Slashdot Mirror
2017 Among Warmest Years On Record (npr.org)
2017 was among the warmest years on record, according to new data released by NASA and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. From a report: The planet's global surface temperature last year was second warmest since 1880, NASA says. NOAA calls it the third warmest year on record, due to slight variation in the ways that they analyze temperatures. Both put 2017 behind 2016's record temperatures. And "both analyses show that the five warmest years on record have all taken place since 2010," NASA said in a press release. The trend is seen most dramatically in the Arctic, NASA says, as sea ice continues to melt.
This is #fakenews. Everybody is saying that my first year as president is the warmest on record, and next year will be even warmer! The failing NASA and NOAA are way down in the ratings!
You are welcome on my lawn.
Burr...
I hope this is a tongue in cheek troll. But sadly....I cant be sure............so to say the obvious 18 days into the year it would be ill advised to bet on the next 347 maintaining that trend.
but the earf is flat
we know this cause when you nuke a hot pocket the middle stays frozen
checkmate climate changers and nasa
When did Conservatism and lying about what is provably known become the same thing in America? As they repeat trickle down tax cuts for the richest and shut down the government again, who expects any change from this group?
I see some contradiction in this article.
If it keeps this up, it will take a lot of hot weather to make up for this...geez its cold in the south!!!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So what if it is?
Ignore them. We've become a society where we're told to respect other's beliefs.
But belief is opinion without evidence.
The notion of fair and balanced is nonsense. Reality isn't fair or unfair - it just is.
And to entertain and respect the beliefs of folks who insist on ignoring evidence because it doesn't feel right is just asinine.
Respect the person, but not their beliefs.
And ignoring is the best way because arguing energizes them and gives them the illusion that there is something to their beliefs.
They are not worth the time or effort. Let them die in their ignorance. The facts always win out in the end - it may take a while - but they win because reality is brutal to those who ignore it.
Since the Industrial Revolution is defined as ending in the 1840 timeframe and we know air quality and even labor laws were all but non existent well after that. I'm guessing the measured temps in 1880 were due to massive air pollution situations around the measurement instruments at that time.
Reality is that thing that still exists regardless of what you think of it. If reality includes global warming due to human activity and humans refuse to do anything about it... the globe shall warm faster than it would have otherwise.
When there have been some major local climate shifts resulting in altering which areas humans consider habitable, along with the ensuing predictable migrations, conflicts, and shortages one would expect... amateur historians will look back and consider us all crazy for ignoring the obvious. The professionals will endlessly analyze the social forces that made it all inevitable.
Essentially, those who believe the climate models and evidence simply still are not sure enough exactly what will happen and how bad it will get - because if we were we'd likely be getting all angry-lynch-mob on anyone who was denying there is a serious issue or obstructing efforts to deal with it.
what? Because some areas have had deep freezing you are saying you wouldn't bet 2018 is a hotest year? You should research the difference in weather and climate because you are confusing the two.
...belief is opinion without evidence.
Huh? I believe all kinds of stuff, almost exclusively based on evidence. Maybe you're thinking of faith?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Go here and take a look at current(today) arctic sea ice conditions to see how dire the condition is: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The Trump Organization, with Putin's money of course, will soon be developing a beachfront mixed use development in Greenland. Greenland, because he likes the Danish just as much as Norwegians I suppose...
Drowned polar bears will soon be washing ashore and where or where will the rare arctic spotted penguin nest???
Maybe that's exactly what needs to happen? Skin a few denialist faggots like train0123 alive and leave their corpses hanging from power plant smokestacks.
People will pay slightly more attention I bet.
You must be a robot then. Facts don't matter to humans when they make decisions.
So.... Now it's global warming again?
Here's how the Washington Post is reporting this: The planet just had its hottest 4 years in recorded history. Trump is dismantling efforts to fight climate change.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Climate change is real and nuclear power is the only option we have to mitigate it. There is no viable path forward that does not include the expansion of new nuclear reactors. So stop opposing the development of 4th generation reactors you fossil fuel lackeys.
Following the leftist Nazi quote
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
>1880 happened since 2010?
Nope. Critical thinking, try it sometime!
If it keeps this up, it will take a lot of hot weather to make up for this...geez its cold in the south!!!!
