Slashdot Mirror
NASA, NOAA: 2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record
Titus Andronicus writes: NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both announced today that 2014 was the warmest year in the instrumental temperature record, surpassing the prior winners, 2010 and 2005. NASA also released a short video. They said, "Since 1880, Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius), a trend that is largely driven by the increase in carbon dioxide and other human emissions into the planet’s atmosphere. The majority of that warming has occurred in the past three decades. ... While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña. These phenomena warm or cool the tropical Pacific and are thought to have played a role in the flattening of the long-term warming trend over the past 15 years. However, 2014’s record warmth occurred during an El Niño-neutral year."
No no, the Republican Congress will just pass a law mandating the destruction of all thermometers. Problem solved!
There are obviously hiding something!
The fact that this chart start only 3 years after the Roswell events cannot be a coincidence.
No no, the Republican Congress will just pass a law mandating the destruction of all thermometers. Problem solved!
No need; they'll just mandate a switch from Farenheit to Celcius. Instant drop in temperature!
Except they never said that, you did. The last record was in 2010.
No, the warming after the last ice again stopped a few thousand years ago. The current (much faster) warming is a very recent event.
It may have been on average warmer, but at least in Minnesota we didn't get the massive heat wave weeks in the middle of the summer we use to get in the past.
Yup, that's due to arctic warming, causing a pressure slump that now pushes more moist air into that region during the summer months. Interestingly, it has also resulted in dryer weather on the west coast of North America, and colder weather down the east coast.
Right - Warming from the last ice age peaked about 8000 years ago. Since then we have had a very gradual cooling trend - until about the last 100 years where we appear to be in a warming trend again.
The post notes:
While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña.
Curiously, last year was warmest even though the ENSO trend was neutral. Typically it would take an El Niño to nudge us up past the previous El Niño year, but not so last year. This means that the next El Niño will probably mean another record temperature.
wow. and you wonder why people like me (skeptics, not deniers) find it hard to take you seriously when you resort to lambasting people for asking questions. I didnt know nature was fox news..... http://www.nature.com/ngeo/foc... As I said. im not saying that nothing is happening. im saying that making the claim that it has been going on for 30 years... when you can find information that , if I am reading it correctly, states it has not been warming for the past 20 years causes concern on the believably of such claims.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Yes, because one would never actually want to read what the experts in any field have to say, but rather go to some blog populated by people who have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
Me, if I get a tumor, I'm going to go straight to my nearest witch doctor.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes you are missing something extremely important. This rate is about 36 times faster than ever recorded in the history of the planet, probably with the exception of local conditions associated with asteroid or large meteor impacts. The last major spike in global temperatures occurred in during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that occurred about 55 million years ago. In a very brief period of time, geologically speaking, the Earth warmed about 5.6 C in a period as short as 10,000 years. During this brief period over half of the species of North American mammals went extinct and places like Wyoming, not exactly known for hot weather, went from having redwood forests to having palm forests. Today with far more discontinuous habitats extinction rates of plants and animals will be very much higher.
Keep in mind that in that roughly 150 year period we are talking about because of increased carbon dioxide concentrations, the world oceans are now 30% more acidic than they were then. The next 100 years will see a another 30% decrease in Hydronium ion concentrations even if humans don't add a single extra molecule of carbon dioxide themselves as the amount already in the atmosphere will take some time to reach equilibrium with that already there. However, the reality is that although the baseline of annual carbon dioxide production by all the volcanoes in the world is about 250,000,000 metric tons, the amount humans now produce annually is 33,000,000,000 tons, so it is highly unlikely that humans will turn this around soon. Considering that humans obtain about 50% of its protein from seafood, in all likelihood, humans face the prospect of loosing half their protein supply in as little as 300 years based on present trends as many areas in the world oceans are already reaching pH levels that are killing off pteropods, one of the primary links in marine food chains.
"Since 1880, EarthÃ(TM)s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit"
So we need to be alarmed because in 135 years the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees?
I am clearly missing something here.
You're missing the point that water freezes at 32 degrees*, so if the ice fields warm by 1.4 degrees, the result is a lot of messing with the world's oceans, which in turn means significant changes in the atmosphere. This is the sort of thing that can cause extinction events (and may currently be doing so). It can also cause issues for humans in the form of shifting weather patterns, shifting water availability, changed coastlines (water rises, but so do landmasses that used to be covered in ice), changed food supplies (the fisheries we currently depend on my vanish, the aquifers that feed grain supplies may dry up), and other more subtle shifts.
