Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Posts Second Warmest Year On Record In 2018, NOAA Says (reuters.com)
According to a new report released on Tuesday by the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the Arctic had its second-hottest year on record in 2018. "Arctic air temperatures for the past five years have exceeded all previous records since 1900," according to the annual NOAA study, the 2018 Arctic Report Card, which said the year was second only to 2016 in overall warmth in the region. Reuters reports: The study said the Arctic warming continues at about double the rate of the rest of the planet, and that the trend appears to be altering the shape and strength of the jet stream air current that influences weather in the Northern Hemisphere. "Growing atmospheric warmth in the Arctic results in a sluggish and unusually wavy jet-stream that coincided with abnormal weather events," it said, noting that the changing patterns have often brought unusually frigid temperatures to areas south of the Arctic Circle. Some examples are "a swarm of severe winter storms in the eastern United States in 2018, and the extreme cold outbreak in Europe in March 2018 known as 'the Beast from the East.'"
The medieval warm period. Really. C'mon. Don't want to go back to the dinosaurs as usual to show just how warm earth can be and still sustain life?
But ok. The MWP. First of all, even during the MWP it wasn't as warm as it is today. It was about 0.2 to 0.4 degrees Celsius warmer than before. Today we're at about 1.0 degrees warmer than it was in the 800s. Second, the MWP was not an uniform climate change as we experience today. It was mostly a localized phenomenon with various areas experiencing warmer periods during different times in those 300ish years.
In other words, there's a reason why even the most harebrained deniers don't use it. Stick with the dinosaurs, back then it was at least warmer than it is today.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So what's to worry, it's colder than it was before. See? It's not getting warmer, it's getting colder!
(And yes, this is sarcasm. It's actually pretty sad that it is necessary to explicitly say so...)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I won't spend my holidays there.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
There are plenty of natural oscillations and trends in climate. It's been warmer in the prehistoric past and there have been notable oscillations in the past millennium. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were significant, driven by changes in insolation and volcanic activity. However, the temperature anomalies during those periods weren't as large as the change over the past few decades. Yes, it's a blip in the entirety of geologic time, but that's precisely why it's so alarming. If the changes are gradual, life has time to adapt, and the consequences are far less severe than if the changes are abrupt.
And yes, there have been abrupt changes in climate in the Earth's past. The worst of the five mass extinction events in the past billion years ago occurred at the Permian-Triassic boundary. This was an abrupt warming about 252 million years ago that occurred over the span of about 20,000 years. The initial cause may have been numerous volcanoes in present day Siberia burning through a massive deposit of fossil fuels, releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Nickel from the volcanic eruptions caused a particular microbe in the oceans to flourish, which generated huge amounts of methane. Global temperatures surged, life in the oceans died rapidly and decomposed, producing toxic hydrogen sulfide that was deadly to life both in the oceans and on land. The result nearly ended life on Earth, due in part to the abruptness of the event preventing natural processes from mitigating the various factors, and not allowing time for life to adapt.
Since even the president of the US is convinced that global warming is a Chinese hoax, we have to be impressed by the way China is playing this game. The Chinese manage to really create ever warmer weather year after year, just to fool us into thinking global warming is real. They are truly brilliant.
You're right. The Earth has been both warmer and cooler in the past. What's your fucking point?
As coastal cities continue to flood, should we just say, "Well, we're not going to do anything about it, because it happened before in the pre-cambrian era?"
I don't respond to AC's.
And that matters why?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I mean, that's such an obvious conspiracy theory troll. You're not even trying to make the fiction that you believe it sound real.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You're obviously an Einstein level savant for figuring that out for yourself so fast. I was wondering for a long time if "second hottest" meant there was ONE year that was hotter.
Maybe, we should not socialize the losses of coastal properties via our National Flood Insurance program? For all the talk of climate change, I see homes swept away by hurricanes and then even bigger ones replace them in under two years. In my lifetime NJ beachfronts now look like a glass wall with massive homes built as close to the beach as possible.