You're forgetting the fundamental definition in the AGC community -- if the temperatures in an area are warmer than average, it's climate change. If the temperatures in an area are lower than average, it's just weather. And NOAA will ensure, through it's ongoing and declared practice of "adjusting" improperly-recorded historical temperature data, that the temperature record shows an ongoing rise in temperature 'proving' AGC.
No data, not statistics, nothing. A simple claim with a single measurement (2.36 deg F). What is the tolerance of that measurement? Is it accurate within 0.01 deg F? There's nothing at the source link to give any data - or even a link to data. This is just a PR release. I guess that passes for "science" these days...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"Respect the person, but not their beliefs." - If they're willing to lie, if they're willing to obfuscate, if they reject science in favor of bullshit, FUUUUCK THEM. That isn't a societal norm, that's an intentional sabotage.
If we keep treating sabotaging trolls as if they're decent upstanding-just-confused citizens, America will be reduced to the sweltering retard-pile that is the GOP base. Clueless, angry, and ever more manipulable tools.
President Trump will make sure that we have the hottest years on record during his presidency. ("We'll have the hottest weather; the best weather.") Imagine, every US citizen will be able to enjoy Mar-a-Lago-like weather. Let's democratize Floridian sunshine for all!
Not just some areas.
It snowed in the Sahara, ffs.
Also, it's dark where I am. Therefore, it's dark everywhere.
Santa Ana Winds: Like the Dustbowl, but with awards shows.
When did Conservatism and lying about what is provably known become the same thing in America? As they repeat trickle down tax cuts for the richest and shut down the government again, who expects any change from this group?
I would expect about since Clinton started flying his private jet to tell people they need to stop using cars. Oh, and Climategate too.
Meanwhile, The Guardian is reporting a Nature study that states that the most dire predictions of global warming are unlikely.
Being, the prediction that the Earth will warm 4-5 degrees C by 2100 is not credible.
No, smalloy, you're intentionally illiterate on this topic. Weather does not define climate except over the aggregate, which is slightly warming and causes higher-energy weather swings aka extreme weather.
Try to educate yourself smalloy instead of being retarded for the rest of your life, living in denial of a completely-settled topic that you aren't disproving by being illiterate of it. Being a retard isn't going to help you in life.
Being a cheerleading retard for a promised coal mine job is extra stupid.
Do you LIVE in the South? If so, you should know that the summer is easily capable of making up for a few cold days here and there.
Global warming results in a higher AVERAGE temperature over the entire planet. It also adds energy to our weather systems that sometimes results in extremes of weather including cold snaps.
The planet's global surface temperature last year was second warmest since 1880, NASA says. NOAA calls it the third warmest year on record, due to slight variation in the ways that they analyze temperatures.
They don't say that 1880 was one of the warmest years. It just since 1880.
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
Uh, did you miss the story on Slashdot a week or two ago where some shitlord (in TFA) literally declared that "scientists" are now allowed to blame individual incidencts such as a hurricane, a hot day, etc. on climate change?
Global warming nutjobs like yourself constantly commit the flagrant foul of declaring any and all data points in your favor.
Hot day? GLOBAL WARMING!
Normal day? Weather is not climate!! GET EDUCATED!!!
Cold day? SEE! Global warming makes things more extreme!
No major hurricanes since Katrina? Weather is not climate!!`1!
Finally, a hurricane? OMG! This hurricane hit New York City, our sacred fucking cow!! But it wasn't a hurricane when it did, so let's have the media trump it up as SUPERSTORM SANDY!!
Finally, a normal hurricane season? OMG! GLOBAL WARMING IS MAKING MORE HURRICANES AND MAKING THEM MORE EXTREME! SEE?!?! This weather IS climate!!!
Data doesn't match the narrative? Adjust it! Correct it! Assault anyone who questions our methods or exposes our bullshit! THEY'RE ALL RACIST SEXIST REDNECKS!
Fuck off.
Why do we tolerate denialist faggots like Kendall in society or slashdot? Kendall deserves to be roasted over a slow fire while his worthless inbred denialist family watches him suffer and become cleansed of cowardice.
Roast a denialist, solve their problems and ours.
