backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by DPercy.. on Jul 9 at 5:09 AM

Who said global warming couldn't hurt anyone?

Some like it hot, but 120° F?  That's the range temperatures around much of the world will be hitting during heat waves in 2100 due to global warming, according to a new scientific study just released by Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute senior climatologist Andreas Sterl.

If Sterl's predictions hold true, what might the impact be?  Looking at historical records, a good comparison point would be the French heat wave of 2003, in which temperatures hit 104° F, killing nearly 15,000, with mortality rates especially high among the elderly.  A similar heat wave in Chicago in 1995 raised temperatures to 106° F killing about 600 people.

Mr. Sterl remarks jokingly that in the future we will look back on these heat waves, "And we will laugh.  We will find (those temperatures) lovely and cool."

The computer model developed by Sterl is cutting edge and draws on his team's sizable climatological experience to model the past, present, and future.  While the study does not disagree with the international scientific consensus on the more moderate standard temperature rises, it reveals an interesting previously unconsidered aspect of the warming process -- its effect on heat waves.

The new study found that for normal temperature rises, heat wave temperature rises will increase twice as fast.  Once-in-a-generation heat waves in Chicago will reach 115° F according to the model, in Paris 109° F, and Lyon 114° F.

When these heat waves hit, according to Sterl they will be particularly damaging due to their drying effects.  They will do much more damage than daily temperatures, he indicates.

He finds that LA will be at 117° F during a heat wave and Atlanta may seem temperatures of 110° F; in each case, this is 5 degrees higher than either city has ever seen.  Kansas City could get as hot as 116° F, 7 degrees hotter than the current high of 109° F, according to the National Climactic Data Center.

New York will have a more modest jump from an all time high of 104° F to 106° F.  Some cities will not get much hotter, but will just see highs more frequently, such as Phoenix, Arizona, which has hit 122° F, and will be regularly hitting in the 120s.

Worldwide, other countries will be hit much harder.  Delhi, India will reach 120, Belem, Brazil 121, and Baghdad a toasty 122. Ken Kunkel, a top Midwestern climate scientist and interim director of the Illinois Water Survey, says that the figures derived from the study check out.

University of Wisconsin environmental health professor Dr. Jonathan Patz comments that the results disturb him as those temperatures are extremely dangerous to the human body.  Said Patz, "Extreme temperature puts a huge demand on the body, especially anyone with heart problems.  The elderly are the most vulnerable because they don't sense temperature as well."

Even before the end of the century, we should be seeing similar effects says Sterl.  By 2050, heat waves will rise 3 to 5 degrees in temperature and will "probably be longer lasting", according to his findings.

Sterl used France as a benchmark for the increases.  In the 1950s, the worst heat wave expected was 91° F, by 1990s it rose to 104° F.  By 2050 he expects the worst heat wave to be at 111° F, and by the end of the century southern France will likely hit 118° F during a heat wave.

As human body temperatures of 104° F are considered life threatening and 113° F typically fatal, if such heat waves occur the human body will likely sweat excessively to try to exhaust heat.  This can lead to dehydration and drops in blood pressure.  Many medications taken for common illnesses interfere with the body's ability to perspire, which could yield death under such extreme conditions.

There have also been numerous studies linking heat wave temperatures to crime sprees; as it appears abnormally high temperatures have psychological effects, increasing the rate of criminal acts.

The study will soon be published in the Geophysical Research Letters journal.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Lol!
By Vertigo101 on 7/3/2008 3:20:20 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ken Kunkel, a top Midwestern climate scientist and interim director of the Illinois Water Survey, says that the figures derived from the study check out.


"My buddy here, who thinks like I do, agrees with the way I think."




RE: Lol!
By excelsium on 7/3/2008 3:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
DT posted a Global Cooling article a few days ago, which one is accurate?


RE: Lol!
By Vertigo101 on 7/3/2008 3:33:21 PM , Rating: 5
The truth will likely be found somewhere in the middle.

Since few in these research fields can ever be truly unbiased, they will keep putting out studies that back up the side of the argument they want to support.


RE: Lol!
By martinrichards23 on 7/4/2008 11:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The truth will likely be found somewhere in the middle.


You crazy fanatic!

We all know the world is going to blow up, its just a question of how.

Y2K ain't over man, you just wait!


