldn't make stuff up.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, so that's you admitting you just made stuff up.
The reports are all here, if it helps: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ [www.ipcc.ch].
Re: (Score:3)
" but science as an institution is always problematic."
I think what you meant to say was that science as seen by Right Wingnuts as an institution is problematic because it tells them things they don't want hear.
What about the rising oceans, rising heat, and other environmental effects do you not understand? Unless, 95% of climate scientists are in a scam. Yup, that must be, they have a secret cabal to bamboozle you into. . .what, precisely?
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with "Right Wingnuts." Donna Haraway wrote about this at length, and she is not a "Right Wingnut" at all.
Same Here (Score:1)
Our June was the hottest in recent history. It was like I experienced as a kid 300 miles South, and everybody was freaking out about dought.
Now our July has been the coldest and rainiest on record (all time).
There is very little news coverage except for flooding disasters. Hardly any scare stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Same with the recent snow in Brazil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to research water management. Flash floods and drought can co-exist.
We had that in Germany a few weeks ago. The more and more common summer drought, and very heavy rainfall in a small concentrated area.
Close to 200 dead or missing, whole towns got completely destroyed by floods. And that are completely natuaral areas, no artificial land scape cahnges that increase floods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are just too stupid to understand that rapid climate change causes extremes in weather.
Uh, by the way, a few flash floods doesn't end a drought. Don't believe me, see
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu... [unl.edu]
Unless. . .hey, wait a minute. They must be in on the gaslighting scam to confuse you. . .like taking candy from a baby.
Lytton recorded the highest temp in Canada and.. (Score:5, Informative)
Not only did Lytton, BC record the highest temperature ever in Canada that day, but right after that pretty much the entire town was destroyed a day later in a raging forest fire. Its gone..
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Hello? Anyone listening? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
When will those in leadership positions that continue to deny GW exists (looking at you Republicans) change their positions?
I'm quite sure both sides fucked this up. We can debate who is worse. I'll take the contrary position and say it is the Democrats.
For 50 years, up until last August, the Democrats created a near total ban on new nuclear power. They were able to do this with a filibuster power they held in the US Senate. Any gains made on nuclear power from executive orders by a Republican POTUS were reversed by the next Democrat POTUS. The few times Republicans held both houses in Congress, as well as VPOTUS and POTUS,
Re: (Score:2)
When will those in leadership positions that continue to deny GW exists (looking at you Republicans) change their positions?
I'm quite sure both sides fucked this up. We can debate who is worse. I'll take the contrary position and say it is the Democrats.
For 50 years, up until last August, the Democrats created a near total ban on new nuclear power./p>
No, they really didn't. 50 years ago is 1971, but plants were being permitted and built throughout the 1970s. Indeed, you were recently telling us how the 1970s were a heyday of building. They were still being built in the early 1980s until economic conditions made it unfavourable under the Republicans.
Re: (Score:1)
First, maybe it wasn't exactly 50 years, so sue me. Maybe it was more like 48 years ago.
Second, I said is was a "near total" ban, which means some got through.
Third, the height of completion of nuclear reactors was in the mid 1970s but it takes a decade to complete them. So a nuclear power plant that started construction in 1971, before the door closed on them, would not come online until the 1980s.
Fourth, are you defending the Republicans? If it was the Republicans that made nuclear power no longer prof
Re: (Score:2)
If it was the Republicans that made nuclear power no longer profitable then they did a good thing, no?
Please stop with the ludicrous political finger pointing. Economic conditions changed in the 1980s meaning that it was harder to get the same long-term investment. None of it was done explicitly to target nuclear power, it was just collateral damage from laws that changed the investment landscape.
Re: (Score:1)
Please stop with the ludicrous political finger pointing.
Look in a mirror and say that.
Re: (Score:2)
Look in a mirror and say that.
I haven't blamed Democrats or Republicans for anything as far as I know. All I have done is note that finance represents a significant issue for nuclear power due to it being normally built as large capital projects. And I noted that the landscape with respect to investment decisions has changed, and those changes are multifactorial.
Re: (Score:2)
Partisan derangement syndrome: detected.
Problem #1: Republicans have had complete control of government 2 1/2 times over the last 40 years.
Problem #2: Obama was a bigger oil man than both Bush's combined, and Democrats do not give the tiniest, greenest little shit about voters or the environment.
Problem #3: Which means it's not Dems, hippies, regulation
Re: Hello? Anyone listening? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the R's in Congress are now admitting GW. However, their takeaway is that there's nothing that can be done so we must all sit back and just die, presumably after their government retirement benefits run out.
FTFY (Score:1, Troll)
“the most extreme summer heatwave” ever recorded in North America - so far
1930s? (Score:2)
I guess that ever now only means the last decade or two. Check out the 1930s, which were much hotter in the US.