There is always an impact on the planet, small or large by our human actions. But, I can't stand decrees like this. Where is the data? Never seems to be available. Always install a graph or picture with red as bad. More importantly, who funds and backs such research, and who will benefit from the research? Alot of money to be made in this business. To believe something, facts are needed. Do real science. Present the facts and let people discuss and draw a conclusion. This will actually get some discussion going and get forward progress. Instead, divisive statements are made with little to no facts to back them up. People take their opinions to their own corners and call anyone with a different opinion a hater, stupid, ignorant. This doesn't work. Planet Earth is here for us all to live on. Let try to solve issues together. Just remember, the planet isn't in trouble from us, we don't have that kind of power. The planet will be here long after us little humans are gone...
Always wondered why. Does it touch a nerve that forces an emotional kneejerk response?
Over time I know moderation will kick in to adjust such posts (which typically are a minority) vs logically reasoned and interesting content that will eventually surface. But I think it is interesting to reflect on the psychological basis for the need to respond immediately by someone holding a specific viewpoint vs rest of us.
You can say whatever you want to try to deny global climate warming exists, but you're using less supportable tactics than the person you're crying about right now. FYI, climate change is established science now.
You can't stop that just by wishing it isn't so.
Every comment on this story will be stupid shit that ultimately won't matter. No one commenting today will be alive to see what eventually will happen. No one opening their mouth has a dog in this race.
Sorry, but how can you believe something that you have evidence for? When you have evidence for something, you know. You cannot believe when you know. They are mutually exclusive.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If Global Warming is real, why did it just snow in New Orleans?!
Huh!?
Keep crap articles like this off this site. Go moderate Mother Jones.
Sometimes you make eight, sometimes you hit dirt. Go ahead a pin a number to the back of my shirt.
Every years is, by definition, "among the warmest years on record". What a stupid headline.
You are kidding, right?? This was a tweet from a reporter on his personal account, and he deleted after 20 minutes and apologized for it.
Never was a published WaPo story. The Post did _not_ report the rally was empty. But don't let facts get in the way here....
You cannot believe when you know. They are mutually exclusive.
Based on whose definition? Yours?
belief
NOUN
1An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
1.1 Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
1.2 A religious conviction.
2 Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)
If I drop my pen, I know it's going to fall. I believe in gravity. The pen falling is evidence of gravity. Knowing something and believing something aren't at all exclusive. You believe everything you know.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
if the temperatures in an area are warmer than average, it's climate change. If the temperatures in an area are lower than average, it's just weather.
If the trend is one of increasing sliding average, then yes, this is exactly what you'd expect to observe: even cold weather in a warming climate is still lower than long-term average because the change is gradual.
Ezekiel 23:20
Because if it can be made to fit the Grobar Walming narrative, it's "Climate Change".
If it can't, it's "Weather" and can be safely ignored.
Hottest *INSERT HERE* EVARRRRRRR!!!
Hottest *INSERT HERE* EVARRRRRRR!!!
Hottest *INSERT HERE* EVARRRRRRR!!!
Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch.
Come talk to us about "Hottest EVARRRRRRR!!!" when you have a SOLUTION that doesn't involve austerity to the point of moving the First World back to the Stone Age, while everyone else simply ramps up their fossil fuel consumption to offset.
Besides, who are the first to die? People in costal regions and in extreme hot weather locations.
The Middle East, Africa, India and Pakistan, China, etc. South America and Central America.
You know, SHITHOLES.
Letting them all die cuts down on the population problem, and thus the energy and pollution problems.
FUCK THEM.
Hot day? GLOBAL WARMING!
Normal day? Weather is not climate!! GET EDUCATED!!!
Cold day? SEE! Global warming makes things more extreme!
The metrics of record cold days vs. record hot days is rather convincing at this point in time and pointing towards an increasing average. The very existence of very cold days is not sufficient to make up for their decreasing frequency.
Ezekiel 23:20
The little ice age ended around 1850. Since then the planet has been warming. If you are in an up trend, which we have been since 1850 or so, you expect the more recent years to be warmer than earlier years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The warming trend started before the demon (man made) CO2 could impact the climate. According to the IPCC, man made CO2 should start having an effect around 1940 or so.
