/sci/ - Science & Math

post 100,000 years of daily temperature averages so we can see that its true

>>15556572
I remember seeing 47°c in my car thermometer, 9 years ago

The elites are secretly releasing gases into the atmosphere to make the weather hotter.

>>15556572
This is funny and I'm surprised nobody got the joke yet.

>>15556582
I remember regularly seeing 99 F when I lived in VA
>>15556596
Enlighten me
>t. Retard

>>15556615
>Enlighten me
>>t. Retard
All of the temps he listed aren't hot. Weather in the 60s is breezy outdoor sports weather.

>>15556618
It's not a joke. He really believes what he tweeted.

>>15556596
I got it, its just not that funny :/

>>15556618
I think those are meant to be global average temperatures. I don't know

>>15556572
Every single one of those days was well into the upper 80s. Is this retard in Alaska or something?

>>15556592
>secretly

>>15556618
those are global averages you stupid fucking moron

>>15556731
We don't have enough temperature record stations to make an accurate global average, so that's not possible.

>>15556572
>Source; umm SCIENCE

>>15556734
What's a number of weather stations you would accept? Would you say this regardless of the actual number? If so, your opinion is worthless.

>>15557283
If every continent had the same coverage as the USHCRN for 100 years (only half of what the USHCRN currently has data for) I would find that an acceptable level of scientific rigor.

>>15557290
The purpose of the 100 year period is that one year worth of data does not allow you to make positive claims about "hottest ever in history" temperatures. 100 years would cover at least one major climatic cycle, such as the one which saw the temperature record highs set during the 1930s, and the record lows set during the 1970s. This would make sure that no error is introduced by falsely identifying a short-term cyclical hot period as unnatural because you began your measurements in the trough of a cold period.

>>15556572
>wow once we started putting all our weather stations near large concrete structures and air conditioning exhaust, the global temps went up

It's a reasonable guess, especially since most of the past 100,000 years was a glacial maximum.
However temperature records of the past are far too granular and with to much error margin to prove this kind of statement.

The further back in time you go, the more inaccurate the proxies you have to use to estimate temperature.
Marine sediment cores and ice cores aren't realistically going to tell you how hot it was on a particular day 10,000 years ago.
There is no way to know the temperature from a day to day basis from ice cores for example.

I really hate these kinds of statements because they undermine climate science and often reveal a poor fundamental understanding of how paleoclimatology actually works.

>>15557298
All those large concrete structures and air conditioning exhausts in Antarctica.

>>15557303
For all we know every past climate cycle could have had an abrupt peak like this (and as you showed the data abundantly suggests this may be the case, though it lacks the resolution to prove it).

>>15557305
What percent of global weather stations do you think are in Antarctica?

>>15557307
Yes, you can't prove anthropogenic climate change from simply the current rate of warming compared to past warming, because at least with what we have seen so far, we can't be 100% certain it's outside of the historical norm.

The Geophysical evidence we get from studying the atmosphere and radiation flux is the actual 'smoking gun' for anthropogenic climate change.
We know that various GHG emissions are making large changes to Earth's heat budget since we can directly measure it.

>>15557319
You could only make that kind of link if you could establish that it's actually getting abnormally warmer, which as of yet hasn't been proven.

>>15557321
>which as of yet hasn't been proven.
That is wrong. You've seen evidence and you're just lying, so I stick to calling you out instead of posting the evidence a millionth time.

>>15557323

>>15557323
If it was so self-evidently true, you wouldn't need to lie about the temperature. And yet lying about the temperature is what you do.

>>15557321
The observed temperature change is not necessarily exceptional but the observed forcings are.

The changes in solar insolation that most argue drives the glacial/interglacial cycle are far far smaller than the current amount of anthropogenic forcing observed.

>>15557324
>American exceptionalism
Post global temperatures, no one gives a shit about your failed country.

>>15557328
I dunno, it doesn't really pass the smell test.

>>15557331
The US is the only country with an accurate and full-coverage historical temperature network. If other countries did their due diligence I would post their measurements too but they don't.

>>15557331
>>>/pol/

>>15557332
A wait and see approach regarding the stability of the earth climate system is probably not a good idea.

