2023 Temperatures Were Warmest We've Seen For At Least 2,000 Years (arstechnica.com) 200
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Starting in June of last year, global temperatures went from very hot to extreme. Every single month since June, the globe has experienced the hottest temperatures for that month on record -- that's 11 months in a row now, enough to ensure that 2023 was the hottest year on record, and 2024 will likely be similarly extreme. There's been nothing like this in the temperature record, and it acts as an unmistakable indication of human-driven warming. But how unusual is that warming compared to what nature has thrown at us in the past? While it's not possible to provide a comprehensive answer to that question, three European researchers (Jan Esper, Max Torbenson, and Ulf Buntgen) have provided a partial answer: the Northern Hemisphere hasn't seen anything like this in over 2,000 years. [...]
The first thing the three researchers did was try to align the temperature record with the proxy record. If you simply compare temperatures within the instrument record, 2023 summer temperatures were just slightly more than 2C higher than the 1850-1900 temperature records. But, as mentioned, the record for those years is a bit sparse. A comparison with proxy records of the 1850-1900 period showed that the early instrument record ran a bit warm compared to a wider sampling of the Northern Hemisphere. Adjusting for this bias revealed that the summer of 2023 was about 2.3 C above pre-industrial temperatures from this period. But the proxy data from the longest tree ring records can take temperatures back over 2,000 years to year 1 CE. Compared to that longer record, summer of 2023 was 2.2 C warmer (which suggests that the early instrument record runs a bit warm).
So, was the summer of 2023 extreme compared to that record? The answer is very clearly yes. Even the warmest summer in the proxy record, CE 246, was only 0.97 C above the 2,000-year average, meaning it was about 1.2 C cooler than 2023. The coldest summer in the proxies was 536 CE, which came in the wake of a major volcanic eruption. That was roughly 4 C cooler than 2023. While the proxy records have uncertainties, those uncertainties are nowhere near large enough to encompass 2023. Even if you take the maximum temperature with the 95 percent confidence range of the proxies, the summer of 2023 was more than half a degree warmer. Obviously, this analysis is limited to comparing a portion of one year to centuries of proxies, as well as limited to one area of the globe. It doesn't tell us how much of an outlier the rest of 2023 was or whether its extreme nature was global. The findings have been published in the journal Nature.
The first thing the three researchers did was try to align the temperature record with the proxy record. If you simply compare temperatures within the instrument record, 2023 summer temperatures were just slightly more than 2C higher than the 1850-1900 temperature records. But, as mentioned, the record for those years is a bit sparse. A comparison with proxy records of the 1850-1900 period showed that the early instrument record ran a bit warm compared to a wider sampling of the Northern Hemisphere. Adjusting for this bias revealed that the summer of 2023 was about 2.3 C above pre-industrial temperatures from this period. But the proxy data from the longest tree ring records can take temperatures back over 2,000 years to year 1 CE. Compared to that longer record, summer of 2023 was 2.2 C warmer (which suggests that the early instrument record runs a bit warm).
So, was the summer of 2023 extreme compared to that record? The answer is very clearly yes. Even the warmest summer in the proxy record, CE 246, was only 0.97 C above the 2,000-year average, meaning it was about 1.2 C cooler than 2023. The coldest summer in the proxies was 536 CE, which came in the wake of a major volcanic eruption. That was roughly 4 C cooler than 2023. While the proxy records have uncertainties, those uncertainties are nowhere near large enough to encompass 2023. Even if you take the maximum temperature with the 95 percent confidence range of the proxies, the summer of 2023 was more than half a degree warmer. Obviously, this analysis is limited to comparing a portion of one year to centuries of proxies, as well as limited to one area of the globe. It doesn't tell us how much of an outlier the rest of 2023 was or whether its extreme nature was global. The findings have been published in the journal Nature.
Need scientific source for margin of error (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't find any statement on the margin of error, tolerance, or compensation mechanism for scaling more uncertain older data with more modern data.
