Slashdot Mirror
NASA Scientist: Heat Waves Really Are From Global Warming
mdsolar writes with a tidbit from the New York Times on global warming: "The percentage of the earth's land surface covered by extreme heat in the summer has soared in recent decades, from less than 1 percent in the years before 1980 to as much as 13 percent in recent years, according to a new scientific paper. The change is so drastic, the paper says, that scientists can claim with near certainty that events like the Texas heat wave last year, the Russian heat wave of 2010 and the European heat wave of 2003 would not have happened without the planetary warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gases. Those claims, which go beyond the established scientific consensus about the role of climate change in causing weather extremes, were advanced by James E. Hansen, a prominent NASA climate scientist, and two co-authors in a scientific paper published online on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 'The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural,' Dr. Hansen said in an interview."
Hansen is a "scientist" who likes headlines and attention. Nothing to see here, move along...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
All this drought, devastation and disaster from just under 1 degree C. Imagine what it will be like at 2 degrees! When you multiply the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of the oceans and air by 1 degree, it's a number that's off the charts. How did people think we could dump that much energy into any system and it would not make a difference?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
In the U.S. the conservative political party (the ones opposed to doing anything about this) is called the Republicans.
By and large they live in the center and southern parts of the country, the parts most affected by the heat.
So, in a sense, they are burning in the Hell they themselves have created. Unfortunately the rest of the world is also suffering.
Look at the abstract. This isn't arguing about the accuracy of fractional degree measurements at individual weather stations: it is about > 3 sigma events over >10% of the Earth's surface, quite large changes and exactly the kind of thing that would be expected if more energy was being added to the atmosphere. For years the climatologists have been trying to explain that adding energy doesn't simply make everything slightly warmer, but will have effects larger in one place and smaller in another. This study tends to bear that out and emphasises that the extremes are over large land masses - again as would be expected. I am rather glad I live close enough to the Atlantic to be affected by Atlantic weather patterns, but far enough that we rarely get the worst of the storms, even though I am going to have to put in extra soil drainage in October.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Tell me, if these heatwaves were 1C cooler, would they be less of a severe heat wave or no different?
Wait for the dirty tricks and personal attacks to begin.
The fossil fuel lobby won't take such a show of flagrant anti-rich, anti-1% dissent lying down.
Like the poor fool who dares to step between the pigs and their swill, this fellow is gonna get mauled.
...heaven forbid we actually do anything about it that's worth more than some blog post. It's like everything is in a bad dream anymore where you're watching yourself trying to run away from something but can't because for some reason, your legs just don't move as fast as they can.
The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural
Don't underestimate nature, it has a habit of killing those that do.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
In the end the planet will be a dry wasteland, but by the time I'm an old man, we'll be able to launch a probe that sends information about humanity amongst the stars - just at the same time I reawaken safe and well to find myself captain of a starship again. Plus I'll have learned how to play the flute - bonus!
The only thing we normal people can do on an individual basis is try to live our lives in the most sustainable way possible. Of primary consideration is the location of where to live, as forest fires, flooding, drought, heat waves, and hurricanes are all increasing in magnitude. Sustainabble energy is important, as is renewable energy. Possessing a generator and solar array is essential, not only do they lower electricity bills, but they ensure life wil not be disrupted by outages. Similarly, storage and conservation of drinking water is also useful. Planting a decent size garden now days can save a family hundreds or even thousands dog dollars a year in food costs.
If one lives in an urban environment (as a majority of humanity now do), live within your means and build up a saving account to deal with unforeseen incidences (disasters, outbreaks, ...anything goes these days!). It pays to be prepared, one cannot say they were not warned. No need to turn into a gun nut and go all survivalist stocking 10 years of food in ones basement, but we clearly need to reevaluate how we live on a daily basis.
I'm not assuming Hansen is correct, but your analysis is flawed. You are comparing studies of local conditions with a study of global conditions. Just because a single heat wave is not anomalous locally, it does not mean that a series of distributed heat waves is not anomalous globally. In case that's not clear, consider an extreme example : A hurricane in Florida in a year is not anomalous. Each major coastal city in the world being hit by a hurricane in the same year would be.
