We hit about 92 today and 97 yesterday. Our normal is 78 this time of year.
The official word is the Year of the Rat is fighting the Year of the Horse and it caused that Chinese earthquake. So it may have caused Phoenix to get so hot today also.
Heck Portland Oregon is in the upper 80s, of course that was caused by Obama and the huge crowd he had there.
Everyone wants to blame someone or something for the weather. I will go with it being the SUN that controls our climate.
He-he, it's 50 degrees out right how here in southern New Hampshire, and we're heading for a low of somewhere in the 30s tonight (like last night and like we're expecting for tomorrow night). FWIW, our typical high right about now is 68 (something we've only achieved eight times this month so far), and our typical low is 46 (also warmer than our over night temperatures on all but six days so far this month).
What does this all mean? So far at least, May has been rather colder than it's "supposed" to be based upon the last 150 years or so of collected weather data. So? So nothing, the fact that we've averaged a high of 65 and a low of 43 is no more significant than the fact that you're cooking in 109 degree weather right now (geez, 109 is seven degrees hotter than our town has ever gotten, errr, at least for the last 150 years or so). :P
"The previous record for today was 105 degrees, so this is a little above EVER RECORDED for this date."
Geez that's a misleading statement if I've ever seen one. When you use the word "EVER", you are implying since the beginning of time. Sorry to break the news to you, but I absolutely guarantee that Phoenix has been hotter, no, MUCH hotter than 109 on 19-May at some point in time, errr, likely MANY points in time since "time" began.
Seattle got hot on Sunday too (broke "existing" records by 5 degrees) and Boise is way above average. All the heat is melting the snow faster than ... er, faster than whatever normal should be, and parts of the bikepath along the Boise River are flooded. But our mid-90's temps are supposed to fall back to more normal 70's in a couple of days as the thunderstorms move in.
This was an interesting link over in the $4 a gallon gas discussion:
"...31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics"..."
No, they are paid lackeys of Bush and the oil industry. At least that is how the global warming crowd will portray them. Remember facts are of no use when dealing with "feelings".
Oh, BTW, our high today was 51. 20 degrees BELOW normal. (HELP, HELP, the new ice age is coming).
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
What is strange about this heat on the West Coast is the wind direction. When we get hot days other than Summer time it is an Easterly wind. Or Santa Ana condition. We had 15 MPH winds right off the ocean pushing temps up to and over 100 in our local deserts. I am sure the Northwest is enjoying the warm sunshine. So rare for them. Not you Inlanders that get lots of hot days.
The National Weather Service is predicting 20 degrees cooler for us the rest of the week. That will be our normal "Perfect" mid 70s weather. Of course the NWS is rarely right.
PS Everyone knows Bush caused Katrina and now the Typhoon in Burma, according to Gore.
This was an interesting link over in the $4 a gallon gas discussion:
I've been mentioning that it is possible to create oil and gasoline by condensing the gases in the atmosphere, for quite a while on these forums. It is the reverse of the combustion process. Almost any chemical reaction can be reversed. It just takes more energy than was initially used in the 1st reaction. So as I said before - create fusion reactors and then you have the energy to make whatever fuels you want; or you have the energy to scrub the atmosphere and create whatever mix of gases you want.
Fusion reactors creating and changing the atmospheres is exactly what many scientists predict will allow us to colonize other planets.
Might be "misleading" to someone who makes it a point to intentionally misinterpret things.
I think a better way of saying that is that it was intentionally meant to be misleading by the author so as to deliberately sway the uninformed to the author's view of the world.
By saying, "Ever in recorded history", you're mixing the qualifiers of the scope of you're message. More correct language usage would have been to say, "Ever..." or, "In recorded history...", combining the two is misleading, and I have my doubts as to whether it was done deliberately or unintentionally.
Oh come on Lars, not the we need to dredge up history, but folks have been challenging the things you've been saying and how you've said them since you started posting here. This is no exception.
No one has challenged (before you) something so innocuous as my simple use of the word "ever" in a context where anyone should have been able to know what I meant.
I heard several "weather types" on the news last night say "the hottest May 19th ever in Phoenix" and not once did I think, "Hey Guys, do you mean "ever in recorded history" or just ever EVER since the beginning of Earf? Clarify Please!!!"
