Hot Days In The Midwest Occur Half As Often As They Did 100 Years Ago

One of the greatest frauds being pushed by climate criminals is the idea that (imaginary) global warming is making summer temperatures hotter in the US. In fact, the frequency of hot days in the midwest has dropped by more than 50% over the past century.

ScreenHunter_10020 Jul. 28 11.25


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Hot Days In The Midwest Occur Half As Often As They Did 100 Years Ago

  1. Steve Case says:

    I know hat’s true for Wisconsin.

  2. How does that chart look for the whole US?

  3. Andy DC says:

    Probably more 100 degree days in 1934 and 1936 than 90 degree days this summer.

  4. Elliotness says:

    Here in Montana (SW) it has been unusually cool, we also got snow last night on the mountains..
    A low of 35 in Butte.

  5. R McMillan says:

    Lookup the Great Hinckley fire of September 1, 1884 for an example of how conditions were 120 years ago. What was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at that time compared to current decade?

  6. Justa Joe says:

    The Chicagoland area finally started getting some hot days for this summer a couple of weeks back, and just like some hibernating demonic beast the warmists have taken this opportunity for spewing the glo-bull warming BS anew. These guys were silent throughout the unseasonably cool spring and early summer.

  7. Funny, because when you take overall temperature averages, we’re breaking records nearly every year.

    So even if this graph is accurate, it’s fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It isn’t about “one area” of the Earth, and it isn’t about “one temperature set” of that one area of the Earth. It’s about total average temperature across the globe.

    People tend to forget this, but we actually live on a planet together. People in China live on the same planet as the people in the US, so on and so forth. What we do to our environment will affect everyone on the planet. What they do to the environment will affect everyone on the planet.

    So if everyone is ‘not caring’ about that thin layer of protection between the sun and the people, then eventually, the actions everyone takes will compound on top of each other and make things worse.

    Also – even if there is no ‘man-made climate change’ – what’s wrong with living better and living within the confines of our ecosystem? What’s wrong with taking care of the planet? What’s wrong with finding alternative energy that doesn’t pollute the air we breathe? What’s wrong with that? Nothing.

    So I think it best to err on the side of caution here, especially when the vast majority of scientists in nearly all fields pertaining to climate, geography, astrology, etc. agree that we are harming the planet and our safeguards.

    So go ahead and disagree with climate change, but let’s at least all agree to find better, safer, and cleaner ways to maintain our life as we do today. If we can’t, let’s all agree that we should rid ourselves of certain things we do that is bad for everyone else.

    • You have no idea what you are talking about, and are spouting mindless gibberish.

      • If that’s the case, then why don’t you bring some facts to refute what I say?

        And besides all that – what’s wrong with erring on the side of caution?

        • rah says:

          If you looked at the archives of this blog you would find plenty that cover climate and weather from places all over this glob of dirty, metal, minerals and water. You respond to a single post like it is typical of the whole content and geographical scope of this blog and expect to be taken seriously? Besides, anyone that makes a statement like:
          “when you take overall temperature averages, we’re breaking records nearly every year. ”
          obviously is either unaware or ignores the satellite temperature records and thus it not informed of the massive fraud in the surface temperature data or doesn’t wish to be. Come back when you can explain the obvious gross discrepancies between surface temperature readings and satellite temperature readings. The divergence of actual temperature data from the projections by the IPCC and others of what should be happening now with CO2 in the 400 ppm range.

          As for taking care of the planet? You start with a pretense that those here don’t care about our environment and have absolutely no evidence that is the case.

    • iurockhead says:

      Op-Ed, google the term, “straw man”

      • I know exactly what a straw man is here, but in this context, that’s not ‘technically’ the case.

        The straw man is listing only a few temperatures for a small part of the world. Hell, he didn’t even go so far as to put up the US temperatures above 90 degrees – he simply picked one spot of the nation and said “see look, GLOBAL climate change doesn’t exist.”

        The issue HE’S trying to refute is climate change, which is also known as global climate change (since changes in one area will change the climate in other areas).

        So his argument, all on its own, is a straw man. All I did was bring him back to a macro scale and say “you’re wrong.”