>>15557325
There are a number of folks who question the need for adjustments at all. Why not just use raw temperatures, they ask, since those are pure and unadulterated? The problem is that (with the exception of the newly created Climate Reference Network), there is really no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature record. Temperature stations in the U.S. are mainly operated by volunteer observers (the Cooperative Observer Network, or co-op stations for short). Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.

Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.

>>15557324
>>15557335
How convenient to not post the global temperatures then. That means we don't need to slightly inconvenienced in an effort to stop global warming.

>>15557335
NOAA puts sensor networks all over the ocean and in ally countries, not to mention all the satellites in space.

>>15557339
>For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.
This has been proven to be completely false with data from MMTS thermometers in Australia. They read hotter a majority of the time, and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is currently caught up in a huge scandal for trying to cover it up.

>>15557343
>ZOG would never lie

>>15557341
Wait til you find out how many actual measurements are used to make those graphs.

>>15557345
Complain about it to >>15557335 who said US is the only one with due diligence without realizing their sensor network is global and space based.

>>15557350
>maybe if i gaslight enough people will just start believing me

>>15557354
You are the liar trying to gaslight people into believing that NOAA doesn't consist of international sensor networks and is somehow only relegated to one nation when they employ thousands of satellites, ocean drones, and weather balloons with global coverage.

Has anyone tried to calculate how many billions of dollars of economic activity is being wasted on the climate religion?
Remember, in order to justify climate policy, you need proof for EACH link in this logical chain:
>the climate is getting warmer
>this is being caused by human activity
>the temperature increase is at a rate too fast for life on Earth to adapt to
>reducing carbon emissions enough to see a desirable reduction in warming is possible
>the policies needed to bring about that reduction in emissions will not create more human suffering than the warming itself will create
That last link is the most important one!

>>15556572
> Hottest day on Earth
> less than 18 degrees Celsius
Do you have to ask? That professor is joking, mocking the pseudoscientific theory pushed down the population's throats via non-scientific methods.

>>15557392
the unfunny thing is that your retard strategy will actually work because there are enough retards around

>>15557392
This. It was pointed out up above too >>15556618

>>15557392
>>15557429
it's a global average you stupid fucking morons. What the fuck happened to /sci/ that it's undistinguishable from /pol/?

There is no joke, there is a mystery that he scrambled the order for some reason that's it.

>>15557760
Wait, i get the order now nvm.

>>15557760
>there is a mystery that he scrambled the order for some reason
i can't even tell if you're joking. Jesus fucking christ this board is a joke

>low quality climate bait of a twitter post
I think >>>/pol/ is more your speed shlomo

>>15557391
if you think this is some gotcha moment then you have brain damage. We know those things to be true for longer than you live

>>15557303
>x axis changes scale in 1860
imagine being this fucking dishonest. climate soientists deserve to be disemboweled by cartel sicarios.

>>15556731
>>15556734
>>15557283
Average global temperature is what was stated, but the actual list is manipulated data temperatures.

>>15557305
Are you so daft as to think it wouldn't effect their precious average global temperature either way?

>>15557743
What happened is you're replying to /pol/tards.

>>15557994
Have you never seen charts with changing scale? Do you think non-linear scales like logarithmic scales are dishonest as well?

>>15557743
>global average
What a nice number you can never verify! Very convenient for believing in science pseuds like yourself. Did they include temperature in Antarctica to that chart? Anyway, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeGDlFizYVs

>>15556572
No. Global warming is a scam only morons believe.

>>15558500
There are enough weather stations in the world to get a good approximate of the average global temperature. What's wrong with it?

>>15556572
This is an extremely funny joke. I bet he baited a lot of people into believing it.

>>15558564
>There are enough weather stations in the world to get a good approximate of the average global temperature. What's wrong with it?
You cannot know it, you never tested them, you didn't even watch the video I gave you, you're a believer (the opposite of a scientist)

>>15556731
Real scientists are far more precise in what they write than this.

