Slashdot Mirror
Every Other Summer Will Shatter Heat Records Within a Decade (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Think of the stickiest, record-hot summer you've ever experienced, whether you're 30 or 60 years old. In 10 years or less, that miserable summer will happen every second year across most of the U.S. and Canada, the Mediterranean, and much of Asia, according to a study to be published in the open access journal Earth's Future. By the 2030s, every second summer over almost all of the entire Northern hemisphere will be hotter than any record-setting hot summer of the past 40 years, the study found. By 2050, virtually every summer will be hotter than anything we've experienced to date. Record hot summers are now 70 times more likely than they were in the past 40 years over the entire Northern hemisphere, the peer-reviewed study found. What does all this mean? Heat alerts will be increasing, cities will have to employ aggressive cooling strategies most summers, and in places like South Asia, it will be too dangerous to work outside, Francis Zwiers, director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at Canada's University of Victoria, said.
Let's have a parade!
So what you are saying is that the temperature history will be adjusted downward every other year instead of waiting for a ten year decline to adjust the temperautre history?
Those are testable predictions.
If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?
If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?
I'm having a hard time getting exited given the number of predictions that have not proven accurate.
To be fair, just because they were wrong before doesn't mean they're wrong again.
Methane has a grater impact on greenhouse effect than CO2, and ice-trapped methane will be released because of ocean warming, thus increasing greenhouse effect and climate warming again.
The best scenario would be to avoid ocean warming so that methane stays trapped, but if it is to be released, perhaps it is better to burn it.
George Soros funded and covered by VICE ? BLAHAHAHAHAHAH
Skorchio.
Requiem for the American Dream
Gotta love it! Warmer winters? Gotta love it!
Love me some warm weather. Cold sucks!
Let's see how long before they have to "adjust" it.
It is happening. Last 3 summers have been the hottest on record: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-earth-sweltered-3rd-hottest-august.html
Recording increasing temperatures in heat islands is nothing new. What about average temperatures?
Of course it's wrong, just another attack on fossil fuels and hard working Americans(tm)!
Please excuse me while I increase my investments in renewable energy (esp. solar). I'm just hedging my bets, ya know.
Actually the melting icecap is soaking up the heat and cool breezes are meandering south, keeping us cool. Once the icecaps are gone, the conditions for the next ice age will be ideal, with all that fresh source of precipitation, so, lots of snow in the summer.
Heard this twenty years ago...
No you didn't, at least not from any reputable source. What you heard from those was the global temperatures would continue to rise. This is a novel claim, namely that increases will be felt from year to year over "most of the U.S. and Canada, the Mediterranean, and much of Asia."
What was predicted 20 years ago?! Really?
Hottest year on record: 2016; 2nd hottest year on record: 2015; 3rd hottest year on record: 2014; 4th hottest year on record: 2010; 5th hottest year on record: 2013; 6th hottest year on record: 2005; 7th hottest year on record: 2009; 8th hottest year on record: 1998; 9th hottest year on record: 2012; and for the 10th we have a draw between, 2003, 2006 & 2007.
But I think they're going to struggle with this one.
https://www.reddit.com/r/datai...
The pool ~will~ be worth it after all. Good to know.
Bigger Buds! There's really just as much positive as negative to global warming. Some people say the glass is half empty and some say it's half full. Some people just like to complain.
At first glance I thought it was something about Will Shatner.
But I'm not gonna become a canadian, dammit!!!!
Go to YouTube and watch the WeatherWar101 channel. All of the weather is engineered. Any weather problems are engineered. Learn how wicked and evil your government really is.
Instead of "I believe this person or set of data", what is your experience?
I live in the southeast part of the San Francisco Bay area. Last summer (a few months ago), it got up to 108 degrees one day. It's never been that hot since I moved here in 1989. Also last summer we had more hot days that usual.
I don't know if the temperatures have been gradually increasing here, but last summer was a record breaker for me.
What's everyone else's experience?
with the new DE Gavita or Agrolux systems or FLuence/BC Blondes LED you don't need sunlight to get crazy looking caked weed.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The MidAtlantic of USA has had colder and wetter summers for the last decade compared to the 1990s. The week I graduated high school in 1994 in south east PA, we hit a heat wave of 5 days of 99F, and haven't hit it in 3 decades. We had maybe 3 days total above 88F this summer, kind of made me regret getting a house with an in ground pool we don't use.