If the government insures a property and it is lost to floodwaters - a condition of claim payment should be that the property becomes prohibited to future development. If private landowners and private insurers want to take on this risk - good for them.
Building these homes over and over again sticks the taxpayer with the disaster bill.
Did you know the temperature of the whole universe used to be over a billion degrees and nobody died at all back then?
Did you know the arctic has actually cooled considerably since July?
Is this going far enough that I need to point out it's meant as parody? I seriously hope it is.
Events in the past caused us to evolve with a single-minded purpose to overpopulate. This is reflected in civilization and religion. The result of overpopulation is usual in lemmings but may cause consternation in humans, who have little expeience in managing this. The godless religion of political correctness can't recognise this, so the suicide cults win.
There are vineyards in Chester, up in the northwest of England.
No, it's never been so cold you couldn't. Beer developed alongside wine and, when hops were added, became cheaper and easier to transport. Even in major wine countries like France.
Same reason everywhere has bees but mead isn't commonly drunk.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not is there much evidence the Norse drank wine that wasn't imported. That would be in the timeframe you claim wine was made.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Chester isn't Caledonia (Scotland) where Romans reported vineyards 2000 years ago and King John's census of the British Isles located vineyards in Scotland sometime around 1250.
Too cold today
Poe's Law. It's not just for religion anymore.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"it's okay when my house is flooded, because 1 billion years ago it was an ocean"
Being all doom and gloom about it doesn't help. IMHO Branson has the right idea when he offered $3 million for airconditioning that's 5x as energy efficient.
https://globalcoolingprize.org/prize-details/criteria/
i.e. the solution is a million little improvements not one magic one. Air-conditioning being a huge energy waster that could easily be improved. If you can make a fridge to turn a heat difference into cold, you can make an air conditioner that can, so you can make a solar (heat) driven air conditioning. It just needs the initial funding.
Germany fermented grape and changed to beer.
Norway fermented grape and changed to beer.
England and Scotland fermented grape and changed to beer.
Too cold today
Localized phenomenon. That extended all the way down into the Antarctic.
Same reason everywhere has bees but mead isn't commonly drunk.
I like beer, I like wine but mead is just a awesome special treat, it's so fucking good I just don't have an adequate vocabulary to express its goodness.
Absolutely try a decent mead if you have a chance.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
He did a good number of things to help reduce global warming: Restrict coal power plant emissions, improve automotive fleet emissions standards, sign the Paris climate accord, and subsidize renewable energy and EV sales. All things Trump has undone or is working on undoing.
China will have the US over a barrel once global carbon trading is mandatory. I'd say that you collectively deserve it, but on the other hand most Americans who voted didn't vote for this.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This graph from the report is particularly scary: https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Po...
So?
I don't respond to AC's.
It's sad to see Slashdot taken over by anti-science scumbags, posting as "Anonymous Cowards" and lying that Global Warming isn't happening even with evidence all over the place. And then there's the overwhelming support for GW in the scientific community. What do they know!
I have to admire the plucky band of billionaires, conspiracy nutbars and oil companies bravely fighting back against all that nasty, evil science. Of course, the downside is that their kids will line up to piss on their graves.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
We are not measuring things on a geological scale, but in human terms. So your argument is invalid. During most of the 4.543 billion years that earths exists, it was not habitable by humans. And even during long periods when earth was more or less habitable, most places where people live now, were under water or otherwise inhabitable. Also, please google "xkcd 1732" and watch, then think again.
Having lived in Alaska, I take this as good news. Cold is bad
technical whipping boy, Occam's Strop (think about it...)
Unfortunately I could not find any kind of documents (not even from warming denyers) that talk about anything you post there, maybe you can provide a source?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Erh... no.
