Slashdot Mirror
54C Recorded In Kuwait Likely Hottest On Record In Asia (foxnews.com)
An anonymous reader writes from an Associated Press report: The UN weather agency said it suspects that the 54C temperature recorded in Kuwait has set a record for the eastern hemisphere. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said Tuesday it is setting up a committee to look into whether the temperature recorded last Thursday in Mitrabah, Kuwait, was a new high for the eastern hemisphere and in Asia. WMO's Omar Baddour said it is "likely" to be an eastern hemisphere record. Last week, swathes of the Middle East and North Africa and were hit by heatwaves that have become more frequent over the last half-century, and Earth is fresh off the hottest six months on record. WMO says the world record high of 56.7C was recorded at Furnace Creek in Death Valley, California, in 1913. In the UAE, highs of 49C are expected inland on Wednesday. Last year, the mercury rose above 50C in Sweiham, near Al Ain.An article on Citylab, citing NOAA's latest analysis notes that it was the warmest June in the modern history and also the 14th consecutive month of unprecedented hotness.
That's 129.2F if you're interested.
We are becoming acclimatized to colonizing Venus, the Space Nutters will be pleased. Next step, breathing CO2 at 90 times Earth pressure.
Suppressed by mainstream media --
That's funny I swore that I first read about it in the Age, which talked about a 4 corners report. And now there are calls for a royal commission. That's one hell of a suppression.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
You sold all the crude oil to the world. Now suffer the consequences of global warming.
They were selling, we didn't have to buy, so I think the responsibility rests more with those that bought and burned all that oil.
In related news, oil also comes from other areas of the Earth.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The land surrounding the Persian Gulf will be uninhabitable by mid-century. The daily heat will be too hot for everyone's grandmother and camel.
Uh, I would have thought that most of the cumulative CO2 is due to coal, civil engineering and metallurgy, agriculture and land use change.
Ezekiel 23:20
You please shut up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Unprecedented over the last few hundred years. Coincidentally that's also the coldest part of our whole interglacial.
Not warmer than 1000, 2000 or 3000 years ago. 8000 years ago that whole region was a lush savannah.
The last interglacial was warmer still.
Tagline: Natural variability.
Causes aside, what would you call an increasing trend in temperatures if not global warming? Or did you think global warming suddenly meant all cold weather would disappear overnight?
They have burkinis.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
If all it takes for you to disregard the massive body of evidence behind AGW is someone saying something you don't like, you are terrible at this. I bet your post sounded awesome in your head, but on the screen it is laughably naive.
No, we don't wonder. We just shrug and say, "another FOX news listener".
They've spent the last 20 years building artificial islands for rich people. They'll be fine.
The USA with its coastal cities? Not so much.
No sig today...
BBC to underground for you? www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-36880860
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Name calling, the last bastion of people who can't make an intelligent argument. And AC to boot. Color me surprised.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
And tomorrow we will see a news release from the North Korean government stating that the highest temperature ever recorded in Asia was during Dear Leader's birth, and the coldest ever recorded was at his death. Which also means they can add solving global warming to the list of his many accomplishments.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Actually, you can't point to any actual numbers that indicate it is a problem.
Define it. Seriously, what is it? You're just saying a generic pronoun here. Oh, you mean AGW?
Well, actually, yes, there are actual numbers that indicate problem points.
You'd know this if you had read any of the reports.
All the predictions of disaster have failed to materialize.
Well, yes, because they have yet to occur, at the levels indicated.
And things NOT predicted (like the Greening of Africa) that may actually be a benefit to the planet are ignored.
Not at all, that's a factor that has been considered. You'd know this, if you had read the reports.
CO2 is a natural gas, one that Plants love.
Plants do not have sapience, claiming they experience love is a falsehood.
Increasing CO2 increases plant biology, which will increase food production and continue the Greening of large areas as plants and increased rainfall mix to create new forests and jungles.
Except for the consideration of too much CO2 and too much heat. Not to mention the disruptive effects on human infrastructure.
The only thing you can do is say that CO2 is slightly higher than before. You cannot say that CO2 / Global Warming / Climate Change is bad, because that is simply a subjective claim.
You're right, that's why they actually tend to parse things as "Levels of CO2 that exceed ranges of..." and "Temperature increases that..." and "Climate that" and other particular references, rather than your over-simplified portrayal.
