Insanely cold Midwest weather

[DarkStar189]

2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

Damn! 

[thewhyteboar]

 

[PaladinSolo]

Extreme cold sucks but it makes for amazing visuals, especially the night sky, the moon and the stars just seem so much brighter.

 

 

[Zaku3]

It's mad cold in NJ. I am on vacation so I don't technically need to leave the house but my boy is back from China so I have to go out. 

 

Also OMG there was a huge fire in Elmwood Park. A place I used to work at burned down. They couldn't do much because of how cold the weather was. Legit worse time to have a fire. 

[Jason]

 

[ort]

-5 degrees here on Tuesday... 57 degrees today... wheeeeeeeeee!!!1!!!!

[PaladinSolo]

Yeah, now the cold is gone and its almost 50 here, and reading about Australia smashing its heat records causing extreme drought and mass die offs, while the northeast also got more than 3 feet of rain in a week, we're so fucked.

[Jason]

17 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Yeah, now the cold is gone and its almost 50 here, and reading about Australia smashing its heat records causing extreme drought and mass die offs, while the northeast also got more than 3 feet of rain in a week, we're so fucked.

 

haha, cry moar libtards rolls coal in your face

[Greatoneshere]

On 2/3/2019 at 2:57 PM, Jason said:

 

haha, cry moar libtards rolls coal in your face

 

Wrecking the planet to own the libs.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Went from a few days of 25-30 to 80 today. Where's the "we could use some global warming now" crowd?

[elbobo]

we hit 60 yesterday 

[PaladinSolo]

We didn't even break records for the cold, but we broke a new record high, sure I'm in the NE and we didn't get the worst of it, but it really has become odd that we get to -10 below overnight in the middle of winter.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

The only thing hotter than the weather today is Ben's takes

 

[Greatoneshere]

It's hilarious to me that people will listen to political commentators like Ben Shapiro over scientists well versed on this topic.

[skillzdadirecta]

It's 64 degrees and Sunny in New York/New Jersey today... this "extreme cold" you speak of is fake news.

[TheLeon]

Personally, I’m loving this weather roller coaster. Sub zero last week, 60’s all this week, sharp drop back down to freezing coming up on Saturday. Definitely makes me feel like everything is fine. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I think I'm getting sick again. We went from 20s to 80 yesterday, and Thursday we'll go from close to 70 to 24.

 

I'm getting a sore throat. Fuck this.

[marioandsonic]

It was in the low 60s here today.  I loved it.

 

Then starting tomorrow it's going to rain for three days, and then go back to the 30s.  Bleh.

[skillzdadirecta]

I'm going back to Cali next week... where all we have to worry about is Fires and Earthquakes. Oh and mudslides

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

It's hilarious to me that people will listen to political commentators like Ben Shapiro over scientists well versed on this topic.

In this case, Shapiro isn’t disagreeing with the expert scientists. His contention is that the headline doesn’t reflect the body of the text accurately by omitting the time scale. Certainly you can disagree with that assessment , but it isn’t what you’re describing. He’s disagreeing with news editors

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I mean, in the terms of human lifespan it is quite a long time. In geologic timeframe, it is insanely fast moving 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I mean, in the terms of human lifespan it is quite a long time. In geologic timeframe, it is insanely fast moving 

 

"I'll be dead by the time this is a problem, it'll be my children's and grandchildren's problem so why should I care?"

[Xbob42]

I mean if people were smart enough to panic about long-term issues, idiots wouldn't be continuing to start smoking to this day. Even if you're the one that's gonna get fucked, who cares? That's tomorrow! I'm too stupid to think about that!

[Greatoneshere]

14 hours ago, sblfilms said:

In this case, Shapiro isn’t disagreeing with the expert scientists. His contention is that the headline doesn’t reflect the body of the text accurately by omitting the time scale. Certainly you can disagree with that assessment , but it isn’t what you’re describing. He’s disagreeing with news editors

 

Sorry, I was simply using that quoted post as a jumping off point about Ben Shapiro's thoughts on climate change generally (not what he was saying in that article specifically), and how many on the right take that opinion seriously. I should have made that clear. You are correct about what was happening in that post. 