The problem with "averages" is that it statistically hides facts. Who cares that the deserts are getting hotter when the highest populated corridor in the USA (Washington DC to Philadelphia to New York) is getting colder summers and even colder winters?
Jane, you ignorant slut!
ACs are rated in BTU. The more BTU the more cooling. "...cool about 30-40" is meaningless. Just like the meat freezer in my garage stays 0 even if the garage is 100, the home too can be keep cooled easily BY NOT LETTING THE HEAT IN!
No need for overly-large capacity systems when the envelope being conditioned is built properly, ducted prooperly, and the system sized properly. This is not rocket science. Ignorant sluts like you Jane are the problem.
Anyone who thinks a model or forecast is some kind of authority needs to study Nassim Taleb. Taleb has obliterated vast swaths of pseudo-academia and their consistently-flawed prediction models.
Go to Hell, Ivan
And the current year, 2017 is set up to be the 2nd or 3rd hottest year on record despite no El Nino.
And this is wrong. The conclusion is that the CURRENT record summer will become the norm within 20 years. It does not mean that within 20 years, every other summer will become hotter than the last, but rather that there is 50% chance that temperatures will reach the current record of the last 40 years or so. The likelihood that every other summer would break records is obviously very low.
Then promise to shut the fuck up about climate change.
AGW assumes that Earth's climate is primarily feedback driven.
The feedbacks make perfect sense. Higher temperature causes water to evaporate, that water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas. Ice melts, there is less albedo to reflect sunlight back into space...
What doesn't make sense, and what has never made sense, is why Earth's climate didn't hit a "tipping point" at some point in the past, that sent the climate in one direction or the other, permanently.
How would a massive impact from a space rock, or the collision/separation of the continents, or even a supervolcanic eruption not cause a "runaway" feedback effect?
The only reasonable conclusion, so far as I can tell, is that Earth's climate is primarily homeostatic.
1btu=1055J
1btu(per hour)= 0.2931watts=1055J/3600sec
I think Th on a home ac is around 350, and as long as it's cooler than that outside it will blow 285 inside. Efficiency goes down and more energy is required as Th->Tamb
Will any one of these people making crap predictions be held accountable for being the con artists they are?
She said it would be every night.
That's like saying a meter is the same as an inch. They both measure the same thing, but they don't measure the same quantity of the same thing. there's 3.41BTU/hr to a watt.
matths. LEARN IT.
I have seen predictions that in the second half of the century the grain belt will move from USA and Europe to Canada and Russia. That could make things very interesting as countries try to gain food security.
Yeah, THIS time the guys predicting the end of the world will be right and we should give all our money to Al Gore and Co because they might be right next time.
Yes, Hillary Clinton will win in a landslide.
I predict over 90% chance of victory.
Jesus, you weren't wrong. Troll?? Unbelievable. Just ridiculous.
Where are my mod points when I need them ...
I've heard about this a long time ago (feels more than 20 years) and the only thing that I could say against, is that the raise was slower than I expected (I think I was a kid at the time, and it was on the TV/FUD news machine, so there is that).
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
Actually I don't see where they've ever been right.
First in the 60's it was the hundreds of millions were going to die because the population of the planet had reached the max it could support food wise, and yet the population is double what it was back then. So much for Soylent green.
Next in the 70's it was a coming ice age and that didn't happen. Glaciers continue to recede as they've been doing for about the last 12000 years.
Ok so flip the thermometer the other way and start crying wolf about global warming and how now we'd have massive famines and flooded coastlines. Then suddenly there was a near complete stall in "temperature increase" and the ice sheets didn't melt, so they had to stop saying global warming and changed the fear mongering to climate change which they can now use to cover anything.
So I'd have to say their track record of being wrong is a pretty good indicator of them being wrong in the future.
Well, that and 7 out of 8 calibration adjustments to data sets that conveniently reduced earlier temperatures and increased later temperatures, matching what was expected to happen and have happened.
This is not science at all.
Here let me finish this article for you:
I think we should take those 50% failed sensors and just plug in data that supports our crazy theory of global warming. Then we can sell Carbon Credits through some crazy Bagman who gets trillions with a T and can demand you shut down your business so China which has 0 env protections get the jobs. Cause we love Communists that murdered 160+ Million people, they give us lots of babies now after we gave them autism with our vaccines.