I don't post "hidden meanings" in my stuff. Some here might, but I do not.
Please, you're not going to try and justify misusing the language because of what you heard some "weather types" say on the news are you?
Regarding your hidden messages, I don't know, maybe you actually believe some of the more inflammatory stuff you write. Regardless, while I may have been the only person who challenged your usage of "Ever", you have to be honest and admit that you're constantly being challenged and even ridiculed for the things you've posted, and not just by me.
I heard several "weather types" on the news last night say "the hottest May 19th ever in Phoenix" and not once did I think, "Hey Guys, do you mean "ever in recorded history" or just ever EVER since the beginning of Earf? Clarify Please!!!"
The news and media are there to promote sensationalism and thus increase their ratings. They love tragedy and disasters. They do a disservice to the public by failing to explain that the world operates in CHAOS - unpredictable and exceptional events are fairly normal. Events are happening all the time (relative to the 4 billion year history), and mankind's existence is inconsequential both in 1) the percent of time we've been around, and 2) the eventual fate of the Earth and the solar system (unless we someday evolve into god-like beings and can move the planet, or refuel the Sun).
I did not MISUSE the language. EVERYONE KNEW WHAT I MEANT, just like the hundreds of thousands of people watching Phoenix newscasts last night knew what the weather wonks meant. "Ever" when talking about record high temperatures in almost every case means "ever in recorded history" and obviously not "ever since the dawn of the Earf."
And what does my admitting I have been ridiculed and challenged have to do with our current conversation? Not much. I don't have to admit it - it's obvious.
Just because it has happened does not make your mischaracterization of my use of the word "ever" any more logical or acceptable, does it?
Not correct for Phoenix, in cases when the high temp record for a date is broken.
We have a lot of days every year which is the "hottest temp ever for that day in recorded history" and reporting it is not abnormal, sensationalizing, or "sky is falling" at ALL here in this town.
It's just business as usual when that is reported here. They say it just out of course of habit.
The news here does NOT LIKE to play up the heat, because that drives visitors and potential new residents away. They usually try to minimize the heat situation whenever possible.
But when it's a record, well, they SAY it's a record. It's not for ratings - it's just for reporting the facts as they stand.
I think it is. Because we also know in that period of time it has gotten a lot colder and a lot hotter than it is now. So that would indicate to me that CO2 has little to do with climate change. High concentrations of CO2 could be the result of clearing all the trees in Iowa to grow corn for Ethanol. Or the rain forest being cleared to grow sugarcane and soybeans.
To put this debate on a different level. Would you agree that setting a new record by ONE degree over 150 years is pretty insignificant. And if that record was from the 1850s it is more evidence that man has had little to do with the change. Maybe if you took May 19th as a good day to graph and looked at the high for that day over the last 150 years you could find some trend. Or, maybe not.
I remember The Chili Cook-off the first week in April 1984 and the temp was 105 degrees in Lake Havasu at the airport. The official NWS report was only 95. Because they used Needles as a reference for all that area. Too much variation to trust old records in my opinion.
Hold the presses, I got a question from this decidedly biased scientist???
It is important all of us recognize that collectively we are participating in a significant moment in evolution of the Earth’s climate. And the news is not encouraging. The last time the atmosphere experienced this amount of CO2 was prior to the appearance of humans as a species.
SO, what caused the high levels of CO2 prior to man inhabiting the planet? Is it possible that same condition now exists?
Like I have said before Gary - the "official temperature" for any given city is not an "average" of 50 readings around the city.
It's the ONE OFFICIAL SOURCE that matters.
I can have 120 in my backyard when the official temp might be 115 but that variance means NOTHING AT ALL when analyzing historical temperatures !!!
Can someone ELSE besides me try to convince Gary that historical temperatures are not to be doubted ??????
I challenged him before to find me one peer-respected climate scientist who agrees which him that the modern era temperature records mean NOTHING as Gary thinks, and so far no one has.
Is that not an indication that I am right when I say "when analyzing temp trends, the most useful data is the historical temp data."
Because what else is there to use? Asking some old guys at a retirement community if they remember the hottest May 19th ever?