If you take the long view, the recent warming is neither unprecedented or unnatural.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif
Oh, yay! Another CC story, which means we're all treated to the Dunning-Kruger Effect all-stars on this site with their blistering hot takes on why there's so much doubt about the fundamental points of CC (it's real, it's caused by humans, it's here now, and it's a hell of a big problem).
Dear morons: Get a clue, and understand the following points:
1. Our understanding of the basic mechanism of CC, the greenhouse effect, goes back well over a century, e.g. Google Svante Arrhenius and see his work from the 1890s.
2. Climate scientists are not in this for the money or the journal publications or tenure or whatever. They don't want this to be true. They have families just like the rest of us, and almost every one of them is freaking out. They would be deliriously happy for someone to actually prove that CC is not a threat or could be cheaply and easily fixed.
3. Because of how much CO2 we've already put into the atmosphere and the oceans, how long it stays there, and how much we're still pumping out, there is no reasonable expectation at all that we'll escape horrific, off-the-charts expensive impacts from sea level rise. It is literally too late to save many large coastal cities around the world, barring some miraculous technology that allows us to suck many billions of tons of CO2 out of the biosphere and permanently sequester it. And that sea level rise will create many millions of refugees and untold international conflicts. One example: Bangladesh has about half the population of the US in an area the size of Iowa, most of it being very low-lying coastal area. If you think South Asia is "interesting" now, wait until 10 or 20 or 50 million people are displaced from that country with nowhere to go.
I apologize for the nasty tone of this post. I've been fighting this battle for nearly 15 years, and I've long ago run out of patience with the armchair experts who think they know more than nearly 100% of the world's experts in a highly technical field.
enjoy,
http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperatures-2017/
WOW!
You almost repeated the WaPo's excuse and spin for their Fake News award word for word! You are a good little mind controlled follower and got your talking points.
Fact:
WaPo reporter took a photo, lied about when he took it in an attempt to hurt Trump's credibility maliciously. Got caught and had to retract. Had no one called him out, due to maybe Twitter "shadow banning" everyone who called him out, it would still be considered fact by you.
Reporting Fake News in order to hurt someone should be grounds for immediate dismissal from the WaPo if they were not fake news. Was he fired? Nope, because the WaPo hoped it would hurt Trump and that is more important than reporting the truth. Therefore WaPo EARNED their Fake News Award.
I can't wait until next year's awards are handed out. I hope they actually do a ceremony and hand out actual plaques or something next time!
data has been debunked as tampered with and the agenda is old and tired. However we're used to the /. mods pushing the agenda and looking forward to this post being modded down in 3...2...
Letting them all die cuts down on the population problem, and thus the energy and pollution problems.
You are a fine example for a human being. Right up there with Pol Pot and Adolf Eichmann.
Stephan
It's been a gradual thing, over time conservatives have lost their focus on moral values, and have shifted to winning at any cost. Of course, if all you care about is winning at any cost, then you will forgive lies as long as you think they're helping your side to win.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I don't deny global climate change exists. It is debatable as to the overall implications as 1) the climate models are shit; 2) research funding is contingent on only believing in the gcc alarmist orthodoxy; 3) the "97% of scientists" quote is based on a narrowly defined survey - that one might say is faulty, bordering on dishonest, research; 4) a growing body of scientists across the spectrum are in disagreement with the gcc alarmist orthodoxy; 5) carbon dioxide is not the leading green house gas - it's water vapor.
Been quite warm, again, here in the north. It's nice not getting much snow anymore but it does cause water issues in the summer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Sahara has significant diurnal and annual temperature variations. If humid air gets over it under some extreme conditions (which most likely involve elevated temperatures at its oceanic point of origin), why couldn't it snow?
Ezekiel 23:20
When did Conservatism and lying about what is provably known become the same thing in America?
It didn't, and never has. When did Liberalism become a completely faith-based movement?
Climate models that simply fail to model the world properly.
Studies and predictions that don't describe reality.
Obfuscation and destruction of data used to to constitute reports that are eventually fudged to fit the pre-existing narrative.
Pushing of "narrative" instead of "fact".
