NOAA work as a source? Because, while it has been a fairly normal year for the post-2015 period globally, we haven't had a single July in which the global temperature anomaly has been as low as the record prior to 2015. Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Here's a slanted article for you. https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...has risen by,based on NOAA's temperature data. The earth is getting hotter every year, has been since the 1880s. Has been accelerating rapidly since the 1980s. Temps at the highest latitudes and altitudes much more so. Ice shelves slipping off from Greenland and Antartica mean big trouble for Florida.
Might also be worth mentioning that the winter in NTX in 2021 was the coldest in over 30 years as well with wind chills well below zero. The 2022 winter wasn't that far behind it either. So it's not just higher temps, it's lower ones as well. Assuming you mean Arctic, not Antarctic? Because the ice mass at the South Pole has actually been growing, not shrinking.
In Texas or worldwide? There is some evidence of greater variability as the mean temperature rises. But worldwide temperatures were much higher in January-March 2021 and 2022 than the average over the last 30 years.
Yeah, North Texas definitely took a hard hit on cold. Like I said, there is substantial evidence that higher mean temperatures are associated with increased localized variability.
Can you cite? My first result when I looked it up (it didn't make any sense to me from a pure math standpoint) was from the Yale Climate Connection website.
Interestingly, looking it up, it looks like it is an effect that splits between more tropical climates and less tropical climates. In more tropical climates, you see higher temperature leading to greater variability. In less tropical climates, you see it lower variability. Here is the paper that I could find on this: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aar5809
Interesting these guys tried to tie it to national GDPs. I get why, but it seems a bit unnecessary. Might have been better served tying it directly to greenhouse outputs. They chose the wrong independent variable for the experiment IMO. I also found the following sentence to be more than a bit undermining to the data of the piece: That translated to me as "our experiment and models didn't show a human component to changing variability, but we're sure it'll show up this century"
They are tying it to GDP because they are making the point that the distribution of income is related to the distribution of variability changes. Only in terms of variability, it should be noted. Overall temperature increases have emerged already.
Electric cars are great, and they are getting better. But we need to put the horse in front of the cart here and fix the power grid/infrastructure before we start running out of juice for these vehicles. And lets give LNG a try in semi-trucks. Batteries are not good in the cold and are NOT reliable or durable enough to put them in big trucks. I'm for all of the above in power and vehicles.
We could fix the grid. A hodge pod of independent free market players trying to cash in while upgrading the least. I’m going back to wood. Have about ten trees left.
As I said, I get why. But it didn't seem like their hypothesis proved out. As a matter of fact, it seemed the result proved that variability is much more based on geography than economics. Acknowledged. I'm not arguing median/mean temps. I understand fully that variability is the only thing they're poking at.
Don’t know about G8rjd, but I sent Icequeen a quick note just seeing how she was feeling end of August and didn’t hear back. Looks like she hasn’t been on the site since early July. Hope she’s ok. Maybe they both just decided they’d had enough also.
It's a full spam assault on TH the last day or so. Must be following the bread crumbs left by the paid Russian assets that post here.
I have a question about charging stations. I’ve read a couple articles that said charging stations are free in some areas? Is that the norm throughout the US? Last question. Do any of you think powering electric cars should be paid for with taxes or individually for each charge?
Obviously anecdotal I have noticed parking spaces at some shopping malls with free charging stations. Not absolutely certain but I believe Tesla charges for the use of its charging stations although I also believe that the company provides credits for new car purchasers. I also believe that they are proprietary and are not compatible with EVs from other manufacturers. In response to the last question, the government shouldn't be subsidizing EV users although I would have no problem with using tax breaks to incentivize the construction of more charging stations with the caveat that they have universal connectivity to qualify. I would note that for well over 100 years the tax code has had favorable provisions to encourage the extraction and distribution of fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds
Well done! Biden just opened up a big part of Eastern Alaska to the petro "world destroyers". Coal plants are being built all over the non Western World. The pacific is a plastic trash heap. Florida is about to get eaten by a red tide blob the size of texas or soemthing. Have you seen Mike Moore's latest movie? Man it's beyond depressing. American's Environmental will? LMAO - NON-EXISTANT. Ready to reinstate the former liar and thief over a 1.50 gas hike. All I can say is everyone better hope the deceased buffoon "Rush Scumbaugh" was right that SCIENCE does not know what it is talking about. Here is one HARD Fact. American industry and it's profits for the .01%, are far more important than the climate, the health and well being of almost 8 billion people and even the survival of the species. For all we know they want to press ahead and exterminate 7.75 billion of us "inconvenient mouths". Thats my trust level. The entire world and all it's Gov'ts are leading the human race to an unimaginable DIE OFF.
