Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

2023 Was Hottest Year Ever Recorded Globally, US Scientists Confirm (theguardian.com) 114

Posted by msmash from the fears-justified dept.
Last year was the hottest ever reliably recorded globally by a blistering margin, US scientists have confirmed, leaving researchers struggling to account for the severity of the heat and what it portends for the unfolding climate crisis. From a report: Last year was the world's hottest in records that stretch back to 1850, according to analyses released concurrently by Nasa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) on Friday, with a record high in ocean temperatures and a new low in Antarctic sea ice extent. Noaa calculated that last year's global temperature was 1.35C (2.4F) hotter, on average, than the pre-industrial era, which is slightly less than the 1.48C (2.6F) increase that EU scientists, who also found 2023 was the hottest on record, came up with due to slightly different methodologies.

A separate analysis of 2023 released on Friday by Berkeley Earth has the year at 1.54C above pre-industrial times, which is above the 1.5C (2.7F) warming limit that countries have agreed to keep to in order to avoid disastrous global heating impacts. This guardrail will need to be broken on a consistent basis, rather than one year, to be considered fully breached, however. The burning of fossil fuels and deforestation has driven the extraordinary warmth, which follows a string of hotter-than-average years in recent decades. Each decade over the past 40 years has been warmer than the last, Noaa said, with the most recent 10 years all making up the hottest 10 years ever recorded. Last year's record heat was further spurred by El Niño, a periodic climatic event that heats up parts of the Pacific Ocean and heightens global temperatures.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2023 Was Hottest Year Ever Recorded Globally, US Scientists Confirm More

2023 Was Hottest Year Ever Recorded Globally, US Scientists Confirm

Comments Filter:
  • The deja vu [slashdot.org] is strong today.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by gosso920 ( 6330142 )
      Warm mongers need to keep fear alive.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by magzteel ( 5013587 )

        Warm mongers need to keep fear alive.

        Love that term "Warm-monger"

      • Fear? C'mon. Those that would deny it's getting warmer when the water is up to their navel will continue to ignore it, everyone else already knows it. At this point, it's just yet another uncomfortable fact people don't want to hear, stick their fingers in their ears and go la-la-la.

        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by Archangel Michael ( 180766 )

          Did you tell all the rich/powerful/elite people who bought beachfront property that their homes are threatened by the very thing they are trying to warn us about?

          It is almost like they don't believe the claims they are making.

          • Re:It's was so hot we can't stop talking about it (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Ksevio ( 865461 ) on Friday January 12, 2024 @03:02PM (#64153895) Homepage

            What are you even talking about? Are you suggesting climate scientists are all rich and powerful with beach homes?

            Even the people with beach front homes that understand climate change know they can just use the house now and buy a new one once sea levels make that area uninhabitable.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by lsllll ( 830002 )
              I think he may had a brain fart typing that first sentence, conflating climate scientists and rich/powerful/elite people. But here's an interesting take on what he said. Obviously not all people believe in the doomsday scenarios being presented about sea levels, especially the rich who buy beach-front property. After all, if they did believe that their beach-front property was eventually going to be covered under water, then why would they invest in it?

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Archtech ( 159117 )

                "[C]onflating climate scientists and rich/powerful/elite people" may not be as foolish as it might sound.Many people touted as "climate scientists" are not necessarily specialists in "climate science" with current expertise and credibility. But they may find that the more excitedly they talk and write about the approaching doom the wealthier they mysteriously become.

                • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

                  by Ksevio ( 865461 )

                  Yeah it really is foolish. Just because you saw a conspiracy meme about it, doesn't mean it reflects reality.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Ksevio ( 865461 )

                Well consider that sea rise might be a foot over the next 30 years. As long as you buy a house that's at least 2 feet above sea level, your "investment" is safe and of course commonly people buy houses by the sea so they can go live on the beach.

              • Answer: Many of them see it not as an investment but as an expendable toy of leisure. They buy beachfront property that will soon be underwater for the same reason Cleetus buys an old car for $200 and takes it to the demo derby.

            • I think Archangel Michael was thinking more of people like Al Gore. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem... [aei.org].