Yeah, that MIGHT be what you hear on the news, but what the fuck man, they're the same people that report a crime wave when 3 people get drunk and smash car windows.
Look, if you want to go to the IPCC, go ahead, but your criticism is moot outside it, it just makes you look like an ass.
So, keep up with the hysterics.
LOL, that's rich, coming from you.
Do you actually think you're calm and rational, that you demonstrate logic and reason?
No, Mr. Spock, you're an emotional wreck.
No the problem is both deniers and "alarmists" can both pick temperature extremes in a given year but the global average continues stair stepping upwards likely resulting in ~4B people trying to migrate in the next century or so. But hey, the venn diagram of AGW deniers and friends of immigrants has a huge overlap right?
If you're dead, or going to die soon, vote the republican (he who shall not be named) for president. If you prefer to to kick the can down to your grandkids or great grandkids, vote democrat. You will get destruction either way. One is just faster than the other.
We have a choice, people. Choose wisely.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Record cold can be evidence for global warming. The key is to understand what "warming" actually is: adding energy to the system. Consider a glass of water. What happens when you add energy to it by shaking it? The answer is, it sloshes around -- the maximum height of the water surface gets higher, and the minimum height gets lower. Or consider the refrigeration thermodynamic cycle: one part of the system gets colder even though the total energy of the system is increasing.
That's not to say that record cold is always evidence of global warming, or indeed that it could never be evidence of an oncoming ice age. I'm just pointing out that the issue is more complicated than "record cold = cooling" or "record heat = heating" considered in isolation. We only know that record heat actually is evidence for heating because it's been observed as part of a larger pattern and was predicted by climate models and such (i.e., all the actual science that climatologists do that a Fox News sound bite is inadequate to explain).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I don't think anyone serious is pointing to this as proof of climate change though. At most they might claim it is a symptom of it. It's an important distinction, because one side is saying "this is likely to be the result of climate change" and the other is saying "this one event proves that climate change isn't happening".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I had no idea that Uber was a "high tech" company.
A fantastic service and good idea? Sure. High tech? Not so much.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
People stop believing in Global Warming when its proponents advocate using the US Congress as an instrument of ramming their opinions down people's throats.
And people wonder why we don't believe Global Warming.
I don't wonder. I see it as one of the human brain's greatest weaknesses. More and more research shows that once people pick a side, they are highly likely to dig in and contrary evidence actually reinforces their incorrect position. Perhaps this served some evolutionary purpose (you only need to learn fire is hot once) but in today's world where humans have the capability to drastically alter the environment we need to listen to the fucking facts.
Lead is bad for the brain even if the lead industry spends 50 years and $millions trying to prove otherwise. Smoking causes cancer even if the cigarette industry spends 50 years and $millions trying to prove otherwise. The average global temperature is rising due to human emissions of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at a rate that does indeed match most models even if the fossil fuel industry spends 50 years and $millions trying to prove otherwise. Not exactly sure what industry is against vaccinations (maybe religion) but apparently you might not even need a shadowy group to cause trouble (see recent measles outbreaks).
For an especially hilarious example, see the John Oliver clip where newt ginrich repeatedly basically says "my feelings are more important than your facts for making policy". If humanity as a whole can evolve past that bullshit maybe we have a shot at colonizing space...or at least finding out if the physics of the universe allow it. If not, then I guess we don't deserve to and we'll get wiped out and the earth will try again in a few hundred million years.
Anyway, hopefully the deniers are right cause if not, we're fucked.
it's incredible how much better some of my cousins can handle the heat better than I can. That wasn't the case when I lived there. I remember reading about it taking a few weeks for your blood to become thinner and more capillaries to grow in your skin which helps you cool off.
I am so very glad to hear that the people over there have the infrastructure and acclimation to handle it so well. They won't mind then if I crank up the thermostat another 10 degrees Fahrenheit, because it can get a little chilly up here in the north during the winters....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Not at all. Though on the same coin, being in colder climate I'm guessing causes you to acclimate in the opposite way.
...in this case "weather" IS climate?
I'm never sure when it is, or when it isn't.
Because I don't recall it getting a lot of play when:
14 June 2016 -- In Vostok, temperature of -80.3 degrees was recorded.Coldest since observations began.
(http://iceagenow.info/record-cold-antarctica/)
Curious, isn't it?