RE: Lol!
By TomZ on 7/3/2008 3:34:06 PM , Rating: 3
To ask that question is to not understand the nature of the debate.

Let's look at other questions that are as easy to answer.

Which religion is correct?

Which political party is correct?

etc. You get the idea. Both sides of the "debate" can cite facts and figures to support their belief. Both sides can create models that support their outcomes.


RE: Lol!
By WTFiSJuiCE on 7/3/2008 3:46:56 PM , Rating: 4
/Agree.

This isn't an article, its a blog in which Jason is making his views known. He's not necessarily reporting straight news, but using studies from a specific side of climate reasearch to support his views on global warming. It's up to the reader to decide after reading this if they agree w/ it or not.
I'm not callin Jason wrong for his views, but don't be like "OMG, Jason said this n masher said this, conflicting views, retarded fridays, OH NOEZ!"

Is Global Warming real? sure. Do I believe its gonna last til 2100 like the blog says? no. Not with the slowing activity of the sun in regards to the number of sunspots and a little term known as the maunder minimum. History shows the earth heats up and cools down periodically and we haven't been around long enough to see it happening w/ our own two eyes. But that's just my personal opinion.

Just take a look at the information from both sides and form your OWN opinion.


RE: Lol!
By robinthakur on 7/4/2008 5:18:52 AM , Rating: 2
I think you guys just want to paint JM as a tree-hugging Mac-lover :) He's just reporting on an event, and this story serves to balance some of the other articles. I personally believe Global Warming is a load of nonsense to extort the maximum taxation from us under the cover of environmental activism. Using Economic dis-incentives to keep us off the roads, reduce our electricity use etc. are just the governments of the world (ok I mean the UK) seeing what the general reaction of the public is and to see whether they will notice a few $1000 extra a year in outgoings. All its doing is bringing back societal divides along socio-economic lines and penalising the poorest in society. Time for revolution me thinks, to boot the pigs out of the trough...


RE: Lol!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2008 3:44:02 PM , Rating: 5
> "I think you guys just want to paint JM as a tree-hugging Mac-lover"

Well, this was the bio pic Jason sent into DT. You be the judge:

http://wetlands-preserve.org/uploadedPictures/PJ.j...


RE: Lol!
By Spuke on 7/7/2008 1:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://wetlands-preserve.org/uploadedPictures/PJ.j...
Those overalls aren't sexy either.


RE: Lol!
By Spuke on 7/7/2008 1:54:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As human body temperatures of 104° F are considered life threatening and 113° F typically fatal, if such heat waves occur the human body will likely sweat excessively to try to exhaust heat.
LMAO!!!!!! Where do you live dude? Here's this weeks forecast where I live:

Today 106° F
Tues 108° F
Wed 107° F
Thurs 106° F
Fri 106° F

And this isn't heatwave weather either. This is a typical July. There are TONS of places right here in the US that see these temperatures and MUCH higher. Ever been to Phoenix, or Lake Havasu or Palm Springs. I live in neither of those places, BTW.


RE: Lol!
By rsmech on 7/8/2008 2:00:10 AM , Rating: 2
I have & they are all crazy, no wait. They are all making me crazy. My head hurts, can't stay focused on reality. It's cooler, no wait, it's warmer, no wait, it's changing yea that's it. It's global change. Headache getting better.


RE: Lol!
By PitViper007 on 7/3/2008 3:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
Which all goes to prove......Noone really knows what is going to happen. There's evidence on both sides. We'll see which way it goes in time. Or, I should say our kids and grand kids will. I don't expect I'll still be around in 2100.


RE: Lol!
By jbartabas on 7/3/2008 3:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DT posted a Global Cooling article a few days ago, which one is accurate?


They do not deal with the same issues.

The present study deals with temperatures projected in 2100, notably their projected increase due to GHG.

The study reported a few days ago, about global cooling, regards the potential for the Sun input to decrease for a few decades (the issue of GHG being not addressed). Its impact on the global climate at the horizon of the end of the century was not quantified.


RE: Lol!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/3/2008 3:50:50 PM , Rating: 5
> "which one is accurate? "

Believe what you will, but the studies indicating dangerous global warming (such as this one) are at present all based simply on computer modeling. The real-world data at present indicates global cooling.


