Atlantic Hurricane Season Is Running 50 Percent Below Normal Levels (arstechnica.com) 166
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: To state the obvious: This has been an unorthodox Atlantic hurricane season. Everyone from the US agency devoted to studying weather, oceans, and the atmosphere -- the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration -- to the most highly regarded hurricane professionals (PDF) predicted a season with above-normal to well above-normal activity. For example, NOAA's outlook for the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to November 30, predicted a 65 percent chance of an above-normal season, a 25 percent chance of a near-normal season, and a 10 percent chance of a below-normal season. The primary factor behind these predictions was an expectation that La Nina would persist in the Pacific Ocean, leading to atmospheric conditions in the tropical Atlantic more favorable to storm formation and intensification. La Nina has persisted, but the storms still have not come in bunches.
To date the Atlantic has had five named storms, which is not all that far off "normal" activity, as measured by climatological averages from 1991 to 2020. Normally, by now, the Atlantic would have recorded eight tropical storms and hurricanes that were given names by the National Hurricane Center. The disparity is more significant when we look at a metric for the duration and intensity of storms, known as Accumulated Cyclone Energy. By this more telling measurement, the 2022 season has a value of 29.6, which is less than half of the normal value through Saturday, 60.3. Perhaps what is most striking about this season is that we are now at the absolute peak of hurricane season, and there is simply nothing happening. Although the Atlantic season begins on June 1, it starts slowly, with maybe a storm here or there in June, and often a quiet July before the deep tropics get rolling in August. Typically about half of all activity occurs in the 14 weeks prior to September 10, and then in a mad, headlong rush the vast majority of the remaining storms spin up before the end of October.
While it is still entirely possible that the Atlantic basin -- which includes the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea -- produces a madcap finish, we're just not seeing any signs of it right now. There are no active systems at the moment, and the National Hurricane Center is tracking just one tropical wave that will move off the African coast into the Atlantic Ocean in the coming days. It has a relatively low chance of development, and none of the global models anticipate much from the system. Our best global models show about a 20 to 30 percent chance of a tropical depression developing anywhere in the Atlantic during the next 10 days. This is the exact opposite of what we normally see this time of year, when the tropics are typically lit up like a Christmas tree. The reason for this is because September offers a window where the Atlantic is still warm from the summertime months, and we typically see some of the lowest wind-shear values in storm-forming regions. We'll have to wait until after the season to get a detailed analysis as to why it's been so quiet in the Atlantic, but the report suggests dust could be to blame. "[W]e've seen a lot of dust in the atmosphere, which has choked off the formation of storms," reports Ars. "Additionally, upper-level winds in the atmosphere have generally been hostile to storm formation -- basically shearing off the top of any developing tropical systems."
To date the Atlantic has had five named storms, which is not all that far off "normal" activity, as measured by climatological averages from 1991 to 2020. Normally, by now, the Atlantic would have recorded eight tropical storms and hurricanes that were given names by the National Hurricane Center. The disparity is more significant when we look at a metric for the duration and intensity of storms, known as Accumulated Cyclone Energy. By this more telling measurement, the 2022 season has a value of 29.6, which is less than half of the normal value through Saturday, 60.3. Perhaps what is most striking about this season is that we are now at the absolute peak of hurricane season, and there is simply nothing happening. Although the Atlantic season begins on June 1, it starts slowly, with maybe a storm here or there in June, and often a quiet July before the deep tropics get rolling in August. Typically about half of all activity occurs in the 14 weeks prior to September 10, and then in a mad, headlong rush the vast majority of the remaining storms spin up before the end of October.