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
You'll notice Hansen carefully avoids talking about the 1930's. The EPA has a heatwave graphic which goes back to the turn of the last century. If Hansen wants to claim it is due to co2 then there must have been one hell of a co2 bubble sitting stationary over the US for most of the 1930's. http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/heat-waves.html
Thanks for analyzing that paper's scientific value for me without actually reading it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I didn't do anything for you. read it if you want to? it has no "scientific" value, because it's not science. I don't need to read something like that. I don't read Harry Potter, either.
Did he skip the one in 1988 too? Yep looks like he did.
Om, nomnomnom...
Someone needs to take a long, hard look at the moderation of climate threads on /. Quoting from the moderation guidelines:
I'm not taking sides either way in the climate debate; I'm saying that sceptics are moderated down because the moderators disagree with their point of view. At least one comment here already has the score '0 Flamebait' when I'm pretty sure the author of that comment posted what he posted because he honestly believes it, not because he's trying to stir up a flame war. Another comment is titled, 'Before the trolls start...', immediately branding anyone who disagrees with the author as a troll. They're not, they just disagree with you. Build a bridge and get over it.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
I'll be happy to drop $20 on the table, that this will also be a "local anomaly" and will be pointed out as such in about 2-3 years time. As much as the "spring anomaly" here in the NE Canada and US earlier in the year, where it was unseasonably warm, but it was frigid as hell everywhere else.
Om, nomnomnom...
Another paper, published in the same journal, concluded that "the heat wave falls within the realm of natural variability ... [and] appears not to be the product of long-term climate changes"
That quote neither appears in the paper you reference (M. Matsueda, "Predictability of Euro-Russian blocking in summer of 2010", Geophys. Res. Lett. 38: L06801, 2011) nor the NOAA press release.
Also, some researchers in Germany analyzed the data and published a paper, entitled "Large scale flow and the long-lasting blocking high over Russia", which says that the heat wave "appears as a result of natural atmospheric variability".
The quote taken from (the abstract of) that paper, by Schneidereit et al., was in reference to R. Dole, et al. ("Was there a basis for anticipating the 2010 Russian heat wave", Geophys. Res. Lett. 38: L06702, 2011). Schneidereit et al. also mentioned, citing a study by Schar et al. ("The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves", Nature 427: 332-336, 2004), that a long-lasting blocking high could occur more often with climate change and the expected change in the year-to-year variability.
Read the original link, it's not a 164 day heat wave, it's 164 days of temperature above 100F, which the article you linked to then claims is a heat wave. Which of course it isn't since Marble bar is damn hot normally:
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm
"The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100Fahrenheit (or 37.8 on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. "
It's normal for Marble Bar:
"Temperatures above 100F are common in Marble Bar and indeed throughout a wide area of northwestern Australia. On average, Marble Bar experiences about 154 such days each year. "
So you're attempting to mislead. Which is why we have peer reviewed science. This is peer reviewed, Weatherman's claims aren't, indeed they were debunked many times in several different ways, and he simply repeats them to mislead.
What happened in 1980 to cause the climate to change?
I don't think you either read or understood Hansen's paper. The argument isn't that these events are individually impossible to occur. They all fall within the bounds of possibility for the baseline climate of 1951-1980. The argument put forward in the paper is that together they are each "once in a century" events, which means we should not get 3 of them in less than a single decade. The reason we do get them is because global warming is "weighting the dice", changing the probability distribution so that once in a century hot events occur once a decade on average, and once in century cold events occur once in a millennia. That's a rough description of the paper, you really should read the original.
In short, the claim about Russia is false. The claim about the European summer of 2003 is also debunked. (I am not familiar with Texas.)
Sorry, but the evidence you cited doesn't actually conflict with Hansen's paper. Each of the papers claim the events were "low predictability" events. Additionally, there's new research which contradicts the papers you cited that you cited, and points towards Arctic sea ice loss (driven by global warming) as the reason for the "low predictability" of those events.
And why does Hansen not mention extreme cold recently in Alaska?—is that also due to global warming?
Actually, it is. The same block pattern that's been keeping warm air (and record high temperatures) over much of the U.S. is keeping cold air (and cold temperatures) over Alaska. The ice loss appears to have weakened the air currents that would normally break up the blocking patterns.
Bad weather has always existed.