Is that not an indication that I am right when I say "when analyzing temp trends, the most useful data is the historical temp data."
What is there to challenge? It is a bunch of old musty records found on a calendar in an old trunk in someones attic. My point is you cannot use data from a distant location and claim it is the official temperature at another location. There is just not enough data from even 20 years ago to make any reasonable claims on the planet warming or cooling. There are huge vast areas of the planet that NO ONE is taking temperature readings from. Including the Oceans that Scientist say controls 80-90% of the global temperatures. Think of the vastness of all the oceans. Just over the last 10 years scientists have placed 3000 precision measuring devices to cover those vast areas of water. The findings are coming in. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN OCEAN TEMPERATURE. Do you have data to refute that? Here is my data.
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.
Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.
So, up to 20% of the GW can occur without the ocean temps being involved, you say?
How about this from the NOAA:
"The combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for April ranked 13th warmest since worldwide records began in 1880."
and also:
Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest since 1880 for the month of March 2008.
That 20% apparently can make an impact in overall temps. I guess that's why 19 of the last 25 years have been hotter than normal in the USA. Not a lot of ocean in the USA.
Sunday hit 105 degrees. Monday's high was 110. This is the second time in recorded history that the first 100-degree day of the year was followed immediately by the first 110-degree day of the year. The only other time this has happened was May 25 and 26, 1951, when it hit 106 degrees and 112, respectively.
So, does that mean we are headed for the hottest summer EVER RECORDED in Phoenix? Probably not. This is probably just a high pressure system that got a little over-ambitious.
The highs Thursday and Friday are supposed to be in the mid-70s.
C'mon people! - where are the in-laws jokes to that!
I'm going to the beach next month at Cape May to a hotel that's been there for 100+ years. I'll let you know how cold the water is, and if the tide is coming into the bar-area. If the sea is rising too quickly, maybe they'll convert it into a booze-cruise.
That study to me kind of trumps some of the older studies based more on computer models than actual data. If what they are saying is true that the oceans are 80-90% of our climate, it leaves very little room for GHG to cause much impact.
Yes I read that and believe it is based on erroneous records. We just disagree on that study you use. I will agree that some areas of the Arctic is melting. I have read two studies that refute each other on Antarctic ice. It seems to be a godsend in Greenland where they are raising cattle for the first time in over 1000 years. It is also making oil exploration and production possible that was heretofore impractical. So I look at the bright side of life. I will repeat. Living in a cave and driving a Yugo is not in my plan for retirement. If San Diego gets too hot, I have a place in MN and HI to get cooled off. Both well above the level the oceans will rise to when all the ice melts.
Ever use glacier ice in a drink? It lasts much longer and is kind of blue in color. Lasts a lot longer that regular ice cubes.
Gary says, "Living in a cave and driving a Yugo is not in my plan for retirement."
Nice for you, but what about your grandkids and their grandkids? I'm going to keep my carbon footprint as small as possible within a very stringent comfort zone in order to do my part for the future. Call me silly if you want, but just don't call me wasteful.
I appreciate going to SoCal and being able to take a deep breath without coughing, which in 1984/1985 was impossible to do. I want the air in LA to be far, far cleaner for future generations so the views at the coast are as beautiful as they should be, instead of smog-laden.
Think how beautiful the Coronado beach view would be with clear skies !!!????!!!!
I have a sneaking suspicion that the temp is sort of like the rainfall. I read somewhere that, in total, about the same amount of rain falls each day worldwide. Since I read this it must be true. So it makes sense to me that the average temp worldwide is also about the same on a daily basis. If it is hot in one place, it is cold in another. If it is much hotter in one place then it is much colder in another, etc.
I think I will call this the HET syndrome. That would be the Houdini Extrapolation Theory. Theory? What am I thinking? I have all the facts so I have just decided that this is no longer a theory but an absolute fact. HEF syndrome. That's sounds much better.
Think how beautiful the Coronado beach view would be with clear skies !!!????!!!!
