Slashdot Mirror
Prepare For Even More Volatile Weather in 2017 (engadget.com)
An anonymous shares a report on Engadget: Ice isn't just great for keeping your drinks cool at parties, it also helps keep our planet cool by reflecting some of the sun's heat away. But thanks to our steadfast refusal to address climate change, there's going to be a lot less ice in the Arctic next year. Scientists are observing record high temperatures in the Arctic circle that's likely to lead to record low levels of ice coverage in 2017. Long story short, we're currently melting the wall that's helped stop the seas boiling for all of these years. Normally, by November, the global temperature has dropped sufficiently that ice can form again in the Arctic ready for the following summer. This year, however, climate scientists saw a spike to -7 celsius (19f) -- 15 degrees celsius (27f) warmer than usual. While the readings have fluctuated since November 11, they're expected to rocket up again in the next few days.
"Long story short, we're currently melting the wall that's helped stop the seas boiling for all of these years."
Yes, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on Slashdot these days and if you dare to point out that bullshit is bullshit you can be blacklisted as an "anti-science" nazi for failing to show proper piety to the religion of Global Warming -- oops I mean "Climate Change".
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Trump won - get over it. He's going to give us the best weather ever.
... and we keep adding heat, so, yes, it's going to get hotter.
Just keep partying like it's 1859. It'll be the best reality ever.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Okay, I'm all for addressing climate change. I'd like to keep ice on the poles, suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, and generally try to keep earth's climate, weather, and life-supporting capacity stable.
But this tone seems a bit... hyperbolic? Yeah, we're WAY BEHIND where we need to be, and there is a TON of resistance due to complacency and ignorance. But this sort of doom-saying doesn't help, especially if the prophesied end doesn't come before the prophecy itself is forgotten. In the modern world? That takes about 11 seconds.
My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic
My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.
Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”
WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research—which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.
I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.
More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?
I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.
Haven't been any hurricanes in 10 years? I'm guessing you live in Iowa; hence you didn't see any hurricanes. You are aware that the strongest hurricanes ever observed in the Pacific have been forming regularly? Just because the US hasn't seen a catastrophe doesn't mean "there haven't been any hurricanes for 10 years." This has nothing to do with "politically correct shit." It has to do with science. Don't take my word for it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
So when Santa's workshop plunges in to the deep, will Christmas be cancelled next year? What about Superman's fortress of solitude? Is it too late to plug up all the evil oil wells? Oh, what a world what a world!
Weather == politically correct"? WTF? And where's the SJW?
Too much meds? Too little?
After training to be an Intellectual Property lawyer, Dan abandoned a promising career in financial services to sit at home and play with gadgets. He lives in Norwich with his wife, his books and far too many opinions on British TV comedy. One day, if he's very, very lucky, he'll live out his dream to become the Executive Producer of Doctor Who before retiring to Radio 4.
The title of the fucking post is about weather, the content of the post is about weather, so what are you even on about.
Anyone with a cursory understanding of climate over the geologic ages knows that ice at both poles is rare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Humans as a species do not have any serious ability to harm the planet. We can easily make it completely unsuitable for human life, however.
"haven't been any hurricanes for 10 years"
Funniest shit I've read all week. Couldn't even bother to go to www.google.com to verify that one before you dumped it out there on the internet?
Ayup, but if what if the cretaceous arctic toothed birds would come back? http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/prehistoric-bird-arctic-rochester-1.3905321 Will all the Americans that fled to Canada due to Trump, run back again? If so, please bring on the heat.
But thanks to our steadfast refusal to address climate change, there's going to be a lot less ice in the Arctic next year.
- this turn of a phrase is something that a millionaire liberal would be proud of. How about: thanks to our desire for better life on the global scale? Or maybe: thanks to our increasing fight against global poverty? The climate changes as we are providing better m living conditions for hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians, who can now live wealthier lives in the cities instead of most of them having to be subsistence farmers.
Nobody will be refusing their improving life styles, the issue of the changing climate will not be dealt with until it hits very large and wide fairly well to do swathes of the population. Then these large numbers of people will provide sufficient market pressure for the industries to form around the climate related events to mitigate the problems on different levels.
Economic development and market demand will be the actual driving force that will address the climate, not anything else.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Raised sea levels? Sure... Extinction-level scenario? Possibly... Unliveable in certain parts of the world due to heat? Maybe. But boiling away the oceans of the world is not going to happen anytime before the sun starts to run out of its fuel.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No hurricane? The 10 trees down in my yard (2 of those on my house) after hurricane Matthew seem to suggest otherwise. My town lost around 120000 trees during this non-event, dumbass.
Yeah, lets just ignore the claims after Katrina hit 11 years ago that THE GULF COAST would see hurricane after hurricane, claiming there would be 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen per year. We won't take your word for it because until last year it was 10 YEARS of no hurricanes in the Gulf Coast. You are right, this has nothing to do with "politically correct shit", but it sure doesn't have to do with science when you ignore the claims getting it TOTALLY WRONG.
The climate in the arctic has been getting progressively warmer because of rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The unusual polar conditions this autumn and winter are weather. Next summer will have unusually low levels of ice. But very low levels of ice in the polar summer are becoming the new normal. That's climate.
I'm not worried anymore. Trump said he'll be tough on volatile weather. I know it will be the most serene weather we've ever had.