Indeed it has, however, Hansen's paper says the bad weather is biased hot now. It's like taking a 6 sided die, and changing the 1 to a 7. You won't get the same results you used to get.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Hansen is a PNAS member, meaning he can either skip peer review entirely or pick his reviewers. Even if the review process had been rigorous, peer review guarantees nothing about the correctness of a paper. Peer review simply means that the paper passes basic quality standards and editorial policies for the publication in question. If you want to judge by external factors, none of the authors are statisticians, so their statements about statistical anomalies amount to little more than opinion.
I don't know whether the hot summers have been due to global warming; I tend to believe so. But to claim that as a fact, I'd certainly like a valid statistical analysis from someone qualified to make such an analysis, not from a climate hack like Hansen.
Finally someone that points out this is about the change in temperature *variance* (square root of variance rather), and not the change in temperature mean. Sigma-dot as it were. The plot of the sigma over the last six decades showed a clear trend that the temperature became more varied in that time. Six decades is nothing in climate terms though. I read the argument on why 1951-1980 was used as the baseline, its mean was near the overall holocene mean, and the mean wasn't changing much during those three decades, but that is still just too little data to base such a strong conclusion on. A similar study could be conducted with indirect measures (ice cores, tree rings, permafrost bands, or who knows what), and we could ascertain the previous "sigma-dot" maximums. Using a second order statistic was a good idea and I suspect that if the variance isn't simply tied to the mean (the plots kind of look like that), that he is on to something, but only grabbing a handful of data points in extremely close time proximity and then drawing a conclusion from them is overreaching.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
I remember once attending a presentation of a climate scientist and he explained that "global warming" is actually more akin to "global weather chaos" because the warming of the planet will throw all the known weather patterns into complete chaos. This means that one year -local- weather can be very hot / dry, but the next it can be very cold / wet. In the mean time the temperature rises globally. The horror scenario would be that it would be almost impossible to produce enough food for the world population because of changing weather patterns and farmland being unusable because of floods or drought.
Just because it was cold or warm in one place proves nothing.
I remember a couple of years ago when the weather wasn't as hot in the US that everybody was like "see, global warming isn't real" yet at the same time they had high temperature records in the Philippines (among other places).
People tend to believe in global warming more in the summer than in the winter apparently. Which just shows how little people understand the theory.
Please, no accusations of being a right-wing nut. I just don't jump on any bandwagons until I'm sure of the facts.
This isn't about temperature. Global warming never was about temperature, that is a red herring. Global warming causes adverse severe weather patterns, which is exactly what we are experiencing. Adding energy to the system changes weather all over the place, moves jet streams, introduces blocking patterns, creates droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, ice storms. These are all things that are happening in areas that do not usually experience these conditions and energy, recently and frequently. Global warming is not about temperature.
Humans do contribute to the problem, but most of the issue is natural.
In fact, most of the carbon in the atmosphere comes from Europe and China, and within the US, most of it comes from the big, industrialized areas controlled by Democrats. So, actually, in your way of looking at it, Republicans are burning in the hell created by Europeans, Chinese, and Democrats. Republicans would also have welcomed greater use of nuclear energy.
But, hey, it is of course the Republicans' fault if they don't stop you from emitting so much carbon (or eating so much or whatever other bad habits you may have).
I'm posting this AC, because even mildly questioning GW dogma on /. is a sure way to drain your karma into oblivion (the last time I did, I got modded down from excellent karma to poor--for just TWO posts MILDLY questioning GW).
Anyway, AFAICT, the GW hardcores seem to have developed a bulletproof form of "science" where their model CANNOT, by its nature, be disproved. Why? Because all contradictory evidence has been appropriated into the model in such a way that it is impossible to cite any weather pattern or trend that contradicts it.
Is there a heat wave? That's global warming. Cold wave? That's produced by the extremes caused by global warming. Mild wave? Well, that just shows that climate is bigger than individual weather patterns. Tornados, hurricanes, etc.? Global warming. Lack of tornados, hurricanes? Again, individual weather patterns don't contradict global warming.
See what I mean?
The extremes of GW to me look more like a religion now than a science. I've seen religions create this same sort of bulletproof cage around themselves. But that is NOT what science is supposed to be about. Science is supposed to be about accepting the possibility that evidence could one day overturn your particular theory or model. Even greats like Newton had to face that (though he didn't live to see it). It's not supposed to be about millenialist/apocalyptic fear-mongering, religious dogma, or viciously attacking everyone who dares question your hypothesis as an unbeliever who should be excommunicated.
