https://www.google.com/search?q=coldest+winter+2019&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS866US866&oq=col&aqs=chrome.4.69i60j69i57j69i59l3j0j69i60l2.3170j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Temperatures broke records, with the coldest temperature ever recorded at −30 °F (−34 °C) on January 31, 2019. Wind chills got dangerously low as −58 °F (−50 °C) on January 30, 2019.
Meanwhile, Top Scientists say Earth is getting warmer.
Because top scientists understand the difference between climate and weather.
Weather: −30 °F to −58 °F on a windy day, perhaps a chance of rain
Climate: Co2 levels above 415 ppm, constantly rising
If it is still cold then what is the problem with the Co2 rising?
shareBecause while it may seem colder in your area, it's warmer on average everywhere.
It's as if scientists are basing their measurements on highly tuned instruments around the world.
And climate deniers are wetting their thumbs and putting them to the air.
It's as if scientists are basing their measurements on highly tuned instruments around the world.
Because while it may seem colder in your area, it's warmer on average everywhere.
"climate deniers"
Has anyone ever denied the climate? Get your head out of your ass, sheep.
just this morning i wore 2 shirts plus a jacket
Instruments randomly placed across the planet we have had for 100 years and have gone through hundreds of continuing adjustments to address how inaccurate and inconsistent the temperature locations and readings are.
Satellites temperature reading are far more consistent but we have only had for 20-30 years.
Climate deniers are the ones who deny the extreme difficulty in assessing one single "average" temperature for the entire planet over long periods of time and also deny how ridiculously inaccurate and speculative their computer modeling is.
"Because top scientists understand the difference between climate and weather."
Anyone who uses this argument doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather. Weather is the daily manifestation of climate. The two cannot be separated.
CO2 levels are not "climate".
However, if you insist on bringing up CO2 levels:
Actual scientific evidence shows that CO2 levels rise following rises in temperature, rather than preceding and causing them.
At times in the past, CO2 levels have been many times higher than they are today, at the same time that global temperatures were lower.
I understand that it's very difficult, psychologically, to step away from religious beliefs, but try to become educated about climate.
Then why do top scientists claim global warming when a new high temperature is set in summer?
shareBecause co2 levels keep going up.
sharePerhaps its just weather like you said: no wind, no clouds, middle of summer equals hot temperatures.
It took almost 100 years for New York to beat its all time high temperature. Weather or co2?
NEW YORK (WABC) -- It's been 96 years since it has been as hot as it is Tuesday on this date in New York City.
The 1 p.m. temperature reading at Central Park showed the temperature at 94 degrees. The previous record of 93 degrees for Sept. 8 was set in 1919.
Top scientists don't believe in global warming... while global warming hoaxer just adjust the data to support their belief.
Remember, the mighty Al Gore told us all that Florida would be underwater by now.... but last I heard Disneyworld was still open for business. Global warming was and is a hoax.
More of that brilliant data from climate deniers. "Global warming is a hoax because Al Gore." "Global warming is a hoax because of data I am too lazy or stupid to interpret." That's no different than "the moon landing is a hoax because NASA has lied before" or "the earth is flat because the horizon at the beach is level."
shareThe only denier here is you. You are denying that Al Gore was full of shit, because his movie was filled with predictions that didn't come true. Go ahead and find some proof that Florida is underwater or people in New York are drowning.
shareYeah like the top scientists and left wing media who get on a soapbox and scream in terror at the world, "New high temperature set this summer! The end is near!"
Climate is weather over long periods of time.