While it is still entirely possible that the Atlantic basin -- which includes the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea -- produces a madcap finish, we're just not seeing any signs of it right now. There are no active systems at the moment, and the National Hurricane Center is tracking just one tropical wave that will move off the African coast into the Atlantic Ocean in the coming days. It has a relatively low chance of development, and none of the global models anticipate much from the system. Our best global models show about a 20 to 30 percent chance of a tropical depression developing anywhere in the Atlantic during the next 10 days. This is the exact opposite of what we normally see this time of year, when the tropics are typically lit up like a Christmas tree. The reason for this is because September offers a window where the Atlantic is still warm from the summertime months, and we typically see some of the lowest wind-shear values in storm-forming regions. We'll have to wait until after the season to get a detailed analysis as to why it's been so quiet in the Atlantic, but the report suggests dust could be to blame. "[W]e've seen a lot of dust in the atmosphere, which has choked off the formation of storms," reports Ars. "Additionally, upper-level winds in the atmosphere have generally been hostile to storm formation -- basically shearing off the top of any developing tropical systems."
It is obvious that this is man made (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: It is obvious that this is man made (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't jinx us!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is real. We had an overly active hurricane season predicted due to climate change, but more climate change meant the science was wrong, and therefore we need more science.
Last year it was unusually active. It varies year-to-year. The important thing to look at is the long-term trend.
We already did (Score:3, Interesting)
Once again you failed to understand the difference between weather and climate.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Those were recorded by ocean deposition. I've often wondered what was going on land at the same time.
As the polar regions are warming faster than the equator, and heat engines are driven by temperature differences, I wouldn't be surprised to see fewer big heat transfer driven storms develop. Where I live we got a bit baked by a low pressure system that got detached from the jet stream and sat there pumping warm air from the south over us for a week before it finally meandere
Re: (Score:3)
"Wild and unpredictable"
No, that isn't how science works. You can't say "it's going to trend this way" and then when the trend reverses, and doesn't conform with the model you proposed, say "well, this proves the same thing".
Wild and unpredictable, by definition, means your models were wrong. You can't come in after the fact, as is happening here, and say, "this changes nothing!"
Case in point: wild and unpredictable weather only became an indication of "climate change" after the models were inconsistent wit
Re: (Score:2)
If you make up what the prediction is out of some simple minded adherence to what? An Ideology? A Religion? Doesn't really matter. The point is that they were showing that there was a lot more energy in the ocean which traditionally leads to more severe hurricanes. Now that we are actually in it they are seeing lots of dust and other phenomena disrupting traditional weather patterns, guess what? That's exactly what they always say. That weather will become unpredictable with some severe weather in unexpecte
Re: (Score:2)
The 2021 Atlantic hurricane season was the third-most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, producing 21 named storms and becoming the second season in a row – and third overall – in which the designated 21-name list of storm names was exhausted.
Oh, I get it... (Score:2)
Oh I get it, your slashdot handle is ironic.
Re: (Score:3)
Do yourself a favor and actually look at the data that you just pulling out of your back side. [statista.com]
Storms all over the world are becoming far more unpredictable. While hurricane season this year is so far timid, monsoon season in the southwest has been way rougher, then there's flooding throughout the midwest and that's just talking about the U.S. Europe has had a particularly rough summer as well.
Seriously, if you can't look past the previous year as data points then you have no business commenting on wheth
Re: (Score:2)
Your reading comprehension is clearly very poor and you should work on that as I acknowledged that hurricane situation in the very first paragraph after the link which demonstrates that even hurricanes on average are getting worse. The number and severity of the hurricanes you can clearly see on the graph are growing in intensity. The graph goes back quite a ways so its pretty easy to see the trend. Climate is cyclical and not just year over year.
In short, try harder, I'm embarrassed for you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How selective do you have to be to cherry pick a multi-eon trend by looking at a single subepoch?
Re: (Score:2)
That we have significantly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the air then saw a steady increase in warming is just a total coincidence!
Re: (Score:2)
"These extremes resulted in what, a quiet, normal hurricane season?"
They resulted in THE MOST SEVERE HEATWAVE IN RECORDED HISTORY.
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
Well, you could read the summary you posted too. (Score:5, Informative)
That tells you why you've had a quiet season - more dust in the upper atmosphere, and stronger upper level winds that blew the storms apart as they formed. Neither of those things mean that we don't have a warmer planet.
And who knows - we could get lucky in a few ways. Higher energies could mean more of such high level winds, so less highly intense storms in the Atlantic. Global weather is too complex to know exactly how it will respond to more thermal energy everywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If this is true, then how do we know climate change is catastrophic, man-made and fixable with certainity?
