September Broke the Global Heat Record by a 'Gobsmackingly Bananas' Margin (bnnbloomberg.ca) 142
The global average temperature for September broke records by such an absurd margin that climate experts are struggling to describe the phenomenon. From a report: "This month was -- in my professional opinion as a climate scientist -- absolutely gobsmackingly bananas," Zeke Hausfather, a researcher with Berkeley Earth, said on the social media platforms Bluesky and X. The numbers are stark. September 2023 beat the previous record for the month, set in 2020, by 0.5C (0.9F), according to data sets maintained by the Japan Meteorological Agency and the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service. The temperature anomaly for the month was roughly 1.7C above pre-industrial levels, which is above the symbolic 1.5C mark set as the stretch goal in the Paris Agreement.
"We've never really seen a jump anything quite of this magnitude," Hausfather said. "Half a degree C is analogous to slightly less than half of all the warming we've seen from pre-industrial [temperatures]." Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the main driver of rising temperatures. The global average temperature this year has also seen a boost from El Nino, a natural climate shift in the Pacific. Other factors may also be pushing temperatures up incrementally, such as a decline in cooling aerosol pollution from ships. Hausfather said next September may be unlikely to have all the same compounding factors, and consequently may be not as extreme. But either way, he described September 2023 as a "sneak peek" of what the back-to-school month may feel like in a decade as climate change pushes temperatures higher.
"We've never really seen a jump anything quite of this magnitude," Hausfather said. "Half a degree C is analogous to slightly less than half of all the warming we've seen from pre-industrial [temperatures]." Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the main driver of rising temperatures. The global average temperature this year has also seen a boost from El Nino, a natural climate shift in the Pacific. Other factors may also be pushing temperatures up incrementally, such as a decline in cooling aerosol pollution from ships. Hausfather said next September may be unlikely to have all the same compounding factors, and consequently may be not as extreme. But either way, he described September 2023 as a "sneak peek" of what the back-to-school month may feel like in a decade as climate change pushes temperatures higher.
Get metric. (Score:5, Funny)
Stop using those crazy units. :)
Bananas is not a measurement unit
Get Metric
Re:Get metric. (Score:5, Funny)
Stop using those crazy units. :)
Bananas is not a measurement unit
Get Metric
Yeah, everyone knows that the rest of the civilized world measures in Plantains
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, don't make fun of the metric system! It doesn't use arbitrary fruit. Our measurements are very precise. We are using the mass of potassium in a cubic centimeter of banana. And not just any banana. Each year we select the tastiest variety and re-set the benchmark.
Re: (Score:1)
But I just bought a Banana Scale and Gobsmacker.
Re: (Score:2)
But, how do you convert to fractions of a banana? Let me present an old Slashdot favorite: The Hutzler 571
Highly reviewed
Re: (Score:3)
Goddammit, I was measuring the craziness of him using the unit "bananas" in metric bananas. Why use imperial bananas in the first place?
One gobsmack is roughly equivalent to 5 newtons, btw.
Re: (Score:2)
One banana to rule them all, one banana to find them, One banana to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them; In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
Re:Get metric. (Score:4, Funny)
The unit here is 'gobsmackingly'; the thing being quantified is bananas. I believe it is an ordinal [wikipedia.org] quantifier, i.e. gobsmackingly > alarmingly > surprisingly > remarkably > routinely.
Re:Get metric. (Score:5, Informative)
Bananas is not a measurement unit
Yes it is. The whole of the Internet uses bananas for scale these days.
Here's a handy converter: http://bananaforscale.info/ [bananaforscale.info]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, damn, +1 informative, I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
Bookmark that, it will come in handy in the bananapocalypse.
Re: (Score:2)
It's missing conversions for time.
Since as we know: time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
Re:It's SO HOT in Arizona... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Even now as I type this, it is 110F (43.3333C for you metric freakazoids) outside my back porch here in Arizona. Then, with all the heat, we have landfills that spontaneously combust and put loads of nasty smoke into the air for almost an entire week now. I can hardly go outside anymore.