[Chris-]

11 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I mean, in the terms of human lifespan it is quite a long time. In geologic timeframe, it is insanely fast moving 

 

I wouldn't call that 'quite a long time' at all; there's a good chance a decent portion of this board will be alive in 50 years.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, Chris- said:

 

I wouldn't call that 'quite a long time' at all; there's a good chance a decent portion of this board will be alive in 50 years.

 

Speak for yourself! I've been drinking myself to death Nicolas Cage-style from Leaving Las Vegas since Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee! I'll never make it to 82 at this point!  

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Sorry, I was simply using that quoted post as a jumping off point about Ben Shapiro's thoughts on climate change generally (not what he was saying in that article specifically), and how many on the right take that opinion seriously. I should have made that clear. You are correct about what was happening in that post. 

He doesn’t disagree with the science near as I can tell. He just thinks we will adapt. Limbaugh is the one who thinks it’s all a hoax.

[Greatoneshere]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

He doesn’t disagree with the science near as I can tell. He just thinks we will adapt. Limbaugh is the one who thinks it’s all a hoax.

 

My original post wasn't meant to imply he's a climate change denier, just that his view on it is not very accurate. He does not think it's a hoax, that's true (as far as I understand). 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

14 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

I wouldn't call that 'quite a long time' at all; there's a good chance a decent portion of this board will be alive in 50 years.

50 years is more than half of an average human lifetime. Which I would argue is a long time for humans. Just because it's a long time for humans doesn't mean we won't feel the effects of this (or other effects of climate change!) Within the next 5 decades 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

My original post wasn't meant to imply he's a climate change denier, just that his view on it is not very accurate. He does not think it's a hoax, that's true (as far as I understand). 

 

Is there some specific example you can think of where you felt he was out of step with the science experts on climate change? 

[Chris-]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

 

Is there some specific example you can think of where you felt he was out of step with the science experts on climate change? 

 

Taking the stance that ‘we’ll adapt’ is still pretty terrible given that adaptation may mean millions of lives and significant economic turmoil, so this seems like an oddly pedantic hill to die on. Someone’s opinion on climate change can still be completely fucked even if they accept the science. 

[Greatoneshere]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Is there some specific example you can think of where you felt he was out of step with the science experts on climate change? 

 

The fact that no scientist would suggest "we'll adapt" is where he's out of step in my opinion.

 

1 minute ago, Chris- said:

 

Taking the stance that ‘we’ll adapt’ is still pretty terrible given that adaptation may mean millions of lives and significant economic turmoil, so this seems like an oddly pedantic hill to die on. Someone’s opinion on climate change can still be completely fucked even if they accept the science. 

 

This.

[marioandsonic]

48 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

I wouldn't call that 'quite a long time' at all; there's a good chance a decent portion of this board will be alive in 50 years.

Speak for yourself.

[PaladinSolo]

Hes wrong because its not 50 years to do something about it, we have 0 years left to do that.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

The fact that no scientist would suggest "we'll adapt" is where he's out of step in my opinion.

 

 

This.

 

22 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

Taking the stance that ‘we’ll adapt’ is still pretty terrible given that adaptation may mean millions of lives and significant economic turmoil, so this seems like an oddly pedantic hill to die on. Someone’s opinion on climate change can still be completely fucked even if they accept the science. 

 

Climate scientists aren’t experts on agriculture, health, engineering, urban planning, or even politics. They can describe the effects of climate change based on how things are today, and every paper I’ve ever read on the issue always has the caveat of “without additional adaptation”. And I think that is reasonable because you can’t know what scientific and technological advances we will have in the future.

 

But why don’t we think things like malaria will eventually have a vaccine with very high efficacy? Malaria concerns being one of the large drivers of expected deaths due to

onvreasing temperatures in Africa.

 

Why don’t we expect to see food science continue to improve the yields of crops in places that have been difficult to grow sustainable food sources? Food security being another driver of expected climate deaths.

 

Unless I’m reading the current climate reports wrong, we are basically past the point of no return. Things are going to continue to change, so why wouldn’t we put our resources into dealing with a changing world?

 

3 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Hes wrong because its not 50 years to do something about it, we have 0 years left to do that.

You misunderstood. The tweet that started this dialogue was about a glacier that may cause immense sea level rise, and the article itself said the researchers believe this event will happen in 50 to 100 years. The issue isn’t how do we stop the glacier’s deterioration, it’s how do we deal with the sea levels rising in the future.