              If I had become world-famous for warning that the seas are going to rise and drown us all, I probably wouldn't invest heavily in expensive property right next to the sea.

              • I think Archangel Michael was thinking more of people like Al Gore. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem... [aei.org].

                If I had become world-famous for warning that the seas are going to rise and drown us all, I probably wouldn't invest heavily in expensive property right next to the sea.

                Cute link! Any article containing "Climatard" is definitely a winner.

                Is three miles away across nearly sea-level ground "right next to the sea"? Is something on a 200-foot-high cliff that rises nearly vertically from the ocean? Perhaps both are. But one is going to be flooded far, far before the other one is.

              • Huh. I wonder if that had anything to do with his decision to buy a house 3 kilometres inland? And 159 metres above sea level [imgur.com]?

                Do ya? Think it did? Maybe? Could be? Huh? Huh?

          • The thing you seem to have forgotten about the rich and powerful is that they are rich and powerful.

            They can afford to have a temporary home. And the powerful part means they will be at the front of the line for federal flood relief.

            Think before posting, it helps, and it would be a nice change for you.

            • What if open borders and right to camp meant everyone could have temporary homes?

          • Did you tell all the rich/powerful/elite people who bought beachfront property that their homes are threatened by the very thing they are trying to warn us about?

            The projection is that due to global warming, "by the mid-2090s, for instance, global sea level reaches 0.22 to 0.44 m above 1990 levels". That's one foot of sea level rise (plus or minus 4 inches) seventy years from now.

            The rich/powerful/elite people will be dead by then, and probably don't care. Their grandchildren probably sold the beach home years ago by then.

            Source: IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A1B scenario https://archive.ipcc.ch/public... [archive.ipcc.ch]

          • Oh don't worry about them, we'll sure get to bail them out so they don't have to suffer too badly.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      on tuesday they linked associated press' story. today they link the story the guardian bought from associated press. it's totally different and new, you insensitive clod!

      also, tuesday's post got what possibly is a monthly record of replies. gotta do real busy mining when you find a good vein.

      • Confirming previous result [Re:It's was so..] (Score:5, Insightful)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Friday January 12, 2024 @01:15PM (#64153479) Homepage
        Not the same. The previous story was about the results from the European climate agency Copernicus.

        This story shows that similar numbers have been found by NOAA, NASA, and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.

        Since science is all about replicating results, this is important.

        • Results from five different groups (Score:5, Informative)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Friday January 12, 2024 @01:48PM (#64153613) Homepage

          To be specific:
          -- EU Copernicus [copernicus.eu] Earth Observation project: 1.48 C [copernicus.eu] higher than pre-industrial era (0.17 C above previous record)
          -- NOAA: 1.35 C [noaa.gov] higher than the pre-industrial (0.15C above previous record).
          -- Berkeley Earth [berkeleyearth.org]: 1.54 C [berkeleyearth.org] ± 0.06C above average for 1850-1900 (0.17 C above the previous record)
          -- NASA GISS: 1.2 C [nasa.gov] above the average for 1951-1980
          -- UK met service [metoffice.gov.uk]: 1.46 C higher than the pre-industrial era (0.17 C above the previous record).

          *(yes, the different groups use different baselines for temperature, ranging from pre-industrial to 1951-1980.)

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Layzej ( 1976930 )
            The average warming per decade over the last two (since 2004) has been: (source [woodfortrees.org])

            Land station measurements:
            BEST: slope = 0.24C per decade
            GISS: slope = 0.32C per decade

            Satellite measurements:
            UAH: slope = 0.23C per decade
            RSS: slope = 0.26C per decade

            Roughly one Celsius every four decades if the rate of increase doesn't continue to accelerate. I'm somewhat less worried about hitting 2C than I am about the velocity we'll have achieved when we do.

            • A footnote here; BEST and GISS measure air temperature at the surface, while the satellite measurements are for the whole of the troposphere (the actual satellite measurements are a weighted average over roughly 0-10 km altitude, but by subtracting lower stratosphere measurements from troposphere measurements, they derive a model for average temperature over 0 to 5 km altitude).

              Wikipedia has a decent article explaining satellite temperature measurements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (the measurement y

            • Did you forget the plus-or-minus 1 degree per decade, which makes everything just noise?