Again, posting AC so as to avoid excommunication.
Here, since you seem to have forgotten it, is what the GGP said:
"The rest of all the people who (think they) can predict the future: GO BUY LOTTO TICKETS YOU IDIOT!!!"
Which is patently wrong.
Who needs to literally have it spelled out for them anymore?
Oh, I imagine there's a fair number of right-wing glibertards who aren't getting it because a man has difficulty understanding something when his salary depends on him not understanding it, but other than that, duh you've gotta be a fuckin' stupid git to not comprehend that things are warmer today than they were even 10 years ago.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
My dad, who gets most of his news and opinions from Rupert Murdoch's corporation, and my brother, who gets most of his news and opinions from libertarian blogs, assure me that climate science is socialist science. You see, there is a conspiracy at the universities, where all the faculty is implicitly socialist (evidently not having to really work for a living fosters that political belief!) to end capitalism. Climate scientists are the cutting edge by which that conspiracy seeks to slice the capitalist throat. Everything in their journals and public pronouncements is a concerted lie in the furtherance of their conspiracy.
What Joe McCarthy warned us about — a communist conspiracy in government (at a time where there really were some communist conspirators in government, if perhaps not as many as he claimed) — doesn't begin to compare to this (where rather than a minority of government workers being communist, over 97% of climate scientists are in on the grand conspiracy)! To find a parallel, we must look back to earlier in the 20th century, when "Jewish science" threatened to undermine that most advanced of states, Germany. Top non-Jewish scientists in Germany, many with fundamental discoveries to their credit, elucidated precisely how the "theory" of relativity and certain quantum claims from "Jewish science" threatened to undermine the Thousand Year Reich, and more than that were specifically designed to.
From our point of view as Americans, we have much to thank "Jewish science" for. It shows how scientists, when they conspire, can undermine what they see as an evil empire. Similarly, future citizens of Greater Socialist Scandinavia may thank the "climate scientists" whose clever scheme if successful will spell the end of the Capitialist American Empire.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
He's from Massachusetts. In Dante's Hell, the center is frozen. Coincidence? I think not!
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Beware of any politician that promises to change the temperature of the earth.
Still haven't learned the difference between 'weather' and 'climate', have you. Or the meaning of the word 'global' either I see.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Given the number of different places on the Earth, I would be quite surprised to see fewer than three once in a century events at any given time. Within the same decade seems very LOW, actually. Further, assuming that his statistical analysis is valid (I am not a statistician, so I can't really make the judgment), the summary seams to use a leap to conclusions mat to determine that this is a result of global warming, something which is supposed to affect climate, which is multi-decade, not single decade.
Also, how do you know what once in a century in Texas is actually like? It's only been settled by Westerners for a few hundred years, and only really had good weather observation for 100, maybe longer in a few places. Further, it has been my experience that people tend to apply their normalcy bias and lower the probability of cyclical bad events. I remember back in the 90's when we were hearing about all these 100 and 500 year floods in the midwest, and even then that struck me as terribly unlikely. Whether there is an unknown weather cycle that brings increased temperature variation, or whether application of a small temperature increase causes both increased temperature and weather variation (rather than just raising the baseline) is in question. Further, there is a certain amount of complexity here, as CO2 concentrations are greatly increased around urban centers, as well as humidity levels (both from combustion of fuels and from the inability of the concrete to absorb significant amounts of precipitation). As there are many urban centers around the world, that is something that can not be ignored. Finding out which is the most significant culprit is thus very important, as it will effect the remediation technique that must be used. Do we need to ban ICEs in the city limits of cities over 100,000? Or do we need to seed clouds from the tallest towers in those cities, while making a transition to underground water runoff storage?
Or can't you answer the question and have to distract to avoid answering?
If the temperatures were 1C cooler, would the heatwaves be less severe or not?
Them, pray tell, how is a heatwave in 2012 climate, but a much larger and more consequential set of heatwaves in the 1930ies is weather?
He based his conclusions on a 60 year time frame. 60 years is statistically insignificant when looked at on geologic time scales. It is the equivalent of stating a person's average life-time activity level by looking at what said person did over the last minute.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The funny thing about global warming is that whenever there's a massive heatwave or cold snap, it has all happened before. We're just going through a cycle.