-Styopa
AC = Anonymous Coward, it is how s/he chose to post. Not really a name calling ... but if that is the best you can do, that's awesome!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Youre sig has jumped to my attention before. Today, I dedided to look it up - and was confronted with a Texture.cs class. There is **so much** wrong with that code, I can't even begin to think of how to fix it. Is that fucking production code ???
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
oh stfu.
you've had this explained to you countless times.
the fact you ignore it every time simply makes you a committed troll.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
actually the greening was predicted.
and its also known, proven experimentally, that the drawbacks of higher heat and CO2 outweigh the benefits.
drawbacks that include:
-changing plant biochemistry, turning some crops toxic, reducing insect resistance, attracting additional insects, or other various effects
-plants that don't produce their crop in the higher heat, or simply don't grow in it
but then, as I said: the fact its more complex than your naïve "well plants like CO2, so much be better" viewpoint has been explained to you before.
and you've ignored it...again.
hence youre a willfully ignorant troll, or possibly a paid one.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
assumptions ftl
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Wait. They have to set up a committee in order to check a record?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
"politically motivated pseudoscientists"
What's your local university, the Exxon information center?
What should land use and agriculture have to do with 'accumulated CO2'? ...
Metallurgy obviously involves coal
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
What I don't get is why those Kingdoms don't use their wealth for something useful.
When the Roman empire broke down the Iberian peninsula was half a desert, because the romans chopped off most of the oak woods for ship building.
When the Arabs conquered it, the first thing they did was building up irrigation systems, reforming agriculture and reforesting the woods.
Can't be so hard in our times to build salt water based, evaporating channels, lakes and perhaps cataracts on which the water can evaporate, or simply build desalination plants and irrigate the land into fertility.
Cities could be like Semiramis' garden, full with green. Skyscrapers could be covered in green. If a city is basically a concrete structure with green on top, it is minimum 10C colder than it is right now.
And considering how everything there needs to be imported anyway, I can't imagine that building a 'green city' is significantly more expensive than having a copy of an american city that simply does not work in that climate.
Building a concrete desert inside of a sand desert ...
So what are they doing with their money?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
My co-workers went to UAE and experienced temps higher than 50C based on the thermocouples they had with them... But officially, the temperature never gets higher than 49C because allegedly there's legislation that says if the temp gets >49C, businesses need to shut down and shuttle their workers home in air-conditioned buses.
I don't wonder. I see it as one of the human brain's greatest weaknesses. More and more research shows that once people pick a side, they are highly likely to dig in and contrary evidence actually reinforces their incorrect position. Perhaps this served some evolutionary purpose (you only need to learn fire is hot once)
Probably more local diversity so we don't get wiped out by spurious reasoning, mono-culture or get stuck on some local maximum. Instead of risking the whole tribe jumping on what they think is a good thing we'll divide into camps with the old ways and the new ways like a primitive scientific experiment. Today we don't have that strong evolutionary pressure but back when people would starve and freeze and die from all sorts of injuries and diseases I imagine this could be rather important in a shifting environment with droughts and floods and heat waves and cold waves and packs of animals coming and going could change the optimal choice quite often. Perhaps we had an evolutionary need to have people stick with what's worked in the past even if it doesn't seem to be working right now.
The other part might be that we're used to people having an agenda. The more persistent people are to convince you something is true, the more skeptical we get. There might be a value to having made up your own opinion rather than to take someone else's, even if it's wrong. That one seems even more relevant today, since more and more of what we do is make ourselves familiar with second hand knowledge, things others have found out and put to paper. There's so many tons of it you just have to accept you barely have time to get a tiny glimpse of our collective knowledge. And let's face it, a lot of that has been fantasy and fiction. You can't see AGW, but people say it exists like they used to say dragons exist. It's hard to know what is actually facts.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I would venture to guess that hardly any American would know how to dress really at 7C or 70C...they are meaningless in every day use here in the US.
30 is warm
20 is nice
10 is cool
0 is ice.
That's really all you need to know.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Here's another story from the non-mainstream-media underground reporting outfit, the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...
Sea levels rose at around 0.0 to 0.2mm per year for the last two thousand years. They rose a total of 6 cm during the 19th century, and 19cm in the 20th century.
The temperature datasets don't contribute anything to climate models except as something to compare the climate model output to in the first place. Climate models a physical models that use the physics involved to determine their output. You could start them anywhere and they would eventually converge on a realistic representation of climate.
So you think it's acceptable for people do stop believing in scientific findings because of what people do with them? Why not try to change the system which allegedly perverts scientific findings? Or is that too difficult, so "fuck science"?
First of all the Euro is older than a decade and secondly the Euro is the successor of the Ecu, 'European Currency Unit' which is quite old and used since the early eighties as currency for oil e.g. in international trade, and ofc in EU internal trade.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I call it normal statistics.
There are 365 days in a year (sometimes 366), and many places in the world have only had proper temperature records kept for only 100-150 years. Thus the chance of any random day having a record temperature (among recorded temperatures) is not bad at all.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
That graph would be more real if the "reality" was extended through 2015. You would find the observational data very close to the average of the climate models.
My ancestors risked their lives to cross the Atlantic because the system wanted them to "stop believing in" X.
If global warming is real, people will believe it. Nobody is forced to believe the oil companies.
When people start getting nervous that ordinary people will decide on their own what to believe, it is a sign of desperation in themselves and weakness in their cause.
Look at the fraud committed by the East Anglia Institute to cover up their AGW fabrications. A lot of other universities were in on it also. Look at how Nazis Germany told people to believe the earth formed out of ice. Look at how the USSR told their citizens families are inherently economic and therefore evil entities.
You're going to tell me centralized, government intelligence knows better than ordinary people? No way! Look at all the corruption going on in the federal government. Well over 53% of the US believe federal corruption is their #1 concern about government. That means a lot of democrats feel this way also.
If you want to take away the right of ordinary people to believe what they wish, you deserve to have your right right to believe as you wish taken away.
Uh, I would have thought that most of the cumulative CO2 is due to coal, civil engineering and metallurgy, agriculture and land use change.
"the country-level contributions to climate change are extremely sensitive to two factors: (1) the time period chosen and (2) inclusion of LUCF [land use change] (and non-CO2) emissions. Even if countries could agree on which time period to adopt, no official country-level data exists prior to 1990. Unofficial data for CO2 from fossil fuels extends back to the 1800s.However, the certainty of data covering such distant time periods is likely to be disputed. Historical data is also geographically biased, as earlier data is more likely to be available for European countries. Equally significant is the absence of virtually any country-level data for non-CO2 gases and LUCF prior to 1990." http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The problem is that areas had record cold this past winter, and "deniers" get slammed for correlating a weather event to global climate change - but when "alarmists" do the same thing, most people just nod. It is a double standard. For the record, again, before anyone gets all irate about it, I do not deny global climate change - I'm just not biased enough to be blind to the double standard.
again, both the frequency of records, high and low, and the area having such records can be quantized, and are quite amenable to rigorous statistical analysis, complete with calculations of confidence intervals, etc. It is intuitively obvious that calling out an individual record in either direction is of no value statistically, but noting that some hypothetical measure has had 253 new record highs as opposed to 1 record low in the past week is indicative of a certain shift.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Record cold can be evidence for global warming. The key is to understand what "warming" actually is: adding energy to the system. Consider a glass of water. What happens when you add energy to it by shaking it? The answer is, it sloshes around -- the maximum height of the water surface gets higher, and the minimum height gets lower. Or consider the refrigeration thermodynamic cycle: one part of the system gets colder even though the total energy of the system is increasing.
That's not to say that record cold is always evidence of global warming, or indeed that it could never be evidence of an oncoming ice age. I'm just pointing out that the issue is more complicated than "record cold = cooling" or "record heat = heating" considered in isolation. We only know that record heat actually is evidence for heating because it's been observed as part of a larger pattern and was predicted by climate models and such (i.e., all the actual science that climatologists do that a Fox News sound bite is inadequate to explain).
indeed. for an analogy; high summer temperatures in my house are correlated with very low temperatures; directly in front of my air conditioner.
in a vaguely analogous way, the shut down of the Gulf Stream observed with increased oceanic warming is going to lead to colder winters for Europe, most of which is north of NYC.
and, weirdly enough, to increased rate of sea level rise on the US east coast, since the old Gulf Stream was powerful enough to actually lower the water level there.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Okay, so when it is very cold, unseasonably it is "weather" but when it is hot, it is Global Warming. Got it.
And people wonder why we don't believe Global Warming.
No to your first paragraph, definite yes to the second.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
It looks like FIFA found the next place to hold the World Cup! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
No climate model is perfect. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses. The lack of strong agreement between climate models and observations in the 2000s is as much a reflection of natural variability that no climate model can predict ahead of time as it is due to any problem with the climate models themselves.