The other point is that you need be no more alarmed just before you hit the ground than you were after you fell out of an airplane -- the situation isn't likely to change for you from 3,000 feet to 1 foot. But when you make contact, the result is the same. So better to raise the alarm at 3,000 feet when there's still time to have someone intervene or deploy a parachute.
*Farenheit, in pure fresh water at standard pressure. The actual temperature melting the world's ice reserves is different but immaterial to this line of reasoning.
Who, exactly, says there has been no warming in the last 20 years and is calling this a "warming hiatus?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
The Nature page you cite says that the warming rate has slowed, not that it has reversed.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
As opposed the fucking scientists, idjit.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You can download the code they use for the calculations. Feel free to analyze it, and write a paper about any flaws you find. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
The earth has been much warmer in the past, and the most notable consequence of those conditions was rampant plant growth. At most, bands of climate that support particular crops will move northward. We are capable of surviving just fine in a very wide range of climate. Slowly increasing warmth of a few degrees is not a serious threat in and of itself.
Sea level: The seas have been much higher, and the consequences of a sea level rise of such tiny amounts as are predicted over such a long period are going to be irrelevant in the big picture. Human society is already extremely mobile over such time periods, and we are almost trivially capable of being even more so. Such moves can potentially benefit us in the sense that we can start over, smarter, for those of our older coastal cities that are so low that a few centimeters sea rise will result in their inundation. Better public transport, better street layout, better zoning, better utility transport and balance, more parks, opportunity to be more efficient in many ways (for example, monorails instead of trains; pumped canals instead of or in addition to streets; raised domiciles that allow 100% utilization of the ground underneath for vegetation... all kinds of opportunities arise when you don't have a gnarly old city infrastructure in the way.)
Long term continuation of CO2 increase: Unlikely. We're already transitioning to solar and so forth. There's no sane reason that wouldn't continue (and we should be pushing government hard to get it done sooner rather than later -- perhaps moving the ~40 billion dollars/year utterly wasted on the drug war (that's just the US costs -- leaves out tax gains and ignores world costs and gains) to solar panel and control electronics and energy storage production might be one way to do so. There is every reason to reduce emissions, even without the potential threat of emissions-related climate change.
The issue that seems to carry the most actual weight in the immediate sense is the possibility of the chemical changes that some scientists have predicted for the oceans. If the oceans undergo major changes in chemistry, the consequences are likely to be both sudden and very serious (as in, we may be royally fucked no matter what we try to do.) All that is, is a yet stronger argument for an even faster transition to stored solar.
The sensible path is to reduce emissions ASAP and as much as possible, while transitioning to stored solar power. In the case of the USA, this also reduces our country's vulnerability to the middle east's whims, something that continuously comes back to bite us on just about every level there is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We are talking averages here not specific points of temperature. If you had to pay an average of 1.4 more cents for every dollar or euro for purchase you made, you'd be pissed.
Inflation of only 1.4%? Economic utopia!
Local beef prices were on the order of $4 a pound a year ago for the cuts I usually buy. Today they're $6.50. Wired was 68 cents a can, now it's over a dollar. Pistachios were $15 for three pounds, same bag today is almost $20.
I yearn for the days of 1.4%.
They're talking about a slowdown, not a full stop, and the data is not inconsistent with the long term trend.
Here you can see it in a graph: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
The temperatures from the 10-20 years have not dipped below the long term trend line.
There's no way your anecdote is accurate. Last summer was the hottest one on record around here, in over 100 years of record keeping. Pipes were leaking boiling water everywhere and the roads got all soft and mushy. I'm not sure who's benefiting from this global warming opposition shit that you're trying to spread, but nobody who actually experienced last summer believes it for a second.
I never said it reversed i said it hasnt increased.
Your citation says that it has increased, only more slowly in the last two decades than in the decade before. It shows the opposite of that which you want it to show. It suggests that at the current scale, there is a reduction in the compounding effect of the positive feedback loop, or that there is a negative feedback loop which is mitigating it, or both. But it doesn't actually do anything to contradict the concept of global warming. Those of us who believe in global warming are not arguing that the precise course is laid out in full, and that it will be utterly predictable. If it were, then the problems produced by global warming would be much easier to compensate for, because you could foresee them and plan for them. The precise scope is going to be varied and unpredictable, because that's life. We lack a system of sufficient complexity to model the system that we're discussing. That doesn't prevent us from making certain generalized statements, which are being proven out as we speak.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Im saying that 20 of those 30 years didnt see any warming.