And if it doesn't cooperate, he'll build the biggest wall you've ever seen on the east border of California. That will kill two birds with one stone. (Not that trump has only one stone...He definitely has two and they're the biggest and best stones you've ever seen).
Yeah right, just like I'm supposed to buy that men who haven't shaved in 3 days are women now just because they put on a dress. You're moving the goalposts just like every other SJW. Why should I care about that made-up crap over the ocean?
Your post would have more credibility if you had also brought up Hillary's emails. You could have also replied by saying . . .
WRONG. (Snnnnniiiiiiiiiiifffffff)
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
As if we have anything to do with why this is most likely happening.
Fake News ahead.
Engadget should stick to gadgets.
More alarmiism and very little science in this article.
Just keep partying like it's 1859. It'll be the best reality ever.
Partying?!
Because of this climate change hysteria my electricity bill more than doubled in just a few years (despite more than thousand dollars upgrades into the "green" appliances etc.) and my heating bills will go up at least 30% on January 1st.
It drives up prices on everything... More and more taxes because of this...
Businesses are leaving Ontario and new not coming despite a competitive Canadian dollar and skillful workers...
The most beautiful parts of the province are littered with windmills that produce expensive electricity when there is no demand, so they sell it to bordering states at no cost
Every time they show me on the news another "proof" of the climate change and how bad that is for Bangladeshis living in plywood sheds a few feet from the shore (yes, I'm talking about VICE), I know it means I'm going to have to pay simply because of taxpayers-salaried folks pushing its own agendas just because they want to feel important.
Why is such a noble and scientifically sound cause became just another way to take wealth from the middle class and waste it with useless government programs?
Are you positive that those trees fell down due to "wind"? Correlation does not equal causation you know. Maybe those trees were just tired. Or, maybe they got drunk and passed out. Quit blaming everything on this "wind" hocus-pocus.
Yes, because the two are completely separate...
The use of "we" and "our" to describe the actions of somebody else is getting old. Really old.
(From the summary) "our steadfast refusal to address climate change"
This makes no sense as the submitter is clearly in favor of addressing climate change. Does he consider himself part of the denial group, or part of the acceptance group? Those are two completely seperate and distinct groups, defined by their opposing viewpoints on climate change. The term "our" implies that there is no difference, in which case, what are we debating about?
Look, human beings are unique, thinking individuals. There is no central Borg that controls their thoughts in unison. If you want to address the actions of a specific group of human beings, for example those who operate the government, then say it. Don't muddy the waters by saying (for example) "we are sending ourselves down the road to oppression", because you and I most certainly are not, otherwise we wouldn't be debating against it, would we?
The fear-mongering that we're going to successfully wipe ourselves out by not immediately embracing solar or wind energy, or electric cars, or whatever the faux solution-du-jour is ..... That's as much B.S. as this sensationalist garbage that our oceans will begin boiling if the polar ice melts.
If we succeed in destroying ourselves as a species on Earth, it will probably be with a nuclear war. But even that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's, and nations have taken steps to back-pedal from it since then.
Hurricane Sandy happened in October 2012 ... $75 billion in damages and at least 233 people dead along the storm's path.
Do you mean like how it just snowed in the Sahara Desert for the first time in 37 years?
The Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing.
Okay, let's say we have a metal pole, with a top and bottom. It is warmed by a heat source. If the heat source is centrally located, the center will be warm and the ends equally cool.
However, if that heat source is elevated, the upper half of the metal pole will be warmer, and the bottom half cooler. The top of the pole will be significantly warmer than the bottom of the pole.
Presently, our sun has a HUGE hole in the northern hemisphere. "The low density of coronal holes is also responsible for high-speed solar winds. These streams of solar particles blow off the coronal holes about three times faster than they do in higher-density areas of the sun, according to the statement."
http://www.space.com/33047-nas...
Why is this significant? Well, we know sunspots correlate to climate temperatures. Less sun spots equal colder periods, more sunspots, correlate to warmer periods.
"Ituitively one may assume the that total solar irradiance would decrease as the number of (optically dark) sunspots increased. However direct satellite measurements of irradiance have shown just the opposite to be the case. This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise. "
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geert...
Okay, so we have a large hole. The hole likely affects the suns gravitational / magnetic forces adjusting the amount of thermal energy released. If so we likely have a thermal gradient in which the higher north you go on the solar plane, the warmer it is. This would explain why the Arctic would be melting and the Antarctic adding ice.
Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree on this. It's a nice quip, but the oceans are not going to boil.
Look, global warming guys, global warming is real, the science is well established, but scaremongering hyperbole is not helping you . I know you think it's funny, and you know that nobody really believes that there is a possibility that the oceans are going to boil, but you are just giving ammunition to the deniers.
Stop it. Stick to facts-- the kind that are real.
Top DOE Scientist fired by Obama administration
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.
A top DoE scientist (Dr. Noelle Metting) who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.
Stupid ass hyperbole (seas boiling) is not helping.
Increases in CO2 are real, impacts to global temperature due to CO2 are real, impacts to life (human or otherwise, positive and negative) due to rising temperatures and ocean levels are real.
Hollywood-esque hyperbole just confuses the issue and makes it trivial to lump all information into the same cesspool of misinformation.
I think it was a tropical storm when it made landfall. A HUGE tropical storm, but not a hurricane.
Or maybe they were depressed and gave up on life. Trees need a hug now and then. :D
"boiling"?