        • Ooop, meant to uprate this, not downrate it. Posting this to clear that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by znrt ( 2424692 )

          we don't even say rtfa anymore, do we? thanks :)

        • Since the estimates differ by 10%, can we take that as a rough margin of error, and if you extrapolate that to historical measurements, can you really honestly claim that this is the warmest year on record, or are scientists just emotionally manipulating people with fear and omitted statistics?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's[sic] was so hot...

      How.. hot.. was it?

  • shouldn't every year be a new record? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by trybywrench ( 584843 ) on Friday January 12, 2024 @01:06PM (#64153455)
    if temps are rising then every year should be a new record

    • It almost is. https://earthobservatory.nasa.... [nasa.gov]

      Look at the long term trend. https://earthobservatory.nasa.... [nasa.gov]

    • if temps are rising then every year should be a new record

      No because of weather. While average over a year will reduce the fluctuations due to weather it will not eliminate them especially since there are single phenomena with global impact like El Nino. With an increasing climate temperature there will be an increased chance of setting a record each year and the faster the rate of increase the greater that chance becomes but it is not a certainty.

    • Well, not necessarily. Just like if you spend more money than you earn, your account may still go up from time to time when you get paid, but in the long run, you're fucking broke, no matter how much you like to point out that at this point it was 100 bucks less catastrophic.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Layzej ( 1976930 )

      shouldn't every year be a new record?

      Not quite. There are a number of oscillations superimposed upon the long term warming trend. For example, here are a few of the factors [woodfortrees.org] that contribute to global average temperature. Add those together (plus volcanic activity and other factors) and you get a steady upward trend [woodfortrees.org], but with oscillations that bring any given year somewhat higher or lower than that ever rising mean.

    • if the stock market is rising then every day should be a new record

    • In a system without noise or variation you'd be absolutely correct, but I've never come across such a system outside of graphing an equation in matlab.

  • Let's ground all private jets until the crisis has subsided. Nobody should be flying anything but commercial.

    • Can we add that commercial? I mean, what's the reason to fly anyway, we have ways to get meetings going without having to move warm bodies.

    • Good idea, I support it. I know who I am voting for that might restrict some things, how about you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      Let's ground all private jets until the crisis has subsided. Nobody should be flying anything but commercial.

      Have you calculated the expected effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide? Is it high enough to measure?

      • Re:It's a crisis so let's ground all private jets (Score:4, Insightful)

        by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Friday January 12, 2024 @02:09PM (#64153679)

        Let's ground all private jets until the crisis has subsided. Nobody should be flying anything but commercial.

        Have you calculated the expected effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide? Is it high enough to measure?

        From:https://flybitlux.com/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-private-jet/

        Although aviation is sometimes blamed as a major cause of the climate catastrophe, just a few of individuals are accountable for the majority of the damage. Surveys conducted in the United Kingdom in 2013 and 2014 indicated that just 15% of persons were responsible for 70% of the flights contributing to sizable carbon emissions.

        According to the Washington Post, experts like Colin Murphy, deputy director of the Policy Institute for Energy, Environment, and the Economy at the University of California at Davis, say it’s crucial to analyze the prevalence of such short flights and the prevalence of flights with very few passengers.

        “They’re doing it in typically less efficient manner than if they were sitting in a coach seat on a 777 or any one of the regular commercial airliners,” said Murphy. To save a few hours of time for a few passengers in a vehicle or a couple of cars, “you’re doing is burning many hundreds or thousands of gallons of jet fuel.”

        How Large Is The Carbon Footprint Of A Private Jet
        The typical private jet burns around 5,000 gallons of fuel per hour. That’s the equivalent of about 400 passenger cars. The average commercial jet burns about half that much.

        When you consider that most private jets only fly with a handful of passengers, it’s easy to see how they can have such a large carbon footprint.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          Let's ground all private jets until the crisis has subsided. Nobody should be flying anything but commercial.

          Have you calculated the expected effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide? Is it high enough to measure?

          From: https://flybitlux.com/what-is-... [flybitlux.com]

          Odd that you linked the site, but didn't quote the answer, even though it's available from information on the site.