>>15558704
>you never tested them
Did you test the Hubble telescope? Space isn't real! Did you test LIGO? Gravitational waves aren't real! Did you test the LHC? Particles aren't real!
That's how retarded your sealioning sounds if you don't believe global warming isn't real unless you tested all weather stations.

>>15557743
average based on what? how many stations? where are they located? if it's based on muh mathematical model(as corona was) then it's as true as fucking bibble you fucking religious lunatic

>>15560163
>he doesn't believe in mathematical models
Of course it's based on a mathematical model, as the average of all stations would be a completely stupid "model". Imagine the earth consisted of exactly one desert and a glacier, of equal areas. If you placed 100 stations in the desert and 10 stations on the glacier, the average of all stations would not represent the global average. So you'll always have to interpolate between the stations to create a 2D field of which you take the average. Sorry if high school maths sounds scary to you.

>>15560159
>Did you test the Hubble telescope? Space isn't real! Did you test LIGO? Gravitational waves aren't real! Did you test the LHC? Particles aren't real!
All correct.

>>15560159
None are real, yes.

How do they calculate the average in a non-location bias way? Surely if you sampled more from the poles/higher altitudes the average would be lower. Likewise for the equator and generally hotter regions. Is there some standard they use?

>>15560415
Anon, the point is to compare the average year by year.

>>15557337
Got a better one?

>>15560415
The legend indicates which set was used.

>>15560174
I'd imagine you could tesselate the Earth using a 3d voronoi diagram with the stations being the points on it. And the temperatures would be averaged using the area of the surface covered by a polygon of a particular point as weight.

>>15560415
Dunno what the standard is but I can think of a few ways to do that. For example >>15560474

>>15556731
global averages is the a stupid concept, you can keep adding or removing as many datasets you want to get the result you're trying to push.

>>15560434
Where's the data before 1850?

>>15560159
I don't believe in global warming, because its proponents sound as political activists, not scientists. You would also be able to recognize pseuds, if you wasn't a pseud yourself.
The argument that you never tested the data is just to expose your understanding as a belief. The video I for the third time telling you to watch is of someone who actually tested the data those pseuds said they used.

>>15560519
>where's the data before the invention of precision thermometer

>>15560654
>because its proponents sound as political activists, not scientists
You're the type of asshole that ignored the actual scientists for 40 years. Now that political activists tell you to listen to the scientists, you're pretending it's just activists.

>>15560686
There were no actual scientists. It was only ever politics.

>>15560697
That is wrong.

>>15560706
All the honest scientists in atmospheric and particle physics didn't believe in that nonsense.
https://youtu.be/qeGDlFizYVs

>>15560719
I'm a particle physicist and I'm telling you you're a lying piece of shit. Honestly.

>>15560719
>>15560726
Also, not a single scientist, particle physicist or otherwise is speaking about global warming in this video. You can stop spamming it.

>>15560686
I heard that saying that if you want to slander an opponent, you should describe yourself. I can see you're using that machiavelian advice. Why though?

>>15560732
That guy is more of a scientist than you will ever be. If you were a real scientist, you would attack his arguments, not his credentials, but credere is the closest to capire you're capable of.

>>15560732
That guy is more of a scientist than you will ever be. If you were a real scientist, you would attack his arguments, not his credentials, but credere is the closest to capire you seem to be capable of.

>>15560767
>500+ EXPERIENCED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS
Let's look into this. I haven't heard of this declaration, so I googled it.
>a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals
Oh? Scientists and not just climate scientists? AND professionals? So not even 500 scientists? Let's look at the list:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf
The first guy is a fucking publicist. The second is a retired civil engineer lmao. The first guy who might be a climate scientist is number 13, as an IPCC reviewer.
>Low temperature curing maintenance coatings comprising (a) epoxy resin (b) polyamine curing agent (c) polymer containing pendant aminoester groups and (d) organic solvent
Ok, not a climate scientist either.
After the first place I lost interest. There might be climate scientists further down, but claiming that all 500 of them are climate scientists is just a cheap fucking lie.

>>15560782
I'm attacking the claim
>All the honest scientists in atmospheric and particle physics didn't believe in that nonsense.
There's not a single scientist in atmospheric and particle physics talking about global warming in this video. There's no argument to attack.