So your theory is that once one warning is wrong, then all warnings can be simply ignored. The other day my smoke detector went off by mistake. Annoying, sure, but the upside is that now means my house will never burn down!
Not being an expert in this area I do find it puzzling. The Australian article was paywalled, but reading the other two did not set off any "troll" bells in my head. I don't know if they're completely *correct*, but they do seem like honest bits of research and at the very least, worthy of a rebuttal instead of a down vote. If I had mod points, I'd pop them back up. Alas I do not.
Dilbert comics talk about it back in 89-early 90's from memory so there is that.
Yeah .... record temperatures .... but only if you ignore the fact that they are not enven in the top 10 of the recorded history and not even in the top 50 of the geologically calculated temperatures.
But hell. Why should I believed recorded fact against a political agenda?
Bring it on. Canada had cold wet summers recently. Could use some more heat.
So your theory is that once one warning is wrong, then all warnings can be simply ignored. The other day my smoke detector went off by mistake. Annoying, sure, but the upside is that now means my house will never burn down!
No. One wrong warning is cause to view the warning device with suspicion. Multiple wrong warnings is time to replace the warning device.
Careful! The HuffPo will denounce you as un unpatriotic heathen if you say that the chances are less than 98% because 'that's what the numbers say".
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
During the 2012 election, Republicans who hated the daily onslaught of polling showing that Mitt Romney was headed toward a comfortable defeat turned to Dean Chambers, the man who launched the website Unskewed Polls. The poll numbers were wrong, he said, and by tweaking a few things, he could give a more accurate count. His final projection had Romney winning close to all 50 states.
Chambers has wisely abandoned the field of election forecasting, and this year says he thinks the various models predicting a Hillary Clinton victory are probably accurate. The models themselves are pretty confident. HuffPost Pollster is giving Clinton a 98 percent chance of winning, and The New York Times' model at The Upshot puts her chances at 85 percent.
There is one outlier, however, that is causing waves of panic among Democrats around the country, and injecting Trump backers with the hope that their guy might pull this thing off after all. Nate Silver's 538 model is giving Donald Trump a heart-stopping 35 percent chance of winning as of this weekend.
He ratcheted the panic up to 11 on Friday with his latest forecast, tweeting out, "Trump is about 3 points behind Clinton â and 3-point polling errors happen pretty often."
So who's right?
The beauty here is that we won't have to wait long to find out. But let's lay out now why we think we're right and 538 is wrong. Or, at least, why they're doing it wrong.
The short version is that Silver is changing the results of polls to fit where he thinks the polls truly are, rather than simply entering the poll numbers into his model and crunching them.
Silver calls this unskewing a "trend line adjustment." He compares a poll to previous polls conducted by the same polling firm, makes a series of assumptions, runs a regression analysis, and gets a new poll number. That's the number he sticks in his model â not the original number.
He may end up being right, but he's just guessing. A "trend line adjustment" is merely political punditry dressed up as sophisticated mathematical modeling.
Guess who benefits from the unskewing?
By the time he's done adjusting the "trend line," Clinton has lost 0.2 points and Trump has gained 1.7 points. An adjustment of below 2 points may not seem like much, but it's enough to throw off his entire forecast, taking a comfortable 4.6 point Clinton lead and making it look like a nail-biter.
It's enough to close the gap between the two candidates to below 3 points, which allows Silver to say that it's now anybody's ballgame, because "3-point polling errors happen pretty often."
That line in itself is disingenuous, though. For the polls to be wrong, there wouldn't need to be one single 3-point error. All of the polls â all of them, as Brianna Keilar would put it â would have to be off by 3 points in the same direction. That's happened before, but in 2012 the error favored President Barack Obama. In 2014, it favored Republicans. Errors are just as likely to favor Clinton as they are to favor Trump, and they would have to favor Trump. And we still haven't accounted for the unique fact that one campaign has a get-out-the-vote operation, while the other doesn't.
By monkeying around with the numbers like this, Silver is making a mockery of the very forecasting industry that he popularized. "The idea that she's a prohibitive, 95 percent-plus favorite is hard to square with polling that has frequently shown 5- or 6-point swings within the span of a couple weeks, given that she only leads by 3 points or so now," he told Politico recently. "[E]verything depends on one's assumptions, but I think that our assumptions â a Clinton lead, sure, but high uncertainty
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
That's it. my dream will be implemented!