Can anyone give a reference or data on those?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From the article: https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re:Need scientific source for margin of error (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't find any statement on the margin of error
No you didn't look, there's a difference. Go read the paper.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are you classified as a troll? You asked the right question. When I read the headline;
"Adjusting for this bias revealed that the summer of 2023 was about 2.3 C above pre-industrial temperatures from this period. "
I read BS. Let me explain it this way. Imagine you do statistical sampling. It relies on the fact that data follows a Gaussian curve. The problem is that if your data is incomplete, LIKE SAID IN THE ARTICLE, then you can't do statistical adjustment. Of course it has not stopped the statistician
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Imagine you do statistical sampling.
Everyone knows 95% of all statistics are made up.
As an aside, this is why the Federal Reserve and BLS numbers can't be trusted. Their sample sizes are far too small and their response rate too low.
Re:Need scientific source for margin of error (Score:4, Funny)
Bullshit, 96.845% of statistics are made up, and most of them are made up on the spot with extra precision to make them look better.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we all stop arguing and starting being thankful that we're part of the elite 99.97% of people that survived COVID -- the most devastating viral pandemic of our generation. What are the odds?!
Re: (Score:2)
Citation? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you classified as a troll? You asked the right question.
Even stranger - when he posted an expanded version of the same comment, it got moderated "2, insightful".
Re: (Score:2)
He was modded as a troll, because he asked questions that members of a religion don't want people asking. Neither do they want the answers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because some people think this is /r/slashdot
Ancient coal fired power stations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? You can go searching for it as easily as anyone else.
No, lazy creep, you do not get to dump it on anyone else, and use that to question the facts.
Re:Need scientific source for margin of error (Score:5, Insightful)
These numbers are all based on predictive models and those models have margins of error.
Without a margin of error for 10,50,100,... years back there is no way to know if the headline is stating that
'Our model says that it will rise by X percent with good certainty'
or
'Our model says it will rise by some amount, but we do not know since the model's error exceeds the predicted rise'
Just want the basic scientific numbers: starting point, delta change, percent error just link other scientific research.
Science research should be able to state these numbers in a nonconfrontational way and asking for these numbers is not dismissing the claim.
Acknowledging something exists is not endorsing it. Asking for numbers is not dismissing it.
Re: (Score:2)
The headline and article is not about models, it is about facts.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty easy to "predict" the past, you know...
Re: (Score:2)
I just posted something similar in another forum yesterday. It's one thing to be blatantly evil like Shrub, Cheney, or Rump, they were hateful, disgusting beings but there was really no disguising what they were. Then there are the oily slime who claim to be virtuous and humanitarian, like Clinton (both), Obama and Biden, but whose actions reveal the inner monsters they are. I almost prefer the former, at least then you know what you're dealing with.
Re: Need scientific source for margin of error (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe I'll vote Republican after all, so I can get the same stupidity but without the hypocrisy.
Nah, you'll get even more stupidity. Trump is proposing blanket tariffs on everything from China.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Schitzinpants lover - they looked at tree rings.
But that's too complicated for you.
The fossil energy lobby has it all under control (Score:3, Insightful)
When technological civilization collapses they and their families will all be fine, having bought all the places that can still support comfortable human existence. Or they will be hanging out with Elon on Mars, in a techno-libertarian paradise without the bother of pesky human scum who have a net worth of less then half a billion dollars. Everyone else will get the mass extinction event they deserve because they are poor.
Problem solved.
Re:The fossil energy lobby has it all under contro (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope the temperature probes (Score:2, Funny)
Can't do it like this (Score:3, Insightful)
Cannot do it like this.
The first step is to cool the past by assuming the temp records are wrong and that the proxies are right. How do we know the temp records were wrong and running hot? They are measuring two different things, the proxies are stuff like annual tree rings. The temp records are daily observations. You cannot correct the observations from the proxies.
Then it gets worse, the next step is to assume that the proxy records are comparable to the last couple of years temperature records.
"very single month since June, the globe has experienced the hottest temperatures for that month on record -- that's 11 months in a row now, enough to ensure that 2023 was the hottest year on record, and 2024 will likely be similarly extreme. There's been nothing like this in the temperature record, and it acts as an unmistakable indication of human-driven warming."
There may be human driven warning, but this cannot possibly be an indicator of it. There is no causal chain from these observations to human activity.