Looking around the web, I could not find anyone pointing towards "grapes from Greenland". Not even climate change deniers dared to try to run that story. The furthest north that we find an attempt to grow grapes is southern England. Grapes, by the way, are a rather poor measurement for how warm it was, simply for the fact that Christianity needs wine (and hence the grapes to make it) for its ceremonies. So even if the chance for success was close to zero or the quality simply atrocious, people would have tried to grow grapes, no matter the cost, the quality or the quantity of the outcome.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
62 percent of electricity is still being produced by fossil fuels. And hydro produces more renewable electricity then Solar.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
What are you talking about? His war against American industry and under the table payouts to solar panel companies that had political supporters on their boards did plenty to help our climate.
Fortunately, the price decrease in the solar energy sector has seen the same pattern that literally EVERY other technology has seen. Which leaves us to believe that all politicians together have done jack-squat to affect anything.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The ones who really vote - Congressmen and Senators - would never support such a thing.
Chester isn't Caledonia (Scotland) where Romans reported vineyards 2000 years ago and King John's census of the British Isles located vineyards in Scotland sometime around 1250.
Too cold today
We now produce wine in Denmark, on Gotland (a Swedish Island), and, indeed, in Scotland. But the primary reason for viticulture is economics - not climate. It is possible to produce wines in Scotland, but with modern transportation, it's a lot cheaper to import wines from regions where they are easier and cheaper to produce. In medieval times, transport was a lot less efficient and reliable, and there was a strong demand for wine for the sacrament of the last supper. That's why wine was produced locally in less than optimal condition. Nowadays, it's tourists and EU subsidies that cause wine to be produced in marginal climate.
Stephan
Carbon emissions for Americans were dropping during Obama's term. As oil shale was booming. Hmmm...
Obligatory: Earth Temperature Timeline, courtesy of XKCD.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
No, no travel over the poles. They'd have had a hard time sailing over the southern one, even if they'd known it existed.
But, no, Lief Erikkson sailed to Newfoundland following the known course of Brenden the Navigator. And he was the furthest north.
Nobody sailed north of the north wind, as the Arctic region was known.
If deniers are resorting to fraudulent sagas, even they know they've lost the debate.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Irrevelant. It was warmer in the Jurassic because CO2 and O2 were greatly elevated, as was humidity, and the magnetosphere was three times as strong.
It was also constant. The Jurasic didn't warm up at a fantastic pace, things were ADAPTED to the conditions.
The biosphere was healthy and diverse, not massively degraded.
All these factors impact the significance of temperatures. But they're never considered by deniers in their bid to corrupt the data by eliminating the facts that don't fit their claims.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Moving slowly in from the sea over 100-300 years isn't so difficult as buildings and roads age anyway, and 100-300 years from now, society will be less recognizable to today than today would be to people in 1900 or 1700.
I argue any draconian measures to arrest GW that slows technological progress will be of more harm than good.
I'd rather live in 2100 with year 2100 tech and gw than 2100 with a pristine environment and year 2080 tech, slowed due to drags on the economy.
The real enemy continues to be sickness and death.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
No, they really weren't. Stop using Infowars as your encyclopedia. Find me a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal that said that, with proof that other scientists backed the claim.
You won't find the paper.
That's because it exists only in fantasy.
Give over, you can live your life in fantasy but don't expect us to live in your fantasy too.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The Romans reported vineyards in Scotland?
Do tell.
Photo of text, transcription and the museum it is in.
Also, Scotland has microclimates. It's not blean, desolate and cold, except towards Westminster.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There are not only two years on record, so the second hottest isn't really the coolest...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's interesting that there was no large drop in sea ice extent or area this year to match the exceptional warming. The numbers came in around where the last few years have, and much higher than 2016 or 2012.
Sea Ice Area: https://web.nersc.no/WebData/a...
Sea Ice Extent: https://web.nersc.no/WebData/a...
My favourite bought are Lindesfarne and Bunratty. You can't import them in the US as mead due to food regulstions there.