If you want to claim this (nonsense), you should at least back it up with some links, so we can add the involved web sites to our kill files.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That's because the graph is made from monthly data. There have been a few hotter months before, but 2014 still ranks #1 when you average the whole year.
The fact that this chart start only 3 years after the Roswell events cannot be a coincidence.
It started 3 years, 1 month, 4 days, 1 hour, 5 minutes, 9 seconds after the Roswell incident. Unfortunately they had no atomic clocks then, or we knew more precisely how less a coincident that is!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
what if its all a lie, and we make the world a better place for nothing?
The answer is simple: there was no large scale measures before 1880
Any global temperature before that date would not come from real measures but from a reconstruction using indirect data.
There are plenty of scientific papers listed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
BAH! you're both full of it. Last year was the most average I've ever seen. Not too hot, not too cold. The roads were not too hard, or too soft. And the pipes only bulged a little. It was just right.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You're confusing local weather with global climate. They are not the same thing. Just because you had a cold winter where you are does not mean that everyone, everywhere else, had a cold winter.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7C cooling through the middle to late Holocene ( 5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios. - http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Just one question for the deniers....When the mean temperature is up ten degrees globally and humanity is tanking it because of massive environmental change and crop failure, you won't be upset when we lynch you for being the liars and shills who prevented proactive fixes from being implemented, will you?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
And what exactly does that mean? I can give you a list of biologists who claim Intelligent Design is true. It's a small list, dwarfed by the number of biologists who outright repudiate ID.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
instead of making questionable measurements of the planet, why don't you figure out how to build a decent space vehicle? Which is your raison d'etre.
One of them. NASA was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. In the list of what NASA was established to do, the first item is:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(building space vehicles was number 3 on the list)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Or just take your news from outside the US. The rest of the developed world mainstream medias all have no shame to admit that anthropogenic global warming is happening. Only in the US there is fox-news style media still denying science *and* with such a large audience.
Not data that contradicts his beliefs, I don't think. I think he's referring to crank denier sites.
When people go crazy, they often think their beliefs are data, but really they're just living in a fantasy world.
Right wing sociopaths have put a lot of effort into creating a false narrative, and so many former-conservatives have been turned into frothing-at-the-mouth wingnuts from internalizing far-right-wing propaganda from hate-radio, wingnut blogs, and Fox "News".
You seem to have internalized wingnut propaganda. There's no equivalent between scientists and propaganda from polluters, but the right-wing sociopaths want you to believe that all beliefs are equal, because that would make your stupid beliefs valuable instead of foolish and absurd.
Im still in the camp that we shouldnt change everything overnight because OMG CO2!!!
Yeah, the problem with the idea that it's "overnight" is that scientists have been warning about this stuff since before I was in elementary school. We discussed CO2 and global warming then (I am not so very old, but I am in my thirties now so I can pretend to be an adult on occasion) and here we are, seeing the predicted consequences now. And I don't recall these consequences coming with a date back then, but now we're actually able to perceive the problem. It's "overnight" just like a musician who is an "overnight success" — yeah, overnight if you don't account for the years of sweat, tears, and possibly other bodily fluids. This is not a new idea, it's not a new warning, some of us have been hip to the idea that the average human lifestyle is harmful to the planet, let alone the western one. And get this straight, humans have been harmful to their environment as long as they've been recording history. Deforestation, it's not just for breakfast any more. It's been suggested that absent the plague, Europe would be basically denuded due to cutting down forests in order to build naval vessels which then got taken out and sunk in the ocean where they did very little good to anyone. Maybe created a little bit of artificial reef if they were sunk sufficiently shallow.
CO2 is not a new problem, and you have not been asked to change everything overnight. You have been asked to change for the last three decades. Now you are being asked more insistently, because the situation is more dire. You can complain about the scope of the changes you're being asked to make today, or you can accept that changes thirty years ago would have led to a lot less upheaval now. If you can do that, then I'll accept that it wasn't just you that refused to change. And hopefully, along in the bargain, people who decided to care before I did will find some way to forgive me. I could, after all, still be doing more. Or, depending on how you look at it, less.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Earth's weather is almost entirely determined by Solar activity (or lack of same in the Maunder Minimum)
The link between solar activity and weather is discussed in great detail in the IPCC Working Group 1 report, with voluminous references to the literature; have you read it? You can find it here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... The analysis is chapter 2.7, Natural Forcings, section 2.7.1 "Solar Variability."
and large volcanic eruptions.
Another effect discussed in the same report: section 2.7.2 "Explosive Volcanic Activity"
The key point is that we measure the sun, and we record volcanic activity. There haven't been changes in the sun or in volcanic eruptions that are sufficient to account for the temperature trend.