In addition, you have no idea from the proxy record what the monthly fluctuations of temp were in 1568 or whenever. It is entirely possible, from the cited evidence, that there have been many years like 2023 in the past 2,000 years. Its just that there were no instruments around to keep track of them.
What we can however do it take a given country with good instrumental records and ask whether, for that country, 2023 was particularly unusual. The cases I have read where this has been done do not show anything much out of the ordinary. The UK for instance, the hot summer was not remarkable. Unusual, but not unprecedented. Back in the seventies of the last century there were similar or hotter summers. Pakistan similar.
If this is the methodology and the evidence we are justified in classing this as alarmist nonsense. There may be a serious coming problem with global warming, but you cannot show that like this.
Re:Can't do it like this (Score:5, Funny)
There may be human driven warning, but this cannot possibly be an indicator of it. There is no causal chain from these observations to human activity.
Have you not heard of CO2?
Yes. It's got electrolytes!
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, usually the term "good science" is used by people who want to ignore any science that doesn't fit their narrative and slander it as "bad science".
Re: (Score:2)
Scam (Score:2, Insightful)
2000 years? (Score:2)
The constant ignorance of scale really pisses me off.
200 years is basically nothing geologically. It's like making long term conclusions years ahead based on the change of something between one week and the next.
Multiply it by 10 and we could start thinking more serioulsy.
Re: (Score:2)
It is nothing unless you consider rate of change and correlation with industry growth (pollution). Yes a point may be made that it *could be* a random coincidence, but are you willling to bet on it?
Perspective as a weapon (Score:2)
What's the data look like going back 3000, 5000 or even several hundred million years ?
More importantly, can the data itself be trusted to be unfiltered and unmanipulated ?
Assuming we have any trust left in the Science at all. Covid should be a stark reminder of how politics and greed
can have a massive impact on data and the reliability of it. He who controls the data, controls the World.
We can cherry pick the data to show doom and gloom all day long by omitting long term data that shows planet
temperatures
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty dumb post.
With current CO2 levels: there won't be any "ice age" anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this image clarifies quite well what is the difference between normal ice age cycles and current warming period.
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
1. We should currently be heading towards the ice age, but we are going to opposite direction
2. The warming speed is much higher than what is has normally been, which is deadly to many species that require time to adapt.
Worst Summer Ever - Study is Bullshit (Score:2)
We had one of the coldest and wettest summers in memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Local weather is like peanut butter and global temperature is like toothpaste. If you mix them up it won't leave a good taste in your mouth.
This is why instead of global warming, scientists started talking about climate change. It is easier for people to understand that it is not just about global average temperature, it also affects local weather.
So what the world really needs now... (Score:2)
So what the world needs now is a volcanic eruption. Any ideas on how to do that?
Quoting Buntgen? (Score:2)
Interesting to cite Buntgen in this article as if he has no criticisms of climate science, when he is in the recent issue of Nature saying this, among other things:
"In essence, I suggest that an ever-growing commingling of climate science, climate activism, climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions, not only creates confusion among politicians, stakeholders and the wider public, but also diminishes academic credibility."
https://www. [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
[Citation needed]
That stuff sounds good on talk radio, but if you look at peer reviewed papers, not one shows that global warming is not happening, and every year is going to be the coldest year we have experienced as we have stuff get hotter every year, courtesy India and China. We blew past the figures that scientists even dreamed were worst case, to the point of photosynthesis failure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Climategate shopping around, is like me "shopping around" what pasta to buy at the local supermarket. It's easy to "shop around" when 99% of what's on the market meets your needs and agrees with each other.
You're right, shopping around is a corruption of the scientific process. It's just as well that only a tiny minority of climate skeptics engage in the practice.
Re:Not what I said (Score:5, Insightful)
We use proxy data all the time, and no one complains, but if it comes to historic weather and climate data, everyone suddenly is an expert in measurement theory. In fact, all measurement itself is using proxy data. We can't experience electric current to some precision. Instead, we are measuring the force induced in a wire. And as we can't experience force very precisely, we cause the force to tense a spring, and then we read out the angle difference. Do you argue that the angle of distortion of the spring is not the actual current read-out, but some massaged data, which should be treated as such?