        You can’t focus on one small detail when the issue isn’t that one small detail, but instead ALL details across the globe.

        But, you must be one of those people I referred to when I said they “forgot that we all live on the same planet.”

        You do realize we live on the same planet right? At least I assume you’re from Earth.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “You do realize we live on the same planet right?”

          Yes, and to feed that planet we will need to increase the ONLY source of food.

          That source of food is PHOTOSYNTHESIS, and required CO2, H2) and sunlight…
          but at the moment, the atmospheric CO2 level is still only just above plant starvation level of 200-250ppm.

          Plants and the biosphere THRIVE in much higher levels of aCO2, as is shown in actually greenhouse, (which have solid glass roofs, btw 😉 .)

          CO2 has a negligible effect on temperature (unfortunately, because we are actually living in a cold period at the moment), so we should be aiming to INCREASE the aCO2 concentration, NOT decrease it.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “especially when the vast majority of scientists in nearly all fields pertaining to climate, geography, astrology, etc. agree that we are harming the planet and our safeguards”

      That is basically a rubbish propaganda driven statement.
      You are calling on a fabricated, politically driven, non-existent consensus.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The second you mention consensus, you leave the realm of science and enter the world of politics.

        • stilleto says:

          Yep. And in 1500AD the 99% consensus of scientists was that the sun went round the earth. So if its a consensus it must be right!!

        • Funny that back then the “scientists” were nothing more than clergy from the church. Oddly enough, the ones that claimed the Earth was not the center of the universe and that the Earth orbited the Sun were either put to death or tortured until they promised not to write such things anymore – but those people were the ‘actual’ scientists.

          The ‘consensus’ you speak of was from the Church – not from scientists.

          And, wait, aren’t most Republicans ate up with the Bible too? Funny how those similarities still exist today. So the old Church used to kill people, but since that’s no longer “civilized” all of you religious folk just try and talk down to everyone, and some of you still try to hurt others.

          I’ll never understand religious Republicans that become violent when their own ‘bs’ views are taken to task in a way that makes it hard for them to refute. You poor thing.

        • gator69 says:

          The geocentric model created by Greek astronomers assumed that the celestial bodies moving about the Earth followed perfectly circular paths. This was not a random assumption: the circle was regarded by Greek mathematicians and philosophers as the perfect geometric figure and consequently the only one appropriate for celestial motion. However, as astronomers observed, the patterns of celestial motion were not constant. The Moon rose about an hour later from one day to the next, and its path across the sky changed from month to month. The Sun’s path, too, changed with time, and even the configuration of constellations changed from season to season.

          These changes could be explained by the varying rates at which the celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. However, the planets (which got their name from the Greek word planetes, meaning wanderer and subject of error), behaved in ways that were difficult to explain. Sometimes, these wanderers showed retrograde motion—they seemed to stop and move in a reverse direction when viewed against the background of the distant constellations, or fixed stars, which did not move relative to one another.

          To explain the motion of the planets, Greek astronomers, whose efforts culminated in the work of Claudius Ptolemy (c. 90-168 A.D.), devised complicated models in which planets moved along circles (epicycles) that were superimposed on circular orbits about the Earth. These geocentric models were able to explain, for example, why Mercury and Venus never move more than 28° and 47° respectively from the Sun.

          As astronomers improved their methods of observation and measurement, the models became increasingly complicated, with constant additions of epicycles. While these complex models succeeded in explaining retrograde motion, they reportedly prompted Alfonso X (1221-1284), king of Castile, to remark that had God asked his advice while engaging in Creation, he would have recommended a simpler design for the universe. Nonetheless, the geocentric theory persisted because it worked.

          This theory persisited for 1500 years because it was “the scientific consensus”, and not because it was correct.

          Aristotle had refuted the geocentric model hundreds of years before Galileo, and Aristotle’s ideas never gained any traction because the “scientific consensus” said Arostotle was wrong.

          Now we have the current pope making the same mistake as his predecessors, listening to only one side of an issue, and believing in “scientific consensus”.