Solutions? (Re:1930s?) (Score:2)
I guess that ever now only means the last decade or two. Check out the 1930s, which were much hotter in the US.
There's people on the internet that show the US NOAA "corrected" temperature data from the 1930s to show that more recent years were warmer. How is it that they can make "corrections" on historical temperature readings?
This is just one of many examples on why I gave up on trying to debate the details of global warming. Does it matter which year was warmer? Not really, because what we need to do does not change. We need energy that is domestically sourced, reliable, plentiful, has the least impact on the
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that ever now only means the last decade or two. Check out the 1930s, which were much hotter in the US.
There's people on the internet that show the US NOAA "corrected" temperature data from the 1930s to show that more recent years were warmer. How is it that they can make "corrections" on historical temperature readings?
By using science to ensure a like-for-like comparison between years. Simple, really. You deny being a climate change denialist, then bring up denialist tropes. Weird.
Re: (Score:2)
You deny being a climate change denialist, then bring up denialist tropes. Weird.
What would be weird is someone knowledgeable on global warming to be ignorant of the common arguments against it. I pointed out that the argument is pointless and yet that makes me the bad guy. If you want people on your side then don't be such an asshole when they come to your defense. With friends like this in the fight for reducing CO2 emissions then who needs enemies?
Re: (Score:2)
What would be weird is someone knowledgeable on global warming to be ignorant of the common arguments against it. I pointed out that the argument is pointless and yet that makes me the bad guy.
The way you phrase things is very poor, then.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I guess that ever now only means the last decade or two. Check out the 1930s, which were much hotter in the US.
No, they weren't.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes 1930s were, don't spew in ignorance without research.
Recent "corrections" based on assumptions don't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes 1930s were, don't spew in ignorance without research.
No, they were not warmer, even in the USA.
Recent "corrections" based on assumptions don't count.
So if a measurement is different because of changed methodology over the years, then it shouldn't be corrected? That's a very odd suggestion to make.
Re: (Score:1)
right, worst drought in last 300 years was nothing compared to what we have now...
A measurement made in era of sparse weather stations and lip blown thermometers of largely unknown accuracy is the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
right, worst drought in last 300 years was nothing compared to what we have now...
One of the worst droughts in the UK was in 1976, but that certainly wasn't the hottest summer.
A measurement made in era of sparse weather stations and lip blown thermometers of largely unknown accuracy is the issue.
That's certainly one of them. And changes in design, calibration, siting, etc. So corrections (modifications might be a less contentious and appropriate term) to past measurements are required to ensure they allow apples-to-apples comparisons. If you do that, the 1930s were not the hottest decade in the USA.
https://skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm
The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking sixth behind 2012, 2016, 2015, 2006, and 1998.
. Note, it will be even further behind now. It w
Re: (Score:2)
You want 1930s weather, you have to adapt a 1930s lifestyle. 50% of the population will be farmers and there will be more horses and mules than farmers. Homes were less then 1000 sq ft. There was no consumer society, few went to college. We made all our cars, cloths, and electronics. We had a very small military (that would be a plus I guess). People stayed near home, they did not travel.
I am an old guy and live on a farm, my lifestyle wouldn't change much. My dad is 91, he remembers the 30s as the good old
Re: (Score:2)
The difference was it used to be like a sine wave, a few years of record hot, then a few years of record cold, averaging out. Now it is like an escalator, a few years of record hot, then a few years of almost record hot before returning to record hot.
All the records being broken are heat related with it being over 30 years here where there has been a record cold. You see things like the Pine Beetle damage, as we almost never get 40 below winters anymore, the beetle rampages whereas it used to be that most w
Snowballs chance in hell (Score:2)
But what about Inhofe's snowball? That was such a clever prop there's a snowballs chance in hell he was wrong, right?
Snowball meets hell. (And I'm not just talking about Arizona)
Re: (Score:2)
The snowball was to prove the predictions were wrong? ROFL.
And I assume the record breaking heat year after year is a liberal hoax the prove the predictions right?
It just amazing me that people are so ignorant of their own party's platform, they would put demonstrably false information to defend their positions. I mean, it would be easy to just link the party's official policy positions saying they believe climate change is real if that were the case. Right?
And I love the initial qualifier "there was a p
Re: Snowballs chance in hell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sound advice.
Re: (Score:1)
The snowball was to prove the predictions were wrong? ROFL.
No, that's not what I wrote. I believe you are fully aware that is not what I wrote. You are propping up a straw man because you can't make an argument on what I actually wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it exceedingly frustrating that that so many people commenting on Slashdot cannot make an argument. Everyone posting here is at a computer with internet access. This means that if they have a moderate understanding of an issue, some basic computer operating skills, and an average level of intelligence, that they should be able to make an argument and find data to support it.