That's exactly what we are doing. Each measuring instrument has a label indication the expected error bar of the measurement. But if we do it for proxy temperature data, it's suddenly something we should refrain from?
Re: (Score:2)
Take the CET. We have a whole bunch of observations going back to the 17c for several locations.
We then take some proxies, for instance annual tree ring widths, and estimate annual temperatures from them.
We process the temperature readings so we extract a parameter comparable to what we can obtain from the proxies.
There is a divergence. The parameter derived from the temperature observations is warmer than that which we have estimated from the proxies.
Why do we conclude the observations readings are wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Typically it's because we've validated the proxies for a time period where we do have reliable data.
Re:Not what I said (Score:5, Insightful)
It just means the proxies aren't thermometers and should not be treated as such
Except proxies are. You just have to quantify the error on them. Literally everything is just a proxy measurement, including thermometers. We don't measure temperature. We measure voltage differences in dissimilar metals (for which we need to know the chemistry of the metal), we measure expansion of liquids (for which we need to know the expansion coefficient and control volume), we measure relative movement of metals (for which we need to know expansion coefficients and precisely manufacture metals), we measure a photon count within a specific spectra (for which we need to correct using a black body curve).
Literally everything is a proxy for measuring temperatures, literally everything has error bars. If it can be quantified then it can be treated as a thermometer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's cumulative, and much higher for the U.S. because our economic activity has (and is) much higher.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org]
This makes it clear that while the U.S. is the biggest carbon contributor per capita, that's been falling for many decades even as our economic activity has risen. IOW, we've been making a real effort.
In fact, it's unlikely we can make more of an effort in the short or medium term without very negative impact on people's ability to live. China and India are making very li
Re:Proxies (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it's cumulative. Did you think your CO2 just went away at the end of the year?
And that American value was done with a population less than a 1/4 of either China or India. So multiply America's number by 4 to get more accurate picture of how much more polluting they've been.
America "Making a real effort" = decades of trying and still about twice as bad as the countries with "runaway coal growth" isn't the flex you seem to think it is.
China "making very little effort" = Installing more solar in a year than America has in it's entire history.
China "making very little effort" = installing more solar each year than the rest of the world combined
China "making very little effort" = installing more wind each year than the rest of the world combined.
China "making very little effort" = encouraging EV use and producing cheap EV for the world.
America "Making a real effort" = increasing tariffs on Chinese EV 100%
America "Making a real effort" = increasing tariffs on Chinese solar to 50%
We should be focusing our shaming there, not scapegoating America yet again.
Yet another clueless American trying desperately to pretend he isn't one of the worst and blaming the cleaner countries.
Nice Ommission (Score:2)
What you neglect to mention is that America developed its carbon foot print in an era when there was zero to little awareness of global warming. We went all in on cars well before global warming was mainstream thought and that's where pretty much all of our emission imbalance relative to the rest of the first world comes from. Now that we know all of these emissions are a global problem threatening the well being of all of humanity and not just local air quality issues we are working to reduce them. We cou
Re:Proxies (Score:4, Insightful)
"Value" doesn't help limit climate change. Reducing emissions does, and per-capita is the only reasonably fair way to measure them.
Re: (Score:3)
The obvious flaw in this argument is that half the stuff we produce is crap we don't need.
It is also no measure of quality, such as how long things last or how much waste plastic is in the packaging. And specifically here, "value" does not measure emissions and pollution from the manufacturing process - in fact value is increased if it is done the cheaper, less environmentally friendly way.
Besides, the US artificially reduced its emissions by outsourcing them to China, which may have turned out to be a good
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides what we need? You want some top down government authority making a list of what each person needs?
From each according to their ability; to each according to their need?
Seriously? You can't mean that.
As for the rest you are playing word games changing the meaning of value to make a point. I'm not hating. That's a cheap rhetorical tactic. Also, I already commented on the West buying goods from China's slave labor based high pollution industry so I don't know why you're trying to bring that up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You want some top down government authority making a list of what each person needs?
Why assume such an extreme is being proposed? That's silly.
Excessive consumption that damages the environment and causes climate change seems like a logical thing to regulate, and one which we have already taken in many instances. For example, there is a limit on the emissions from new cars, and older ones have to be regularly tested to ensure they are not out of spec.