Failure to even START coming up with a plan of action for combating a supposed problem, since economic sanctions and eternal "ongoing research" are more lucrative.
Conservatives aren't averse to spending money. If it's in the right place, they'll spend.
What's being objected to is pouring of money down an endless, bottomless hole with no promises of return or even a plan of action. Just "we should revert to the stone age".
As they repeat trickle down tax cuts for the richest and shut down the government again, who expects any change from this group?
Sorry, but it isn't the Conservatives trying to force a government shutdown.
They're doing so because they think they're going to get their way by being bratty, obnoxious, bitchy little children.
They're WRONG.
And yes, in the Trumpian era, they're going to learn what it's like to being told to fuck off and die for their obstructionism.
What seems to be happening where I am is no record hot days but lots of record runs of above normal temperatures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Would it kill them to give the measured temperature value, or the error bars? This is a pattern I've noticed in these "hottest year ever" articles. They never actually tell you the data. Instead we get this: "According to NOAA, 2017 average land surface temperatures were 2.36 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the 20th century average." Well, thanks for the unnecessary homework. Why don't they mention the actual temperature?
Seriously? The planet has been around for millions of years, unless you're a Jew then it's only been around a few thousand.
The animals that can adapt will survive. Ask Darwin.
Those that can't, won't. We will miss them certainly, we will build great displays to memorialise them for years to come, but let's face it: they will be the weak and the earth is made for the strong.
Beep beep, outta my way. A Better World is Afoot.
captcha: commute. Like what I'm doing in my dino-eating ICE-mobile.
1) Wrong, they're models and you can't replace them yourself with anything better or you would have. 2) false, prove it doesn't exist and become a quadrillionaire. 3) It's 99% now, moron, and the 1% is all industry-paid to a man. 4) You're full of it on that "growing body" bullshit, you can't provide specifics either. 5) Wrong, water vapor isn't a gas and carbon doesn't follow similar trends as vapor, which fluctuates - carbon does not. It only goes up. We're at 408 ppm.
Now if only you were more honest, someone might think you could be educated into an actual scientist or scientific mind. But you're simply not cut out for either.
You have a preconceived agenda, not AGW which is proven by scientific method and peer reviewed beyond 5 sigma by over 99% of the world's scientists in the field.
I'm sorry, no.
-yze temperatures
What did they mean by this?
Yes I do...in New Orleans.
Trust me, I know heat....but we're getting cold we never get, and it is lasting long too.
Hell, I-10 from Lafayette through Slidell has been shut down for nearly 2x days.
We're not designed for such prolonged cold weather, so yes, it is VERY noticeable here past few years with longer, colder winter times.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Just cause you disagree with what I have to say, I'm a troll?... Here's a distinction for you, the slashdot mod that marked me a troll is an ASSHOLE! Do some research and think for yourself instead of just falling in line with the lemmings
Translation: 2017 was NOT the warmest year on record. It was simply among the top 5.5 billion warmest years.
During night, it is 10 degrees average colder than day time
and stays cold for 10 hours no end.
Waaa! Waaaa! wwwaaaaaaaa!!
Glow ball cooling is oppressing me each night!!!
Climate change now accelerated to 1 degree per HOUR!!!!
As the Sun cums up, the earth's temperature goes up
average 1 degree per hour. And when then Sun cums
down, the globe cools 1 degree per hour.
Climate is changing every hour!
Awe noooo! This is making me crispy and toasted.
Can I have a bacon sandwich to top it all off?
...Being a retard isn't going to help you in life....
You should heed your own advice.
... I believe in gravity...
Itâ(TM)s not gravity. The earth just sucks.
We definitely need separate words for meanings 1 and 2.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/12/global-warming-stirs-the-methane-monster/
In the arctic, "On average, it was 12.96C or 23.35F warmer during the period from October 1 to December 30, 2017 (red line), compared to the same days in 1981-2011."
The spikes first started up in late 2010.