RE: Lol!
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Lol!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/3/2008 4:28:35 PM , Rating: 5
From your own link:
quote:
It was the 63rd warmest March since record-keeping began in the United States in 1895

I won't even talk about the problems with heat-island effects in measuring land surface temperatures...when 50 years ago, a thermometer was in the middle of a field, and today its sitting on blacktop next to parked cars and an A/C exhaust vent, what do you think the temperature reading will show?

As for your "record heatwaves" -- your link makes clear its only in a few cities. Other cities are setting record cold. Charlotte, for instance, just broke a 124-year record for coldest temperature:

http://www.charlotte.com/news/story/695929.html


RE: Lol!
By jbartabas on 7/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Lol!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/3/2008 4:47:58 PM , Rating: 5
> "Well, that's impressive! 1 temperature reading"

Had you read the previous post, you'd have seen Mick's claim was based off readings in four towns, all in the state of Georgia.

My extreme-weather events folder contains over a hundred cities which have broken cold records in the past year or so, in dozens of different nations. But of course that means nothing, compared to the global temperature record which, since 1998, is now declining. Not warming...cooling.


RE: Lol!
By jbartabas on 7/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Lol!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/3/2008 5:19:33 PM , Rating: 5
> "The problem with your post is that it could have very reasonably and rightfully stated that localized temperature readings do not mean much in terms of global trends"

That's exactly what I stated, by presenting the corollary case. I have said many times -- including in my previous post -- that isolated events are not indicative of global trends, however.

The global trend, though, is still cooling...not because of these record-breaking cold events, but rather because the cumulative data from around the world indicates such.


RE: Lol!
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Lol!
By DASQ on 7/3/2008 4:58:48 PM , Rating: 1
I think this argument is fairly worthless at both extremes.

HOTTEST EVER!
or
COLDEST EVER!

in the last hundred or so odd years is worthless when placed on a model biosphere as large as Earth. A hundred years or a thousand years is nothing in the life of the planet. It's like claiming God exists because you've seen the Jesus toast.


RE: Lol!
By Reclaimer77 on 7/4/2008 10:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Charlotte, for instance, just broke a 124-year record for coldest temperature:


Yup and I was LOVING it !!!


RE: Lol!
By jbartabas on 7/3/2008 4:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your statement is ambiguous. There is much data showing record warming. For example land temperatures in March in the continental U.S. were the hottest on record.


Continental US has nothing to do with "global" and is irrelevant if considered isolated. The fact is that 2008 is projected to be a globally cooler than 2007.


RE: Lol!
By Oregonian2 on 7/3/2008 6:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Continental US should be all important because we're obviously the cause of it (if it's bad) no matter whether it's hot or cold or both. Everybody knows that!

:-)

P.S. - 103 degrees is a cool summer afternoon where my mother lives (Las Vegas), so would seeing ONLY 103 degrees there be evidence of global cooling?


RE: Lol!
By Schrag4 on 7/3/2008 7:29:37 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah really. I live in Kansas, where we seem to hover around 110 degrees for at least one week each summer.

If I'm not mistaken, the hundreds of heat-related deaths were due to an unusually high temperature for a given area, where people didn't have air-conditioning (and were simply not used to the heat). Here in KS we all have ACs, for obvious reasons.


RE: Lol!
By CatfishKhan on 7/3/2008 5:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is much data showing record warming


The global numbers for June are out for 2 of the 4 metrics (both satellite). Very very very average temperatures for those 2.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/wh...


RE: Lol!
By jbartabas on 7/3/2008 7:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very very very average temperatures for those 2.


I guess you can say pretty cold here ... (relatively speaking of course).


RE: Lol!
By Spuke on 7/7/2008 1:58:33 PM , Rating: 1
It's pretty bad when you get rated down on your own blog post.


RE: Lol!
By jbartabas on 7/3/2008 4:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Believe what you will [...] The real-world data at present indicates global cooling.


Well, considering that the study you've reported a few days ago about global cooling forecasts the "phase catastrophe" for no earlier than ~2016, and the associated cooling to start in the late 2010s, one can't really say that real-world data at present substantiate it in any way either, can we?


RE: Lol!
By excelsium on 7/3/2008 4:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
/sarcasm btw.