          From the site you link, aviation produces just under a billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, accounting for 2.5% of worldwide CO2 emissions, and private jet travel emitted 0.899 million tons of carbon dioxide, 0.9% of global CO2 emissions from civil aviation, or about 0.0225% of total worldwide CO2 emissions.

          • Let's ground all private jets until the crisis has subsided. Nobody should be flying anything but commercial.

            Have you calculated the expected effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide? Is it high enough to measure?

            From: https://flybitlux.com/what-is-... [flybitlux.com]

            Odd that you linked the site, but didn't quote the answer, even though it's available from information on the site.

            From the site you link, aviation produces just under a billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, accounting for 2.5% of worldwide CO2 emissions, and private jet travel emitted 0.899 million tons of carbon dioxide, 0.9% of global CO2 emissions from civil aviation, or about 0.0225% of total worldwide CO2 emissions.

            Gave you the link, what more do you want? So a tiny percentage of people are responsible for almost 1% of all CO2 from aviation.
            That's 1% too much

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by XXongo ( 3986865 )

              Gave you the link, what more do you want?

              I like numbers. It's a flaw, since most people don't care one way or another what the actual numbers are.

              Thanks for the link.

            • Aviation is just one factor as well

              Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity [oxfam.org]

              I have not read through the methodology and the title absolutely sounds sensationalist so, grain of salt, but we really cant be denying that the wealthiest among us don't use a fuckton more energy for their lives, I would say an excessive amount and private jets are just a very obvious example because it is so needless. We already have a whole paradigm for rich people aviation, it's called First Cl

              • Aviation is just one factor as well

                Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity [oxfam.org]

                I have not read through the methodology and the title absolutely sounds sensationalist so, grain of salt, but we really cant be denying that the wealthiest among us don't use a fuckton more energy for their lives, I would say an excessive amount and private jets are just a very obvious example because it is so needless. We already have a whole paradigm for rich people aviation, it's called First Class, we made a special area just for you and that's not good enough I guess.

                I actually read that one and they basically just pulled it out of thin air

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Private jets can land in more places than most commercial aircraft. Often closer to the passengers' intended destination. Obviating the need to employ secondary modes of transportation which also pollute.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        A Cessna can land in even more spots and is more fuel efficient then a jet. According to https://www.flyingmag.com/the-... [flyingmag.com], a Cessna 172P gets 15 nmpg, not sure if those are proper gallons or American ones. The same site shows some twin engine ones getting just over 12-17.8 nmpg. Light jets can get 6 nmpg, usually closer to 4, midsize, you're lucky to get 2 nmpg.
        So a small prop plane is comparable to a big SUV.

  • Subjective measurements (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Friday January 12, 2024 @01:33PM (#64153543)

    Noaa calculated that last year's global temperature was 1.35C (2.4F) hotter, on average, than the pre-industrial era, which is slightly less than the 1.48C (2.6F) increase that EU scientists, who also found 2023 was the hottest on record, came up with due to slightly different methodologies.

    Kind of a huge difference. This makes me think you can make the value whatever you want by using "different methodologies".

    • If I measure water with a digital thermometer and you measure it with a mercury bulb and our values are both over 150 degrees but 10% off from each other would you conclude the water is cold?

      • Yes, if your digital thermometer scale was in Kelvin because that would explain the error too: the mercury froze. It would also indicate the presence of a lot of anti-freeze.

    • Ironic, the combination of 2 F and a 24 MPH north wind just forced me to turn on the baseboard heaters. The heat pump is still working but it can't keep up with the losses from the wind.

      They really need to just shut up until summer, then blab.

      https://transmission.bpa.gov/b... [bpa.gov]

      By the way, either the wind is too much for some of the wind turbines or they have icing problems.

    • Then look at the difference from previous record. 0.15 and 0.17 respectively. Their trend lines will be the same.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by CEC-P ( 10248912 )
      INCORRECT. You can use any methodology you want as long as it doesn't say the temperature is staying the same or cooling because that's not allowed.

      • INCORRECT. You can use any methodology you want as long as it doesn't say the temperature is staying the same or cooling because that's not allowed.

        Of course it's not allowed. Bogus data with flawed methodologies have no place in science.