Krakatoa is the last big eruption which caused a large drop in northern hemisphere temperatures as I recall.
The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was an important event, because its effects were well measured.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Not data that contradicts his beliefs, I don't think.
No he clearly intended to "kill file" any site that contradicted his beliefs. he stated it quite clearly. if he meant something else then he should have said something else. But this is common with the AGW side of things .. they exaggerate like hell for the purposes of making their arguments seem stronger... but those with a keen eye see it the other way... their arguments seem weaker whenever they do it.
"His name was James Damore."
Why does the chart only go back to 1950?
Here's the Berkeley Earth graphic, with temperatures going back to 1870:
static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/figure9.pdf
(also comparing models to measured data)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Let us know when we can download the raw unprocessed data to feed into their pet algorithm. Yeah... you are about to link to some place where you THINK the raw data is... but you are wrong... thats processed data ("adjusted") and they keep altering the old, already processed, data.... funny that.
(I am a witness to it - quite simple really, download their data... wait 4 weeks and download it again... do a difference.. note how old data keeps changing)
"His name was James Damore."
Let's start with the fact that "warming" is the wrong term to use (which is why people use the term "climate change" now). It's not really warming. It's energy retention. Warming is just one side effect of the atmosphere retaining more energy.
There are a lot of feedback loops and redundancies built into the world's natural ecosystem. You see it on a small scale, where a bloom of certain resource results in a bloom of the consumers of that resource, followed by over-consumption which results in the decline of the consuming population. On the large scale, there is the same type of feedback loop that's made up of multiple smaller ones.
Right now, what's happening is that these feedback loops are handling a good chunk of the extra energy retained by CO2 so that actual atmosphereic warming is not terribly pronounced. But there's a tipping point. Once the amount of energy exceeds the capacity for these feedback loops to handle, it's going to shut down, and the moderating factor suddenly ceases to exist. The precise points are uncertain, but we know it'll happen based on what we see happening in smaller systems. For example, as prey increases, predators will also increase. This results in prey decline and then predator decline. But if due to external circumstances, the predator population grows out of control, or the prey population is completely decimated, both predator and prey (whichever wasn't affected by the initial event) will die off.
The real open questions today involve when things will happen, and how bad they'll get when these things do happen. For example, if one system fails, it can cause a domino effect on all the other feedback loops and cause them to fail too. That's a possibility. But it's also a possibility that the feedback loop most susceptable to failure won't affect the others much. It's possible that this will happen in a century. Or it's possible there are yet more feedback loops that we currently don't know about that'll push significant atomspheric temperature increase farther into the future.
What we do know is that there's definitely more energy in the atmosphere today. Weather events are getting more extreme. Stronger, more frequent storms. Colder cold snaps and hotter heat waves. And global temperatures are increasing, even if not by as much as predicted in the short term. Just keep in mind when thinking about these things that the entire planet isn't going to feel the same impact at the same time. It's about averages, over the entire system, over long periods of time (geological time scales). Also keep in mind that while certain one-off events can throw the numbers off, the trends will continue barring no behaviorial changes on our part.
The ultimate point is, we, if not as a species then as a civilization, are not facing any imminent danger yet, but we're getting more vulnurable, and by our own doing. It'd be nice to not be digging our own grave, no matter if we're using a large shovel or our bare hands. Of course, it all may not matter in the long run and our civilization and our species will ultimately be doomed anyway. But I'd rather not think that way.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Nature is a scientific journal - not just a magazine. If you didn't know that, you shouldn't be posting on threads such as these.
Departure of global temperature from average for 2014 (NOAA)
Earth's departure in temperature from the 20th century average during the period 1880 - 2014, according to NOAA.
global departure of temperature from average from 1965 - 2014 (scepticalscience.com)
Article: 2014: Hottest Year in Recorded Human History, Dr. Jeff Masters' blog entry at wunderground.com.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Right now, what's happening is that these feedback loops are handling a good chunk of the extra energy retained by CO2 so that actual atmosphereic warming is not terribly pronounced. But there's a tipping point. Once the amount of energy exceeds the capacity for these feedback loops to handle, it's going to shut down, and the moderating factor suddenly ceases to exist. The precise points are uncertain, but we know it'll happen based on what we see happening in smaller systems. For example, as prey increases, predators will also increase. This results in prey decline and then predator decline. But if due to external circumstances, the predator population grows out of control, or the prey population is completely decimated, both predator and prey (whichever wasn't affected by the initial event) will die off.