        • rah says:

          Exactly! Ibn al-Haytham considered by many to be the first to lay out the principles upon which the scientific method is based in his ‘Aporias against Ptolemy’ said:

          “Truth is sought for itself”—but “the truths,” he warns, “are immersed in uncertainties” and the scientific authorities (such as Ptolemy, whom he greatly respected) are “not immune from error….” Nor, he said, is human nature itself: “Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”

          IOW, consensus is actually the enemy of scientific inquiry.

      • I was going to respond to the other comment, but it wouldn’t let me for whatever reason, so I’ll respond to it here:

        Ahh yes – another person that says 97% of climate scientists are wrong and that those 3% that likely work for large industrial companies are right.

        But again, as I asked Steve, what’s wrong with not polluting our atmosphere? Why can’t all of the people that claim climate change isn’t occurring faster because of humans just say “ya’ know what? We should live better anyway, so let’s find a better fuel resource, one that is renewable, and let’s stop polluting everything.”

        Why is that so hard to just admit? It cannot be good for anyone to breathe in these toxic vapors from cars, industrial plants, etc. Why not find a way to stop doing that? Who cares whether you’re right or wrong. It’s right to live healthier and it’s definitely right to not pollute the place we live.

        Would you leave your car running in the garage and open the door into your home and go about your night? No? Why not?

        *gasp* Because those emissions are toxic to us, no? And you would have us believe there’s nothing wrong with it when it is dispersed into the air? LOL.

        Let’s just compromise, agree to disagree, and agree to find better, non-polluting ways to live our life. Can we do that?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “It cannot be good for anyone to breathe in these toxic vapors from cars, industrial plants, etc. Why not find a way to stop doing that?”

          The western world has done an enormous amount to stop real pollution. (Diesel cars were an error though.. dangerous NO2 and particulates, although they are gradually reducing them also)

          The absolute real pollution is in the developing world, particularly in China, because they have taken up the mantle of producing good for western consumption without the environmental safeguards.

          We see this particularly when it comes to things like the huge rare earth magnets now needed for wind turbines etc.. and the toxic chemicals needed for all the solar panels.

          But that’s over there now, so it doesn’t matter to the average environmentalist.

          I note that you are using a computer.. you probably also drive a car.. right ???

        • gator69 says:

          Ah yes – another sheep that bleats the 97% nonsense.

          The 97% “consensus” was imagined when 10,257 surveys were sent out to selected scientists, and only 3,146 were returned. Of those 3,146 returned surveys only 79 were used to reach a 97% consensus. New math!

          On top of that, the questions asked were overly broad and vague. They didn’t ask if man was causing all of the warming or if it was dangerous. They asked…

          1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

          2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

          Anyone who has studied climates knows that we have warmed since the Little Ice Age, so of course the answer to question #1 must be “yes”.

          And as for question #2, what is “significant”? A tenth of a degree?

          So no, there is no 97% consensus. It is another grossly adjusted and fraudulent number generated and contrived by the trillion dollar climate change industry.

          But they fooled you! 😆

        • You can call me all the silly names you’d like, but I tend to follow in the direction of science rather than ‘speculation’ or what I ‘feel’ is right.

          If you think I’m a sheep, check out the YouTube channel of mine: Open Mic Night. Maybe then you’ll understand just how against the grain I am in terms of the government’s rhetoric.

          But this? Nah – if I have 97% of scientists saying the same thing, I’m gonna’ go with that. Why? Because of all the research they conduct, they’d be the ones to understand it best and to be able to make those decisions.

          But you? Who are you? Just some random person on the internet claiming to be right when 97% of climatologists are wrong.

          Also, in terms of global temperature averages – a tenth of a degree is a HUGE difference. But I’d also like to point our your straw man, the OP’s straw man, and have you stop focusing on one aspect of climate.

          The scientists agree that global climate change due to man’s interference is changing more rapidly than normal. Of course, the Earth has its own ‘climate change’ and the temperatures will rise/fall – areas that once were lush green Earth may well be desert over the course of a few hundred or a few thousand years.

          But we aren’t talking about a few hundred ‘normal’ years. We’re talking about a few decade of what would normally take hundreds, if not thousands of years. That’s what none of you seem to be able to grasp, or you do but it’s so devastating to your argument that you just leave that part out.