RE: Lol!
By arazok on 7/3/2008 9:44:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
which one is accurate?


masher.


RE: Lol!
By Yossarian22 on 7/4/2008 7:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
Mick.

Wasn't this an enlightening discussion?


RE: Lol!
By overzealot on 7/4/2008 2:43:38 PM , Rating: 3
Hitler.
The Godwin circle is complete.


RE: Lol!
By TheDoc9 on 7/3/2008 3:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't why I started reading this story. I knew it was by Jason Mick but I started it anyway, damnit.

Way Way Way too sensationalized, this isn't weekly world news.


RE: Lol!
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Lol!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/3/2008 4:57:31 PM , Rating: 3
> "Well you can disagree with the study, but it is world news as we speak."

Which of course says more about the motives of the world media than it does the study. There were a couple other studies just released which cast doubt on GW fears...neither of which CNN nor anyone else chose to report.


RE: Lol!
By blaster5k on 7/7/2008 2:56:37 PM , Rating: 3
Here's a new story. Climate change is ruining the lives of the poor children in West Timor. Don't you feel guilty? :-)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/06/westti...


RE: Lol!
By DASQ on 7/3/2008 5:00:13 PM , Rating: 1
You know what else is world news?

Britney's little sister getting pregnant.

Clearly becoming world news means it MUST be important and be utterly true.


RE: Lol!
By MrPickins on 7/4/2008 11:26:26 AM , Rating: 3
The news industry has one goal: to make money.

And, in this current market, sensationalist journalism is what sells. Comparing your coverage of the story to theirs doesn't help your cause.


RE: Lol!
By BBeltrami on 7/4/2008 11:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
Fox is also currently reporting on the evil of flat-panel TV manufacturing and the gas released in the process. So?

National Review recently reported on how the GOP should address Global Warming. So?

Ignoring science and the scientific method, including peer review, is ignorance. That is happening to the Conservatives just like the Liberals. This isn't a victory, it's a travesty. And it's about money, not doing what's right or helping the planet. And you gloat like a giddy schoolchild.

The difference, Jason, is that you WANT global warming. You cheer for it. You enthusiastically report any new tidbit that may point to the coming gloom. Akin to some dark forest tribe praying to your dark god, you hope for the end of days.


RE: Lol!
By AlexWade on 7/3/2008 4:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sensationalized AND alarmists. Since facts are not on the climate changers side, they have to scare people silly. Have you noticed how much more alarmists these people have become just this year? No ice on north pole and 120 degree days, and that was just the last 30 days. People are getting informed. So in an attempt to keep their control, they try to scare people even more.

However, these control freaks are starting to sound silly and that is turning sensible people away from their cause. Just look at posts in on-lines about global warming, the vast majority are climate change skeptics. The strategy is already starting to backfire, and it will only go downhill from here.


RE: Lol!
By Lerianis on 7/4/2008 3:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree that this is sensationalized and alarmist. Frankly, the ONLY thing that controls the temperatures on tis planet is the Sun. The Army Corp of Engineers has already come out and said that 99% of global warming is coming from the Sun, and since sunspot activity is at an all-time low now..... the Earth might be cooling off pretty darn fast, since most of the temperature increases can be DIRECTLY linked to sunspots pumping out large amounts of energy for the past 20 or so years.


RE: Lol!
By 4play on 7/4/2008 11:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't that the way it always is? Skeptics were touting how volcano's were emitting more CO2 than humans ever could, until they were ridiculed into the ground, now they just found new data that suits their beliefs.

Unfortunately most people just tend to believe the idea that AGW is just a farce just because it means they don't need to change their lifestyles.


RE: Lol!
By Spuke on 7/7/2008 2:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately most people just tend to believe the idea that AGW is just a farce just because it means they don't need to change their lifestyles.
Have you changed yours and how? And, no, living in your Mom's basement doesn't count as a lifestyle change.


Does this research take into account...
By Boze on 7/3/2008 4:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
...the cooling trend predicted by the Australians recently?

Making a 92 year-in-advance prediction seems extremely Nostradamus-like - perhaps even a little arrogant? Before all the doom and gloom is forecast, I'd like to see where other climatologists weigh in on this.




By jbartabas on 7/3/2008 4:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does this research take into account ...the cooling trend predicted by the Australians recently?