    • Kind of a huge difference. This makes me think you can make the value whatever you want by using "different methodologies".

      How about you demonstrate this using the available climate data? I'm sure the math nerds here would love to see your figures.

    • Sure you can make any value you want. The question is if your methodology is generally accepted as reasonably sound. Mind you this is the first time I've heard anyone complain that a 0.13 degC difference is "huge". Not that it matters though, because even with scientists apparently making shit up (according to you) the trends still somehow all show the same thing.

      In any case the methodologies are consistent year to year and that is all that matters for drawing trends. One is giving global surface temperatur

      • Mind you this is the first time I've heard anyone complain that a 0.13 degC difference is "huge". Not that it matters though, because even with scientists apparently making shit up (according to you) the trends still somehow all show the same thing.

        0.13C is an almost 10% difference if you believe 1.5C is a red line that must not be crossed or we will all die. I don't disagree with the general warming trend, but I don't believe in red lines or a "correct" or even optimal global temperature, those are all arbitrary.

        In any case the methodologies are consistent year to year and that is all that matters for drawing trends.

        Actually the methodologies change regularly, that is why we are now at version 4 of HADCRUT and CRUTEM. Ostensibly this is to increase accuracy, but accuracy of an arbitrary value is, well, yeah.

    • Not a huge of enough difference to justify your logical leap that you can "make" the values whatever you want. We are talking temperature measurements here, not the values of properties as reported by Donald Trump.
      • Carefully select the land based stations you include, the ocean based measurements at various locations and depths, and satellites at various levels of the *osphere, and then weight them all as you desire and I bet you can and you too can be a real estate tycoon LOL.

    • Kind of a huge difference. This makes me think you can make the value whatever you want by using "different methodologies".

      You might say that both methodologies show the same result, it's just a question of degree.

  • Soylent Green will be People, it seems.

  • Nuclear fission? Problem solved? Pick one. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Friday January 12, 2024 @03:45PM (#64154033)

    I'll believe that there is a "climate crisis" when the banshees that scream about impending doom change their opinion on nuclear fission for energy.

    In normal circumstances people don't jump from windows to get out of a building. That's because there is time for the safer path of taking a staircase or elevator. In a crisis, such as a fire or similar danger cuts off the normal safe path, then people start to think jumping out a window might be the wiser option. I'll see people bring up excuses to oppose nuclear fission like the cost, waste, or whatever, to do something else. Well, that something else includes allowing global warming. How much would it cost us to deal with global warming? Is that more than nuclear power costs? No? Then bring on the global warming. How much danger to life is there to nuclear power? Is that a greater threat than global warming? Yes? Then bring on the global warming.

    At some point global warming is a greater threat than nuclear fission for energy. When that time comes then I expect the banshees screaming about global warming to change their screams to demanding nuclear power plants. I have a nuclear power plant in my backyard, not "literally" in my backyard but something like a 30 minute drive away. It's close enough that I would get an evacuation plan in the mail once in a while reminding me what to do if there's an evacuation order because of a meltdown or something. I had no expectations of that order ever happening because I know that such orders have been given only three times in the world, and the last one in the USA was a long time ago. So long ago that there's not many nuclear power plants like it are still operating, those that remain operating have seen safety upgrades or were built later and so incorporated the lessons learned from the start. I'm supposed to fear that nuclear power plant more than global warming? Why? While there are certainly accidents at nuclear power plants, and sadly people have died from them, we can see that statistically it is more likely for someone installing a solar panel or windmill to fall to their death than see a diver drown in a cooling pool at a nuclear power plant. Dangers to the general public are certainly much lower than those working on producing the electricity.

    Whatever problem people bring up to discourage nuclear power is a much easier problem to solve than global warming. We can keep making up excuses for not building nuclear power plants, but by doing so that is just telling me that global warming is a solved problem. Is global warming solved? If so then I can agree we don't need to change a thing. If not then that tells me we need to do something different, and the subject matter experts say that what needs to change is to build more new nuclear power plants than we close.

    Pick one. Then let me know if you've decided the problem is solved or we need new nuclear power plants. If your answer is some third option that will come along in the future then that's not all that different than telling me there's no problem. If we can wait for nuclear fusion, or cheaper batteries, then we can wait for people to make up their mind on nuclear fission.