I can see Coronado and Pt Loma on the clear days now. Most of the time the sunsets are orange from the less than perfect skies. At least it is nothing like it was in the 1950s & 1960s & 70s when you could not breathe. It was much better in the 1980s after they got the lead out. People living in the desert will have a bigger carbon footprint than those on the mild coastal communities. You have to run AC to survive. That was why I sold my place in Lake Havasu. I had a swamp cooler for the under 100 degree days and AC for the 100-122 degree days. I can remember many nights that did not get below 100 degrees. The pool stayed about 90 all summer so it was refreshing. The lake was cooler so most days we spent down in the water to save on AC.
My kids and grandkids are already experiencing the cost of being in a country run by environmental elitist. They have to pay more for everything as a result. From rent, to cars to fuel to food. The manufacturing jobs are sent to where they do not have to worry about the environmental regulations. And we end up with a huge part of our population living on the ragged edge of poverty.
The whole global warming crowd would like to reduce even further our growth. You cannot go backwards without economic repercussions. That will be what our children have to contend with. No decent jobs and much higher cost of living.
I think we got you beat. Monday it was 101 here and right now it is 55 degrees. The beauty of GW, is you can blame it all on George Bush and the guy driving an SUV. Good weather, bad weather, typhoons, tornados and earthquakes. I guess Al hasn't blamed the earthquake in China on GW yet. There is still time.
You've got that cold front that's coming our way already. For Phoenix, a 39 degree drop in a four day period is pretty unusual under ANY weather circumstances.
It also rained very lightly here this morning. So you may get some rain out of it. The weirdest part was when we were right at 100 degrees the wind was out of the West. Usually our hot days are fed from the East. I wish Al Gore would quit messing with the weather so we get back to our 75 degrees day in and day out. This is crazy.
Yep, we are expecting rain. We've gone about 85+ days without any measurable precip at the OFFICIAL WEATHER STATION and this storm is expected to end the streak.
And when you get that heat from the East, that's just Phoenix opening the vent. You are welcome.
Comments
P.S. It's 109 degrees right now in Phoenix.
We hit about 92 today and 97 yesterday. Our normal is 78 this time of year.
The official word is the Year of the Rat is fighting the Year of the Horse and it caused that Chinese earthquake. So it may have caused Phoenix to get so hot today also.
Heck Portland Oregon is in the upper 80s, of course that was caused by Obama and the huge crowd he had there.
Everyone wants to blame someone or something for the weather. I will go with it being the SUN that controls our climate.
The previous record for today was 105 degrees, so this is a little above EVER RECORDED for this date.
But I'm used to that happening, too...............:)
What does this all mean? So far at least, May has been rather colder than it's "supposed" to be based upon the last 150 years or so of collected weather data. So? So nothing, the fact that we've averaged a high of 65 and a low of 43 is no more significant than the fact that you're cooking in 109 degree weather right now (geez, 109 is seven degrees hotter than our town has ever gotten, errr, at least for the last 150 years or so). :P
Geez that's a misleading statement if I've ever seen one. When you use the word "EVER", you are implying since the beginning of time. Sorry to break the news to you, but I absolutely guarantee that Phoenix has been hotter, no, MUCH hotter than 109 on 19-May at some point in time, errr, likely MANY points in time since "time" began.
This was an interesting link over in the $4 a gallon gas discussion:
emmanuelchoke, "What will you do when gas price rises above $4 a gallon?" #7484, 19 May 2008 2:27 pm
As would I, this time of the year. :shades: Out here I guess I will put away my snow skiing and snow board gear.
No, they are paid lackeys of Bush and the oil industry. At least that is how the global warming crowd will portray them. Remember facts are of no use when dealing with "feelings".
Oh, BTW, our high today was 51. 20 degrees BELOW normal. (HELP, HELP, the new ice age is coming).
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
PS
Everyone knows Bush caused Katrina and now the Typhoon in Burma, according to Gore.
I've been mentioning that it is possible to create oil and gasoline by condensing the gases in the atmosphere, for quite a while on these forums. It is the reverse of the combustion process. Almost any chemical reaction can be reversed. It just takes more energy than was initially used in the 1st reaction. So as I said before - create fusion reactors and then you have the energy to make whatever fuels you want; or you have the energy to scrub the atmosphere and create whatever mix of gases you want.
Fusion reactors creating and changing the atmospheres is exactly what many scientists predict will allow us to colonize other planets.
"Ever in recorded history" is OBVIOUSLY what was meant. I think most people reading this board realize that.