For homemade, a mix of light raw and white honey will ferment like crazy. Tannin is good for smoothing, I use half a pint of Yorkshire Gold tea. Purists would murder me in the streets if they knew.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Vinyards all over England.
Never any vinyards in Norway.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Nobody sold global cooling in the 70s, outside of scifi.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not sure sterilizing the only planet with known life is irrevevant.
The corruption has been on the side of deniers, exclusively. A fact they conveniently ignore.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Global warming has been accepted since 1895.
That makes it more established and better tested than Relativity.
And, no, nobody believes in it. You do not pray to the God of maths for 1+1=2. You KNOW it.
The deniers are the ones who can't add.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Scientists get paid for observing, whether refuting or confirming.
Your cynicism doesn't alter that reality, it alters only your own.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Especially given we're at the part in an 11 year solar cycle where it's *supposed* to be getting cooler than the year before.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
We have 100,000 years of data.
But don't let facrs detract from your scumbag fantasy world.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
We have 100,000 years of records.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why didn't he do anything that Trump or Republicans couldn't undo? Either he didn't have right priorities or he was so ... impotent.
To put some law or regulation in place which couldn't be undone he'd have to usurp democracy. Which is something Trump and the Republicans have demonstrated they're willing to try, but Obama was too good for that. You call that "impotent?"
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yes—after all, Republicans weren't "potent" enough to usurp ACA. Again, priorities or impotency.
That was priorities. They did make changes that will eventually lead to the system's practical collapse, but to avoid quickly becoming too unpopular to win even with the playing field heavily tilted in their favor, they chose not the kill the system outright. This gave them plausible deniability.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
But if we are talking about the arctic then we are talking about WEATHER and not CLIMATE.
As has been said over and over, local weather is not proof of climate change or the lack of climate change.
The risk isn't just a bit of sea level rise, but significant changes to ecosystems which might result in the loss of a number of ecosystem services. If the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is less than the cost of replacing those ecosystem services with artificial versions, then the pragmatic option is to reduce CO2 emissions. Examples of such services including things like pollination by bees. If services are lost and can only be replaced by more expensive options then there would be GW and a drag on the economy. And whilst it might be possible to replace pollination by bees with a technological option, you also have to take into account the risk that it may not be, and so that can mean that caution is advisable.
Even in the north of England monasteries were cultivating grapes into the 1500s. Then they stopped. Because they ceased to exist. 1500 is not 700 years ago. The wine wasn't considered to be very good, though, hence all the references from 1200s,1300s, 1400s about importing wine from English posessions in France into England for the nobility who wanted decent wine during the MWP.
Calendonia included parts of what is now northern England (Hadrian's wall is in England), although almost certainly not as far south as Chester.
'When Henry VIII was crowned in 1509, 139 vineyards were recorded, 11 of which produced as Royal vineyards, dedicated to the monarchy. In the 1660s Lady Batten, wife of Sir William Batten, Surveyor of the Navy, had a vineyard at their estate at Walthamstow; Samuel Pepys thought the wine (which was red) "very good".[8] Just as English wine began to recover from the epidemics of phylloxera and powdery mildew in the mid-19th century, brought back by the explorers of New America, commercial English wine was dealt a heavy blow. In 1860 the government, under Lord Palmerston (Liberal), supported free trade and drastically cut the tax on imported wines from 1 shilling to twopence, a decrease of 83%. English wine was therefore outcompeted by superior foreign products that could be sold at a lower cost to the customer.[citation needed] The twilight of British winemaking tradition, which stretched back to the first Roman explorers, was brought to an end with the onset of the First World War, as the need for crops and food took priority over wine production. The rationing of sugar pushed the knife even deeper until, for the first time in 2000 years, English wines were no longer being produced in Wessex, nor the rest of the country. '
Chester isn't Caledonia (Scotland) where Romans reported vineyards 2000 years ago and King John's census of the British Isles located vineyards in Scotland sometime around 1250.
Chester is in northern England, so Nothern Europe.
Too cold today
https://food.list.co.uk/articl...