          I laugh when people say, sarcastically: “Oh look at the global warming” when it’s snowing or is cold outside. We aren’t just talking about temperature increases, although the global average is up considerably over the last few decades. We’re talking about all kinds of climate differences. It’s not hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc – that’s weather. And it’s not just how the ‘US’ did this one year or the last year. It’s about how EVERYTHING is changing across the globe.

          Until you can start looking at the issue in that way, you don’t really have any legs to stand on here.

          But again – why is it so hard for people like you to concede that we need to stop polluting the air and that we need to find renewable, and non-toxic energy sources? Why can we not simply end the debate with that and move on? Why? Do you just like to argue? Do you just want to feel like you have another thing that can pit you against Democrats or something? (and I’m not a Dem, but I use that because that’s who Republicans seem to hate so much).

          None of it makes sense. Grow up and bring your adult-face to this conversation. Compromise on how to ‘fix’ it, because if you’re wrong (and I do believe you are), the consequence of inaction could very well be the elimination of most life on this planet. I’m we’re wrong, then nothing will happen. So don’t you think it’s probably best to just do what we can to fix it anyway? Sure we should, because not polluting is a good policy to have anyway.

        • gator69 says:

          Next time, try comprehending my post before responding.

        • stilleto says:

          I agree we should not pollute the atmosphere. But CO2 is not pollution, it is beneficial and doesnt effect climate. However warming increases Co2. A key gas for warming is the activity of Oxygen in decomposing organic matter and producing heat (experiment with a compost heap!). Oxygen is a far more powerful ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2 (which does no warming). Also Oxygen is about 18% of atmosphere while CO2 is less than 0.04%. Co2 is no worry – ban oxygen if you think man is more powerful then the sun and is the warmer of the planet! Oxygen is the evil greenhouse gas!

        • rah says:

          I nor anyone here is going to “agree to disagree” on this subject because your just dead wrong and so typical of a group which has bought into the lies being preached in the media and by the UN and the US government.

          Fact is that more developed nations pollute far less for what they produce compared to less developed nations despite our consumerism. Anyone that has been anywhere in the formally Soviet occupied countries and it honest about it knows this is the case.

          So the fundamental disagreement is how to we pollute less? By all indications the answer to that question is simply progress! This country is cleaner now than it was in 70’s and 60’s when rivers caught on fire and alleys in many places were paved with cinders from foundries and factories. Economic and scientific progress is the first part of the answer by any measure for healthier living, longer and more productive life time. Not going backwards as the greens would have you believe.

          The fact is CO2 is not pollution or toxic at the levels being emitted. Nor has it proven to be the potent “green house gas” the IPCC and those you want to believe claimed it would be. Please give us a single example of any catastrophe of the many that have been predicted to have happened by now that has actually occurred?

          Has the rate of sea level rise changed? NO
          Has the Arctic become virtually “ice free”? NO
          Has the Antarctic continent been losing ice overall? NO
          Has the world wide ice extent been increasing or decreasing? INCREASING
          Have massive sections of the Great Barrier reef bleached out? NO
          Do British Children know what snow is? YES and not only do they know even the children of Cairo and Jerusalem, and Naples Italy, knows also because every single one of them received snow in the last 10 months.
          Was the Texas drought a permanent situation? Of course NOT!
          Has Tornado incidence increased? NO and in fact is has been running well below historical norms.
          Has Atlantic Hurricane incidence or severity increased? NO and in fact it has been running below historical norms also.
          And yet you continue to believe the people who’s predictions have been proven wrong about all of the above and much much more?

          There was never any real consensus. But even if there had been the simple FACT is that what was predicted to happen has not! So either you can open your eyes and start really researching what has happened and is happening, or you can continue to be one of the good followers the parrot the party line and ignores the real evidence.

      • Why am I not able to reply to your responses?? Weird. There’s no reply button after it.

        And that’s incorrect about consensus being a purely political thing, especially when it comes to science.

        For me, climate change isn’t a political topic at all – it’s a topic of human health, and human destruction.

        In fact, most Democrats feel that way as well. Republicans, which is probably what you consider yourself – that or a conservative, politicize the issue.

