The New York Times is blaming Roger Federer’s September 3rd loss on global warming.
Roger Federer Is Tough to Beat. Global Warming Might Have Pulled an Upset. – The New York Times
It was the 10th warmest September 3 on record in New York, nine degrees cooler than September 3, 1929. Last year was 69 degrees.
September 3rd nighttime temperatures in New York peaked in 1898, and have been declining ever since.
Apparently no one at the New York Times actually reads the New York Times.
TimesMachine: Wednesday September 4, 1929 – NYTimes.com
September 3rd 1929 the good old days just one and a half month away from the Wall Street Crash.
Therefore they could have blamed the Great Depression on man-made global warming. hehe.
Good one!
Tony – the night time temp record is quite intriguing, in light of the UHI effect.
Alternate headline: “Federer opponent undeterred by global warming”
Likely unacceptable to many, the NYT’s comment, in some high-pressure zones, might be considered r.acist.
So some races performing better in certain sports or weather is racist?
no.even being racist to some races by excluding many of them from universities(as Harvard is doing with asians and espec. koreans) is not racist.
The invisible hand and masterrace of PC and progressivism decides what racism is and what is reality and which president you must vote.
The Washington Free Beacon sees other possible reasons for Federer’s loss
1) Brett Kavanaugh
Federer played John Millman on the eve of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavenaugh’s Senate confirmation hearing.
Is it a mere coincidence that Federer played so poorly just hours before the Senate would begin the process of putting the biggest threat to “women, workers, and the environment” on the highest court of the land, with Democrats helpless to stop it? I think not.
2) He Got an Advance Copy of Bob Woodward’s Book
Federer racked up 76 unforced errors, and lost in just four sets. That doesn’t sound like the Federer we know, and the only possible explanation is he wanted out of Arthur Ashe Stadium so he could go back to his hotel to read Bob Woodward’s new book.
Federer admitted he was “just happy that the match was over.” Probably so he could get in bed and read about President Trump wanting to take out a brutal dictator who gases his own people, and other juicy comments from the “Ernest Hemingway of 140 characters.”
3) Federer Hasn’t Played Well Since Net Neutrality Was Repealed
The U.S. Open is only the second Grand Slam tournament Federer has played in since net neutrality was repealed on June 11. Federer was the number one seed at Wimbledon, but was upset by South Africa’s Kevin Anderson in five sets. For context: the match took place on the one month anniversary of the “end of the Internet as we know it.”
Now he’s been upset again. Facts are facts: Federer has not played well since the big wireless companies were able to sell unlimited data plans again.
The BBC has the answer. It has the answer to everything and it’s always the same answer. Everything that happened anywhere, ever was…despite Brexit!
How odd that Roger Federer won the Australian Open this year in the notoriously hot Melbourne tennis courts.
On the other hand maybe our now ex Prime Minister has a reverse Gore Effect. He was recently booted from the leadership for being a climate tragic. Malcolm Turnbull immediately decamped for NYC, which he is presently sharing with another catastropharian ex-PM Kevin Rudd.
A reverse Gore Effect?
It’s scientifically possible but only very enlightened individuals can project that much power and control the weather. What is know about Mr. Turnbull’s second chakra?
Well done again Tony, disproving the latest NYT drivel by quoting the, er, NYT. Hilarious! The fact that Federer, a 37 year old native of Switzerland – that well known European climate hotspot, not – was playing a talented native of Brisbane in Australia, a region where high temps and humidity are common, also several years his junior, had nothing to do with his early exit. Must’ve been Climate Change wot did it. What else?
Washington, DC’s reached 97 degrees in October 1941. This year’s “global warming induced heatwave” could not break 95 degrees in DC a month earlier.
Barcelona had a lot of humidity last night.
85.8 mm
http://www.meteo.cat/observacions/xema/dades?codi=X4&dia=2018-09-06T07:30Z
http://www.meteo.cat/observacions/xema
https://www.ara.cat/societat/meteo/Nit-tempesta-apocaliptica-Barcelona_0_2083591709.html
Due to high CO2 inhaled from Federrer, Millman has lost against Djokovic. We must cut CO2 in our atmosphere. CO2 as a threat is reality: sports are already affected by CO2. Those who disagree are bigoted potatos.
#ClimateWarrior. #Reality #ChangeorDie
In the fine print it says overnight lows in the US have increased 1.4 deg. F per century. That is equivalent to 0.8 deg. C, a reasonable natural rate. However, if that is combined with day time highs which appear to be decreasing, doesn’t that render “global warming” insignificant, if not non-existent? Or perhaps,
“global warming” only occurs at night now?
Also, minimum temperatures are much more affected by UHI and siting (easily deliberate human intervention) than maximum temperatures. It can easily make a 10 degree difference in minimum temperatures from a site in a hollow in open country to another on a crest, surrounded by asphalt, concrete, jet exhaust, air conditioning exhaust, etc.
My basic refutation of RGHE theory is that the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR power flux is only a theoretical calculation, 289 K, 16 C, inserted in the S-B equation with an ideal BB emissivity of 1.0. (TFK_bams09)
This 396 W/m^2 power flux has no physical reality because: 1) it requires thermodynamic violations, i.e. 333 W/m^2 created out of thin air, a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop, cold to hot energy flow w/o added work and 2) the non-radiative heat transfer processes, e.g. conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, limit the surface’s LWIR emissivity to 0.16, 63/396.
In the spirit of R. W. Wood’s 1909 experiment that disputed CO2’s atmospheric role, I have actually demonstrated point 2 in a lab situation.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
No 396 W/m^2 upwelling means no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop invalidating RGHE theory, CO2 warming and man caused climate changing.
Seems to me that over RGHE’s decades of decades my refutation would have been addressed long ago and a defense, an explanation of how & why I’m wrong, lying close at hand.
Guess not.
That’s a shame.
Regards,
Nick S.
Yes. there is a video!!
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6443501424587395072
Tony, you’re worth your weight in gold. thanks.
What if Greenhouse Gases are NOT relevant ? Difference between Global Warming and Pollution causing Environmental Damage . Read, How Two Glasses of Water Disprove Global Warming Fraud : Pollution, Sewage and Emerging Diseases .https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-two-glasses-water-disprove-global-warming-fraud-ed-greenhalgh/ Carbon Taxes willnot fix the problem