And the high hit 110 degrees at around 1 PM yesterday. Not that it has any bearing on any GW discussions - I was just reporting my local weather.
I think a better way of saying that is that it was intentionally meant to be misleading by the author so as to deliberately sway the uninformed to the author's view of the world.
By saying, "Ever in recorded history", you're mixing the qualifiers of the scope of you're message. More correct language usage would have been to say, "Ever..." or, "In recorded history...", combining the two is misleading, and I have my doubts as to whether it was done deliberately or unintentionally.
I heard several "weather types" on the news last night say "the hottest May 19th ever in Phoenix" and not once did I think, "Hey Guys, do you mean "ever in recorded history" or just ever EVER since the beginning of Earf? Clarify Please!!!"
I don't post "hidden meanings" in my stuff. Some here might, but I do not.
Regarding your hidden messages, I don't know, maybe you actually believe some of the more inflammatory stuff you write. Regardless, while I may have been the only person who challenged your usage of "Ever", you have to be honest and admit that you're constantly being challenged and even ridiculed for the things you've posted, and not just by me.
The NYT had a picture.
The "takes more energy" part did penetrate my gray matter a little though.
Is 650,000 years enough recorded history? Probably not. :P
Carbon dioxide levels highest in 650,000 years (yeah, I know - one science guy vs 31,000 others).
The news and media are there to promote sensationalism and thus increase their ratings. They love tragedy and disasters. They do a disservice to the public by failing to explain that the world operates in CHAOS - unpredictable and exceptional events are fairly normal. Events are happening all the time (relative to the 4 billion year history), and mankind's existence is inconsequential both in 1) the percent of time we've been around, and 2) the eventual fate of the Earth and the solar system (unless we someday evolve into god-like beings and can move the planet, or refuel the Sun).
And what does my admitting I have been ridiculed and challenged have to do with our current conversation? Not much. I don't have to admit it - it's obvious.
Just because it has happened does not make your mischaracterization of my use of the word "ever" any more logical or acceptable, does it?
We have a lot of days every year which is the "hottest temp ever for that day in recorded history" and reporting it is not abnormal, sensationalizing, or "sky is falling" at ALL here in this town.
It's just business as usual when that is reported here. They say it just out of course of habit.
The news here does NOT LIKE to play up the heat, because that drives visitors and potential new residents away. They usually try to minimize the heat situation whenever possible.
But when it's a record, well, they SAY it's a record. It's not for ratings - it's just for reporting the facts as they stand.
I think it is. Because we also know in that period of time it has gotten a lot colder and a lot hotter than it is now. So that would indicate to me that CO2 has little to do with climate change. High concentrations of CO2 could be the result of clearing all the trees in Iowa to grow corn for Ethanol. Or the rain forest being cleared to grow sugarcane and soybeans.
I remember The Chili Cook-off the first week in April 1984 and the temp was 105 degrees in Lake Havasu at the airport. The official NWS report was only 95. Because they used Needles as a reference for all that area. Too much variation to trust old records in my opinion.
It is important all of us recognize that collectively we are participating in a significant moment in evolution of the Earth’s climate. And the news is not encouraging. The last time the atmosphere experienced this amount of CO2 was prior to the appearance of humans as a species.
SO, what caused the high levels of CO2 prior to man inhabiting the planet? Is it possible that same condition now exists?
Best Regards,
Shipo
It's the ONE OFFICIAL SOURCE that matters.
I can have 120 in my backyard when the official temp might be 115 but that variance means NOTHING AT ALL when analyzing historical temperatures !!!
Can someone ELSE besides me try to convince Gary that historical temperatures are not to be doubted ??????
I challenged him before to find me one peer-respected climate scientist who agrees which him that the modern era temperature records mean NOTHING as Gary thinks, and so far no one has.
Is that not an indication that I am right when I say "when analyzing temp trends, the most useful data is the historical temp data."
Because what else is there to use? Asking some old guys at a retirement community if they remember the hottest May 19th ever?
Let's get real here.