No you didn't, at least not from any reputable source.
Wrong: https://clintonwhitehouse3.arc...
I was under the impression that it was traditional when providing a link to support a claim, that you choose one that actually supports your claim.
Right in the shredder where it belongs..
Than i seen the link was to vice.com all credibility ruined.
Of course he was modded troll, because he is lying. Yes, there is some data homogenization to account for differences in the accuracy of historical data. You can question that practice if you wish, but the un-homogenized data actually shows a larger warming trend. https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Well hello Mr. Denialist!
The predictions from the IPCC have basically come true. It's hypocritical to dismiss the field of climate change based on whacky popular press stuff and still actually be using a computer given the completely dumbass shit the popular press has said about computers over the years.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
...they forgot about La Nina. We have only had record heat due to an extended El Nino, La Nina is coming and will create "record freezing" temperatures around the world, continuing the notion of global "warming" to be false. Until Florida is under water no one is going to believe anything "climatologists" have to say.
Isn't there a La Nina going on though?
Sounds about right, I was around 15 at that time.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
It goes back much further than that. You should look up the predictions from "The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894" Where they were predicting that by now we would be 10's of feet deep in horse manure.
The results on that page are strange to me, probably because it's only dealing with homogenization in particular rather than all adjustments, possibly because it's based on a newer version of the GHCN or includes sea measures.
After the original flap about the Darwin station, in which RealClimate accused Watts of cherry picking, and responded by cherry picking themselves. That struck me as flawed, so I calculated the effects of all adjustments for every land station from GHCNv2 (current at the time). There was a nearly linear net warming trend (very small IIRC) in the adjustments starting around 1900, which means the raw data had a smaller warming trend. The
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Theres a single scaler conversion factor. It literally IS the same thing.
Same as e=mc^2 proved light and mass ARE energy.
Yes, and as long as you don't put bodies into the environment that generate heat (like, say, human bodies while alive), you can keep that room at that temperature provided insulation is perfect.
Then again, IF insulation is perfect AND you put bodies producing heat into the environment... well, the second law of thermodynamics tells me that at some point the room will have approximately 37 degrees Celsius.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Never stopped religious cults from announcing the end of the world, why not learn from the experienced con artists?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The numbers are bullshit. Over here we learned that years ago, voting for the populist is like jacking off. Everyone does it, nobody admits he does.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Good idea. What are we going to replace the various religions with that keep telling us the end of the world is near (the world ended twice so far this year, but I think there's room for a third coming)?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Which has mostly the opposite effect as El Nino.
That's why they call them "record temperatures." Records happen in the context of "just normal weather." Consider the context:
Looking at the climate record for San Francisco for last summer, we can see that you had a couple of short-duration extreme outlying temperature events. We can also see from the records shown on the graph that these are not without precedent on other days in years past.
Record breaking days happen; you can see that particular event clearly, but you can also see that it was a significant outlier. It would be absurd to take it as indication of a trend — it's not in line with the temperatures anywhere around it.
None of this screams "climate change"; it's just weather. None of it screams "no climate change", either. Same reason. If you want to consider climate, you must go with large amounts of aggregate data.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Dunno what part of N. America you were looking in, but in the western part 2017 certainly was hot. Hottest on record in CA at least, and competitive elsewhere (PHX has had to stop flights before due to heat, so 2017 wasn't necessarily the hottest there, but again it was very competitive). But year without summer - definitely NOT!
Every Other Summer Will Shatter Heat Records Within a Decade
So, what about the summers in between every other summer? Will they shatter records, too, or just average?
Here's to the new NorCa
Who says gore is trustworthy?
Hotter by 0.02 degrees.. AND THE MARGIN OF ERROR IS 0.1 degrees.
Science! Learn it!
If you were a scientist you'd not be looking at individual temperatures but at trends: http://www.economist.com/node/...
Instead you make some claim of some arbitrary temperature the GP didn't mention (god knows in what relation to, he mentioned 12 different years). By the way the number you're looking for is +2.03 degrees, not 0.02 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc...
But the real disappointment is that someone modded you up.