It's the sun. Everybody knows that. Those smarty pants scientists forgot all about it. Seven decades of research by thousands of scientists with more education and computing power than the guys who built the A bomb but they forgot about the sun. It was Joe over the Legion who solved it after reading thecenterformakingguyswhoneverfinishedseventhgradefeelssmart.org climate blog.
shareThe notion that there is this vast majority of scientists who share the catastrophist notion of anthropogenic global warming and how we will be under water in 20 years (been saying this for over half a decade) is pure political propaganda. Based on the "study" of a cartoonist and his muh 97% study which consisted of questions like "do you think the climate is changing?" or "do you think humans contribute to the climate of the planet?". People eat it up because agw is a replacement to the lack of religious belief these days and I say that as an atheist myself.
shareOkay Joe, we get it, now hurry and ring up my groceries.
shareNice argument. Do you even have the first idea where your fabrication of "seven decades of research by thousands of scientists" comes from? Are you able to provide source for that? I'll tell you where it comes from, a flawed study by a cartoonist. You're a religious zealot with 0 facts to backup your claims but you think being dismissive proves you right: it doesn't.
shareYou don't have to convince me, go publish in a peer reviewed journal.
shareLet's fix the planet.
shareDon't worry about the planet. If you could come back in 50, 100, 1,000, or 1,000,000 years, you would find the planet still teeming with plants and animals. For billions of years, the climate has warmed and cooled in continuous cycles. We don't cause it, and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.
Stop listening to lunatic leftist propaganda.
Study real science.
Look, I'm not a climate scientist, and I honestly don't know if climate change has anything to do with humans. What I do know is that this has turned into a political debate, when it shouldn't be. If we can clean up the planet, why shouldn't we? We should always be looking at better ways to do things.
shareI agree with keeping the planet clean, but not at the expense of economic collapse. A lot of extreme political climate change rhetoric is fiscally impossible, plain and simple.
shareI'm not wanting economic collapse. I'm just frustrated at governments who refuse to change anything. Where I live we recently had a government that was diversifying and investing in green energy, oil energy, as well as the tech industry, and small business.
We now have a new government, who is much more pro oil, that while giving corporate tax cuts to large oil corporations has done away with tax incentives to the smaller businesses, and completely cut investing in Green Energy. That's not moving us forward so that when the world doesn't want oil that the economy here doesn't tank. It's frustrating.
I bet you make your bed every day too... Of course the reality is making your bed while looking nice is less hygienic than not making your bed because it traps moisture that bacteria loves to feed on in your mattress and sheets. Maybe the same thing is going on with "keeping the planet clean"... maybe all the enviro BS is just making the planet look good but not actually doing anyone a favor long term... Maybe we are better off not doing things like recycling everything under the sun. Consider how much water it takes to recycle paper versus just burying it and letting it feed the worms. Have you ever looked at the amount of toxic crap dumped into the waters from recycling paper? Sometime being environmental just looks good in one place while causing much more destruction somewhere else.
shareSo instead of finding better ways to do things we should just say screw it and keep polluting? Got it.
shareThe reality is a free market with no government intervention will recycle what is worth recycling. A company will always try to do what cost the least amount of money so if a company is willing to pay for aluminum cans to recycle rather than mine aluminum then the companies will buy empty cans and recycle aluminum which is what they do... no need for any government involvement. Now if a company doesn't want newspaper or plastics and recycling plants have to be paid to take the newspapers and plastics by the government then it means that recycling costs more than growing trees for wood or using the crude that is alreadying being drilled for heat and gasoline for plastics. Those things shouldn't be recycled if they require subsidies. I mean you do realize that the majority of plastics that are supposedly recycled aren't recycled at all they are shipped to asia where the asian companies burn the plastics instead of burning coal or just dump it in the ocean... so explain how grand recycling is? Recycling in America is bullshit and only ends up causing more pollution than simply burying the garbage.
shareActually, no where in my comment did I mention recycling. You brought it up. I am talking about investing in ways to make a cleaner planet. That isn't limited to recycling. I don't have much faith in governments solving the problems, but I am annoyed at governments rolling back regulations on pollution. Cities are putting bans on disposable plastics because they are so horrible and they don't get recycled. This has lead to some companies
From what I've seen, and I'm no expert what so ever, is that when there are regulations, industries work at developing technology that helps them stay within those regulations. I also have hope, because more and more investors are putting money into renewables and cleaner technologies.
