Arctic Posts Second Warmest Year On Record In 2018, NOAA Says (reuters.com) 207
According to a new report released on Tuesday by the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the Arctic had its second-hottest year on record in 2018. "Arctic air temperatures for the past five years have exceeded all previous records since 1900," according to the annual NOAA study, the 2018 Arctic Report Card, which said the year was second only to 2016 in overall warmth in the region. Reuters reports: The study said the Arctic warming continues at about double the rate of the rest of the planet, and that the trend appears to be altering the shape and strength of the jet stream air current that influences weather in the Northern Hemisphere. "Growing atmospheric warmth in the Arctic results in a sluggish and unusually wavy jet-stream that coincided with abnormal weather events," it said, noting that the changing patterns have often brought unusually frigid temperatures to areas south of the Arctic Circle. Some examples are "a swarm of severe winter storms in the eastern United States in 2018, and the extreme cold outbreak in Europe in March 2018 known as 'the Beast from the East.'"
Stop advertising a warmer Arctic (Score:5, Funny)
The Chinese are really brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Scary graph (Score:3)
Re: Scary graph (Score:2)
There is no decline.
AGW Denier trolls are out in force (Score:4, Interesting)
It's sad to see Slashdot taken over by anti-science scumbags, posting as "Anonymous Cowards" and lying that Global Warming isn't happening even with evidence all over the place. And then there's the overwhelming support for GW in the scientific community. What do they know!
I have to admire the plucky band of billionaires, conspiracy nutbars and oil companies bravely fighting back against all that nasty, evil science. Of course, the downside is that their kids will line up to piss on their graves.
Re:AGW Denier trolls are out in force (Score:5, Interesting)
It's sad to see Slashdot taken over by anti-science scumbags, posting as "Anonymous Cowards" and lying that Global Warming isn't happening even with evidence all over the place. And then there's the overwhelming support for GW in the scientific community. What do they know!
I have to admire the plucky band of billionaires, conspiracy nutbars and oil companies bravely fighting back against all that nasty, evil science. Of course, the downside is that their kids will line up to piss on their graves.
Browse with only +2 visible and you won't see most of that.
As far as the PR effort goes, global warning was way oversold initially and the early dire predictions (that were sold via the media) didn't happen, or didn't happen anything like they were sold. That had a crying wolf effect.
Also, demonizing people and calling them stupid isn't a great way to win them over.
That said, any solution is going to be technological. Top down command and control isn't doing what you want it to do; it isn't succeeding (and yes, succeeding politically and socially is part of succeeding).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't completely agree with you, but it's good to have a reasoned conversation on the matter. And some of your points are either completely or partly valid.
My main disagreement is that I don't believe at this point there's any reason to waste valuable time and effort trying to persuade people who have proved pretty comprehensively there is absolutely nothing that will change their minds. It would probably be best to just ignore them, but I find from time to time I can't resist showering them with a litt
Re: AGW Denier trolls are out in force (Score:5, Insightful)
Initially? It has been discussed since 1895. It was confirmed by NASA in 1968. It was in textbooks in 1982. It was in the nrws in 1992.
Whose initial?
And who oversold it? The scientists? Or the deniers in their claims of what the scientists were claiming?
Re: (Score:2)
And who oversold it? The scientists?
No. Al Gore.
That's where most people got their information about global warming from.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re:AGW Denier trolls are out in force (Score:4, Insightful)
Its not sad, its pretty normal. We have literally the best moderation system on the internet here. Avoiding the echochamber of reddit and the lowest common denominator of youtube comments. I would argue its the SOLE reason that this website still exists. That and people can post pretty much anything they like.
Its like flat earhers or any other wacky conspiracy that no one of consequence really believes. Its impossible to ignore the climate changing over the last 20 or 30 years. The willfully ignorant will always exist, I wouldn't let it bother you.
Re: AGW Denier trolls are out in force (Score:2)
It's not anti-science to disregard alarmists. The reality is the global temps during the mid-holocene were about the same or higher as they are now. The mid-holocene is when mankind discovered civilization and writing, so returning to that era of temps just doesn't concern many of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure [realclimate.org]?
We've erased 8000 years of cooling in decades. Can you guess what the next few have in store [realclimate.org]?
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't make judgments before knowing the facts. My carbon footprint is actually 'way below average.
So yes, like many people who object to wrecking the planet in the name of rampant consumerism, I walk the walk.
Re: AGW Denier trolls are out in force (Score:3)
None of your proposals make any sense.
But, then, why expect you to understand energy economy if you can't comprehend physics?
Re: (Score:2)
So what are YOU doing to negate the affects of supposed man-made climate change?
The same thing that any rational person who believes in the betterment of civilization believes. Demand more nuclear power plants, improvements in nuclear energy, and promotion of a global grid of HVDC power transfer. Unfortunately, the environuts, NIMBY's, anti-development idiots have been protesting against that for the last 40 years.
Have you given up your modern super-consumer-consumption-of-everyting-plastic 2018 lifestyle to live a more sustainable life like people did in the 1950s or earlier?
LOL. Holy fuck, buddy, friend, pal, guy. People prior to the 1950's didn't live a sustainable lifestyle. When resources were expended to the point that it was no longer
Re: AGW Denier trolls are out in force (Score:2)
When the cynics tribally lynch the science, expect a response in kind. If you want better, be better.