Well, if you can find any number in their paper to be included, you're welcome to send them to climatologists.


RE: Does this research take into account...
By FreeTard on 7/3/2008 4:55:31 PM , Rating: 5
See, I predict that by 2100, we will all have grown gills and live in the ocean. I've been experimenting by eating a lot of seafood. If I eat a lot of spicy shrimp, then I want more water. That leads me to believe, and the guy asking for change on the street agrees, that we will evolve and grow gills and eat shrimp.

Luckily I'll be dead before you can prove me wrong.


By Bostlabs on 7/3/2008 6:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
Cool! LOL! I'd rate you up if I could. :)


120 in 2100... what about 2200???
By nvalhalla on 7/3/2008 4:33:16 PM , Rating: 5
At this rate, 14% between 1950 and 1990, the earth will be 155 degrees by 2200!! Cows will cook themselves! Chickens will be nearly safe to pick up and eat!

Oh my God... 2300 will bring temperatures of 200 degrees! The temperature of the earth will continue to climb higher and higher forever!

The earth must have been REALLY cold in the 16th and 17th centuries. How did people survive...




By EglsFly on 7/3/2008 5:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I have had it up to here ^ with all of these alarmist stories, whether its global warming or cooling. It is insane, this has got to be the biggest bandwagon for people trying to get face time that I have ever seen.

At some point hopefully sooner than later, people will realize that the earth temperatures are cyclical and effected by many things out of our control and there is very little we can do about it.


RE: 120 in 2100... what about 2200???
By BruceLeet on 7/4/2008 9:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
In 2300 I see humans walking around in cooled or heated nanosuits =p

With global warming/cooling whichever, I dont take this topic seriously because theres nothing you can do about it. I mean you cant change earths climate changes, we can only move forward, not backwards.

Its natural really, "adaptation, improvisation" =p


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 8:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In 2300 I see humans walking around in cooled or heated nanosuits


That would be awesome! I'm mounting missile pods on mine! Oh wait I'll be dead...


Celsius...
By blackseed on 7/4/2008 12:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
It would be so lovely if you included the conversion of degree F to C in brakets. It would be easier for us to read here up north, eh?




RE: Celsius...
By Frallan on 7/5/2008 7:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Acctually not only north but it would be easier for most of the world I believe..


RE: Celsius...
By nvalhalla on 7/5/2008 6:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
just because the rest of the world is insufficiently advanced to use our fahrenheit system isn't DT's fault.


Message to Jason and Michael
By Andy35W on 7/5/2008 3:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
Can we have links to scientific sources please rather than no sources at all or newspapers?

What should happen is you should post a valid link and expand on it in a bookish all knowing fashion, we should then make rash comments depending on where our stick is in the sand and you should then beat us with that stick.

It's what we have grown up to love ! :)

Jason, your last article of summer ice melt was rubbish to be honest, all that claim about the North West passage being the first time ever and walking to the north pole, pure sensationalist. And that's from me, who really wants the King Canutes to have their feet wet while they still disbelieve!!

There's not some sort of arms race going on here is there where quantity suffers over quality is there?

Can we have resumption of normal service please?




By Symmetriad on 7/7/2008 2:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hear hear. I'm just glad both of their GW-related posts have been relegated to blog status rather than actual news headlines, because neither of them does a good job at anything other than spinning news to fit their opinions.

And the commenters are thrice as bad. Newsflash, people: DON'T DOWNRATE PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM. Downrate them because they posted something inappropriate or badly-argued. Perfectly valid and intelligent arguments are commonly rated down to -1 instead of being given worthwhile rebuttals, while comments like LOL BUSH or LOL AL GORE are often rated up to 5. Seriously, can we get some intelligent discourse on here instead of childish namecalling?


And further
By FITCamaro on 7/5/2008 11:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
In the year 100,000,000 AD the planet will experience heat waves of several hundred degrees as the sun enters its next phase and grows larger.

Seriously. To publish and article like this is absolutely ridiculous. To believe that we can say with any kind of certainty what the weather will be like in > 90 years. For all we know a meteor might hit the Earth and wipe us out making it a mute point.




RE: And further
By Lerianis on 7/8/2008 4:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
True, but it's not very likely that will happen. Personally, I think Global Warming is as much bunk as 'Global Cooling' was back in the 1970's and 1980's.
We just have to realize that humanity CANNOT control the weather or the temperatures on this planet, or even do much to affect them either way, up or down.