Cities that are banning plastics are doing it for political reasons, pandering to liberal loons that think it is the right thing to do. They aren't taking everything into consideration. Let's just look at plastic bans and what they do... you eliminate plastic bags from grocery stores so now people that used those plastic bags from the grocery store to put their trash in have to buy thicker plastic bags from the same store. You didn't stop any plastics in the city you just increased the sales of thicker plastic bags from stores. Is that what you intended? You ban plastic water bottles what do people use to replace those? Thicker plastic water bottles which are a minimum are supposed to be replaced each year because the plastic in them starts breaking down at that time... Oh and then you factor in the daily cleaning of the reuseable water water bottle and the amount of water you waste cleaning it every day... Now factor in that water is conservation is a more pressing issue than finding landfill space for plastic bottles and you start to see that your plastic ban is having another negative consequence... The reality is plastic bans are poorly thought out and are just political pandering to idiots.
If someone comes up with a better alternative to plastics you won't need any regulations to get rid of plastics the people will simply switch on their own.
Dude it's pollution, too. We can certainly stop ourselves from choking on microplastics or burning down every fucking tree. Fine if you don't believe in man-caused climate change but you do see the decline in biodiversity I hope.
Of course the earth will spin, lifeless or not. The question is will it be habitable by our children.
Still true
shareImagine is the communist left figured out a way to tax US economic prosperity more to clean up the oceans. That’d be greeeeeat.
Unfortunately even that would have measurable results. The beauty of man made climate cooling warming change disruption is it’s completely unmeasurable. There is no “normal climate” to measure against. And this is why it’s not science, it’s politics.
That is why they had to change it from global warming to..."climate chage"
Therefore ANYTHING that the weather is doing they can blame on man and demand governments take over control of everything to "save" us.
Just stop pollution, ok? You don't have to believe anything but you know that smoking in a room makes everyone there smell bad, right?
share[deleted]
In late January 2019, a severe cold wave caused by a weakened jet stream around the Arctic polar vortex[3] hit the Midwestern United States and Eastern Canada, killing at least 22 people.[1][2] It came after a winter storm brought up to 13 inches (33 cm) of snow in some regions from January 27–29, and brought the coldest temperatures in over 20 years to most locations in the affected region, including some all-time record lows.[1][4] In early February, the polar vortex moved west,[5] and became locked over Western Canada and the Western United States.[6] As a result, February 2019 was among the coldest and snowiest on record in these regions. In early March, the cold once again shifted east, breaking records in many areas.
shareLearn the difference between weather and climate.
Aside from that ... for the sake of argument, let's assume
we are 4 decades are so in the past without any preconceived
notions. Do you think the spots on Earth where there is a lot
of pollution are OK, or not affecting anybody or anything?
Do you think it is a good idea to change things that have been
working for hundreds of thousands of years under the same
conditions that we all evolved under? Is it acceptable to chop
down significant areas of forest, or create dead areas in the
ocean ... whether or not it creates runaway side-effects that
lowers the quality of life for everyone, while just paying a small
minority on Earth large profits and gives them big political power?
Tell China and India that they aren't allowed to go through the industrial revolution that every other first world country went through to get a sound economic foothold. They are by far the most significant source of pollution today. They have done models showing full pollution compliance for the US and Europe in the future, and it makes little difference because our regulations are quite strict as it is. The other option is to keep China and India a 3rd world country. Go ahead and let them know they aren't allowed join us in the upper echelon of the global economy because a privileged teenager girl doesn't like going to school and would rather play eco warrior.
shareYou know what's a real environmental hazard is the economic system we live in. We rely in perpetual population growth in order to sustain the house of cards of debt that is modern economics. If you're so concerned about reducing Co2 then you should be concerned about stopping population growth. Right now in the west the tendency is for population decline as the native populations aren't having babies above the replacement level. From an environmental point of view that's great, less people to pollute the planet. But who is going to pay the growing debt? A growing population is required. So wars are manufactured, refugee crisis are invented and mass migration happens. Are you ready to be called a racist for arguing against mass migration and wars and scheming that try to get the world population to grow indefinitely? Or is that somehow not a concern for a catastrophist, almost as if deep down they don't really believe the nonsense of the world being underwater in 20 years themselves?
share