>>15560790
>I'm attacking the claim
Now attack the data he tested and found lacking.

>>15560788
> a publicist cannot be a scientist
And Nicola Tesla was just an engineer, right?
But Greta on the other hand..
Here's a couple of big ones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOtiRB3uyk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOtiRB3uyk
I also heard an actual climatologist lady speaking as a scientist (with facts and not predictions (which never came true, btw, what else do you need to disregard that failed hypothesis?)) but it's removed from youtube, also doesn't ring a bell, right? And I _never_ saw a single global warming proponent, who would sound as a scientist (you would know what it means if you was one, as every specialist can soon notice ignorance of an impostor)

the other big one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmy0tXcNTPs
and I'm yet to hear a single jew speaking about it being a hoax.
Here, to balance the previous expert, a jewish physicist, speaking about what we should do, and not going into detail about why or how what he said is true (other than some babble "even if we're not certain, and I'm not sure we're not certain" (and such manner is what I was referring to, when I said that all global-arming-alarmists speak like politicians and not like scientists)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rmtrRniZqw

>>15561118
>we need to put less CO2 in the atmosphere
>the only action he can think of is to place heavy taxes on citizens buying gas
How about, uh... nuclear power plants replacing coal and gas power plants? Maybe the government can spend some of its trillions of dollars in tax money to fund something like that?

>>15556572
I mean it's a screenshot it must be!

>>15556731
How do they calculate the average? Temperature stations spaced out at even intervals across the surface of the earth?

https://archive.is/b226t

>>15557341
>slightly inconvenienced
yes pay more money to the government and replace your car with one that's twice as expensive and won't last half as long and it's shortest lived and most expensive component is one of the worst materials for the environment imaginable, that'll fix it. Because it's all our fault with our consumer vehicles btw keep expanding the globalized producer/consumer economy that necessitates shipping vast quantities of goods all around the world with container ships that belch out more emissions to go 100 nautical miles than a thousand cars will in their entire lifetime

>>15562299
A car that relies on mandatory firmware updates that can lock you out of basic features if you don't pay your subscription fees, too.

>>15556618
I think it’s supposed to be an average. I was looking at it to and I was split between it being an average or it being a joke now I feel like a dimwit. I hope one day he explains what he meant and op explains why he posted it and what he meant by it.

>>15562611
Nah he's just trolling. It's a joke to mess with warmists.

>>15562618
Wrong.

>>15561650
You don't need them at even intervals to do that.

>>15562906
It would help to have even coverage to avoid concentrating all stations in a few spots (for example, on the tarmac at airports or in the middle of cities).

>>15556572
>Is this true?
with the overwhelming scientific literature and data collected about this shit, the only people that still argue climate change is an hoax are literally brain dead apes seeking nothing more from life than short term gratification.. i cannot understand why ignorant people, that don't bother to read and learn about a subject, still have the courage to make stupid fucking arguments that make no logical sense to anyone with over 100 iq

>>15562998
> I am smart because I can read
That is how you sound, regardless of your position. Being written and published doesn't make something true.

>>15563020
It's okay, you don't need to get defensive about being barely literate, I hear a large percentage of Americans are, and they're a developed nation! Must be normal if roughly a fifth of the country is too, you're fine!

>>15557341
Inconvenience yourself faggot. Leave us alone.

>>15557391
A lot, but probably less than whats being stolen via inflation. If these climate kikes actually believed their lies they'd stop having a debt based system.

Deflation is natural and desired. Things getting cheaper is good.

>>15557977
I doubt it. Even if we assume a,b,c,d are true...:
a>the climate is getting warmer
b>this is being caused by human activity
c>the temperature increase is at a rate too fast for life on Earth to adapt to
d>reducing carbon emissions enough to see a desirable reduction in warming is possible
e>the policies needed to bring about that reduction in emissions will not create more human suffering than the warming itself will create

...is to figure out if climate change is any threat to humans. It is not, by the claims I have seen. Sure some animals might go extinct if they don't get put in a zoo, but those animals simply arent important to humans. All the other crap about climate change, humans will just adapt to.

If you disagree please tell me what you believe will happen.