No, they really weren't. Stop using Infowars as your encyclopedia. Find me a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal that said that
I think he was using Al Gore as his source; that's who made the outrageous claims about things being underwater by now.
Washington post - Jan 11, 1970 - "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In Future"
Held? Hail? What?
10 years ago Al Gore assured us the Arctic would be ice free in 5 years.
He didn't.
He noted that some studies suggested it would be ice free in summer. That was an outlier, and he would have been better to have gone with a mainstream projection (currently somewhere in the region of 2050, down from around 2100).
I'm going to ignore the rest of the shocking ignorance of this post and ask what makes you think we have to halt all technological progress to correct AGW? The tech that is causing the problem was literally invented in the 19th century! If anything, combating AGW will force us to use 21st century tech.
Also, a little fact about the economy, it works best when the money keeps moving. Like when you replace all your old crap by buying new crap.
We have a local mob here that make it from wild honey - nom nom nom. I am very impressed that you make mead!!!!!
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
But if we are talking about the arctic then we are talking about WEATHER and not CLIMATE.
As has been said over and over, local weather is not proof of climate change or the lack of climate change.
climate - noun - the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Perhaps you are thinking of global warming? (which, as the name suggests, refers to global average temperature and is not specific to any particular region).
Not sure that he did, but: "In 2017, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that cities around the country experienced a record number of flooding events related to high tides, according to the National Climate Report. More than a quarter of coastal locations tied or set new records for the number of flooding days. And in 2018, flooding on the US coastline is expected to be 60% higher than it was just 20 years ago." - https://www.businessinsider.co...
Except that it didn't. From what we can tell today, it was a period of non-homogeneous slight variations in temperature. Today Britain, tomorrow Black Sea. The reason for which is still mostly a mystery, but what can be said is that whatever caused it was mostly concentrated in the northern hemisphere, and here in Eurasia.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's pretty much the point.
There was also life on Earth during the Late Bombardment period. And boy, you better believe it was warmer than today! With MUCH higher CO2 and MUCH lower (read: zero) Oxygen levels.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
During most of the 4.543 billion years that earths exists, it was not habitable by humans. And even during long periods when earth was more or less habitable, most places where people live now, were under water or otherwise inhabitable
Thank you for this important reminder, that the planet's climate can change â" drastically and dramatically â" with human involvement neither for nor against it.
That is not an important reminder, it's something we all know and it's also irrelevant to the current debate, which is over global warming which we know to be anthropogenic because of physics. HTH, HAND!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What are you talking about? His war against American industry and under the table payouts to solar panel companies that had political supporters on their boards did plenty to help our climate.
There were about four solar panel companies, only one of them had political supporters on its board, and it got the least money of all of them because it folded before it could collect it all. Guess you missed the details, though, since you're bringing up that old tired shit.
Fortunately, the price decrease in the solar energy sector has seen the same pattern that literally EVERY other technology has seen. Which leaves us to believe that all politicians together have done jack-squat to affect anything.
The fossil fuel companies have literally been conspiring against solar power, wielding their influence in government to keep it down to protect their control of the energy market. For example, the way GWB wouldn't grant a license to build a thermal solar plant in BLM land even though the BLM lands are chock-full of oil wells, and corresponding oil spills. The political power spent supporting solar has been necessary simply to maintain that pattern.
All of this leads me to believe that you don't know jack-squat about anything.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I have a few dozen other examples from respectable sources.
Those same sources were also posting articles about global warming. Now, over the period between when GW was postulated (late 1800s) and today, or hell even twenty years before today, have those specific sources posted more articles about global warming, or global cooling? Do your actual homework before you suggest that one spate of articles represents a flood of media. Perhaps someone should explain to you how media works: someone writes an article, then all the various papers report on the article, and then if nothing comes of it they are on to the next thing. Because what news depends on is the same thing as what money depends on: currency. If it's not moving, it's not relevant. And once one paper reports on an issue, all the other ones leap to do the same in order to appear competent. However, none of them actually are, so if someone is clever and good at selling their idea then all the papers can report the same bullshit at the same time.
Zero credible media outlets seriously pushed the idea of global cooling, they just did some of their usual half-assed science reporting, and who gives a fuck what the media says? Read the actual scientific papers. What did the actual scientific papers say about global warming and cooling at the time? Because the papers work on the "if it bleeds, it leads" principle, and they are a completely useless gauge to what scientists were saying at the time. And when you boil this stupid argument down, where you get to isn't the media, but claims from denialists that scientists were pushing the idea of global cooling. And that's where your argument breaks down completely, and I do mean completely. What we have today is the vast majority of qualified scientists telling us that AGW is not only real, but it's happening in a big way right now. What we had then was a couple of scientists telling us that global cooling was happening. Conflating the two as if they were directly comparable is a total schmuck move, and you should be horribly ashamed of yourself for your total inability to construct a cogent argument. Now run along, Ivan, some of us want to think.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're making my point. You say 'outlier' and I say 'hysterical predictions'. That's what the mainstream media reports, and what people remember is that New York City is supposed to be underwater already.
Al Gore reported it as being an outlier, and the media reported it in big letters because that's how they get eyeballs. It's the media's fault, not Al Gore. Don't blame Al Gore.
Start reporting seriously, instead of trying to push a political and economic agenda under the cover of environmental sky-is-falling scare tactics, and people will take the issue more seriously.
That's not how any of this works. The scientists are reporting their results as usual, and the media is warping it into bullshit to sell media as usual. That's the media's fault, but they're not doing what you're doing. Remember, media is overwhelmingly owned by massive, polluting, amoral corporate interests. They would rather push the idea that AGW is less serious than scientists claim, or even that it's not happening at all. But as news outlets, they sensationalize news to get more viewers/readers, and they also don't employ writers who understand the news so they tend to get things wrong. They're not pushing a political agenda, they're pushing an economic one — selling ads.
You see a conspiracy where there is none. There is only sleaziness. Know how to fix it? Make the papers responsible for accuracy. For one thing, you should only be able to call facts "news", but Faux News already fought that battle and beat us.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They will not care unless/until the disaster lands on their front porch.
I've got news for you, they don't care then, either. We know people who have lost three homes in a row to fires in California. You'd think after the second one (if not the first) they'd make finding a home that's in a defensible situation a priority, but they just keep moving into more flammable shit-shacks built in forests. Everyone's in denial, and it's going to kill us all.
Sadly, government doesn't care either. If your home gets burned down in a big fire, FEMA gives you a check and slaps you on the ass. You spend that money where you like, even if it's just to cause problems. Same for these houses with federal flood insurance. Someone builds a vacation house on a sand bar, and every time it gets wiped out the government pays them to build it again. The People wind up paying for their unsustainable vacation getaway. We need to fix this problem. Nobody should be able to rebuild the same kind of problem in the same place when it gets wiped out and we have to bail them out. If their house burned down, the replacement has to be fire-resistant. If their house washed away, the replacement has to be somewhere else. That We The People have to pay for this crap is the kind of shit that lends credence to the greedy "libertarians" who believe that all taxation is theft. It isn't, but this kind sure is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nothing a Tasmanian shaman wouldn't claim, when trying to explain the rising seas turning the peninsula into an island: "Bring me the offerings so I can pray to the spirits to spare what's left of our land! And kill the deniers!"
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Hey, dumbfuck: sea level rise isn't consistent everywhere. Learn something. Read an IPCC report.
I don't respond to AC's.
"So what your saying we had someone monitoring the temperature in the arctic and recording it for the last 100,000 years?"
Before there was Ice Cube, in fact before there were ice cubes, there was just ice. That ice effectively stored climate data for us, which we have subsequently learned to decode. I'm talking to you like a child because you're acting like one. Adult up, son.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"