Sea-Tac Airport just had another record year for traffic. Yeah Seattle, can you believe it? Ground-zero for the climate-change moral panic. Traffic has gotten expoentially worse too. But wait, that doesnt sound right? No, wait, oh thats right, climate-change is caused poor whites. You know, scary southern conservatives that hunt and live in trailers and use words like skeeters. As in, oh noes, the skeeters are a bitin. Yeah, never mind. Affluent ex-suburban white folks use magic pixie dust as energy while those deplorable Trump Trolls continue using the polluting stuff. Man they make me so mad. So so maaaaad. Why cant they be as concerned about the environment as we are? Just because they use, on average, half the energy that we do is not reason that they shouldnt be blamed. Its the talk that matters. The TALK. Everyone knows that! Its not how much you pollute, its which political side your on, and we are on the side of the high-polluting elites who are soooooooo worried about climite change! Wake up working-class white people! Our coastal villas are in big trouble, I mean climate change effects us all equally and were just worried about you! Thats why we call you names, cause we love and care about you so much and even though we deeply hate your over-populating children, we desperately, DESPERATELY care about how comfortable they are going to be in 60 years weather-wise. We dont want it to be too hot for them. We love them and we love you. We love everyone, except racists and homophobes and transgenderphobes and disabledphobes and xenophobes and well pretty much anyone that isnt us, so I guess we do hate you after all. So yeah, fuck off and stop polluting because climate change is the crisis of our time. I love me. No really I do. I love me soooo much. My mom and dad said that I was special and they still say it all the time. Its even included in a little note on the monthly check they send ad my mom draws little hearts for that extra special touch. See they knew that they could only birth a messiah after all they are them, and sure enough they did. So Im just going to moral panic my ass off to maintain my position in the established social order and remember I love black people and gay people and most of all trans people because they must be good people to be gender confused and you must be bad to be a cis, oh my how uncool is it to be a cis, but hey thats you lame-o, and stop using up my world and bringing your tucky kds into into it because my doggie loves me and he needs the space, oh yes I love dogs more than people because my dog loves me unquestionally and unconditionally while I have to earn it with humans and I dont like to make effort I just like to get credit so yeah CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE CRISIS OF OUR TIME!
In related news, the sky is falling.
And yet, the average temperature is only scheduled to increase by 4C.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Oh Jesus. The first link contained a personal accusation from the author that climate scientists are trying to hide Milankovitch cycles, and you don't think it's trolling?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Seems about the right depth in D.C.
I get all my science and weather news from Dilbert.
The potential perception problem is that there are multiple models that make multiple predictions. The predictions range from very minor changes to great changes.
Those in the future with ill will can pick out the models that got it wrong as "evidence" the science is bogus. Those in the know see through such biased cherry-picking, but the general public wont.
Table-ized A.I.
Are we talking about the actual temperature, or the adjusted temperatures? Because NOAA has been fudging the numbers for years to fit with their pre-conceived AGW theory, despite all the evidence that its not happening.
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/NOAA%20Karl%20Study%20One-Pager.pdf
And let's not forget the famously fake "hockey stick" graph, courtesy of the known liar Michael Mann and his "nature trick". Gotta hide the decline.
Summers haven't been any worse since I was a kid a few decades ago. The global temperature was on hiatus for 16 years, at least until NOAA fudges the data up to fit the narrative that its getting "hotter".
No matter how much these frauds try to claim there is warming, all the models have been wrong, and their manipulation becomes more evident every day. I'm not saying we shouldn't clean the environment and treat the planet better, but AGW is a scam mostly for wealth redistribution from the US to the democrat liars and the rest of the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc for fun
The climate has been going through periods or warming and cooling long before we were ever around. During the warming periods each year would be, on average, warmer than the last. During cooling periods, on average, each year would be cooler than the last. The fact that in an upward trend the latest years are warmer than previous years isn't terribly surprising, it is called a trend and that is how trends work. The upward trend started around 1650 or so, when we started to out of the little ice age.
Now, the 'record' you speak of is roughly 150 years old at best which people tend to ignore. Instead of saying clearly 'The hottest year in the temperature record which we define as the temperature record using instruments that are somewhat reliable and only goes back roughly 150 years.' they scream 'The hottest year ever!' without acknowledging our serious lack of good data for any reasonable length of time. Yes, there are proxy records, however they are guess work and suck. Our thermometer temperature record isn't much better. There are serious problems with anything before 1980 or so, and the older the record, the worse the quality. And that is just for the U.S. In other parts of the world, like third world countries, we don't have a freaking clue what the temperature was in 1950, much less 1850.