The only people that will suffer are the idiots that built homes in flood planes and along shorelines.
Curious though: do Arabs in the Middle East complain about heat waves? Or, are they just laughing at all the silly Western doomsday proclomations?
Well fuck me!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
How many consecutive "local anomalies" will it take for you to acknowledge a distinct pattern of increasing dynamism?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
You obviously don't read much of anything.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Records and averages are not the same thing.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Earth is 4 billions years old yet the baseline for most of the climate change data is on average at most 300 years old with the majority of the data focused on the last 120years so yea we know exactly whats happen and whats causing as the "science" is settled.
AC as I don't wish to loose my karma via the Church of Climate Change
Peer-review? by The National Academy of Science (NAS)?
Hansen is a member of the NAS. NAS would never reject a
paper from a member!
But the conclusions are not supported because the 'technical'
details are unfounded on too many accounts of dubious
numerology posing as mathematics.
The title of the paper is correct, 'Perception' a quality of the
human mind apart from reality.
LOL
Looks like the AGW folks have basically won. This is a sad sad day for science and rational thought in this country when an unscientific theory like AGW gets so much uncritical airtime.
"It will get Warmer.
It will get colder."
The average rises.
This is global warming.
How do you know that the climate is different in Florida than in NY state? The average weather over 30 years.
Now, if that measure was taken 80 years ago and done again today, the values you get for THE EXACT SAME PLACE have changed.
This is called "climate change" and we know it's changed for the exact same reason why know what the climate of a state or region is.
Build a bridge and get over it.
I don't think it's possible. Here's why:
Consider the 3x3 matrix:
a: climate change isn't happening
b: climate change may be happening
c: climate change is happening
x: do nothing about it
y: implement technology-based solutions to deal with it
z: implement State-based solutions to deal with it
the people in (c,z) are advocating the violence-based taking of resources from the other 8 sectors, which upsets them. This especially burns the people at (c,y) because the (c,z) people are also preventing the (c,y) people from acting, and the (c,y) people believe that the (c,z) people have an unworkable solution, but they have might-makes-right people on their side.
The (c,z) people also paint the (c,y) people as (a,x) people, when they're actually closest neighbors. Media people tend to describe the problem as (A,B), where A maps to (a,x) and B maps to (c,z), which does the debate no favors at all.
The only way for the (c,y) people to prove their case is for them to be allowed to demonstrate it. But the (c,z) people prevent that from happening. Some (c,z) people know that the (c,y) people are right but want more State power, some are unaware, and some believe they are wrong. If we call them (l,m,n) respectively, it's only the (c,z,l) people who are dangerous - the other 26/27 quadrant occupants are amenable to persuasion by science. But you can't build a bridge between science and anti-science, they are actually opposites.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
... the same people who were trying to sell an impending Ice Age in the 1970's...
It can not be a "local anomaly" because the heat waves have been observed in the entire planet. It is still an "anomaly", and that's why it must be explained.
It can either be a random event, or a non-random event. In the former case, nothing changed, you can move away, in the second case, it is caused by some thing (global warming being the most obvious suspect by a margin so huge that it doesn't make sense to put anything else on the list). This paper is exaclty about that, now we know with 3-sigma certainty (on that kind of research, that's enough to claim "we are certain") that it is non-random.
Rethinking email
Ok, my first off-the-cuff response got modded "flamebait". I hadn't RTFA, I just based my opinion on Hansen's past publicity stunts. More, look at the timing: Right after the Curiosity landing sends NASA hits through the roof, to stage your next publicity stunt as a "NASA scientist".
So now I've read the publicly accessible parts of the paper. I stick by my initial opinion: he's a publicity hound, nothing more. The paper is based on the trend of "hot weather" incidents starting in 1950 through 2000. Why didn't he include the 1930's and 1940's? Probably because they were hotter than the 1950's and would mess up his nice little trend. Anyway, looking for serious climate trends over a period of only 50 years is just dumb. There is a natural 60-year climate oscillation (see Scafetta, 2010) that lines up nicely with this little line segment that Hansen has chopped out. If you cherry pick your data, of course you can find a trend.