Re:Well, you could read the summary you posted too (Score:5, Insightful)
Catastrophic, in general, because the change is so big. Man made because we know where all this carbon dioxide (and methane) is coming from. Fixable because it's us that are putting the carbon there, so we can stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Well, you could read the summary you posted to (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s trivial to come up with a scenario that is catastrophic, human caused, and reversible. If I dump toxic chemicals in a lake, or if a country starts a war, or if you drop a bunch of bombs somewhere, or clearcut a forestâ¦the list is endless. The effects are often broadly unpredictable from those sorts of actions, but if you simply stop and put some effort in, you can reverse the changes youâ(TM)ve wrought.
Understanding how climate change is all the things you listed is equally as
Re: (Score:2)
You're ignoring Hunga Tonga (which shit a huge amount of dust and moisture into the stratosphere = cooling effect), and the solar cycle which diverges from the past decade's calm (calm sun = angry storms).
Re: (Score:2)
The same that are made to believe a single man delivers toys to over a billion children in a matter of a few hours, dressed in red and guided by an animal called Rudolph.
We aren't stupid. Everyone knows Rudolph was invented by the Rand corporation to make people think Santa isn't real! When will you damn Santa deniers learn?
Re: It is obvious that this is man made (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For 20+ years Slashdot has been filled with dumbass climate change deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It is obvious that this is man made (Score:2)
Re: It is obvious that this is man made (Score:5, Insightful)
If that is the case then it means that ocean temperatures are much higher than modeled, which is bad. It also means that a significant cooling mechanism for the ocean has been lost. Oh, and it might mean that next year or a few more years out will be an extremely intense hurricane season.
It likely also means a few things about the jet stream and other fun stuff, but we will need to wait a few months for the doomsday data on that.
You can't make many smart decisions based solely on current events; long term is what matters.
Re: (Score:3)
Familiarize yourself with the variability of the gulf stream, polar vortexes, and the impact solar activity and volcanoes have on them. It is not superstitious or unpredictable like your fearful post indicates, you just aren't being given the full picture by our benevolent media.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Can't wait for climate activists to explain why the current hurricane season is 50 percent below normal. . ." Below normal so far.
That's the thing about averages, it is the mean value over the entire data set. TFA on Arstechnica is saying the average for the first half of 2022 is below the average for an average year. That's a lot of averages to compare against each other.
In a normal year there would be eight named tropical depressions and hurricanes by this date. This year there have only been five,
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
In a normal year there would be eight named tropical depressions and hurricanes by this date.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The 2021 Atlantic hurricane season was the third-most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, producing 21 named storms and becoming the second season in a row – and third overall – in which the designated 21-name list of storm names was exhausted.
Re: (Score:2)
Most hurricanes are out on the Atlantic.
And if they do not thread to make landfall in the US, they are not "news" - so the laymen do not know about them.
The biggest storm ever was december 2016/januar 2017. Covered the whole Atlantic. Civilian shipping ceased. Every ship - if it could - took shelter.
No one except maritim news reported about that ... go figure. Did not make landfall in the US, otherwise the East cost would not have recovered till now. Then it would have been news.
Re: (Score:2)
"The biggest storm ever was december 2016/januar 2017. Covered the whole Atlantic."
Gonna call bullshit. Link to the story. Please do tell the name of that storm. None are listed on the Wikipedia pages for 2016 or 2017 for that timeframe.
As for your claim that they do not make the news, that's blatantly false. We see Atlantic storms on the weather frequently, including many that are not heading toward the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 2021 Atlantic hurricane season was the third-most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, producing 21 named storms and becoming the second season in a row – and third overall – in which the designated 21-name list of storm names was exhausted.
Re: (Score:2)
Factually incorrect, as is common for Cult of Gaia adherents preaching the good world of planet dying soon (TM) from human evils. Increase is North Atlantic only.
South Atlantic had reduced tropical cyclone events of cat3+ intensity. As did ALL other oceanic basins. As I note above, North Atlantic is the sole oceanic basin with increase. Everywhere else, they're increasing in number and intensity.