But keep on keeping on with the 'Holy crap, it is a line with a slope!!!! We are all gonna die unless we destroy our infrastructure because I can't understand a simple trend'.
No, there is right now no La Nina, we are still in the ending of the El Nino. ... we can not predict :D
The next phase will be a "normal phase" and if we get afterwards a La Nina, or another El Nino
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The current conditions are borderline La Nina but they haven't lasted long enough to be officially called one yet. La Nina tends to be cooler so if one develops it will be the warmest one ever measured.
Milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with CO2 ... so what is your point?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The problem with that narrative is that the changes you are talking about are not evenly distributed over the last 150 years but are concentrated in the last 50 or even last 20 years. That is precisely when humans started dumping greenhouse gasses in to the atmosphere.
So, a theory that this is a ânatural cycleâ(TM) needs to explain both the timing of the changes we see AND why the greenhouse gasses are not the cause.
We know we dumped a bunch into the atmosphere and it is relatively simple to verify they absorb IR light. If the current heating of earth is not due to greenhouse gasses, then your theory needs to account for where the heating is coming from and some magical cooling that offsets what the greenhouse gasses would normally do.
Come up with that in a way that withstands academic rigor and youâ(TM)re on your way to picking up a Nobel prize for sure.
I should clarify... the bulk of our greenhouse gas emissions have been over the last 50 or so years, but my original post may have implied they were all in that timeframe.
Its fucking hilarious retards like you see environmentalism as some sort of grand conspiracy
Its beyond the standard deviation retard.
Science! Learn it!
Admittedly we seriously underestimated the RETARD vote
What fake science is this based off of? This sounds like more of the âoePay us carbon taxes to save the planet!!!!â
No, itâ(TM)s not getting warmer. No, the polar icecaps are not melting. No, the sea level isnâ(TM)t rising. Yes, you are idiots for buying into this nonsense.
Yes, that's exactly why it might end up cooler than last year.
Missing the point. Just shows we have been talking about it for a while now. Ever since we stopped talking about global cooling to be precise.
La Niña has its greatest effects in the Spring. This would not be considered the warmest La Niña on record because La Niña would only be in effect one or two months of the year. The coldest temps and biggest shows have actually come in neutral years. La Niña is not the dramatic weather-maker you are making it out to be. Especially if it is a weak one. Assuming you realize there are varying degrees on La Niña from almost none, to extreme. This one is not shaping up to look strong at all.
Then stop driving and flying. When the people who worry about it most change their behavior, dramatically, Iâ(TM)ll stand up and take note. No more âdo as i say not as i doâ(TM) for me. Iâ(TM)m done with it. Iâ(TM)d rather the earth overheat.
I'm not trying to make La Nina a big deal. If there's a La Nina this year going into next year it will be a weak one. But if you look at long term global temperature records generally the years with El Ninos are the warmest, the years where ENSO is neutral are in the middle and the years with La Ninas are the coldest. That doesn't necessarily mean it always happens that way but that's what usually happens.
but a bunch of retards insisted on voting for probably the most self-delusional, entitled and corrupt person to ever run for the office --- and then threw temper tantrums for a year after she lost. They're so delusional that they still cannot face reality and perhaps they will never recover.
When someone is making such an obviously false claim, it's hard to credit it as "honest research".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
2.86 million IS a landslide...unless the microstate Republicans dictate otherwise.
Which claim?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
What about the winters? Where are they on that front? Why only mention one of four seasons? Why the focus directly on hottest summers? Why not mention some other parameters of the seasons during the periods in question? After all of the basics there, maybe I would ask the following: What is in this /. "article" that would actually pique my interest to make me do a follow-up and in-depth investigation into it to learn more?
These are simpleton questions that anyone could posit to query the narrative of this article as presented on /. or any other venue. In our case, I see no reason to follow up except morbid curiosity thanks to the massively overblown climate science debate and the expectation that any reader would have given the focus on only one facet of the issue as presented here on /.
Note: I did not follow up on the info, that is not the point here. The point is that presenting partisan political points, and that IS what this climate debate has become, regardless of where the truth stands, has no more value than click-bait.
Summary: If you are going to present what a great many people see as click-bait, you need to put some "meat" in the article beyond the minimal necessary to draw some clicks or you begin the inevitable descent into tabloidism.
Finally, why is the formatting I use while formulating my post not retained? All of the line breaks are discarded and everything is run together on my screen during preview.
bla bla bla bla stfu