We know that emissions harm other people when they enter their lungs, and we know they contribute to climate change. The EU is considering ru
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain your plan for reducing alleged excessive consumption without top down government policy.
You say we don't need top down control, that it is silly, then proceed to go on at some length explaining how we need top down government control.
Can't make this stuff up!
Re: (Score:2)
Every country has top down control, that's what government is.
Do you object to car emissions standards, for example?
Re: (Score:2)
Productivitivity of essential goods (food, water, maybe some tools) would make some of sense, providing the final goal is not to save the current state of ecosystem of Earth, but rather preserve ability for humans to survive (yes both are linked but not completly the same).
Re:Proxies (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but stock manipulation is not actually "producing value". What "value" to humankind or civilization is produced by Gamestop shares going from $28 to $42? Nothing real, but that's what our economy is based on today, fictional values of nonexistent assets.
Re: (Score:2)
Slave labour in a solar panel factory?
Lolz.
What are the slaves doing there? Mopping the floor? I guess that is done by robots.
Serving sandwiches and bringing bottled water to the real workers, I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, true, slaves have never been used in manufacturing.
They only ever in all of history have picked cotton in the US south.
Thanks for the historically accurate update.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a bad start of an argument, but you're too lazy to carry it through. Can you make an honest attempt to establish this? How do you measure productivity? How do you account for the cost of li
Re: (Score:2)
Only in an American fantasy does the planet care how much money you made when producing CO2.
Actually you will find this thing called "standard of living" is quite high on the list of people's priorities pretty much everywhere in the world.
The places with very low CO2 per capita desperately want to be more like us. And we absolutely do not want to be more like them.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say China has been making no effort. They are producing massive amounts of solar panels.
Now granted a significant chunk of the polysilicon is manufactured using Uyghur forced...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they're cornering the solar panel market. For sale.
Don't say that last bit. The usual crowd around here will get real pissy.
Re:Proxies (Score:4, Insightful)
Cumulative emissions are an important measure, because they show how important it is that other countries don't follow the same path that the US and Europe did. If they do, we are all screwed. We need them to peak much, much lower per-capita, like China is.
It's completely untrue to say that the US (and Europe) could not do a lot more without impacting people's quality of life. In fact they could both do a lot to improve it, e.g. by insulating homes to make them more comfortable, and by replacing polluting fossil fuels with renewables. Renewables also reduce energy prices. Incentives to help people get into EVs takes pollution away from their lungs, improving their health.
You are completely wrong about China too. Last year they installed more solar than the US has in its entire history. They have more wind than the rest of the world combined, and are installing more of it year after year than the rest of the world combined too. No matter how you fudge the numbers, that's undeniably doing more than literally everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Cumulative emissions are an important measure, because they show how important it is that other countries don't follow the same path that the US and Europe did. If they do, we are all screwed.
There she is, our resident CCP shill!! Cumulative emissions have nothing to do with what China or the U.S. is doing NOW, which is why you like them. It lets you claim nonsense like this:
We need them to peak much, much lower per-capita, like China is
LOL our "peak" happened a long time ago, when WE and Europe started developing all these new renewable technologies.
It's sad that bragging about selling more solar panels is all you got, since China does this purely to make money and it does less than any other nation otherwise.
Well, except for maybe literally stapling fak
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be a bit confused about what the peak is. The US peaked at around 22.7 tons per capita. China is currently at about 8 tons per capita, and that looks like it will be the peak as they start falling from next year. The timing may vary a bit, but they certainly are not going to reach 22.7 tons per capita.
By the way, while the US has been falling, it's still at about 14.5 tons per capital, i.e. still nearly twice the average Chinese person. The EU27 is at 7.25 tons, and enjoys a lifestyle comparable
Re: (Score:2)
Not listening to CCP nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't hide emissions. We can detect them with satellites and monitoring in neighbouring countries.
You can get a visa (it's very easy) and go count the wind turbines yourself.