The worst-case IPCC scenario projects a mean temperature rise that would take average global temperature beyond 20 degrees Celsius this century, an obviously catastrophic scenario. Yet, the IPCC scenarios fail to include the many feedbacks that accelerate temperature rises, such as large abrupt releases from methane hydrates. In fact, the IPCC miserably failed to warn about the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice.
https://geo-engineering.blogspot.ch/2012/02/how-much-time-is-there-left-to-act.html
It is perfectly clear from the graphs that the methane build up in the Arctic is mainly a result of increasing earthquake activity along the Gakkel Ridge caused by global warming induced worldwide expansion of the Earth’s crust due to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere which is enhanced by the heating up of the Arctic ocean due to the high global warming potential of the methane (Light 2011). This close relationship between the Gakkel Ridge earthquake activity, the destabilisation of the Arctic methane hydrates and the NASA GISS surface temperature anomalies has already been clearly demonstrated (Carana, 2011b; Light 2011).
If I was a medical doctor I would say that the patient has a terminal illness and is expected to die of an extreme fever between 2038 and 2050.
As this corresponds with my personal life expectancy, I'm only going to see the start of it. ... well, sorry, guys ...
All the current youth
Now imagine how much polar ice had to melt/not form in order to put the South in a deep freeze.
All good points... additionally, the global temperature is an average of all weather stations around the globe, the majority of which are found in city center - aka, urban islands, which tends to be warmer than the average temperature of non city centers due to all of the blacktop (roads and rooftops). If climate scientists are reallllly concerned with global climate change, in addition to their impractical (and economically infeasible) suggestions, they'd propose everyone have white rooftops to reflect, rather than absorb, sunlight.
not as much as i hope yours is tongue it cheek. given the âoesolutionâ to global warming is a ficken ice age... you know, like the one that killed off most of life on this planet 20,000 years ago or so, and we are hopefully still coming out of. but sadly i suspect most global warming activists really do just want to see the end of life on earth.
Well done, this is the comment I can here looking for.
No you are a fucking lunatic denalist nut-job. The closet thing thing slashdot has is a troll marker.
We have been observing global weather by satellite since about 1960, and those 1st weather sats did not measure global temperature - so that's global satellite data for only about 50 years.
We have data from airfields going back to about 1910, so that's VERY coarse data for about 110 years.
We have data from sea captains, gathered often by candle light and old mercury thermometers not calibrated to any common source going back to the 1600s, so that's extremely spotty and not very reliable and certainlg not accurate to within even a full degree data for about 400 years.
Assuming the Eath is 4.6 Billion years old, and assuming we can use the very bad and not particularly accurate sea data of the past 400 years, thats a sample of 400/4500000000 or 1/11250000. I am sorry, but nobody serious thinks a data sample of 1 in 11 million is meaningful.
This stuff gets even more insane when the AGW propagandists wave around data in 10ths or 100ths of a degree. Any normal 1st year science student knows full well that you can smooth data by mathematical tricks like data averaging, but that performing a bunch of math on a bunch of data of any particular precision DOES NOT produce MORE precision! In other words: you cannot get 10ths of a degree termparature data from 250 years ago data gatherd by sea captains with uncalibrated mercury thermometers no matter how much math you do!
Slashdotters should know better that to fall for the obvious scam of AGW advocates screaming about "warmest temperature ever!" or "warmest temperature on record!" or claims about temperature variations in history or in the future that are fractions of a degree. hell, you can swing the "global temperature" by more than a degree by simply changing the time of day at wich you collect the temps from a bunch of stations or by moving the locations of a bunch of temperature sampling ponts by a few miles. It's very common for temperatures to vary by several degrees within any given town, just between the center or town and the edge of town. You can find temperature variations of more than a degree at an airport just between the hangar and the runway apron and similarly between the bow and stern of a ship underway at sea.
The definition of "believe" doesn't bother me. It works fine as-is. To "believe" is to "accept as true." What we need is a proper replacement for "y'all" and gender-neutral alternatives for "he/she" and "him/her". "They" and "them" are poor alternatives for "he/she" and "him/her" and, even though you can imply a plural "you", "y'all" is clearer but sloppy.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Besides, who are the first to die? People in costal regions and in extreme hot weather locations.
The Middle East, Africa, India and Pakistan, China, etc. South America and Central America.
You know, SHITHOLES.