What is there to challenge? It is a bunch of old musty records found on a calendar in an old trunk in someones attic. My point is you cannot use data from a distant location and claim it is the official temperature at another location. There is just not enough data from even 20 years ago to make any reasonable claims on the planet warming or cooling. There are huge vast areas of the planet that NO ONE is taking temperature readings from. Including the Oceans that Scientist say controls 80-90% of the global temperatures. Think of the vastness of all the oceans. Just over the last 10 years scientists have placed 3000 precision measuring devices to cover those vast areas of water. The findings are coming in. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN OCEAN TEMPERATURE. Do you have data to refute that? Here is my data.
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.
Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
How about this from the NOAA:
"The combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for April ranked 13th warmest since worldwide records began in 1880."
and also:
Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest since 1880 for the month of March 2008.
That 20% apparently can make an impact in overall temps. I guess that's why 19 of the last 25 years have been hotter than normal in the USA. Not a lot of ocean in the USA.
Sunday hit 105 degrees. Monday's high was 110. This is the second time in recorded history that the first 100-degree day of the year was followed immediately by the first 110-degree day of the year. The only other time this has happened was May 25 and 26, 1951, when it hit 106 degrees and 112, respectively.
So, does that mean we are headed for the hottest summer EVER RECORDED in Phoenix? Probably not. This is probably just a high pressure system that got a little over-ambitious.
The highs Thursday and Friday are supposed to be in the mid-70s.
I'm going to the beach next month at Cape May to a hotel that's been there for 100+ years. I'll let you know how cold the water is, and if the tide is coming into the bar-area. If the sea is rising too quickly, maybe they'll convert it into a booze-cruise.
BTW gagrice - that's an excellent article (the NPR ocean temp. one) that clearly states the major gaps in science understanding the climate.
>Flawed
>Data
>Knowingly
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
See my post #2793, which I think you may have missed. Apparently warming is still occurring with the oceans not warming up.
Ever use glacier ice in a drink? It lasts much longer and is kind of blue in color. Lasts a lot longer that regular ice cubes.
Nice for you, but what about your grandkids and their grandkids? I'm going to keep my carbon footprint as small as possible within a very stringent comfort zone in order to do my part for the future. Call me silly if you want, but just don't call me wasteful.
I appreciate going to SoCal and being able to take a deep breath without coughing, which in 1984/1985 was impossible to do. I want the air in LA to be far, far cleaner for future generations so the views at the coast are as beautiful as they should be, instead of smog-laden.
Think how beautiful the Coronado beach view would be with clear skies !!!????!!!!
I think I will call this the HET syndrome. That would be the Houdini Extrapolation Theory. Theory? What am I thinking? I have all the facts so I have just decided that this is no longer a theory but an absolute fact. HEF syndrome. That's sounds much better.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I can see Coronado and Pt Loma on the clear days now. Most of the time the sunsets are orange from the less than perfect skies. At least it is nothing like it was in the 1950s & 1960s & 70s when you could not breathe. It was much better in the 1980s after they got the lead out. People living in the desert will have a bigger carbon footprint than those on the mild coastal communities. You have to run AC to survive. That was why I sold my place in Lake Havasu. I had a swamp cooler for the under 100 degree days and AC for the 100-122 degree days. I can remember many nights that did not get below 100 degrees. The pool stayed about 90 all summer so it was refreshing. The lake was cooler so most days we spent down in the water to save on AC.
My kids and grandkids are already experiencing the cost of being in a country run by environmental elitist. They have to pay more for everything as a result. From rent, to cars to fuel to food. The manufacturing jobs are sent to where they do not have to worry about the environmental regulations. And we end up with a huge part of our population living on the ragged edge of poverty.
The whole global warming crowd would like to reduce even further our growth. You cannot go backwards without economic repercussions. That will be what our children have to contend with. No decent jobs and much higher cost of living.
Keep us informed Lars if you get the coldest weather EVER. Actually I'll just look it up as the only temp. that counts is the 1 official one.
The high Friday is supposed to be 71. That will still keep it under the record. I'm still sweating from the three consecutive days of 105+ though.
And when you get that heat from the East, that's just Phoenix opening the vent. You are welcome.
The high temp at my place was 93F on Saturday - Seattle hit 90 that day the earliest on record. It's about 55F here right now.
Question: What do Jupiter and Earth have in common?
Hint: It is not the automobile.