I suppose I must believe the Earth is only 4,000 years old if I question you but I can't help myself?
Has the Atmospheric pressure of the Earth suddenly decreased massively so that the Oceans can boil at below freezing point?
Has something dramatic happened to the properties of water so they boil at -7C?
Here's a hint you fucking clown: leftists *don't* have a lock on "teh science"
the claims after Katrina hit 11 years ago that THE GULF COAST would see hurricane after hurricane, claiming there would be 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen per year
I just did a Google News search constrained from 8/20/2005 to 9/30/2005 and I couldn't find an article saying that. Can you please link to some?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
But thanks to our steadfast refusal to address climate change...
Coal is down to 33% of US generation, NG is up to 33%, renewables around 7%, plus hydro and nuclear. People are purchasing more fuel efficient cars thanks to CAFE standards. US CO2 emissions are down overall. I don't call that a "refusal".
It is however completely impossible at this point to stop greenhouse gas emissions. Even if it were technically or economically possible, global warming is still going to occur due to already released emissions. We can mitigate some of its effects, but unless you think any politician is going to shut down all sources of emissions, or murder 90% of the population, it's time to recognize what is possible and forget the improbable.
It's hyperbole like this that makes me generally ignore what the global warming, now climate change, evangelists preach.
Ah, it's just you.
You have a RIGHT to low electricity prices, damn the consequences.
You have RIGHT to an unobstructed view.
You MUST be a special snowflake. Except we don't have snowflakes anymore....
And don't conflate climate change with your incompetent government. You can have both quite handily.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Finally getting the moderation you deserve.
Hugs and kisses,
Juan Epstein
Anti-science? It's an Engadget blog post. Engadget is peer-reviewed as fuck. I think the blogger who posted it has 9 PhDs.
I think you're trying to be sarcastic, but you are apparently unaware that sarcasm is hard to distinguish on the internet, and becomes completely invisible against the background on slashdot comments.
it's snowing in the Sahara
And you don't find that slightly unusual?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
No.
"Sandy developed from a tropical wave in the western Caribbean Sea on October 22, quickly strengthened, and was upgraded to Tropical Storm Sandy six hours later. Sandy moved slowly northward toward the Greater Antilles and gradually intensified. On October 24, Sandy became a hurricane, made landfall near Kingston, Jamaica, re-emerged a few hours later into the Caribbean Sea and strengthened into a Category 2 hurricane. On October 25, Sandy hit Cuba as a Category 3 hurricane, then weakened to a Category 1 hurricane. Early on October 26, Sandy moved through the Bahamas.[7] On October 27, Sandy briefly weakened to a tropical storm and then restrengthened to a Category 1 hurricane. Early on October 29, Sandy curved west-northwest (the "left turn" or "left hook") and then[8] moved ashore near Brigantine, New Jersey, just to the northeast of Atlantic City, as a post-tropical cyclone with hurricane-force winds.[1][9]"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On the bright side, no more pesky ice to get in the way of oil rigs. Plus, as an added bonus, once the methane trapped in the frozen Siberia tundra is released, Arctic oil crews can then work outside in shirt sleeves and shorts, even in the winter.
Because when they say "steadfast refusal to climate change" they are either looking past all the progressive attempts by individuals, companies and governments to shift more to renewables. No, it's not going to happen over night. And no it isn't a good idea to create tax penalties (carbon tax credits are SJW bullshit) to try to pretend to force companies to improve their green status.
Or was that hyperbole, you fucking idiot?
Guess what the boiling oceans was?
Can we get rid of this fake news?
and we keep adding heat
Not really. That's not how greenhouse gasses work. They trap incoming heat by preventing it from re-radiating.
...which is exactly how a Thermos keeps things warm (with the exception that a thermos works by reflection, while the greenhouse effect works by absorption and reradiation). The metaphor "we live in a thermos" has some accuracy to it.
The net heat input from fossil fuel use over the entire planet is down in the noise level compared to incoming solar energy.
Greenhouse warming isn't due to heat produced directly from fossil fuels, it's due to the greenhouse effect produced from the carbon dioxide. You're right that the natural greenhouse effect is larger than the component due to human-produced greenhouse gases-- about twenty times larger; without the greenhouse effect, Earth is 255 K. Whether that means the human contribution "in the noise" depends on what you mean by "in the noise." It turns out we've adapted to the planet the way it currently is, with ocean levels the way they currently are, and ice caps present at both poles. A few degrees of greenhouse warming might be "in the noise", you say, compared to the 33 degrees of natural warming, but it still can have large effect on us.
This is why the no-science public needs to chill out, STFU and quit getting whipped into a frenzy by people trying to leverage AGW for political gains. We understand the basic principles, but are still far away from useful predictive models that could be used to evaluate the impact of changes in energy policies.
Right now, I'm more worried about the people trying to attack science for political gains. The science of the greenhouse effect is well understood.
Hurricane Sandy was barely a CAT 1, and "major" hurricanes are CAT 3 and above. So the OP could have been correct if he had said "no major hurricanes in the last 10 years," which would address the scaremongerers post-Katrina/Wilma who, with no evidence to back them, claimed that we would be experiencing dozens of major hurricanes by now.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
But boiling away the oceans of the world is not going to happen anytime before the sun starts to run out of its fuel.
That's not the current best guess. It's expected to happen in about a billion years, where as the sun isn't expected to enter the red giant phase for 5 billion years, and not expected to run out of fuel for 8.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
But that is the anti-science bullshit that is the new normal here on slashdot: get told a meme that fits with what you WANT to be true, and NEVER CHECK IT OUT.
Oh, and guys who keep blabbing about snow in the Sahara, I guess that must be a really cold day, like 20 degrees C or more below normal right? After all, this is +17C warmer than normal over an area a bit bigger than the Sahara. So where is the differential? And where do you get the idea that climatologists can't take the temperature of the earth, but you totally can?
"Ice isn't just great for keeping your drinks cool at parties..."
Was this written for 3rd-graders?
Thanks for the credible scientific lead in. I mean, I had NO IDEA that ice was good for anything beyond keeping my drinks cold at parties. And now it turns out it's got something or other to do with the planet? Well I'll be damned. Can't we just go to the mini-mart and buy a few more bags?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
*throws a snowball*
That's why. It's only unusual because you politically correct SJWs keep up the fearmongering about boiling oceans. Where I live used to be under a mile of ice. You're wrong, she lost, get over it.
Sandy got to Category 3.
You also neglect the Pacific, which has had some significant typhoons recently.
In 2011 there was a typhoon which knocked out a significant amount of hard drive manufacturing capacity. The Phillipines got hit by two typhoons in a week in 2016.
You can keep splitting hairs, but OP's (who is also AC) assertion is demonstratably false, just as the claims of alarmists are. Too bad people can't seem to have rational discussions any longer, or more recently, will just make stuff up and keep repeating it until people believe it.
Irrespective of the category of the storm, the financial impact of the storm places it pretty high on the "economic impact" chart.
Way to shift the goalposts there, buddy. Did you get Sandy to help you shift them?
Oh and Sandy was MASSIVE. YUGE compared to even big hurricanes. Sounds like a major hurricane to me!
Mind you, for all the people denying AGW exists that demand [citation needed], I'm missing where this claim of dozens of major hurricanes BS you're spouting here. After all, we wouldn't want to go all "anti-scientific bullshit" here on slashdot, would we?
Anybody like to share my popcorn?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
LOL, dude, great joke!
Trust me 2017 is going to be a YUGE year for the environment! Nobody fixes things better than me! Believe me!
Yes, complacent, cynical, sarcastic folk like you will help assure he has plenty of both to contend with.
Because,and correct me if I'm wrong, there's a significant lack of sunlight during the night.
OP did say "Kindly explain why it gets cooler on a cloudless night.". To which the answer is clouds keep the heat in, not that they reflect sunlight back.
Oh, and look at the albedos of Earth(0.3) and Venus(0.75). The difference in temperatures is FUCK ALL to do with red clouds (which indicates NOT IR) but with the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. Hell, the Moon is darker (0.12) than us, but has a lower temperature because it has no greenhouse effect, despite absorbing more IR (as most solids do).
Because of this climate change hysteria my electricity bill more than doubled in just a few years (despite more than thousand dollars upgrades into the "green" appliances etc.) and my heating bills will go up at least 30% on January 1st.
Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? It seems likely the answer is no.
Because your claim of climate change driving up your electricity prices would be valid only if:
You also said nothing about how your energy consumption (in KW/Hours most often) compares to "a few years" ago. Sure, you bought "green" appliances but how much are you using for other things? Is your computer running all the time? What about your cable or satellite box? How many battery operated gizmos are you charging all the time? The list goes on and on. Just because your refrigerator uses 30% less power doesn't mean you cut 30% off your consumption.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Mr. Kotter,
Epstein will not be in class today because of global warming.
Signed.
Epstein's Mother
RIP Robert Hegyes
which is where it snowed. Snow on a mountain. Who'dathunkit?
It's only 35F degrees higher than normal in some parts of the Artic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...
Seriously, Engadget for science news?
BlameBillCosby.com
thanks for contributing to make earth not human life viable in few years...
Last year was very warm due to 'super El Nino' conditions. El Nino occurs every 4 years or so, and is then followed by La Nina conditions which are usually very cold. This is probably why temperatures have plummeted so much that it snowed in the SAHARA yesterday. This is all natural fluctuations on top of the gradual rise that started 150 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age (where solar magnetic activity started changing terrestrial cloud formation, see the work by Svensmark and Shaviv for example). A mere 2% increase in water vapor has the same effect as a 100% increase in CO2, water vapor really is the dominant 'greenhouse gas'.
Here are pictures of yesterday's snow in the Sahara for anyone who is interested, the last time it was cold enough to snow here was 37 years ago:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12...
So much for all the clueless new agencies that said 'snow is a thing of the past' a decade ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
and all the 'ice free Arctic summer' forecasts also made by clueless mainstream media outlets
http://realclimatescience.com/...
They are a bunch of liars ! Don't fall for the lies anymore, dear Slashdotters. Especially don't let the frauds take your hard-earned cash as 'green tax' or take your individual liberty away in the name of 'saving the planet'. They got the science wrong and think they can win by lying to you to continue their globalist One World Government (UN) scam - which they control and you do not elect.
With regard to the claim that the Arctic won't freeze I believe the people making the claims don't seem to understand that an El Nino often delays winter conditions by months, but when they do come and form La Nina conditions then they come with a vengeance. Expect next year to be colder than normal. And after that the 4-year El Nino/La Nina cycle driven by the Pacific Ocean will start again.
Here are data from the Arctic (Danish sources that are not fraudulent politicized entities like US ones):
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland...
We see that Greenland (in the Arctic) has massive amounts of MORE ice than normal. We also see normal variability in the ice cover data, things look fairly normal and ice cover is currently in an increasing phase both for this time of year and since 2012
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice...
Have a great Christmas dear Slashdotters, and I hope each of you has a much better 2017 than this year.
LOL quick use fear to spread bs. Climate has been changing from the begging of time.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
Story 1
Story 2
Story 3
Story 4
Story 5
Yea, you did a search. Found all these in less than 1 minute, and everyone voted you up because they want you to be right, but obviously you are not. I like the one claiming Category 6 hurricanes will be hitting any day now.
Bonus speech by Al Gore saying the same thing.
These days, a degree just means "I agree with the politics of the doctrinal committee"
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
NOBODY told them there would have been no snow in 2010, et al. Whether "Boiling seas" is needless hyberbole or absolute truth is IRRELEVANT to that.
I actually wrote COBOL programs on punch cards in high school. The deck of cards, in the right order, would get a rubber band and go in a bin for overnight processing. The print-out of the run came back the next school day. Fortran was a bit easier, as we got to use teletype terminals with built-in acoustic coupplers.
Later, working for Rockwell, I wrote some X-Windows software for pulling punched cards with attached microfiche.
So you'd rather just offload the costs on to the next generation? Because in fifty years, the costs you pay now will be nothing compared to what local and larger scale economies will have to pay out.
And really, the bigger problem in Ontario is absurd electricity contracts, not green energy. That's just Postmedia's talking point, because it has whored its newspaper chain out to be the voice of the fossil fuel industry.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If we succeed in destroying ourselves as a species on Earth, it will probably be with a nuclear war. But even that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's, and nations have taken steps to back-pedal from it since then.
Well, climate change and nuclear war are not necessarily independent. With Himalaya glaciers shrinking, water supply for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and even China will become a lot less stable. There are 3 billion people in these countries, and 3 of the 4 states already have nuclear weapons. If they start to seriously compete for limited water resources, things may easily become very ugly. There is a reason why China is in Tibet, and why India and Pakistan are fighting a slow war over what currently is an extremely inhospitable ice desert.
And what do you think will happen to the stability of the region if a few tens of millions of (mostly Muslim) Bangladeshis will be forced to flee into India because sea level rise is going to flood significant parts of the Bengal delta, one of the most fertile and most densely populated areas of the planet?
Stephan
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006 .com, Aug. 7, 2008 .com, June 19, 2015
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAApress release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews, Aug. 11, 2016
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews, Oct. 24, 2016
Thanks James Taranto's WSJ "Best of the Web" column...
Yeah, sure the original may not just be about US hurricanes, but the point is still the same.
To mix parables, crying wolf about the sky falling is a quick way to get people to ignore actual serious issues.
This is great, everyone has exceeded all expectation with your insightful and passionate comments. Rarely does an article about
weather lead to so many unusual and humorous posts. Thanks you made my day!
will just make stuff up and keep repeating it until people believe it.
Also a great campaign strategy.
Have you ever seen tundra? Know anything about it? No? Thought not.
Tundra is a type of biome where the ground is substantially underlain by permafrost. In the Arctic, we build homes on pilings because otherwise the ground will melt. Water being more dense than ice, melting means subsidence -- you get a lake or a bog, not farmland. This is one reason why Alaska has some 3 million lakes. The soil layer overall tends to be thin, and being that it is permanently frozen most of the time, it's not actually what you would consider "farming soil", which is a complex ecology of its own that takes many years to develop. But if we can ignore reality enough to solve both of those problems, you're still going to be left with a short growing season and somewhat less intense daylight, so it's unlikely to compare favorably with other farming regions.
You cannot farm tundra. Melting tundra does not produce farmland. It would be easier to farm the Sahara than the Northwest Territories.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Also a great campaign strategy.
BIGLY
"But thanks to our steadfast refusal to address climate change"
No, they are mixing climate and weather together. Intentionally. So what is THAT about?
Awww poor Space Nutter doesn't like me!
The Earth will keep right on zooming around the sun, new life forms will evolve and populate the planet. Or not. Pretty much the same as it has been for the last 2B years.
Sure, it's bad for humans and other flora and fauna that are contemporaneous with humans. The world kept on going after the Great Oxygenation Event caused the first mass extinction 2.3 billion years ago. It kept on going through 20 or so mass extinction events [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event]. It'll go on after humans.
I think we can be a little more broad: every model has shown warming. You can also do a very simple experiment to validate the CO2-H2O feedback effect, it's not like those things are hard to find. But the level of modeling sophistication needed to show warming is minimal. A single-slab model will show it; it's a basic result of the properties of the gases in question. This is napkin math, and anyone suggesting that the models might be wrong should be easily able to show exactly where and why.
There have actually been a number of problems with modeling and AGW generally; there was a point where it was considered to have been invalidated by empirical evidence. That did turn out to be wrong, and between about 1950 and the late 70s the scientific community gradually warmed to the idea, and currently it enjoys near-universal consensus. We really did try our best to kill this idea, with scientific arguments, and we have so far failed to observe anything which might invalidate it. At this point we'd need a drastic revision of the properties of CO2/H2O, or a new way to radiate energy to space, or magic fairy dust, or something equally absurd, and we already know that whatever unknowns there are in the theory/models, the Earth is actually warming, so we know that whatever negative feedbacks exist are insufficient to prevent warming, so at that point we're back to debating about how bad things are going to be.
Anyway, point being, if the models suck, that doesn't make the problem go away, and it doesn't necessarily change what's necessary to fix the problem. It's like how if your epidemiological model isn't predictive enough, that doesn't have anything to do with whether the virus you're trying to track exists, or how you're going to care for the infected.
These days, a degree just means "I agree with the politics of the doctrinal committee"
If it were that easy, I'd be done by now ;)
>search constrained from 8/20/2005 to 9/30/2005
What a disingenuous fuck you are, Bill. Who told you to constrain your search to that one month period?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html
http://sciencenordic.com/geophysicist-katrina-hurricane-will-strike-every-two-years
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/18/study-katrina-like-hurricanes-to-occur-more-frequently-due-to-warming
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger-hurricanes-worldwide-16204
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/alatheia-nielsen/2015/08/26/katrina-anniversary-medias-10-most-outlandish-hurricane
1. NBC Says To ‘Expect Such Storms More Often’ Thanks To Global Warming
2. CBS: Frequency of Sandy and Katrina-like Storms Will ‘Double’ By 2030
3. ABC Claims Scientists Might Need to Invent Category 6 for Hurricane Scale
4. Katrina Is The Beginning of What May Be ‘A Long Stretch of Wild and Devastating Weather’
5. CBS Consults Liberal Environmentalist Who Claims ‘Katrina Was First Urban Extinction’ and ‘Just the Beginning’ of Extreme Weather
6. CBS’s Hannah Storm Claims Katrina-like Storms Will Happen ‘All Along Our Atlantic and Gulf Coastlines.’
7. ‘No End In Sight’ For Big Hurricanes, CBS Says
8. NBC Blames Global Warming for Stronger Hurricanes, Says It’s ‘A Trend That’s Likely To Continue’
9. CBS: Sunday Morning Warns There Will be Twice as Many ‘Monsters
10. Time Editor on CBS: ‘Katrina-type Events Are Turning Out To Be Twice As Likely’ During Warming Years
Of course, you came across these links when searching and knew that in order for you to prove the OP wrong, you'd have to selectively choose a narrow period of time to search for these articles. The prevarication only proves that you're an asshole who is intellectually dishonest, and also justifies skepticism of the climate change ideology promoted by your ilk is more than warranted.
Go ahead and point to whatever evidence that you can that shows that CO2 doesn't absorb heat. I'm sure the work of Tyndall needs some revision, or perhaps you've found another way to move heat off the planet? Because as far as I can tell, you only need a two-dimensional model to be able to determine whether a higher concentration of CO2 should show warming. And I am sure you have some good explanation for the rise in temperatures and correlated rise of CO2 concentrations as well. Then you'll have to explain why our radiative transfer models work for extraterrestrial atmospheres like Venus and the Sun when, as you seem to be saying, they are entirely wrong. Is the entire greenhouse effect a myth, or just the inconvenient bits? We await the results of your paper.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Story 1 - "Mega-storms are set to increase as the climate hots up" [typo was in the story]
Story 2 - "Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?"
Story 3 - "Global warming is 'causing more hurricanes' "
Story 4 - "A Katrina hurricane will strike every two years"
Story 5 - "Hurricanes Likely to Get Stronger & More Frequent"
Skipping Bonus story because we already know Gore is an idiot and a liar.
EVERY one of them says more in frequency and powerful hurricanes, with most referencing Katrina as the beginning of it. You outright lied to try and discredit me, there isn't even any possible wiggle room for you, you LIED.
THIS is why you are having problems convincing people of AGW. You lie about predictions, deny you made the predictions when they are proven wrong, and they deny the predictions when they are slapped across your face. If AGW is so obvious and undeniable, why is it you have to lie every single time you talk about it?
Can't debate with liberals. They are all about making whatever lie they can to make their point and hope no one comes to point it out. They have completely lost their minds.
In the end, no matter what or who is at fault for " climate change ", Mother Nature will eventually step in and show everyone who's really in charge.
All it takes is one very large volcano, not unlike Campi Flegrei near Naples, to wake up and do its thing. The ash output from something like that will effectively put the brakes on any Global Warming and likely plunge the entire planet into a rather chilly place to live for a while.
I like to think that the Earth has mechanisms built in to ensure that we, the peons who live upon it, can't do any real lasting damage in the grand scheme of things.
It'll just push the reset button, wipe everything out, and start anew. Earth 2.0 or 3.0, or whatever cycle we're on now.
Look, a lot of "new" slashdot people probably failed high school, so just say it so they can understand it.
You keep putting gasoline on the fire, it's going to explode.
This means bigger storms, bigger waves, bigger hurricanes, crops dying, and the fair being destroyed by high winds ain't nobody done seen for nigh onto a hunnert years.
Also, the cows and chickens gonna die and the bears gonna et them cause you done destroyed their food too.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Actually, I've been a software engineer for 20 years, and I see people with "more education" as being just academic sycophants. The only accomplishment in graduate degrees is how much of a slave and a yes-man you can be to the degree mills.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Here is a list of 107 failed predictions made by alarmists:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
But for some people, 107 failed predictions isn't enough to destroy the credibility of the alarmists. One wonders how many failed predictions it will take until the holdouts think "hmm, perhaps the whole thing is not credible."
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Linking to Wikipedia articles about two particular hurricanes says nothing about the relationship between CO2 levels and hurricanes.
Al Gore (with no background in science) made alarmist assertions that the frequency and intensity of cyclones was in the process of skyrocketing. Dr. R.N. Maue analyzed actual data and found just the opposite:
Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity
Abstract
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
- R.N. Maue, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University
And there are plenty of studies that show increasing global temperature causes reduced storm activity. One such study published in Quaternary Science Reviews is summarized here.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Here's your answer*:
http://www.citynews.ca/2016/04...
*Spoiler: It's not because of climate change!
Climate is not the same as weather.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why people don't like listening to AGW faggots? Here's why:
stop the seas boiling for all of these years
In case you don't get it: nobody likes drama queens.
For most of Earth's history, the planet had no polar icecaps whatsoever.
The only reason we currently have icecaps is, we are still emerging from the most recent ice age. (There's a reason the Quaternary glaciation is referred to as "the current ice age.")
Also note that every species alive today, including polar bears, has survived the comings and goings of multiple ice ages.
Also note that just a few tens of millions of years ago, natural CO2 levels were "thousands of parts per million" (cf. the current level of 405 ppm). At that time, Antarctica was covered with lush beech forests. As you know, today Antarctica is a barren wasteland, so the subsequent CO2 decrease was NOT good for life.
Also note that there is no scenario of fossil fuel usage that could ever get us back to thousands of parts per million.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
What the fuck Climate Change has to do with social justice (the S and the J in SJW), pray tell
Sadly this new "prediction" from the green peace Alarmists who believe electrical force feed back mathematics and physics is ideal to use on chaotic weather systems to predict the future. Lets summarise a few Arctic ice free over the last 28 years of this never-ending politically correct witch hunt:
Wasnt the Arctic to be ice free in 2007?
Wasnt the Arctic to be ice free in 2009?
Wasnt the Arctic to be ice free in 2010?
Wasnt the Arctic to be ice free in 2014?
Wasnt the Arctic to be ice free in 2016?
Wasnt the Arctic to be ice free in 2017?
The mathematics underpinning the models assume CO2 is equivelent to Gold and you can make gold rings out of CO2. Silicon is nitrogen, etc.
If you think these non-scientists are 'doing science', then why have all their predictions not come true? I'm confused as to why /. hasnt posted the other prediction that the arctic will increase by 50 degrees a year starting from 1/1/2017 unless we throw cash onto the fire.
Where are the error lines in their model output? If its a prediction, surely margin of error is present, why is this the only "science" that is allowed to continue on course while getting everything wrong?
These articles are self-serving and are designed to fix the problem from COP22 - that people are thinking and its harder to scare people into giving you money like any other scam we have to deal with in every day life.
This is 1 less fake problem we need to concern ourselves about.
High chance of devastating hurricanes!
Bigger and better than we've had!
Oh wait, we hardly have had any lately.
https://xkcd.com/1321/
You sound angry that we're starting to figure out your globalist leftist agenda. Transgendereds raping our daughters, global warming/cooling/climate change whatever it is this week, outlawing Christmas, shipping Moslems here to kill us, sending our jobs to Mexico. We let you Marxists go way too far. We've been way too polite and patient with you while you're destroying our country. It's all over for you now.
I didn't say when the sun has depleted its fuel, I said when it STARTS to run out. While the sun is technically running out of fuel all the time, the only real significance this has for earth and its habitability is how that depletion affects the habitable zone around the sun. In about a billion years, as you said, the sun will be burning hotter enough than it is now that Earth will no longer be in the habitable zone and the oceans will indeed start to boil away.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's...don't fret, Trump is going to fix that for you!
“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do some "upgrades", retire some old tech via introducing some new...and we really will need to upgrade our delivery and defensive systems to counter-act the newer systems that Putin is pledging to develop. Perhaps Trump will take another page from Reagan and actually develop and deploy a working "star wars" defense system. If so, I'm hoping Trump also makes the system "reversible", as in able to defend outwards as well as downwards.
If all that is left to be on it is you and your leftist scum friends and their inferior progeny, why then I hope the oceans boil and the air ignites before you all go up in flames :-)
Climate effects weather patterns?
I thought that was obvious by now.
OMFG! /. Healthily discussions...
So he was right about the chip on your shoulder.
The Syrians, and other middle easts invading Europe right now, tell another story.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Damned right. The worst code comes from people with graduate degrees.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
They can just use whatever they dug up in Antarctica to fix all the pollution, uhm, i mean Global Warming, oh excuse me i meant "Climate Change".
There must be a reason Kerry went there on election day, and the pope and some russian pope went there recently.
And those studies are bollocks. ... interesting. Facepalm *)
If you would think about it for 2 to 10 seconds you would realize that yourself.
(* throwing more coal into the fire does not make the fire bigger, ah ha
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
All those folks in California so scared about the earth getting warmer (they seem overly scared about everything these days), don't realize just how cold our planet is. Where I live, it's been below freezing for months and largely will be until next May.
In fact, last week, it was colder here than on Mars and parts of an asteroid belt.
We have a long, long way to go to being a warm planet.