You left the US off your list, I'm sure that was just an oversight. Where is the majority of our population? Yeah, the coasts. How many climate zones are there in the US? 26, including "extreme hot weather locations" like Nevada, California, Arizona, etc. The record high temps in the US for each month between and including May and September are between 124 and 134F.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Right, people who think overpopulation is a self-correcting problem are just like people who actively carried out genocide.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Marxism and Freudism can also explain anything.
Cold weather in Texas proves global warming false.
Unusually cold weather and winter storms in Texas probably should convince us that something is up.
I'm a bit worried that we might have icy winters and hot dry summers. But even if that happens we'll have deniers running around telling us "I told you so" about one thing or another.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Warmest ever. Meanwhile here I sit in my house as the coldest temperatures I've ever experienced in the last 20 years freeze my pipes for the last month.
Yes, I know climate is not weather.
"All good points... additionally, the global temperature is an average of all weather stations around the globe, the majority of which are found in city center - aka, urban islands, which tends to be warmer than the average temperature of non city centers due to all of the blacktop (roads and rooftops"
Go read about the US Climate Reference Network which has the approval of even the deniers over at WUWT
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
Sorry, Al Gore, with your mansions and private jets: most of us aren't riding your lying gravy trajn.
I dunno.
If it keeps this up, it will take a lot of hot weather to make up for this...geez its cold in the south!!!!
Rubes and hicks in the fly-over states don't want to be thought of as rubes and hicks.
Well, for fucking starters you could learn the difference between its and it's
it's being a contraction of it is
geez it's cold in the south
Keep up the good work. I know you'll #MAGA
... I believe in gravity...
Itâ(TM)s not gravity. The earth just sucks.
That's not the Earth sucking. That's Donald J. Trump and the Party formerly known as the Republican Party.
The real Republican Party freed the slaves, created the National Park System, and a long list of other good things. Don't believe me? Go read the Republican Party Platform for Eisenhower's campaign. Then come back and try to tell us that today's Republican Party has any resemblance to the real Republican Party.
Letting them all die cuts down on the population problem, and thus the energy and pollution problems.
You are a fine example for a human being. Right up there with Pol Pot and Adolf Eichmann.
You forgot David Duke, Donald J. Trump, and Mitch McConnell.
Actually you are correct. They have observed significant greening in the Sahara as warming increases moisture over the region. Desertification is caused by global cooling....
love is just extroverted narcissism
You meant Arrhenius. You know, the guy who proposed AGW in 1896, and was immediately discredited, and then eventually proven correct in the 1950s and '60s. What? You don't remember how the entire field changed its opinion about whether humans could influence the climate? Hmm, maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe back then, there wasn't a bunch of politicians trying to make hay out of the issue. Maybe today, you're too busy lapping and spewing bullshit to even admit the idea of an objective reality. Ain't no dumb egghead scientist tahp gonna tell you howda think!
Few people have ever called Marx's sociopolitical explanations unsound. If you think that there's nothing to critique about capitalism then that's your own mental aberration, but it's generally accepted that Marx's critiques of capitalism were mostly sound. Taken to extremes, it doesn't create a good society; even Adam Smith agreed on that point. Pointing out the flaws in something doesn't tend to take a special eye.
The problem with Marx is that his solution may not be possible, or a good idea. Freud you'll have to take up with someone else.
Your general point was a bullshit deflection, but you know that.
Like you're any better.
You'll just sit back with your thumb up your bum and go "We told you so! We told you so! You didn't listen! Not MY fault!" as people die.
All the because the lazy-fuck method of "wait for all the CO2 to work it's way out" isn't viable and none of you shit-for-brains want to come up with any sort of ENGINEERING solution.
Nice website..download mod apk free from below link...
AZ screen recorder
candy crush hack
Swiftkey keyboard
Vivavideo pro
GTA 5 apk
mx player pro
game killer
Kingroot
Psiphon 3
Showbox App
1: FUCK California. It needs to drown.
2: Air conditioning and relocation.
No. The solution to Global Warming is NOT an Ice Age.
It's artificial sequestation of CO2 while transitioning the planet to cleaner forms of energy. Renewables and nuclear.
This, my friends, is what happens when brother and sister conceive a child..
Whether the pen drops to the ground is independent of your belief. You know from experience that things drop to the ground when you release them, you predict that the pen will drop if you release it and you can observe that the pen drops when you release it.