All you have done is look at some developer spraying some rocks to make their development more attractive, and assumed that it must be the government, and that therefore everything in China is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
CCP bot.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people believe so strongly that we are the goodies and China are the baddies that anything which challenges that view gets this kind of reaction. It's why we are losing, too many people can't accept that it's even possible. They must be cheating, or stealing this tech we haven't invented yet!
Re: (Score:2)
Our "economic activity" is rising in large part because they're measuring stock manipulation as though it actually produced something of value. China and India on the other hand are actually making things, which we don't do a whole lot of any more.
Re: (Score:2)
TF are you going on about?
GDP is a useless measue (Score:2)
Just using arbitrary numbers:
Comparing GDP doesn't give a useful comparison in terms of relative productivity for a given amount of pollution, since sim
Re: (Score:2)
They're very poor, dur.
Re: (Score:2)
What would Uigher slave labor do if not producing goods for the West?
Why do you hate the Uigher and want them all unemployed?
Interesting: Uyghur concern = no concern for Gaza (Score:2)
Projections without Data (Score:2)
In addition, things like Oxygen isotope concentrations take time to respond to changes in temperature since to change water has to evaporate, fall as snow and get converted into ice. This is more a measure of climate, not weather while
Re: (Score:2)
You have been deceived by modern "science" hiding the fact that the earth is hollow, with an inner sun. The inner earth is already occupied by Nazis, aliens and dinosaurs.
Watch this documentary for more details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Should Have Built Our World Underground. (Score:5, Informative)
Only the bodies that aren't recycling their crust are full of craters - and that's because most of that cratering took place during the Late Heavy Bombardment phase of the solar system, which has long concluded.
In the present day large impacts of any sort are relatively uncommon. Sure we still get them occasionally, but most of the stuff that is going to hit something else already did it a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you fleshbags think we'd let you in?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, yes.
Even my Mexican gardener remarked that the flowers are blooming way earlier than they should.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of people requesting a free pentest of their webpages lately is staggering. We're having a hard time keeping up with demand, but we'll try to provide the results on just how insecure your webpage is right here, for your leisure and everyone else's enjoyment.
Re: (Score:2)
"THIS ARTICLE IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS". So do you have a subscription to Mercury News or did you not read your own citation?
Re: (Score:2)
I do not have a subscription and never have. Go look up the title via google then if you're hitting a paywall. I checked the link before I posted and it worked as expected with no pay wall.
Re: (Score:2)
I cut and pasted the all caps text from the notification. Mercury news requires an account to read. Try waiting for the page to fully load and maybe scroll down a bit. At any rate, you definitely didn't read your own citation.
Just a heads up, a proper supporting citation is more than just a headline. Headlines in today's news say all sorts of crazy crap not supported in the text, you should know this just from reading Slashdot. It's hard to take someone seriously who doesn't even skim what they put forward
Re: (Score:2)
I told you to skip the pay wall with a Google search for the headline. I did not say the headline was my citation. Here, all text in bulk copy paste with no subscription. Sorry you can't find your way around a simple pay wall.
Bay Area scientist says he ‘left out the full truth’ to get climate change wildfire study published in prestigious journal
Nature and the study’s co-authors are now fighting back
John WoolfolkSeptember 11, 2023 at 5:47 a.m.
Flames burn to the Klamath River during the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There you go, now you have a proper citation that others can read. That was all I was looking for, I'm done here now.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a proper citation. I can't google for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for making your citation accessible without undue burden on the reader.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the burden is on me to trouble shoot a shitty paywalled citation? I dont think so.
Re: (Score:2)
The burden of citation is on the person making the claim, anyone with any scholastic experience beyond high school knows this. It's not a stretch to insist the claim be viewable.
Love how you switched to AC for trolling though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
El Nino doesn't arrive once every 2000 years dommcomf.
Why does Slashdot even allow AC posts anymore? All it does is lower the conversation with nonsense posts and trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
AC posts are useful as they allow you to share inside stories you would not normally share. even if there is no way of checking them, they can still be interesting and fun to read.
There is nothing wrong with the claim the AC made. AC did not claim that the cycle is 2000 years, nor did he claim that this is not the warmest in 2000 years. We don't yet know if the temperature will drop after El Nino, but I think that is likely, but obviously it won't drop so much that we can say that global warming has stopped