This was in fact seen in 2021 very well, where North Atlantic hurricane season was one of the strongest (as you i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Props for at least changing your argument, if not your mind when faced with facts. Most adherents to your cult can't do even that.
Let's see if I can get you to bend your argument a bit further toward reality. Can we agree that in terms of damage done by tropical cyclones of cat3+ intensity, global warming is globally improving the situation for humanity?
Re: (Score:2)
Props for at least changing your argument, if not your mind when faced with facts
I did neither, I am simply responding to your comment about the South Atlantic to note that the modelling is robust. I can post information about the strength of North Atlantic seasons along with NOAA predictions each year if you like.
Let's see if I can get you to bend your argument a bit further toward reality.
It's already completely aligned with reality.
Can we agree that in terms of damage done by tropical cyclones of cat3+ intensity, global warming is globally improving the situation for humanity?
I'd have to look to see whether that is even remotely true first. Believe it or not, there are oceans other than the Atlantic, North and South.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we agree that in terms of damage done by tropical cyclones of cat3+ intensity, global warming is globally improving the situation for humanity?
https://public.wmo.int/en/medi... [wmo.int] Overall damage from weather-related events has been increasing, and the trend is likely to continue. Stripping one element out (e.g. tropical storms) out doesn't make sense as we can't choose to have a lower level of South Atlantic cyclones due to climate change and combine with not having the effect on rainfall patterns and thus drought. Luckily, deaths are reducing as weather prediction is improving w.r.t. to storms and disaster response to droughts improving. However,
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't ask you if human development in coastal regions has exploded, ensuring that much weaker extreme weather events will cause more damage because there's far more value invested in those shores than before.
There's a reason why I ask specific questions related to actual environment, rather than general questions aimed at obfuscating environmental factors by diluting them in economic, demographic, developmental etc ones.
So let's see if I can get you to stop the Cult of Gaia indoctrination level of dogma,
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't ask you if human development in coastal regions has exploded,
It has increased, yes. It's one of the confounding factors. But given that it is increasing, then even if storms are reducing they are not reducing fast enough compared to development, so the outcome is still more damage. At best you might be able to say damage will be less worse than might have been the case, but that wasn't the specific (a word you like) argument you made.
Re: (Score:2)
So can we agree that global warming made it better for those regions as a whole, as without it, those extreme weather events would have been worse?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming is making the atmosphere more hostile to the formation of tropical cyclones. By the early 2010s there were about 13 percent fewer storms across all oceans than there were in the late 19th century, according to a new study published on Monday in Nature Climate Change.
But having fewer hurricanes and typhoons does not make them less of a threat. Those that do manage to form are more likely to reach higher intensities as the world continues to heat up with the burning of fossil fuels.
This is as modelling has suggested. A significant reduction in the South Atlantic is both modelled and observed, but these weren't tending to hit areas with large populations before so it doesn't much change the level of damage. The greater intensity is an issue for those in the North Atlantic where they are more likely to make landfall (it's not always USA - there are lots of islands in the path). This, plus more infrastructure in the way, is why
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So in conclusion, you yourself cited several sources that claimed increase for North Atlantic and note reduction elsewhere. And then you still cannot agree, because your religious fervor causes you to immediately conflate the two into "less but stronger hurricanes everywhere".
See, this is what I was talking about above with the fact that for some people, this has become a religion. The conclusion MUST be reached, no matter the inputs. The mind does the rest, ignoring facts, conflating facts with one another
Re: (Score:2)
So in conclusion, you yourself cited several sources that claimed increase for North Atlantic and note reduction elsewhere.