Believing does not enter that equation.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Skin a few denialist faggots like train0123 alive and leave their corpses hanging from power plant smokestacks.
Gee sounds an awful lot like the Spanish Inquisition, another episode of religious zealotry in our history, you know back when the "common belief" was that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth.
If your evidence is so complete, accurate and overwhelming, shouldn't you be able to convince people with intellectual arguments instead of having to eliminate those who disagree?
Spoken to an Australian recently? I think they'd argue about 2018 being one of the coldest on record. I assume you meant to include "so far" and "here".
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/10/...
Spoken to an Australian recently... because they'd tell you about the number of cities in the country with water restrictions from ongoing droughts that are nearing a decade long in some parts as well as consecutive record high summers. In fact they'd be sweltering in one right now.
How do I know... because you're speaking to an Australian right now.
You're not only speaking to an Australian, but one who understands the climate of Australia. Right now we're getting a La Nina event, which is a sub surface cooling in the Pacific (the reversal of an El Nino event) which is part of the El Nino Southern Oscillation or ENSO. This is a welcome change as Australia has been hotter and drier because of several record El Nino events in recent years.
Next time you want to say something completely stupid about Australia... go to Australia first.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Are you saying that you don't believe in gravity? To "believe" is to "accept as true". When I drop my pen, I accept as true that it will fall to the floor. I know it'll fall. Why does the word "believe" distress you so much?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Whether the pen drops to the ground is independent of your belief.
Nobody said otherwise.
Because words are often twisted around to fit a rhetoric that was not intended.
"Believing" very often means "accepting as true without evidence". Or even against all evidence of the contrary. That last part, the evidence, is very important when it comes to "accepting as true", at least for me. Some kind of proof that what is claimed is actually rooted in reality rather than some fantasy.
Accepting as true without verification is exactly what makes fake news and their spread possible.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Believing" very often means "accepting as true without evidence". Or even against all evidence of the contrary.
It can be used that way. Maybe that’s the way you use it. I don’t know if I’d say it’s used that way “very often”. Do you believe DJT? Depends on evidence from other sources, past experience, and bias. Do you believe CNN? Same answer. Do you believe your own eyes? Probably; that’s up to you. Do you believe in gravity? I do. Do you believe me? I’ve never been wrong. Nearly all of my beliefs are substantiated by evidence; I don’t understand why that’s a hurdle for you.
Accepting as true without verification is exactly what makes fake news and their spread possible.
Which has zero to do with believing things based on evidence.
Ready to be really upset? When I drop my pen, I have faith that it’ll hit the floor.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Maybe it's a language thing. Then again, "believing" is just as ambiguous in my native language.
As is faith.
I try to avoid ambiguous language as good as I can. Doesn't work as often as I'd want to, but I try. Human communication is already flawed enough as it is, we needn't make it any less clear.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
According to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it isn't gravity. It's intelligent falling, maintained by His Noodly Appendages.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What appears to be happening is the extreme warming in the Arctic is reducing the temperature difference with the more temperate latitudes which results in a weaker jet stream that becomes wavier rather than being a tight circle around the high Arctic. So the jet stream is looping up the Pacific off the west coast then turning back south over Alaska and shooting down the east side of the Rockies. That draws Arctic air down into the deep south accounting for the cold temperatures there. That is becoming more common than it used to be due to a weaker, wavier jet stream due to the warming in the Arctic. Meanwhile it's been quite warm and dry here on the west coast of North America.
->It's artificial sequestation of CO2 while transitioning the planet to cleaner forms of energy. Renewables and nuclear.
Which you believe doesn't send us back to the ice age we are emerging from?
Got any proof that leads to a perfectly stable climate and doesn't just reverse the last 20,000 years of lovely warming?
1880 happened since 2010?
In 1980 I took over the operation of a certain bank account. Every year I put $1,000 into this account, I have never taken anything out if. My analysis shows that the 5 years with the highest balance since 1980 have all happened since 2010.
Would you similarly conclude that 1980 happened since 2010, or does your thinking fail so dramatically only on matters pertaining to the culture wars? I mean are you actually an idiot, or is it only that your party political affiliation requires that you act like one?