>>15557319
>5Wm^-2
Isn't that quite a small number to measure of the 1000Wm^-2 or so that hit the earth?

>>15561650
A combination of reporting stations scattered around the world at inconsistent intervals & density along with readings from satellites.

>>15557339
don't get it. why don't you just report what the thermometer says? You've got so many measurements that it'll all cancel out.

>>15563098
Because the thermometer says it isn't warming and we don't need to eat the bugs or live in the pod.

>>15557343
So it's missing Russia and China, the first and third largest countries on the planet?

>>15563109
It also has no sensors in Africa. They claim to have them, but if you read the temperature records in those places you'll find that they often stopped being maintained in the 80s and 90s when decolonization happened. This video highlights the issue.
https://youtu.be/qeGDlFizYVs

>>15563109
It also has many faulty sensors in Africa so there's little coverage there. They claim to have the data, but if you read the temperature records in those places you'll find that they often stopped being maintained in the 80s and 90s when decolonization happened. This video highlights the issue.
https://youtu.be/qeGDlFizYVs

>>15563025
I'm not american, but being fond of reading is some nigger-tier achievement, so do not brag.
Also notice how you couldn't counter my argument, so you resorted to insults.

>>15563188
you made no point to counter, you just sounded upset someone was more literate than you, if you're not sitting at the US's 79% literacy you must be sitting at an even niggerdly tier for how poorly you seem to be comprehending any of these posts :^)

>>15556572
That's a pretty funny joke desu. Not many people will get it.

>>15556592
You mean like CO2?

>>15563206
Photosynthesis is endothermic, enhanced CO2 is increasing flora coverage and density both on land and in the sea, hence CO2 release is endothermic.

>>15563203
>you made no point to counter
actually I did, for somebody who love to read you have surprisingly low reading comprehension:
>> being written and published doesn't make something true.
The most interesting things I know I have figured out by myself. And yes, I read a lot and have a huge library I mostly collected myself.

>>15563092
That's what makes me suspicious, if you just average out measurements in cities which are typically warmer than surrounding areas, it seems like it would be biased in some way. Plus do they really have readings for 100,000 years? I'd like to see how they calculate the average anyway. I haven't seen the method posted.

>>15563242
But the world has less tree coverage than ever due to deforestation.

>>15563281
Leaf density and coverage is increasing year by year, and deserts are shrinking year by year.
Deforestation is a local and transient phenomenon.

>>15563391
Source? The Sahara is expanding and the Amazon is less forested than ever.

>>15563488
>the Amazon is less forested than ever.
The Amazon used to be almost completely deforested when it was home to giant cities and expansive farms and plantations in pre-Columbian times.

>>15560686
40 years ago the kikes said it was global cooling we needed to be worried about not warming

>>15563577
Can you cool it, uh, warm it with the antisemitism, thanks.

https://extinctionclock.org/

>>15563578
sure

>>15563580
Thanks for the link, chud.

>>15562957
It wouldn't. There are plenty of ways to avoid that problem without uniformly distributed stations.

>>15563059
Deflation is related to the value of currency. Just because the currency deflates doesn't mean things are cheaper.

>>15563080
No, it's quite significant. If Earth was a blackbody that would be 0.8K of a difference. That would be without including any of the effects greenhouse gasses or the thermal mass of the atmosphere.

>>15563115
You really don't need to keep shilling your own youtube channel here.

>>15563242
Did you count the energy released due to emission of that CO2?

>>15563580
The author of this website is obviously ESL and needs to understand the concept of a conjunctive. I know that Japanese has a similar concept, so I suspect it's some bush language, as Romance and Germanic definitely have this as well.
If something "could" happen and it doesn't, that mean the statement was wrong. If you throw up a grape in the air, you *could* catch it. If you don't, that doesn't mean you were never able to, to begin with. Everyone shilling this narrative should kill themselves asap

Does that mean we know the average temperature of every day on Earth for the last 100,000 years to 0.01 degree accuracy? Help me out here.

>>15564187
Do you need to know the temperature to this accuracy to make such a claim?

