Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the bone-chilling dept.

The BBC reports:

At least 10 people died of cold in Poland. Night temperatures in Russia plunged to minus 30C.

Normally milder Greece has witnessed temperatures of minus 15C in the north where an Afghan migrant died of cold last week and roads were closed.

In Athens, the temperature failed to rise above 0C and several of the islands were covered in snow.

BBC Weather report about why the cold is so intense.

CBC reports:

The extreme winter weather that has gripped Europe in the past days has caused more than a dozen deaths, left villages cut off, caused power and water outages, frozen rivers and lakes, grounded flights and led to road accidents. Serbia's authorities on Sunday banned river traffic on its stretch of the Danube — one of Europe's main rivers — because of ice and strong wind.

[...] In Italy, eight deaths were blamed on the cold, including a man who died in the basement of an unused building in Milan, and another one on a street flanking Florence's Arno River. [Pope] Francis asked God to "warm our hearts so we'll help" the homeless.

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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:45PM

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:45PM (#452960) Homepage Journal

    The tie is between climate change and extreme weather events. These ties are faring about as well as the rest of the climate change stuff:

    - "2007: We predict more and/or stronger hurricanes" [] Darn, it didn't happen [].

    - 2007: We predict more and stronger tornadoes [] Darn, it didn't happen [].

    - 2007: We predict more droughts and more flooding [] Darn, it didn't happen []; if you want to go back more than 20 years, then an analysis of the last 1200 years says it didn't happen [].

    Apparently attempting to answer this great predictive record, one paper writes: "The lack of certainty in the state of the science does not equate with a lack of risk, since risk is based on possibility." In other words, "because we have no clue, it's fine for us to make doomsday predictions".

    Warmer is better than colder - I'd rather live today than in the Little Ice Age.

    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday January 12 2017, @04:26PM

    by ikanreed (3164) on Thursday January 12 2017, @04:26PM (#452968) Journal

    I just ran the linear regressions on that first link's dataset. There's absolutely a p Why the fuck did you just lie to me?

    No, seriously, why did you just lie? What the hell do you get out of saying one thing when your own data says something different?

    I don't really want to go any further with clicking your stupid-ass links, because fuck you for being so goddamn intellectually lazy as to not even check whether what you were saying matched what they said. Fuck your cult-of-ignorance. Fuck your laziness. Fuck your condescending bullshit. I shouldn't have to check whether what you're saying is true. You should do that to your own statements, you stupid, dishonest lying shithead.

    In summary: fuck you.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday January 12 2017, @04:30PM

      by ikanreed (3164) on Thursday January 12 2017, @04:30PM (#452969) Journal

      Well, I will apologize for letting a stray < turn into something that ate a paragraph about how I analyzed your data, and not using preview.

      But I won't apologize for calling your dishonest bullshit bullshit. Or saying fuck you. Both of those are still entirely deserved.

    • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday January 12 2017, @09:40PM

      by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 12 2017, @09:40PM (#453077) Homepage Journal

      Geez, calm down, you'll give yourself ulcers...

      From your, um, explosion it's not entirely clear which data set you're talking about. I'll assume you mean the first one.

      Is there a trend over the course of the whole data? Maybe, I didn't check, because that's not important. What's important is this: anyone can look in the past with 100% accuracy. Gee, wow, there appears to be a trend. Let's make predictions!

      Predictions are what science is all about. The reason I chose all those 2007 articles is that they all lie 10 years in the past, and they all forecast gloom and doom for the future. Look at the data since 2007. The predictions of doom were wrong.

      In the data set that so upsets you: look at the "hurricanes" column, the average over the 10 years leading up to 2007 was 8.1. The average of all years since 2007 was 6.5. You can parse the data in lots of different ways, but one thing remains almost unalterable: The years since the prediction were made have shown relatively few hurricanes, of unexceptional intensity.

      Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.