Yes. But a reduction in storms in places where they aren't likely to hit areas of high population doesn't mean a reduction in human misery. It's not religious fervour on my part, but logic. We can see that the increase in storms is not reducing the level of human misery by looking at the cost of them. For a reduction in the South Atlantic leading to a reduction in cost would require people move from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern. Is that what you are proposing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
conflating facts with one another and so on, as you consistently do above
That's entirely in your own mind. I've tried to lay out the facts as much as I can, including some links and and indicating where you have been correct. It's your conclusion that is not supported by the underpinning data, though, plus it's a dishonest tactic of saying that a small part of an effect is beneficial, attempting to them show that something looks almost beneficial in its entirety. You need to look at the overall as well as the detail. The overall effect of global warming is not favourable. If it
Re: (Score:2)
This is what religious impulse does. It makes you believe that it is completely logical that Christ was reborn. It makes you believe that it is completely logical that no one should ever depict Muhammad as an image. It makes you believe that you can argue that human misery is somehow defined by the fact that humans who choose in live more in an area of reduced storms is increased because... there's more humans there.
You actually described very well why Green ideology at its core is openly and fully genocida
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. And the reason why I tried to narrow the point down as much as possible to the regions with reduced hurricane activity and effect of global warming on it is because the logical answer to my question above is very simple: "Data shows that yes, global warming is a net beneficial thing to humanity overall when it comes to hurricane events across the globe and in all basins outside North Atlantic one".
And one of the things that seems somewhat functional in punching through the addling of logic circuits in
Re: (Score:2)
No, Colorado State University is the guilty party this time. They're the ones collating data on tropical cyclones, and you'd know to query their database if you had a single clue on how to search for this subject.
As I did, because I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Subtle like a skunk in the AC.
Re: (Score:2)
In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human-caused increasing greenhouse gases have had a detectable impact on past Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although they are strongly linked to global warming. Some possible emerging human influences on past tropical cyclone activity were summarized above. These included, for the Atlantic, recent increases in rapid intensification probability and aerosol-driven changes in hurricane activity. At the global scale, increased intensities and fraction of tropical cyclones observations at high intensity are examples, along with the poleward shift of the latitude of maximum tropical cyclone intensity in the Northwest Pacific basin. Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations.
Safely in MA complaining of no Hurricanes (Score:2)
Weather depends on so many unknown variables. We can prepare for a hurricane because we know they are out there. But in reality the weather service just gives up probabilities, and we have to make decisions based on those. All the averages, the horse race reporting, is meaningless. We know a hurricane could form off the coast tonight and destroy a city tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Be thankful. (Score:2)
Meanwhile, over here in the Pacific, we're already at #12 with another 2.5 months to go.
Still too early to crow about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been following / dodging these things since David and Frederic in 1979. Then later on I became a meteorologist, and then I gave it up for IT.
When David hit Puerto Rico, my fam were cowering in the house. I was 9 then, out in the front yard with my Polaroid One-Step, taking pictures of sideways rain and palm trees bending from the wind. I'd listen to the wx radio and plot them on maps from El Mundo -- a long-defunct newspaper. I'd compare the current plot with what the last forecast said would happen, and mark the difference.
These things defy logic. It's too early to be crowing about how quiet it is. After all, when it's really eerily quiet, that's when Big Bad is revealed, yes?
When it's December, then y'all can crow about how quiet it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe after January. The whole unpredictability thing being what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is that no matter what happens, you can blame it on climate change!
More hurricanes than average? Climate change. Fewer hurricanes? Climate change. Hurricanes later than usual? Climate change.
Just to be clear, not dismissing the issue or that we're causing it, but it seems that any deviation from the mean is seen as further proof, whether it matches our predictions or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Tropical Storm Zeta [wikipedia.org] says hello.
Statistical significance? (Score:4, Insightful)
This means you have to be very careful in interpreting the error bars on model predictions. This is all of course understood by the scientists in the fields, but possibly not by the non-scientist spokesmen who talk to the public
Re: (Score:2)
How well understood do you think it is, though? The models and predictions based off those scientists have been predictably, consistently wrong for 50+ years.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Yep. (Score:2)
Spikes and dips in 'normal' activity can happen with or without climate change. The real issue is the severity of the weather events when they do happen, and weather events around the world have been increasing in severity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it couldn't have anything to do with this year's solar cycle, could it? I mean: solar cycle severity (sunspot count, etc.) has been pretty well understood to correlate to the the Nina/el Nino cycle, as well as storm severity.
That seems like a bit better predictor of what's going on than a statistical model which shows a 0.2% change in temperature over 20 years, with a 2% sd... don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it couldn't have anything to do with this year's solar cycle, could it? I mean: solar cycle severity (sunspot count, etc.) has been pretty well understood to correlate to the the Nina/el Nino cycle, as well as storm severity.
Citation?
hmmm (Score:2)
Can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but allow me to assume you're not being sarcastic and point something out:
Over the span of many years, the people most loudly advocating for drastic alterations of human activity (alterations that would in many cases have very certain and negative effects for millions/billions of people) to avert global disaster from man-made climate change have grabbed for, and used, nearly every weather event as "proof" of climate change (remember all the uses of hurricane Katrina?).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your side, the side of making shit up, thinks that a normal one year lull means AGW doesn't exist. Our side, the side of does this make sense, understands that ever-higher records set regularly means things are escalating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again. The hurricane season was less intense than forecast, again.
2020 and 2021 were the first and third most active seasons on record. Irrespective of anyone's predictions of them being worse than they actually were, the average hurricane season is getting worse. I get that this kind of sophistry is kind of the lingua franca of pseudo-scientific babbling, but take it to Truth Social with all the hydroxychloroquine peddlers and election fraud proponents where it belongs.
A 10% chance is still a 10% chance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's not that likely, but it's also not that unlikely - or nobody would ever have died from russian roulette.
There's not that many ten chamber revolvers out there
notice anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Busy hurricane season" = proof of climate change
"Quiet hurricane season" = proof of climate change
Re: (Score:2)
The important distinction is that the evil capitalists did it, you realize, so it has to be AGW. Climate change isn't enough, it needs to be something we can tax and form corrupt conglomerates to siphon money into for the betterment of the elite.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like climate science is complex, esoteric, and distinct from weather science, and maybe non-climate scientists (everyone else) shouldn't be constantly publishing and/or discussing weather stories which imply some connection either way.
James Taranto's take a few years ago (Score:2)
2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006
2007: “NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
2008: “NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain .com, Aug. 7, 2008
2009: “Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—he
Re: (Score:2)
The takeaway here... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But politicians think they can.
and...dangerously,,, (Score:2)
they then think they should implement policies that raise prices or reduce availability of energy and/or various substances.
When energy becomes more expensive/less available there are real-world measurable effects that KILL real people in the here-and-now, rather than projected people in a possible future scenario in which people stupidly do nothing to mitigate effects.
Every winter, elderly and poor people in North America and Europe FREEZE TO DEATH because they cannot afford to heat their homes to safe tem
Ignoring the obvious (Score:2)
Are we just going to pretend this is yet another sign of AGW, which just so happens to contradict what the AGW proponents say was supposed to happen according to their models?
Are we just going to ignore the full system effect of things which result in "climate" - namely, solar behavior as well as global behavior - and focus exclusively on "those evil capitalists most evidently did it"?
That's myopic as fuck, and really clearly indicates an unscientific approach.
Look: are we just going to ignore the Hunga Ton
More evidence (Score:2)
More evidence for global warming, because global warming.
Climate Change Denier (Score:2)
Re:Obvious Conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were a greedy climate scientist and wanted money, you'd simply hire yourself out to the fossil fuel sector and get rich.
Are you really not intelligent enough to understand this, or are you just another dishonest right wing creep trying to ruin this site?
Re:Obvious Conclusion (Score:5, Informative)
Is it clear the fossil fuel sector pays better?
yes [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Is it clear the fossil fuel sector pays better?
YES [oilsandsmagazine.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it seems we're not man or woman enough :D.
Small peepee Slashdot mods ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Note the response (Score:2)
It's an abuse of mod points to rate a post of factual history [testimony to congress, provided under oath] as "Troll" simply because you have mod points, you dislike the facts, and you have no actual rational argument.
Use mod points to push down personal insults, racism, etc - NOT to illegitimately suppress the visibility of material you disagree with and want other people's filters to keep them from seeing. If you are into information suppression, go get a job at Facebook or Twitter.