    • It's true that nuclear fission does not emit greenhouse gases. But it certainly does generate waste, and an extremely toxic, long-lasting, and difficult kind of waste to dispose of. We can't just look at power generation under a single measurement of how much it contributes to global warming. There are other concerns that are also important.

      • It's true that nuclear fission does not emit greenhouse gases. But it certainly does generate waste, and an extremely toxic, long-lasting, and difficult kind of waste to dispose of. We can't just look at power generation under a single measurement of how much it contributes to global warming. There are other concerns that are also important.

        Your comment just reinforces my point that there is no "climate crisis". If you have greater concern over nuclear waste than global warming then global warming is not anything to worry about, because nuclear waste is nothing to worry about. Well, not nothing but hardly something to hold up building new nuclear power plants over.

        Nuclear power or problem solved? Take your pick, and it looks like you chose problem solved.

        • You may dismiss the nuclear waste problem as inconsequential, but others certainly do not.

          Why not wind and solar? These are clean power options that do not have a nuclear waste problem.

          • Why not wind and solar? These are clean power options that do not have a nuclear waste problem.

            Is anyone saying we should ban wind and solar power? I don't see any such efforts. We do see bans in place on nuclear power though, and that's a problem. How is it a problem? Two words, cold dunkelflaute.

            Nuclear power plants operate in all kinds of weather, including quite sever weather like hurricanes. Wind and solar can't do that, so to keep the electrical grid providing power in severe weather we need nuclear power plants. And we'd need enough nuclear power plants to meet demand during a cold dunke

            • Is anyone saying we should ban wind and solar power? I don't see any such efforts

              Who brought up bans? Certainly not me. YOU started this thread with a long treatise dismissing wind and solar as "more dangerous" than nuclear. My point is that we shouldn't dismiss wind and solar so quickly.

              Sure, wind and solar don't work in a hurricane. But you also don't concentrate them all in one place. Texas, far and away the wind power leader in the US, has wind turbines spread all across the state. So if one area is not conducive to wind power, another area is.

              The best approach is not to put all our

    • I'll believe that there is a "climate crisis" when the banshees that scream about impending doom change their opinion on nuclear fission for energy.

      If implemented fully and correctly, nuclear energy would upend the current economic system due to how 'cheap' energy would be; therefore, nuclear energy is a nonviable option. It is more important to keep the power structures the way they are than to deal with something external like 'climate change'. In other words, we will choose die as a race before we choose to offer respect to society's lowest and weakest members.

      Isn't being human fun?

  • >was further spurred by El Niño
    If we can't even figure out how to get a computer to render a tilde (after 40 years of effort), what hope do we have of saving the planet from climate disaster?

  • No mention of the sunspot cycled the Maunder minimum in the 16-1700's also known as THE LITTLE ICE AGE. 100,200 years of data is NOTHING compared to the age of the Earth. I remember back in the 90's when the "global warming" scare started. The melting ice uncovered a lost civilization in the (I think it was) the Nordic area. Scientist were all over themselves with the discovery. They carbon dated it to around 1200-1400 AD. Not once did anyone say HEY! Wait a minute! How was it so warm back then, that pe
  • 1. The temperature records only go back to 1850, but the earth is over 4 billion years old. 2. There is no mention of error or uncertainty in the temperature differentials. 3. The "hottest year ever" claim is against a 50 year average from 1850 to 1900, not against any single year since 1850 to now or any other intervals. 4. Even NASA admits this year more likely to be cooler than last year using the 50 year average criteria ( https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news... [noaa.gov] ). 5, Climate scientists dismiss their extr
  • They want to take away our cars and air travel, put farmers out of business, herd us into "smart cities". All the while they fly private jets to climate conference. Carbon is always cited but has never been proven. There is 0.04% of it in the atmosphere and humans are responsible for 3% of that. Here's a fact for you: 97% of scientists produce results that are in line with goals of their financing institutions.
  • Said me in SoCal not having had to turn on the AC in two years. Clearly not a Salvador Dali painting of hottest.

Slashdot Top Deals

Been Transferred Lately?

Close