The weirdest part about climate change denial is not the lie that it isn't happening, but the lie that some civilization-altering, deindustrializing shifts to bugs and pods would be necessary to stop it. Can someone explain where that comes from?

>>15564404
The bugs and pods are the objective, not a side effect.

>>15564437
If somebody wants bugs and pods, they're to be removed, but I don't see how denying basic realities of climate is part of that.

>>15564444
>denying basic realities of climate
The fact that you consider climate change narratives "basic realities" shows an incredible amount of bias clouding your ability to engage honestly with opposing viewpoints.

>>15564472
If the opposing viewpoint has come up with a good argument yet, I'm all ears.

>>15564472
indeed. the basic reality that i understand is that: shill after shill over the years has said the world will end by x date because of climate change (wrong, never happened), weather and climate were originally separate phenomenons according to the shills but now "climate change" is causing extreme weather (cherry-picks), there has been a deliberate exaggeration of this scam and suppression of dissenting viewpoints (see: climategate), and the people who stand to gain from the climate narrative are VCs, tech companies, and governments / NGOs who can all get free money while this hype is going on, meanwhile regular consumers are made to feel guilty about their consumption even though they contribute nothing to carbon emissions compare to larger entities.

>>15564482
>shill after shill over the years has said the world will end by x date because of climate change
when has any scientist said something that silly? The world is not at danger from climate change, all effects are strictly on a human civilization level.
>weather and climate were originally separate phenomenons
still are, as any climatologist will tell you.
>climategate
deboonked
>the people who stand to gain from the climate narrative are VCs, tech companies, and governments / NGOs
that would depend on the response that is implemented, which is separate from the issue as such
>meanwhile regular consumers are made to feel guilty about their consumption even though they contribute nothing to carbon emissions compare to larger entities
the main responsibility lies with states and industrial corporations, the average person can do fairly little about the issue

>>15564482
This is a good summary.

>>15556618
kek can't tell if this is a good bait or a genuine retard

>>15565236
It's a collection of schizobabble and lies. You're most likely a samefag, too.

>>15566015
OP's joke is very funny. I'm surprised so many people ITT fell for it.

>>15556572
thermometer was invented 100000 years ago? fucking kike (((jacobson)))

>>15563242

>>15556572
kek that's a good one

>>15557994
This is the worst bait I have ever seen.

>>15557339
Wow. That sounds ripe for scammers and people with political agendas.

>>15557339
>Why not just use raw temperatures, they ask, since those are pure and unadulterated?
Those people haven't worked as a scientist for a single day. Theres no such thing as "pure and unadulterated data".

>>15556618
those are global averages you RETARD

>>15564404
>but the lie that some civilization-altering, deindustrializing shifts to bugs and pods would be necessary to stop it. Can someone explain where that comes from?
It probably comes from people literally repeatedly saying that we need to live in pods and eat bugs in order to stop climate change.

>>15568806
Jews aren't people.

>>15568634
So on average the globe is experiencing comfortable, breezy springtime weather? Sounds good to me.

>>15564404
>>15568806
Literally nobody is suggesting deindustrialization (if you don't know why, you're retarded), you having to live in the pod in the 15 minute city and eat maggot protein paste burgers is the alternative to deindustrialization, because the cheap crap from the cheapest production center possible must flow, through as many hands as possible, in as many countries as possible, to the consumer markets where the goods can be priced as high as possible. Number must go up. Economy must be stimulated. You owning a house? Or anything at all for that matter? That's not stimulating the economy. Don't you want the economy to be good? Are you some kind of fascist?

>>15556572
This isn;t the hottest summer yet where i live. It has been pretty hot, but in years passed i have seen weeks in a row of 100 degrees or more every day. And sometimes it would stay in the 80s and 90s at night We have not broken 99 yet this year where i am, and the nights are a tolerable 70s while the day is in the 90s I'd say this is a regular hot summer but not the worst. Air quality has sucked though

>>15568920
Yeah that's based af. Sad it's just a joke albeit.

>>15556572
no. But it is the hottest in like 200 years.
>>15556618
>what is the global average
You realize Antarctic winter is in that average right? It's -60F there right now.

>>15570016
albeit ur mum