As I have done multiple times with you. But you just keep repeating the same points, sometimes with shifting the goalposts. Hence I do not trust you to be an honest actor in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)
One final reply to you because, you know, I can't help myself.
Direct cut/paste from your dribble: "The snowball was to prove the predictions wrong." All I did was add a question mark, well you know, because I was questioning the statement. Also, my first post was a joke. Not a great one, but a joke none the less. Who damaged you?
You might want to review the definition of straw man. It kinda of relies on there being an argument. I wasn't arguing with you, I was poking fun at you. Just because you took
Re: (Score:2)
It just amazes me that people are so ignorant of the story behind this snowball demonstration. Years prior there was a prediction that by 2015 the global warming would be so severe that DC would never see snow.
It's another denialist trope. There was no prediction that DC would never see snow by 2015.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.washingtonexaminer... [washingtonexaminer.com]
I was unaware that RFK Jr. was a climate scientist.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/b... [heraldsun.com.au]
Uses the term 'warmists'. So it's a denialist publication. Why are you using denialists as a source?
An example of the quotes taken out of context:
Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.
And indeed, pretty much the case.
A study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps’s entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow....
Which has been a problem in some years. So, er, correct.
Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur.
And indeed, there have been no such bad winters (just isolated events) since then. Again, correct.
Hollingham: Sitting here at the BBC, leafing through my old photos, I can’t help feeling nostalgic for proper winters. This year we had just one day of snow in southern Britain.
And days of snow are massively reduced overall, apart from vortex-weakening events. Winters are warmer. So correct yet again.
S
Re: (Score:2)
I would have preferred to cite the original articles but the links in the searches tended to end in a 404 error. The people that made these predictions went to great lengths to scrub as much record of their erroneous predictions as possible.
You really do sound like a denialist with such conspiracy theories. Any climate science prediction will have been peer-reviewed and not scrubbed. If you are talking less uninformed opinion (RFK Jr.) only then your evidence is paper-thin.
I get tired of people misrepresenting the case people make on this debate.
Then don't repost denialist nonsense and then deny it by shifting goalposts (again).
Re: (Score:2)
You really do sound like a denialist with such conspiracy theories. Any climate science prediction will have been peer-reviewed and not scrubbed. If you are talking less uninformed opinion (RFK Jr.) only then your evidence is paper-thin.
Did I say it was a peer reviewed prediction by a climate scientist? No, it was a politician vs. politician. Senator Inhofe was responding to politicians that predicted no snow in DC with proof that it snowed in DC. The politicians involved took down those predictions, and so the only places with record of those predictions would be the "deniers" trying to make them look like fools. But then it would be far more difficult to make them look like fools if they actually looked at the science and made reason
Re: (Score:2)
You really do sound like a denialist with such conspiracy theories. Any climate science prediction will have been peer-reviewed and not scrubbed. If you are talking less uninformed opinion (RFK Jr.) only then your evidence is paper-thin.
Did I say it was a peer reviewed prediction by a climate scientist? No, it was a politician vs. politician. Senator Inhofe was responding to politicians that predicted no snow in DC with proof that it snowed in DC.
I am sorry, but he also claimed he was responding to climate scientists.
“we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record.”
Which was claimed by scientists, not politicians.
Quite simply, a lie from activists (Score:2)
Take a look at what went on in the 1930s for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry (Score:2)
I am sure Senator Inhofe can bring another snowball to the chamber floor to prove once again climate change is all a liberal hoax.
Re:Sure, if you ignore historical data. (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, wildfires are at a 10 year low
I live a couple of thousand miles away from the current wildfires, and my area has been affected by smog and apocalyptic sunsets caused by those fires for weeks on end.
I was also here 10 years ago. I can assure you that there was no season-long continent-wide smoke fest back then.
Bottom line: You're full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew it was likely that someone would assert that the Canadians aren't doing enough raking in their forests.
You're just as full of shit as the OP.
Never pull your head out (Score:2)
Let's all shove our heads in the sand and ignore the midwest being drier than a bone, Canada on fire, and Europe getting flooded. Derp derp derpity derp.
Replacing coal and nuclear with wind and solar would be the biggest jobs boom in the history of the human race. Or, you could go on letting a tiny number of shareholders in fossil fool and arms dealers profit while the world burns. Derp derp derpity derp.
Re: (Score:2)
Because dealing with climate change is free??? It was already costing the US alone hundreds of billions each year, between crop killing droughts, home burning forest fires and neighborhood destroying floods.
The cost of mitigating climate change is insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it. Speaking of ignoring, you're ignoring the fact that replacing coal and nuclear with wind and solar would be the biggest jobs boom in the history of the human race.