I stick by my original message: Hansen is a publicity cow, cynically using the Curiosity publicity to advance his own agenda.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The set of heat waves studied on this paper can't be explained by chance. You you stud just a subset of them you'll reduce the significance of your set, and can quite well discover that your subset can be explained by chance.
Rethinking email
It is very easy to be fooled by 3 sigma fluctuations, especially on an analysis of data that has already been collected. The problem is the statistical penalty. how many searches were made and not reported? If you do 100 tests on random data, you will find a three sigma effect that is just a statistical fluctuation. One reason why 5 sigma, and not 3 sigma is the requirement for discovery in physics (eg the Higgs)
How many consecutive "local anomalies" will it take for you to acknowledge a distinct pattern of increasing dynamism?
That depends. Do your optics dispute that if an area accounting for only 1% of the total area is "global warming" when the rest of this rock was way under the seasonal normal? Or is that just blind ignorance, and part of the cult?
Om, nomnomnom...
Do you think someone ignorant of the uses and necessity of capitalization is even capable of reading a scientific paper??? The guy's obviously fifteen years old and trying to be "133t" and not relizing how ignorant his comment looks.
Free Martian Whores!
China is not as hopeless as you think. But a lot of this is just that we keep electing people who are more interested in not offending than in getting things done. The U.S. is quite capable of being a force for change in the world, even though our numbers are small. The problem is that to date, we have not really tried to make any positive change—we've been against every major change that's been proposed.
Here is what the Slashdot summary said.
It ought to be clear from this that the Russian heat wave, in particular, is being blamed on putative global warming. Now, check the three links in my comment to confirm that they do indeed say exactly what my comment claims. The second link requires a password or subscription; here is an alternative link, from the American Geophysical Union (which publishes the journal):
http://www.agu.org/news/press/jhighlight_archives/2011/2011-04-13.shtml#five
You can confirm that the quote supplied in my comment is taken from that link.
The real trolls are the commenters who claimed that I was misquoting or misrepresenting. My comment is not a troll, and it should be moderated fairly.
I think that it says something about the current global warming debate that an accurate critical comment such as mine is moderated troll while blatantly false criticisms of my comment get moderated up to 5.
Moderators, I am the author of the above comment that has been moderated "Troll"; the moderation was apparently done on the basis of replying comments. I ask you to check what my comment said, before moderating it as troll.
Here is what the Slashdot summary said.
It ought to be clear from this that the Russian heat wave, in particular, is being blamed on putative global warming. Now, check the three links in my comment to confirm that they do indeed say exactly what my comment claims. The second link requires a password or subscription; here is an alternative link, from the American Geophysical Union (which publishes the journal):
http://www.agu.org/news/press/jhighlight_archives/2011/2011-04-13.shtml#five
You can confirm that the quote supplied in my comment is taken from that link.
The real trolls are the commenters who claimed that I was misquoting or misrepresenting. My comment is not a troll, and it should be moderated fairly.
I think that it says something about the current global warming debate that an accurate critical comment such as mine is moderated troll while blatantly false criticisms of my comment get moderated up to 5.
Duly noted.
I'm not a coward by any name.
Care to explain to me what relizing means ? English is not my mother tongue and I'm eager to learn new words.
I'm not a coward by any name.
A cold summer is weather, a heat wave is climate, and both are manifestations of global warming proven by settled peer-reviewed science. Learn to tow the party line by pointing out their differences and similarities. It's not too hard once you leave your common sense at the door !
I'm not a coward by any name.
Your statement is not congruent with reality.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
It's a typo, it should have had an A between the E and the L. They may spell it with an S rather than a Z in Britain, I'm not sure.
"realize"
Free Martian Whores!
I have read enough comments to realize that people on /. will continue to debate whether the adverse environmental conditions are man-caused or natural. It really does not matter any longer as there is nothing that can stop it. Storms will be more destructive year after year and those islands no one cares about will disappear in to the water. Of course, people will debate if the weather is really worse than before. We are only just starting to see weather that will scare the crap out of you and your wallet. Who to blame for it, does it really matter?
Agrisea Tsunami - Epyc Servers... https://agrisea.net/products
we can stop global warming with individual actions self begin, example always not industrial consumtion, this way can reduce produc and than can reduce activity http://malangrayaonline.blogspot.com/2012/08/sepeda-motor-bebek-injeksi-kencang-dan.html