We just have to deal with the situations as they come and deal with the temperature increases or decreases as they come.


By kattanna on 7/3/2008 3:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
with predictions like these we all should be buying up stock in AC companies, as they will be doing great.




Almost worried
By Ringold on 7/3/2008 3:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
I was almost worried, as there are millions living in slums in parts of the world that would get some of these heat waves who have no present access to air conditioning.

But then I went back to the start of the article to look at the time frame again.

quote:
That's the range temperatures around much of the world will be hitting during heat waves in 2100 due to global warming, according to a new scientific study just released by Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute senior climatologist Andreas Sterl.


Okay. Lets see. 2100 - 2008 = 92 years. Global GDP growth is rollin' along at north of 5%, and 54 trillion thus far. Lets say that tanks to 2%, developed-world rates. That'll be 376 trillion by 2100, assuming it keeps up. Demographics folks think the world population will level off at 9 billionish, thus yielding low-end estimate of global GDP per capita of $41,777, compared to whatever piddly amount it is now. Brazil, Russia India and China (BRIC) are, of course, growing presently at 5 times that rate for now. Even Africa should have time to pull itself together over 98 years; China did it in far less time post-Mao. The World Bank has had similar studies.

Lets throw in a critical assumption: environmentalists don't succeed in denying the world cheap energy. I doubt they'll succeed outside of the US and Europe, communism is too fresh in the rest of the worlds minds, so good assumption. Water desalination therefore should take care of a lot of problems, and air conditioning should be available to virtually all. Those two should reduce fatalities quite a lot, and Saudi's grow crops in the desert with reclaimed water, so, no worries there.

So assuming this guy is right, it'll be simply an annoyance, one that people in Vegas live with often enough. Much ado about nothing.




Tripe
By BAFrayd on 7/4/2008 4:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
This post is nothing but sensationalist tripe.
One gets the overwhelming feeling that the whole global "warming" debate is little more than a sporting event where people choose sides, and then root their team on to victory.
Having the ability to report, or simply give one's opinion, does not necessarily give one cause to do it.




120f
By Peter Melia on 7/7/2008 4:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
120F IS ABOUT 49C.
I routinely dryocked ships in Kuwait in summertime and the midday temperature sometimes nudged 50C, which was certainly hot. The workers claimed that when the temperature reached 50C then an automatic public holiday came into force. They also pointed out that 50C was never reached, because the Government controlled the weather data! Certainly the ship's outside thermometers often approached 50C. Drydock work, however, continued. The workers, of course, were expats, Indians, Pakistanis, Europeans. Not Kuwaitis. Isn't this a good argument for increasing immigration of nationals from warm-weather countries?




Finally!!
By ggordonliddy on 7/7/2008 6:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
Finally some f'ing heat in da' house! Yo, it ain't the heat, it's the @#$!% humidity! You know what I be sayin...




True Value of the Article
By marsbound2024 on 7/7/2008 6:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
I pretty much only click Jason Mick's environmental articles just to read its comments, nowadays.




Really?
By rsmech on 7/8/2008 1:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
So can you please fill in the blanks for every day in between? I would like to start planning my vacations years in advance & they sound like they could help me hit all the good days if they can predict that far ahead. My local guy can't even get me more than 2 weeks out & that isn't even very good.

News flash: more scientists pissing in the wind. They need no credibility because we cannot prove them right or wrong. So the masses accept. Pathetic.




Hahaha
By Polynikes on 7/8/2008 12:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
Weathermen, who specialize in predicting the weather, can't get it right a few days from now. What makes these scientists think they can get it right 100 years from now?

I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, 120 degrees or not.




It is all just numbers
By Arctucas on 7/8/2008 1:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Autobiography of Mark Twain




A weather forecast for 2100???
By DPercy on 7/9/2008 5:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
Is the forcast for 2100 or 1900? The USA record high is 134 set in 1913. I think the folks that due these kind of studies also belong to the UFO and BigFoot clubs. I think I'LL due a study that starts out with...And the cow jumped over the moon. Can I have some grant money Mr Gore.

-Dave Percy Meteorologist
Anchorage, AK




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki