Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 22 2021, @03:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the hot-stuff! dept.

2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows:

Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, the year's globally averaged temperature was 1.84 degrees Fahrenheit (1.02 degrees Celsius) warmer than the baseline 1951-1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. 2020 edged out 2016 by a very small amount, within the margin of error of the analysis, making the years effectively tied for the warmest year on record.

"The last seven years have been the warmest seven years on record, typifying the ongoing and dramatic warming trend," said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. "Whether one year is a record or not is not really that important – the important things are long-term trends. With these trends, and as the human impact on the climate increases, we have to expect that records will continue to be broken."

[...] A separate, independent analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that 2020 was the second-warmest year in their record, behind 2016. NOAA scientists use much of the same raw temperature data in their analysis, but have a different baseline period (1901-2000) and methodology. Unlike NASA, NOAA also does not infer temperatures in polar regions lacking observations, which accounts for much of the difference between NASA and NOAA records.

Like all scientific data, these temperature findings contain a small amount of uncertainty – in this case, mainly due to changes in weather station locations and temperature measurement methods over time. The GISS temperature analysis (GISTEMP) is accurate to within 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit with a 95 percent confidence level for the most recent period.

[...] In the long term, parts of the globe are also warming faster than others. Earth's warming trends are most pronounced in the Arctic, which the GISTEMP analysis shows is warming more than three times as fast as the rest of the globe over the past 30 years, according to Schmidt. The loss of Arctic sea ice – whose annual minimum area is declining by about 13 percent per decade – makes the region less reflective, meaning more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans and temperatures rise further still. This phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, is driving further sea ice loss, ice sheet melt and sea level rise, more intense Arctic fire seasons, and permafrost melt.

[...] NASA's full surface temperature data set – and the complete methodology used to make the temperature calculation – are available at:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

The report acknowledged the effects of the fires in Australia and of the ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation).


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @03:44PM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @03:44PM (#1103777)

    Then shutting down the world economy for one year did nothing to stop the warming.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:53PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:53PM (#1103797)

      It must be Sweden's and Belarus' fault then. Saint Greta's homeland of all places. Their failure to lock down for (5)2 weeks to flatten the curve has doomed us all!

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @05:06PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @05:06PM (#1103806)

        Holy shit, you trolls are even stupider than I realized. Your obsession with Greta is creepy and leads me to believe you may well be a pedo. Seek professional help, weirdo.

        This thread is moronic. Carbon dioxide has a long residence time in the atmosphere. Even if we stopped ALL greenhouse gas emissions now, the greenhouse gases we've already produced have a long residence time. Temperatures would remain quite warm for several decades, at least. Positive feedbacks like lower albedo due to melting ice sheets and sea ice would actually result in continued warming for a period of time. We definitely need to greatly reduce our carbon emissions because it will help over time, but we've already done a lot of damage that will persist for many decades, at least. Aside from developing much improved carbon sequestration or creating a space sunshade, we don't have a lot of options for preventing at least several decades of very warm conditions.

        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @05:16PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @05:16PM (#1103814)

          > We definitely need to greatly reduce our carbon emissions because it will help over time

          What will it help? The only reason there are carbon emissions to begin with is life likes to take disorganized stuff and turn it into ever more organized stuff while releasing a bunch of waste heat as a side-effect.

          If you want to stop humans from doing that, then you are acting contrary to the laws of nature and are not going to have a good time.

          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @08:56PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @08:56PM (#1103918)

            Troll?

            Please show me a form of life on earth that does not increase the entropy of it's surroundings, ie increases the rate at which IR is emitted to space.

            If you want to stop that, you literally want death to all life. Meanwhile, nature rewards activities that reduce the constraints on energy flow. Nature will wipe you out if you go up against it. Just go with the flow.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by https on Friday January 22 2021, @10:23PM (1 child)

              by https (5248) on Friday January 22 2021, @10:23PM (#1103941) Journal

              Yes, troll. Deliberate attempt to trick the unwary and naive with lies, or to present bullshit arguments in a frame plausible to the unwary.

              It's not that you're uninterested in participating in serious discourse. It's that you're deliberately trying to disrupt it, even though you have the intellectual capacity to add to it. The only possible redemption for such activity is if it is actually funny, but... said post isn't even trying for that. Hence, troll.

              The problem is not the fact of entropy. The problem is that the most popular processes (fossil fuels) have serious ecosphere damaging effects at the scale humans have decided to implement them.

              --
              Offended and laughing about it.
              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @10:34PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @10:34PM (#1103946)

                If you have a problem with burning fossil fuels on earth specifically then the solution is to do it in outer space or on other moons planets. This solution is consistent with the laws of nature and will be rewarded.

                Alternatively you can use an even more productive energy source. Then people will just stop burning so much because it would be stupid to do.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:01AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:01AM (#1104120)

              Please show me a form of life on earth that does not increase the entropy of it's surroundings, ie increases the rate at which IR is emitted to space.

              Fuck off, idiot. There's no equivalency between entropy increase and the rate of IR emission.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @04:22PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @04:22PM (#1104190)

                IR emission is how waste heat leaves the earth.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @03:26AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @03:26AM (#1104066)

          Saint Greta the Grumpy is legal by now.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @05:32PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @05:32PM (#1103819)

      Correct, and that just proves we need to shut it down longer.

      Remember kids, burning down cities is carbon negative in the long run -- as long as you don't let them build it back.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @09:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @09:26PM (#1103929)

        Jogging in your newly acquired trainers also saves on emitted CO2 from public transport.

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @05:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @05:49PM (#1103825)

      That's correct, and nobody expected it to. Who told you that it would?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:29PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:29PM (#1103846)

      You're technically correct, in this case the worst kind of correct.

      Slowing down the warming was a very good thing, and there were added benefits of less pollution resulting in cleaner air and water. Trying to derail solutions to problems just because they aren't instant or total solutions is a special kind of wrong.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @09:50PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @09:50PM (#1103935)

        Slowing down the warming was a very good thing, and there were added benefits of less pollution resulting in cleaner air and water.

        So Trump did good then since he ruined the economy?

        Looks like we still got 0.123 C of warming under him so not that good. Still better than most democrats though. We sill see if Biden can defeat FDR for the title of most warming. Obama came close but couldn't make it:

        https://i.ibb.co/rZmp6rc/temp-By-Pres2020.png [i.ibb.co]

        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt [nasa.gov]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:04AM (#1104028)

          Nah, he did his best to keep us burning full tilt in an attempt to keep the economy from changing. It resulted in a minimum of tens of thousands of preventable deaths. Measuring success by the temperature increase just shows how lame your brain is, but we all know you're not posting in good faith.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by maxwell demon on Friday January 22 2021, @06:36PM (4 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday January 22 2021, @06:36PM (#1103851) Journal

      And I just turned down my thermostat, and five minutes later the room was still warm. Clearly the heating is a scam!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @09:05PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @09:05PM (#1103920)

        If the area being heated is not your room, but the entire atmosphere of a planet, how long do you think it will take for the atmospheric temperature to come down when you turn down your thermostat a little bit? You don't comprehend the scale of the problem. Even under a best case scenario of trying to mitigate CO2 output, we are stuck with the warming.

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by Tork on Friday January 22 2021, @09:19PM (2 children)

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 22 2021, @09:19PM (#1103925)

          Even under a best case scenario of trying to mitigate CO2 output, we are stuck with the warming.

          Oh I see your problem. Your variable's set to boolean instead of float.

          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:43AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:43AM (#1104046)

            And I see your problem: you have never done even back of the envelope math to see how many tons of CO2 we'd have to stop putting in the air and where they would have to come from. You are innumerate.

            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:49AM

              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:49AM (#1104051)
              Heh. The specifics of your napkin math is exactly what I was criticizing. Although numbers aren't exactly the problem with your assertion. 🙄
              --
              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:03PM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:03PM (#1103784)

    If CO2 and methane and all the other greenhouse gasses are to blame for global warming, then we truly can't stop it.
    Short of annihilating civilization and going back to the Bronze Age, it cannot be stopped. Sorry for the hard truth.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by BsAtHome on Friday January 22 2021, @04:36PM (3 children)

      by BsAtHome (889) on Friday January 22 2021, @04:36PM (#1103790)

      Bronze age is too late. That period is already known for deforestation at very large scale with just a fraction of the current population. Imaging what happens when you scale the bronze age energy requirements by current population numbers. Not gonna work. So, back to the stone age and a reduction in population by, oh, 99.9%.

      • (Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:44PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:44PM (#1103793)

        How about this for a compromise, then?
        A large chunk of the population can take jetplane flights to far off countries to see the world and eat food trucked to their house that is out of season but flown in from the other hemisphere, and then they can complain about other people who aren't doing anything about global warming.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:03PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:03PM (#1103864)

          A large chunk of the population are private jet owners. Imagine that.

          All us peons are under lockdowns going on a year and with no end in sight, if you hadn't noticed.

          • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:13PM (#1103872)

            I most definitely noticed. I noticed the hypocrisy going back to "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore and his jetsetting all over the world and his gigantic mansion/compound while he lectured the peons and applauding idiots about how we were going to have to live like peasants to save Mother Earth.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:41PM (#1103791)

      CO2 levels and temperatures were both dramatically higher when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Even if we burned every single remaining ounce of fossil fuels we're not entering into dangerous or even uncharted territory. Granted, life would like a lot different. For instance there'd probably be a whole lot more water and greenery. In my opinion there's two components to the freakout:

      1) It will damage coastal cities which are generally built very near sea level. More inland development is an important step to prepare to the future.
      2) Publish or perish. Researchers need to publish articles and there's just never-ending bait here. This, in turn, feeds the click-bait army of the media. The only people that lose are society who end being freaked out over something not especially worrying.

      The great climate catastrophe will likely end up just about like the great COVID catastrophe. Here [macrotrends.net] is a graph of the annual death toll in the USA. Can you spot the world ending plague used to justify destroy economies worldwide alongside mass suspension of civil liberties? Yeah, neither can I. The death toll did not meaningfully change. The freak out was 90% driven by governments and media, and 10% of actual facts. For those that don't know, the death rate of COVID for those under the age of 65 is well below 1%. Now continue to be scared and give away all your rights, please. Because the sociopathic politicians seizing power on an unprecedented level are just doing so because they care about you.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:42PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:42PM (#1103792)

      Geoengineer the problem. Orbital mirrors or stratospheric sulfur injection, your choice.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:46PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:46PM (#1103794)

        Sulfur injection would definitely cause worldwide acid rain.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:54PM (#1103800)

          Orbital bombardment it is then.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:54PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @04:54PM (#1103801)

      You're a dumbfuck troll who has nothing useful to contribute to the discussion. Sorry for the hard truth.

      As we've observed in the prehistoric past, rapidly increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere is quite deadly. That's exactly what happened during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction. Because solar output has increased over time, the same greenhouse gas concentrations in the present day would result in an even hotter Earth.

      Your comment is a false dichotomy, stating that decreasing greenhouse gas emissions would require destroying civilization as we know it. Because we have already made progress toward reducing emissions and more innovation is on the way, it most certainly appears that mitigation is a very viable option.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @05:13PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @05:13PM (#1103810)

        I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest happened during the permian-triassic extinction event, but it seems likely to be incorrect.

        I assume you're hitting on the volcanic hypothesis (and hypothesis there is - there are many possible explanations with no clear 'winner'). But that would have resulted in the exact opposite of mass heating during the period of the extinction. The idea there is that the volcanics sent a spew of ash and particles into the atmosphere. These particles then effectively block out sunlight which would result in a massive cooling as well the destruction of all plant life due to a lack of sunlight. The increase in CO2 may have yielded an increase in global warming over a period of centuries to millennia, but over a period of weeks stuff would be freezing to death - so that's a bit more relevant.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:27PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:27PM (#1103845)

          Ah yes, the science distraction

          "Your comment is a false dichotomy, stating that decreasing greenhouse gas emissions would require destroying civilization as we know it."

          You're a troll either shilling or going for keklulz, possibly an idiot with just enough education to be epically stupid.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:15PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:15PM (#1103873)

            When they gave you the script, they had not supposed you would quote from it verbatim, you idiot!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:15PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:15PM (#1103874)

            You haven't done the math to see what it would take to stop global warming.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:17PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:17PM (#1103876)

              Parent comment was aimed at commenter who said, "Your comment is a false dichotomy..."

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:08PM (#1103868)

        As we've observed in the prehistoric past,

        Shut up Noah.

        That's exactly what happened during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction.

        Are you ignorant, or are you lying?
        In the case of the former, educate yourself a bit:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event#Theories_about_cause [wikipedia.org]
        In the case of the latter, go find a better lie.

  • (Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:24PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:24PM (#1103842)

    Alt-right nerd trolls are the worst. They think they are smart, have swallowed a bunch of propaganda, and are too lazy in their perceived superiority to bother informing themselves about things they already know everything about.

    Looks like not enough users are interested enough to log in and moderate the discussions. Maybe in a few months after the trolls get used to being bigly losers we will get halfway decent discussions back.

    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @08:48PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @08:48PM (#1103916)

      Gotta love "alt-right" triggering some users into downmodding. Would alt-wrong be preferable? Or maybe just stick to old school insults like dunce, moron, idiot?

      When I first started reading SN it was with the expectation that science denying would be at a minimum, discussions would actually be constructive, and politics kept at a less serious level. All expectations crushed under the weight of ignorant trolls and fools who mix up anti-racism with anti-conservatism, though with the overlap in the two groups it is understandable.

      For a long time I gave people the benefit of the doubt, realizing that we all come from different backgrounds and perspectives. What I did not expect was for facts to be dismissed and the Qanon level of craziness to become so prevalent. Screw this post-truth world view some people are intent on keeping.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by https on Friday January 22 2021, @10:28PM

        by https (5248) on Friday January 22 2021, @10:28PM (#1103944) Journal

        I think word you're looking for in "Nazi", the rebranding as "alt-right" has failed just as badly as the previous attempt of "neo-Nazi" at concealing the actual policies.

        --
        Offended and laughing about it.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 23 2021, @01:17AM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 23 2021, @01:17AM (#1104004) Homepage Journal

        What on earth made you think we wouldn't argue about shit just because it's "science"? That's what you fucking do in science. You beat the shit out of it from every possible angle until it either breaks or stands undeniably true and fully understood.

        I believe the problem here is you want something to be declared undeniably true and fully understood when it has most certainly not reached anywhere near that bar. You might want to ask yourself why you want that.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:07AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:07AM (#1104029)

          Says one of the site's most persistent trolls that casually tosses out evidence when their "common sense" knows better.

          Thanks for encouraging the worst of this community sweetheart.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @03:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @03:20AM (#1104063)

          Scientism - the new religion for those that have abandoned Christianity as too magical.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @01:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @01:49PM (#1104158)

        As far as I can tell, science denying is quite rare. There is a lot of acrimony over the religious topic of Global Warming though.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:55PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:55PM (#1103860)

    Surely, this thread will not attract the dejected QAnon-types telling us how it can't be stopped or that it's part of "The Plan" or something.

    Global problems need global solutions. Fortunately, things like solar and energy storage have become a lot cheaper in the last few years. If only the QAnons could come together with the anti-nuclear lobby crazies, we could solve this issue.

    • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:59PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:59PM (#1103863)

      Aren't the anti-nuclear lobby crazies all from your party, comrade?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @01:52AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @01:52AM (#1104023)

        I like what our comrades with ICFI/Socialist Equality Party are saying. Nuclear power, private ownership and the profit system [wsws.org]:

        Within a rationally planned world socialist economy, the potential utilisation of nuclear power would be based on the long-term interests of the world’s population and the planet’s eco-system. The matter would be subject to the widest debate among ordinary people, based on comprehensive and objective assessments by leading nuclear scientists and energy experts. Nuclear power may have great potential as a powerful and stable source of electricity that does not generate greenhouse gas emissions and is significantly less expensive than many renewable energy alternatives—but it also comes with complex and potentially calamitous safety issues.

        The problem is not nuclear power per se, but the social and economic order under which it is developed. So long as nuclear power remains the province of private corporations and the market, the health of the environment and the safety of humankind will be subordinated to the drive for profit and enrichment of executives and big shareholders. Only under public ownership and democratic control by the working population—i.e., under socialism—is the safe harnessing and development of nuclear power conceivable.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:16AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:16AM (#1104036)

          Only under public ownership and democratic control by the working population—i.e., under socialism—is the safe harnessing and development of nuclear power conceivable.

          I would not risk what you're smoking, comrade. Really brain-liquefying stuff, that.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totskoye_nuclear_exercise [wikipedia.org]
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster [wikipedia.org]
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreev_Bay_nuclear_accident [wikipedia.org]
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster [wikipedia.org]
          Socialism is many things, but safe for the "working population", it isn't. For the ruling bureaucrats, population is nothing but another resource they spend to advance their careers.

          You are a bit too early trying to sell this fantasy. Not everyone who lived under the Soviets is dead and forgotten yet.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @08:39AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @08:39AM (#1104130)

            Thank goodness France was not the first to attempt bourgeois democratic rule. We'd have never gotten out of the feudal era for fear of another Napolean.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:13AM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:13AM (#1104123) Journal

      Fortunately, things like solar and energy storage have become a lot cheaper in the last few years.

      Because Chyana. Unfortunate as it may be, MAGA (or anyone involved in a spat with China) and they'll be expensive again.
      Wanna bet?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @03:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @03:27PM (#1104492)

        Nah, the cheapness is due to massively increased efficiency and better tech, they'll stay cheap and getting cheaper. You can rig your yard up with MFCs while you wait for the right price, bit of charcoal and some wire you'll be up and running.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @01:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @01:23PM (#1104152)

      No it primarily attracts people following "The Holy Model" they know nothing about; particularly that the model's holy forecasts are about as accurate as holy preacher's doomsday predictions are. But both (and their followers) are rarely deterred. Just scoot it back 10 more years and start freaking out again.

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:57PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:57PM (#1103861)
    • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday January 22 2021, @07:39PM (2 children)

      by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 22 2021, @07:39PM (#1103888) Homepage Journal

      I don't know about Spain, but here in Montreal in winter it's the warm days when we get snowfall.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @10:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @10:00PM (#1103937)

        When I was a lad, we wished for days it was warm enough to snow.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @03:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @03:24AM (#1104065)

        I think that is true everywhere. Low pressure in winter gives milder temperatures, but still brings precipitation.

(1)