We don't have any bananas to speak of, but it is pretty crazy out here."
I don't think you can pinpoint a single event or a relatively short-term condition as parent brings here as caused by global warming, by the same reason you cannot get out in Minnesota in winter, take a handful of snow and shout, "Climate change is lie, there is snow everywhere!"
Re: (Score:2)
by the same reason you cannot get out in Minnesota in winter, take a handful of snow and shout, "Climate change is lie, there is snow everywhere!"
Oh but they can and have. https://www.motherjones.com/en... [motherjones.com] Well not Minnesota specifically but there's nothing stopping them from doing the same.
Relativity (Score:4, Funny)
Even now as I type this, it is 110F (43.3333C for you metric freakazoids) outside my back porch here in Arizona.
That's nothing. Outside my window here in Canada is 282K. That's so hot ice is literally melting, how crazy is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We had 30C this week (about 85F). That's insane. It's October. Usually we're considering ourselves lucky if it's not freezing around this time and anything above 10C (50F) is usually considered "too warm" for the season.
Re: (Score:2)
Was not sure if you were joking, but no, link to the landfill fires:
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.co... [phoenixnewtimes.com]
People can look up the temps are also no joke, looks like a high of 104 in phoenix tomorrow.
Stay safe man! I would love to see a root cellar/survival dugout strategy for a lot of people down there in AZ, a place where there can go to survive in a heatwave if the power goes out by leveraging the way the ground a few meters down averages day and night temps, and a bit of seasonal. Something with an emergency e
Simple: Call it "as expected" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, this is massive, extremely bad and will only get much, much worse. But all it does is confirm the predictions.
Those with working minds already know what is happening. The usual idiots will just stay in denial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, this is massive, extremely bad and will only get much, much worse. But all it does is confirm the predictions.
Those with working minds already know what is happening. The usual idiots will just stay in denial.
As much fun as people have living in fantasy world? There will come a point where denial will have to be willfully ignorant to the point of absurdity. When people can't walk on blacktop without melting their shoe soles? It's gonna be hard to say we aren't seeing the results of something beyond "normal" margins. Note: I've been in 120F heat for a work day. You do *NOT* want to see that become a standard, normal summer day. It was bad enough when it happened once every ten or twelve years.
Things are getting u
Re:Simple: Call it "as expected" (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember those COVID deniers that denied it exists right up to dying from it? Some people basically have unlimited capacity for denial.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hardly unlimited if it's limited by the finiteness of their earthly existence.
Not that I complain, don't get me wrong here.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Some problems are self-correcting. If only climate change was an individual thing....
Re: (Score:2)
If it was, I'd not even bother with it. I'd just bring a bag of popcorn and a soda (and plenty of ice, I heard it's gonna be a hot day, every day) and watch the fallout.
Re: (Score:2)
You drink CO2 infused water?
You are the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There is always one that is even more stupid. You are it.
Re: (Score:2)
What? You don't agree with the idea of AGW?
Re:Simple: Call it "as expected" (Score:4, Informative)
Except it's not self correcting. With COVID there are more survivors than deceased, and many of those will continue to spread the conspiracy theories, the home remedies, the alternative medicines. They're building a clinic in Florida where the doctors will be willing to violate the hippocratic oath, for the population who demands to get the drugs they ask for even if there's no scientific evidence for efficacy. We The People Health and Wellness Center in Venice, FL.
Remember that the original Typhoid Mary was arrested and forcibly quarantined, not because she was a carrier but because she denied being a carrier and insisted on continuing to work as a cook. After agreeing to stop working as a cook and also improving her hygiene, she was released. Then later quarantined again, for the rest of her life, after again working as a cook and causing new typhoid outbreaks. She insisted all along that she was not a carrier. Not to debate the ethics of forcible incarceration for medical reasons, she's a good example of a denier who was a clear danger to others, a problem that did not correct itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I should have said "sometimes, a part of the problem is self-correcting". You are correct that the overall problem is not.
Re:Simple: Call it "as expected" (Score:4, Interesting)
You underestimate the stupid. People were denying Covid-19 well past simply dying from it. There were deathbed requests not to put Covid-19 on the death certificate or mention it in the obituary. I personally have family members (wife's side) that were begging the hospital not to put Covid-19 down as cause of death.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG. That is even more ragingly demented than I thought. So these people essentially knew and still were in deep denial?
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much denial at that point as not wanting to have their surviving family deal with the shit from their social circle. The whole social belonging bit is stronger than I ever thought. People would rather DIE IN AGONY than be ostracized.
Re: (Score:2)
In my book, these people are just completely fucked in the head. Does explain a lot though.
Re: (Score:1)
And those with COVID refusing remdesivir, while in the hospital, then demanding to be discharged early even though they can't even walk. They had it distilled into their heads that the cure was worse than the disease and that their home remedy would work. True believers in the conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
True believers are always the worst. Reality is complex and there are basically no absolute truths. Hence dealing with reality competently requires some mental flexibility. True believers have switched off their reasoning capabilities and latched on to _something_, anything. And they are often willing to force other to do the same.
Re: (Score:3)
What moron modded the _literal_ truth "flamebait"?
Re: (Score:1)
As much fun as people have living in fantasy world? There will come a point where denial will have to be willfully ignorant to the point of absurdity.
My feeling is that we're already past that point. And even among the people who aren't actively in denial, there are a lot who haven't thought much about how terrible some of the secondary consequences will be. For example, imagine environmental refugees whose numbers will absolutely dwarf the current tide of illegal immigration. And they will come at a time when 'hard' infrastructure such as power distribution is already being stressed by beyond-spec operating temperatures, and where 'soft' infrastructure
Re: (Score:3)
Just like those people who refuse to evacuate before a hurricane, there's only so much you can do to warn some people. The snag here though is that the denial is likely making the problem worse.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, this is massive, extremely bad and will only get much, much worse. But all it does is confirm the predictions.
Those with working minds already know what is happening. The usual idiots will just stay in denial.
An increase in surface sea temperature of 2C suggests the expected monetary losses (scaling with power expended) would nearly triple, increasing by a factor 2.67.
Edward Wolf, Precise Prediction of Hurricane Power vs Ocean Temperature,
International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 2021,
doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20210501.11
It's not all horrifically, gob-smackingly bad banana news. On the plus side, the maximum wind scale would be increased by 39% which means the sea surface would cool (if you assume t
Re: (Score:2)
It's not all horrifically, gob-smackingly bad banana news. On the plus side, the maximum wind scale would be increased by 39% which means the sea surface would cool (if you assume that oceans are like bowls of soup.)
Plus side? That cooling effect you mention comes about by evaporation. LOTS of extra moisture in already warmer air means that wet-bulb and dry-bulb temperatures are pretty much the same. With humidity levels that high, there is NO WAY short of air conditioning to keep people cool enough to survive. How many people are in circumstances such that they have little or no access to A/C? And how many who nominally have that access won't have it because of power failures caused by an over-stressed electrical grid
Re: (Score:2)
This is a hope for me too in a situation without a lot. It is about a bigger picture, evaporation making clouds, reflecting sun, bring water to new areas to increase plants and carbon sequestration in biomass. Certainly means more dangerous wet bulbs temps in many places, but at the point where you wonder if life anywhere will be okay, it seems to raise the probability that some places could, especially with aggressive planting if new weather patterns turn deserts wet.
Re:Simple: Call it "as expected" (Score:4, Insightful)
Who modded you insightful? This is way outside the bounds of the predictions, which are based on "understood science"
No, not so fast. The predictions are for the average temperture rise. There are still month-to-month variations, and year-to-year variations-- the average rise doesn't mean that there are no longer any other variations. In particular, el niño years are always slightly warmer than average, and there are other variations in addition.
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, the predictions also said the _variations_ will get a lot stronger and that is a major part of the problem. Methinks AC is a clueless idiot.
Re: Simple: Call it "as expected" (Score:2)
Yes, more energy in a weather system means more: more heat, more moisture, more movement leading to more cold and or arid as the energy concentrates elsewhere. Expect the formerly unexpected, like 49.8C in Canada where a town then immediately burns down.
Re: (Score:2)
See the 2006 documentary on the subject, Idiocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Or the number of religious people on the planet. Something like 80% of all humans have failed at recognizing reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. For the moment my working assumption is that about 80% of the human race actually does not have any general intelligence to speak of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we're not, Mr. Coward.
The greenhouse-effect induced warming trend isn't instead of natural variations. It is in addition to natural variations.
There are random variations month to month, and year to year. Sometimes these variations are high. Sometimes they are low. When they are low, the fact that the trend is upward means that they're slightly less notably low. When they're high, however, the variation adds on to the warming trend, and it attracts attention.
The el niño this year means that it was
Re: (Score:2)
Who modded you insightful? This is way outside the bounds of the predictions, which are based on "understood science"
The simplest explanation is that you have no clue how to interpret the predictions. Wait. Yes, that's it.
Hot summer (Score:2)
Now, with the record low sea ice around Antarctica, will the planet cool down less during the northern hemisphere's winter?
Next year might be fun too. /Given up on large scale sane cooperation, now on team 'watch it burn'.
Serious issue? Act accordingly. (Score:1, Troll)
"This month was -- in my professional opinion as a climate scientist -- absolutely gobsmackingly bananas,"...
I see after a literal global pandemic the members of the scientific community have learned fuck all about reporting with factual accuracy when speaking to a jaded audience who's rightfully jaded.
Grow up if you want people to actually take climate change seriously. Most of us stopped reading after seeing measurements only a gobsmacked monkey could understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like every day language usage in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
All perfectly predictiable since electeds are now owned by the corporate oligarchy.
It's also perfectly predictable that climate change will get a lot worse if 'professionals' continue to act like clickbait idiots. There's a group that needs their reputation restored here, and it sure as hell isn't the audience.
Ah, the fun of complex systems. (Score:1)
Nobody ever - EVER - has to admit they're wrong. The whole place could either burn down or freeze over, depending who's in error, and nobody has to admit a causal relationship of any kind.
So let's not fight about that. Let's figure out better ways of growing crops in inhospitable regions, and work on making structures that are far more flood resistant than we have now (or on moving everybody inland, which would be "right" but unpopular).
Re: (Score:3)
No, your program still requires people who insist it is not happening to admit they're wrong, otherwise they'd be responding to a trend they say does not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. I'm not asking for people to acknowledge a causal relationship. I'm asking them to work on the fact that coastlines are flooding and lots of places are burning down. You can do one without the other.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think people can deny that stuff? Last summer we had heat wave denialists.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but not enough people to matter. I think the number of people who believe it's normal, cyclical, and has nothing do with us dwarfs the number of people that actually deny the events themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think that insurance is the perfect vehicle for causing relocation. I am in favor of insurance companies refusing to insure places where these things are becoming statistically difficult. It makes perfect sense to me. It's dispassionate, merciless, and generally based on hard numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta perfect structure. Buy an old coal mine, use the fact that it is buried to harness the lower temps, move into it, set up a coal generator to fire up my AC, I will be the last one with the lights on, while all else cook. Of course I'll cook when the coal runs dry, but it will be a few generations.
Whether it is right or wrong is a pretty big question. Without answering it, eventually, it will be the people living in underground bases with nuclear energy finding and killing people living underground bu
Re: (Score:2)
And Republicans.. (Score:4, Insightful)
..will still loudly insist that climate change is a hoax
Even worse, voters agree and put them in office where they can cause real damage
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: And Republicans.. (Score:2)
Are you voting for them? If not, then you're probably not making the issue much worse for everyone else, so you're welcome to continue with your own personal beliefs :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Need 20-30,000 regular sized nuclear plants. Building a nuclear plant takes years, even in China where they don't have to worry about nimbyism, the environment etc. Then there's the required uranium problem. And any way you look at it, nukes are expensive to build, even in China where the government can ignore the people.
There's lots of ideas for better nukes, they all take time to implement and perfect and then build and not much is happening.
Meanwhile the propaganda will be cranked up to slow things down,
Something else is going on here (Score:1)
With all the lockdowns in 2020 and reduced GDP in 2021, consumption of fossil fuels was lower but there wasn't a corresponding lower temperature. So, either the data is sketchy or the correlation between fossil fuel consumption and temperature rise is not the causation.
Re:Something else is going on here (Score:4, Informative)
It's not the amount of pollution generated per year, that is correlated to temperature rise. The air pollution has *accumulated* for decades. The "lower" pollution levels in 2020-2022 added less to that accumulation, but the accumulation is still the highest it's ever been.
Re: (Score:2)
Definition of preindustrial is... (Score:1)
direct from the IPCC FAQ
"In principle, ‘pre-industrial levels’ could refer to any period of time before the start of the industrial revolution. But the number of direct temperature measurements decreases as we go back in time. Defining a ‘pre-industrial’ reference period is, therefore, a compromise between the reliability of the temperature information and how representative it is of truly pre-industrial conditions. Some pre-industrial periods are cooler than others for purely natura
Re: (Score:2)
Berkeley Earth (Score:2)
Haha. More proof they live in a world of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
We will have to add reflective aerosols to the stratosphere (sulfur and sodium based probably) and this will allow us to cool the planet down and to keep it cool.
That is not a solution. That causes mass starvation.
Re: (Score:2)
We also had problems with acid rain, lakes dying, crop failures, concrete eroding etc. As well as a disappearing ozone layer, something that is vital for land based life. Things looked bad enough that the Conservative governments of the day did something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The ecosystem is balanced over millions of years
Sure, but is it balanced around humans pumping approximately 1.6 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the course of 150 years is really the pertinent question, or rather, how long will it take for that to balance out and what happens to humans in the time it would take to balance out.
"The planet is fine. The people are fucked"
Past Earth was hotter [Re:-1 Troll of course] (Score:3)
A few large volcanos are likely to dwarf human CO2 output.
No.
It's hard for most people to to really visualize how much CO2 humans emit. Calling fifty billion tons "a gobsmackingly huge amount" is an understatement. We produce way more CO2 than even a very large volcanic eruption. Quoting: "Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions." https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
Yes, past Earth was hotter. And it will return to being hotter. At some point megaflora will begin to thrive again.
True about the "past Earth was hotter", but that was millions of
Re: (Score:2)
And it will return to being hotter. At some point megaflora will begin to thrive again.
Evolution is not that fast. Typically on heat swings, life has had tens of thousands of years to adjust. We're doing it in about two hundred years. There's no way current life that could lead to the prehistoric "megaflora" in any form can adapt this quickly, it just simply is not possible. The only organisms that have any fighting chance is bacteria and other single cell life, multicelluar life just isn't up to the task to adapt as fast as we are changing the environment. For that life to continue, we
Re: (Score:1)
Re: -1 Troll of course (Score:2)
And those natural sources are all balanced by natural sinks, such as the ocean, which is why CO2 levels didn't normally change much.
Until humanity came along, and started digging up old carbon and burning it at such a huge rate that it simply overwhelmed all the natural sinks.
Which is why the CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been climbing so much faster in the last century. We can directly measure this, we can see it happening, and the rate squares nicely with estimates of how much we've been burning.
We kn
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a starter for you, its only 10 minutes long so shouldn't challenge you if you have a short attention span Are humans really behind the extra CO2 in the atmosphere? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better not look to closely at the Amazon of the southern U.S. Drought tends kill off your "lush jungles".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Weather is not climate.
It is when it's month after month of record GLOBAL temperatures.
How many months is this in a row?
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that the "little ice age" took about 200 years to fluctuate for about 0.4K?