        You have 97% of climate scientists in agreement that man is causing increased climate change. Yet Republicans buck against this with all of their might – and for what reason?

        Because they don’t want to tell industrial corporations to put more R&D into ways they can lower emissions? Because they don’t want us to stop using oil because most of the politicians have their hands and pockets lined with oil? Because they don’t want their biggest donors to ‘lose’ any money when it comes time to fix things?

        So you can try and dismiss my statements all you’d like, but the only person that politicized this issue was you when you brought up politics. I never said anything about politics.

        And just like a good Republican, you don’t actually bring facts to the table – just more rhetoric. But then again, when the facts and research don’t help your argument, what else would you bring?

        Little ‘one-liners’ handed down to you by others. Talking points that you can just reuse for the sake of doing so.

        It gets pretty old, because you still never answered the question of “what’s wrong with not polluting.”

        Since you can’t answer that, then it’s obvious – you just want to make it a divisive issue instead of killing two birds with one stone.

        Good day.

        • D. Self says:

          According the UN and all the leftists we are in immediate danger of losing the planet, Right? I will believe the UN and the so called scientists once the world powers stop funding research for AGW/AGCC and put that money into a Manhattan Style Project for renewable energy research. Carbon tax/markets are nothing more than a scheme to make certain politicians and their donors rich. You need to wake up.

        • “According the UN and all the leftists we are in immediate danger of losing the planet, Right?”

          I don’t know or care what the UN says as I think the UN is nothing more than a stomping ground for global elites to try and bring everyone under a one-world government.

          And as for ‘leftists’? I don’t know what ‘leftists’ would say, but I know I would say, as do the majority of scientists, that we aren’t in immediate danger of losing the planet, but we aren’t too darned far off.

          If you notice, just about every year, the climate scientists’ projections are conservative estimates and aren’t accurate with each passing year, which means it’s worse than they believe it to be.

          But immediate danger? No. I believe there’s probably still time to fix the problems we have that are causing these issues.

        • Neal S says:

          Op-ed wrote “If you notice, just about every year, the climate scientists’ projections are conservative estimates and aren’t accurate with each passing year, which means it’s worse than they believe it to be.”

          Talk about getting it totally wrong. If their conservative estimates are wrong, then the only thing that is worse is the comprehension of those who uncritically still believe in the AGW religion.

        • gator69 says:

          Sheep are not known for their mastery of comprehension.

        • stilleto says:

          Remember ‘climate scientists’ are not scientists but political advocates. Just like Economists and politicians are not scientists either. I suggest you read/view the writings of Prof Bob Carter to see what a climate scientist with real credentials reports. I think I’ll call myself a climate scientist from now on since no qualifications are required and i can read a barometer.

        • rah says:

          So “Whats wrong with not polluting”? Here is a simple answer for such a simplistic ignorant question.

          It’s -10 F outside and your stuck in it. I guess you would die from exposure before you would try and light a fire because you know if you make a fire you would be polluting the atmosphere.

        • Yeah, we aren’t talking about ‘not’ building a fire. We’re talking about shoveling money into developing clean, alternative fuel sources. Your straw man is ridiculous.

        • rah says:

          Yes we ARE! It is reality! In order to create heat or energy the cheapest way, and for a great deal of the worlds population it is realistically the ONLY way at this time, is to burn carbon based fuels! It is the same scenario across the board globally put into it’s simplest terms. And it makes it clear why your question is irrelevant. It is not a matter of IF we pollute! It IS A MATTER of HOW MUCH!

          They are going after coal fired electrical generating stations and thus going to make electrical power much more expensive! Why? Because despite the fact that now days with blending and scrubbing coal fired plants put out little real pollution they are saying that CO2 is a pollutant. Do you really believe that?

      • I just read your other response.

        And now you say “that’s over there now.” Um, no it’s not. We still pollute our air, do we not? Our cars are still getting crappy mpg, still releasing toxic chemicals, and we are still bulldozing mountains to get coal so that we can burn that into the atmosphere.

        We also do not have a sustainable, non-polluting energy source that is viable at this moment, and why? Because people like you continue ‘bashing’ the reason why it has been important for the last 40 years.