Trump nuclear winter, it will be the best winter and job creator, starting with building the infrastructure for the underground economy
Actually it does relate to thermodynamics. If EmDrive works it violates the conservation of momentum, which is also equivalent to violating conservation of energy, and also implies a "preferred frame" for the universe, and also that the laws of physics are different in different places, and potentially implies that the speed of light does actually vary. It would invalidate every physical theory that we have, and potentially end our ability to know what the "real" physical laws are. Not bad for a few guys and a hunk of copper. But, in actuality, they had a poor experimental design and worse error analysis.
That said, they're pretty far over their heads already, they may as well improve their experiment and learn something from the inevitable null result.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
As you can see from this animation, when dinosaurs were roaming the forests of Antarctica 70 million years ago, the continent was still quite centered on the south pole.
As seen in Alaska, trees can survive several months of no sunlight, if the temperature is warm enough.
My assertion was that the comings and goings of ice ages did not kill any of the species alive today, which is self-evidently true.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Sigh... Of the 7.4 billion people on earth a little over 325 million live in the USA, that's less than 5%.
Why then do some slashdotters still assume that everybody on the forum lives there?
Statistically, China would have been a far better guess.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Few, if any, deny that climate changes.
Many deny that it's AGW.
People who say it is, need to prove it.
Not 'model' it, prove it.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
The climate in the arctic has been getting progressively warmer because of rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Not to throw a snowball at you, but do you have any proof of that?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Thinner ice yet thicker clouds. The world is but an ember of the sun, it will only heat when the sun does or it is struck by an asteroid. Can anyone answer this question which is hotter burning a person or letting them live a long life full of body heat? Energy and matter are one in the same, neither created nor destroyed. This is Global Hubris misunderstanding of thermodynamics.
Sorry, you can't just assert that Dr. Maue's study is bollocks. Point out a flaw in his methodology, just one, and then it can be debated whether it is bollocks.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Why don't you simply stop watching local US news and watch global news instead? E.g. BBC or something?
Then you would know that basically everything you quoted from him in that few paragraphs is wrong.
And I'm for my part are to tired to point that out all the time. Tropical storms in the Pacific are more and more server, increasing since decades in power and more important in frequency. (The fact that they are more frequent, prevents them right now from being significantly more powerful)
I have plenty of friends in Thailand and Phillipines ... so I'm more concerned about that area than you are :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? It seems likely the answer is no.
Can you read? It seems likely the answer is no.
Because of this climate change hysteria
So you'd rather just offload the costs on to the next generation? Because in fifty years, the costs you pay now will be nothing compared to what local and larger scale economies will have to pay out.
How do you know? And why does it mean I'll have to pay more taxes? How is it doled out? The Chinese economy is larger than of the Ontario's, do they pay same or more taxes on CO2?
Here's your answer*:
http://www.citynews.ca/2016/04...
*Spoiler: It's not because of climate change!
Please don't offend my intelligence.
Despite a mild winter which saw Ontarians conserve electricity, hydro rates are set to increase next month because we saved too much energy.
Typical socialist propaganda: blame the society.
It happened because the climate change hysteria made the Ontario Liberals to cut off all sources of cheaper electricity, what's why.
It happened because the climate change hysteria made the Ontario Liberals to make us to rely on non-manageable generators of expensive electricity without any ability to store it, what's why.
Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? It seems likely the answer is no.
The previous comment had absolutely zero evidence to support the claim of climate change anything being the sole cause of his utility bills going up. I stated all the factors that drive energy prices that he did not address in any way, shape, or form in his comment. Now you seem to be ignoring the difference between correlation and causation as well.
Why did you choose to quote me, when you didn't bother reading the statement that you quoted?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Look, my point was not about the climate change being the cause of utility bills going up.
It was about how local politicians choose to react to pressure from the environment protection groups, left media and other socialists to the climate change.
I called this "the climate change hysteria".
IMO they could replace coal with natural gas (that's gone down in cost at least 50% in the last 10 years) and increase the water slice (you could buy it cheap in Quebec) instead of increasing the slice of the expensive nuclear and wasting hundred of millions on subsidizing the windmills and solars.
To illustrate my point, this is the mix of 2003:
Water power 23.5%
Alternative Power Sources 0.7%
Nuclear Energy 38.5%
Natural Gas 8.4%
Coal or Oil 28.9%
http://www.ontarioenergyboard....
and this is the mix of 2014:
Water power 24.1%
Alternative power sources 7.1%
Nuclear Energy 60.0%
Natural Gas 8.7 %
Coal 0.1 %
http://www.ontarioenergyboard....
I trust you'd be able to get the difference.
I really don't have time to argue with you, sorry, I'm not an idiot and done/know all about consumption, conservation, price etc.
All the best to you, cheers.
Look, my point was not about the climate change being the cause of utility bills going up.
Really? You earlier said
Because of this climate change hysteria my electricity bill more than doubled in just a few years
Which certainly indicates you believe that it was the direct cause. If you meant to write something else, that's fine just say what you meant to write.
I'm glad you took the time to research where your power comes from. Apparently you don't agree with the composition, and you are entitled to have that opinion. Can you provide a source to support the notion of nuclear being so terribly expensive though? Can you also provide justification to significantly increasing the consumption of a non-renewable resource (specifically natural gas) or any notion of how much of it remains in comparison to the amount that is already consumed in a given year?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.