Not 20 years to change by 1K.
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Our "global record" is a pathetically small window of time.
What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
We know what's causing it (greenhouse gases) and we know where those gases are coming from (human activity) and we have a fairly good idea what will happen if it continues (bad things).
Which part of "It was warmer millions of years ago!" is relevant to the discussion?
Re:Weather is not climate (Score:4, Insightful)
People who say "weather is not climate" seem to think that that means that there is no relationship between climate and weather. Yes, outliers would happen if there whether or not there was a warming trend. But the *magnitude* by which this data point strays outside of expectation is much, much higher if we assume a world where there is no warming trend.
A temperature anomaly of 1.7C is, sadly, not at all surprising if you assume a rapidly warming world. Global warming really took off around 1990; if you do a linear regression (which I just did) from that point and plot the expected temperature anomaly, then the actual data for September 2023 is only *0.7C* higher than you'd expect. That's actually not that much considering that this is an El Nino year. It's only really remarkably, gob-smackingly hotter than expected if you assume the world is *not* warming.
So really your choice is to believe the world is warming and we had a slighly warmer than expected year in that trend; or that the world is not warming and we had an extremely improbably hot month for some inexplicable reason.
Re: (Score:3)
what does a sudden change tell us? Certainly nothing about climate change, which is a far more gradual process.
What's "sudden" about it?
This is happening month after month now, and year after year.
These aren't just localized events either, they're GLOBAL averages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure it did (Score:4, Insightful)
What pisses me off about you conspiracy theorists is you are standing in the middle of an actual (natural?) global extermination, and your only action is to deny it, not braver than the average Joe nerd, more cowardly. People knew about the greenhouse effect in the late 19th century eugenicists and Malthusians wrote about it. The Nazis knew about it. The science is simple and clear, and we see it all around. We physically see the effects of forests going above temps they never lived through in the fires, we see it in the high food prices and crop disruptions, we see the change in homes being uninsurable:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/i... [cbsnews.com]
People over 40 notice how things have changed. October was not 90 degree days but it is now.
But none of you asks, how did we sleep walk into engineering our own demise? What were the forces that drove us away from electric cars and nuclear when we had the chance? Why do so many people need to die in the heatwaves and famines before the world-saving fusion/carbon sequestration tech comes out to save the last kernel of humanity in the late 20th century? These are the questions that would reveal the actual stuff it would be wise to think about. But you cannot deal with the scary stuff so its *No, the kids at Sandy Hook are still alive! Its all a silly game! Climate change is a practical joke!* Truth: Those kids are dead, and we are likely dead from this, even over 40s like me. The conspiracies that matter are not practical jokes, they are scary and deadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Javaman25,
With respect, I'm with you all the way until you think that a person in their 40s is probably going to die from climate change. I suppose it's likely that climate change will reduce our life expectancy, but do you really think it will work out to years, or will it be more like weeks?
Don't get me wrong: by acting as slowly as we are on average we're doing far more harm to other humans and other species than we could be, so we should definitely address climate change. However, the attitude th
Re: (Score:2)
Who is to say when we will pass? I could die on November 15th 2023, by a brave ascent culminating in a fall. You could die this coming Tuesday in your sleep. This stuff is PETTY. It does not matter. Or, we could both live to watch the world burn. On the current course, about 2045, the crop failures, the livestock deaths, the rest will create famine, all before we lose the ability to cool our homes to survivable amount with fossil fuels. If we have the money saved up, old grey people at 65 could survive long
Re: Good (Score:2)
If temperatures were increasing slowly, over tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago, I would agree with you.
It's not. The sheer rate of increase is far outstripping nature's ability to adapt, in a large majority of studied species.
It's also going to be extremely expensive for us humans to adapt. Sea level rise alone will ensure that, but there are many other contributing factors. It's all in the IPCC reports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
STFU, ignorant slut. You're so stupid, you're not even being paid to post climate-change denialism.
I look forward to your power going out for a week when the temp's over 100F.