What you are in effect saying is knowing how a small, simple, well understood system behaves will tell you how a large, complex, poorly understood system would behave. Even though every attempt to model the Earth's climate system has completly failed. The truth is that we really don't have a clue what is happening, let alone why.
The real open questions today involve when things will happen, and how bad they'll get when these things do happen. For example, if one system fails, it can cause a domino effect on all the other feedback loops and cause them to fail too. That's a possibility. But it's also a possibility that the feedback loop most susceptable to failure won't affect the others much. It's possible that this will happen in a century. Or it's possible there are yet more feedback loops that we currently don't know about that'll push significant atomspheric temperature increase farther into the future.
If you don't know if a feedback loop even exists you can't possibly speculate as to its nature. There could just as easily be negative feedbacks which have yet to be triggered. A very obvious negative feedback for carbon dioxide being photosythesis. N.B. looking at the biology of both plants and animals could lead to the conclusion that current carbon dioxide levels are LOW.
I agree with you, to a certain extent. People are afraid to address climate change because they are afraid of the impact on our society. We can't ignore that fear.
I do have a question for you, though - how do you know that "Dealing with climate change is going to itself be a huge economic disaster, and people will suffer because of it."
Most of the plans I've seen would be so gradual that I don't even see economic slowdowns, much less huge economic disasters.
Is it monthly averages that they average for the year? Is it daily data that is averaged for the whole year?
Are you really not aware that those are the same number?
If so, well it's good that you seem to realize that you truly do not belong in this discussion.
Actually, it's quite common for local weather data to play fast-and-loose with the concept of "average" in ways that produce such anomalous results.
Thus, it's common to record the "average" temperature for a day by averaging the high and low temperature. It should be fairly obvious how this can produce days that are mostly below (or above) average, like when a front moves through and produces a peak high or low that's very different from most of the day. Similarly, I've seen the "average" monthly highs and lows calculated by taking four numbers (the min/max of the daily highs/lows) and doing similarly misleading averaging.
Actually, meteorologists typically record such things on an hourly basis, and do averaging across all of them. You still run into questions like whether the results are means or medians. But it's not unusual for the politically inclined to ignore such data (which is often only available by grovelling through the databases), using an "average" of only a small set of highs and lows.
Yes, these should average out over the long run. But we've seen so much "cherry picking" in this subject area that one should be skeptical of all the data until you've verified that the writers aren't trying to pull a fast one to support their religious/political/economic theories.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I'm sorry, your claim is incorrect.
The IPCC AR5 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... makes it clear that if you don't cherry pick date ranges, the models are spot on.
A lot of people like to quote the following:
Let's put that in context
Now, the details (emphasis mine)
The take away is this - don't cherry pick date ranges. Instead, look at the effectiveness of the models over the long term. When you do, you'll see they are quite accurate.
The year was the warmest on record by 0.01 deg C. Yet the error bars are 5 times that amount for this year (and 20 times that amount just 30 years ago). Statistically - it's among the warmest dozen or so, but you can't claim beyond that because of the measurement error.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I'd say that instead of falsifying data NASA and NOAA need to start being honest.
The difficulty is that once you decide that you can selectively ignore facts because of a huge conspiracy to falsify data, it becomes impossible for any amount of information to ever change your mind. So, the NASA data is falsified? And, the NOAA data, that's falsified too. And the University of East Anglia, of course. And the Berkeley data-- that was done specifically to address the problems people had with the NASA and NOAA data-- http://berkeleyearth.org/ That's faked too.? How about the Japanese data? http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t... Also faked? The Australians-- fake too?
Once you conclude everything that disagrees with you is fake, your opinion is incontrovertible-- since nobody can confront it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
NOAA and NASA use SATTELITES to get the SURFACE TEMPERATURE?
Mate, I guess you have gone already too far with your drinking games.
And... why aren't you building sattelites right now and setting up your very own global non-warming plot if yo uare so smart ?
-- 29A the number of the Beast
In which way has the theory been falsified? Has AGW failed to predict that this past year would be warmer than the others before? Quite obviously NOT.
First of all, you are just answering to a random bloke who says some random idiocy pulled out of his ass. Where is the peer-reviewed evidence of all these "discrepancies ? I see it only among you climate deniers repeated as a mantra to see if it somehow becomes reality. None of you ever checks anything, Of course not: Knowing that half of you guys including your Gurus like Jimy Inhofe or Ted Cruz are Young Earth Creationists gives already a good idea of the quality of your judgements.
And meanwhile in Greenland:
http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
-- 29A the number of the Beast