        And yes – China and other developing countries are also a huge issue. We must bring EVERYONE to the table as equal partners in an effort to reduce global emissions. But that doesn’t mean we can be lazy at home, because we are likely still emitting more crap into the air than any other nation (although I could be wrong on that statement now as I haven’t checked emission numbers in a couple of years).

        We have to find a way to stop using oil, to stop using coal, to find a replacement for plastic, to find a replacement for paper, etc. You say ‘we’ve done enough’ – I say that’s bs. Getting your SUV up to 20mpg from 12 isn’t enough.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I repeat, because your comprehension seems so poor.

          Mankind has made huge inroads into stopping toxic emissions.

          CO2 is NOT a toxic emission, any more than H2O is.

          Both CO2 and H2O are REQUIRED to feed the world, and CO2 is currently at pretty low atmospheric levels compared to what the plants actually flourish on.

          The very last thing we should be doing if we are considering the future of the world and feeding an ever increasing population, is cutting CO2 emissions. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          “We have to find a way to stop using oil, to stop using coal, to find a replacement for plastic, to find a replacement for paper, etc”

          What a load of unmitigated BS !!!

        • stilleto says:

          Dont confuse pollution and climate. Pollution is bad and we must work to reduce. CO2 is not pollution. Climate change is as natural and old as continental drift. Climate change is a natural process influenced by the sun and the earths orbit. Pollution and climate chage are totally different subjects and should not be confused.

    • Bob123 says:

      it sounds nice to say there are better, cleaner and safer ways to live, but when the costs drive more people into poverty, or people die because they don’t have affordable heat, what then?

      • Oh, I get it. So it’s okay to kill people with toxic waste, so long as they don’t freeze?

        Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

        Besides that – our current fuel source is unaffordable for many. So what now? Just roll over and die either from freezing to death or from breathing in polluted air 24/7? I guess for you it doesn’t much – just as long as you don’t push for more efficient energy that is renewable and clean. I mean, ’cause that’s a tragic thing to try and produce. So horrible.

        • rah says:

          Turn off your electricity now hypocrite!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “So it’s okay to kill people with toxic waste”

          The manufacturers of wind turbines and solar panels seem to think so.

          But that somewhere else isn’t it little op-ed propagandist.. so you don’t care .. right.,

          Nor do you care about the millions of avian creatures sliced and dice and cooked by those expensive, inefficient, unreliable, environmentally destructive wind turbines and solar panels.

          Do you really think wind and solar are efficient.????
          Gee drone, you must seriously have swallowed a whole putrid blob of your own propaganda excrement.

          On top of that you want to deplete the world of life giving CO2.

          What an deceitful, thoughtless, little cretin you are.

  8. iurockhead says:

    A suggestion for you Tony: You sometimes link to the data for the charts you show, but often do not, such as this one. I think you would have fewer detractors, or at least they would have no leg to stand on, if you were to consistently link to the data source for charts such as the one above. I know, picky-picky, but it would give a more solid base to the argument.

    Keep up the good work, your website is a treasure of data to wave under the noses of smug true-believers.

  9. whiteyward says:

    Every major nation on earth has some program to alter the weather. To make it rain or corporations make it rain, also the efforts to spray high altitude poisons is obvious to everyone and harp or the many navy’s around the world so before we get to the part about objects in space and the temp of the outer planets lets just understand that man kind is messing with the weather but it’s not the carbon.

  10. Klipster says:

    Appears that some are happy to ride the CO2/Carbon environment horse the .gov and wallstreet have lent to them, even when its so easily repossessed. Its a matter of plutocracies top down control over all avenues. Big oil is no doubt vested heavily in carbon credit taxes being implemented through international trade mandate and well away from any individual citizen pockets. Grecian technocrats are the future party and Republicans and Democrats just a choice between Sodom or Gomorrah.

  11. smamarver says:

    True, climate these days is not like expected and, in any case, not like we are used to. And if this is not hot, wait and see what’s comming. We just discuss global warming,but we didn’t take serios actions. You can see how climate evolved in the past century and how climate is changing at and maybe some paths on how it will go from here, depending on our actions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s