Re: AGW Denier trolls are out in force (Score:2)
Most GW measures are cheaper and offer better return for investment. So, no, not austerity.
Obligatory: Earth Temperature Timeline (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory: Earth Temperature Timeline [xkcd.com], courtesy of XKCD.
No large drop in ice extent or area? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sea Ice Area: https://web.nersc.no/WebData/a... [nersc.no]
Sea Ice Extent: https://web.nersc.no/WebData/a... [nersc.no]
Re:No large drop in ice extent or area? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting that there was no large drop in sea ice extent or area this year to match the exceptional warming.
No, it really isn't. What's most interesting isn't extent, it's mass. i.e., the thickness matters a lot more.
Re:"On record" = laughable (Score:5, Informative)
The medieval warm period. Really. C'mon. Don't want to go back to the dinosaurs as usual to show just how warm earth can be and still sustain life?
But ok. The MWP. First of all, even during the MWP it wasn't as warm as it is today. It was about 0.2 to 0.4 degrees Celsius warmer than before. Today we're at about 1.0 degrees warmer than it was in the 800s. Second, the MWP was not an uniform climate change as we experience today. It was mostly a localized phenomenon with various areas experiencing warmer periods during different times in those 300ish years.
In other words, there's a reason why even the most harebrained deniers don't use it. Stick with the dinosaurs, back then it was at least warmer than it is today.
Re: (Score:3)
Localized phenomenon. That extended all the way down into the Antarctic.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it didn't. From what we can tell today, it was a period of non-homogeneous slight variations in temperature. Today Britain, tomorrow Black Sea. The reason for which is still mostly a mystery, but what can be said is that whatever caused it was mostly concentrated in the northern hemisphere, and here in Eurasia.
Re:Branson has the right idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Being all doom and gloom about it doesn't help. IMHO Branson has the right idea when he offered $3 million for airconditioning that's 5x as energy efficient.
https://globalcoolingprize.org/prize-details/criteria/
i.e. the solution is a million little improvements not one magic one. Air-conditioning being a huge energy waster that could easily be improved. If you can make a fridge to turn a heat difference into cold, you can make an air conditioner that can, so you can make a solar (heat) driven air conditioning. It just needs the initial funding.
What really gets me is that Florida is importing coal and natural gas to fire power plants of whom several are dedicated to producing energy for air conditioning systems much of the year. You'd think that the idea of powering their air conditioning using solar panels would catch on down there. The same is basically true for Puerto Rico, it's sunny there or partially sunny something like 70% of the year and when it isn't sunny the wind is blowing and yet, the latest and greatest idea out of Washington is turning Puerto Rico into a imported natural gas powered fossil fuel energy hub for the region ... abundant local energy sources ... anybody?
Re: (Score:2)
Our society seems to be overly afraid of new solutions. Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM....
Investment (and public opinion) are probably overly risk averse at present.
Re: (Score:3)
With all the startups that border on scams and kickstarter projects that basically are scams, you really wonder why people are afraid of new solutions? For real?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there's a difference. But more and more people are unable to actually understand the difference.
It's funny, though, that it's usually the same people who loathe regulatory bodies are also the ones that get conned by such con artists who exist exactly because we eliminate those very regulatory bodies that would have prevented these things from happening. And then they turn around and declare that everyone's out to get them, everyone's swindling them out of their money and that EVERYTHING is a scam. Usua
Re: (Score:2)
TECO in Tampa is converting their Big Bend power plant from coal to natural gas. They are also building solar farms.
https://www.powermag.com/tampa... [powermag.com]
Florida power companies are no saints though. Look what they tried to pull over on the state's residents back in 2016
https://www.vox.com/science-an... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, time to insulate the houses there.
Re: (Score:2)
But ... but that costs money! Way more money than the power for my AC!
And I'm gonna move out of this house in 5-10 years anyway, either because I'm moving away or because I'm only running out the clock in America's Wang.
Re: (Score:3)
That argument is used everywhere. My parents don't want solar panels because they are too old to reap the profits. Same with an electric car.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, Boomers...
The sooner the world's got rid of them, the sooner we can start cleaning up their mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just Trump's idea of doing good. The man can't help being ignorant about approximately everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately I could not find any kind of documents (not even from warming denyers) that talk about anything you post there, maybe you can provide a source?
Re: "On record" = laughable (Score:2)
No, no travel over the poles. They'd have had a hard time sailing over the southern one, even if they'd known it existed.
But, no, Lief Erikkson sailed to Newfoundland following the known course of Brenden the Navigator. And he was the furthest north.
Nobody sailed north of the north wind, as the Arctic region was known.
If deniers are resorting to fraudulent sagas, even they know they've lost the debate.
Re: "On record" = laughable (Score:4, Informative)
Erh... no.
Looking around the web, I could not find anyone pointing towards "grapes from Greenland". Not even climate change deniers dared to try to run that story. The furthest north that we find an attempt to grow grapes is southern England. Grapes, by the way, are a rather poor measurement for how warm it was, simply for the fact that Christianity needs wine (and hence the grapes to make it) for its ceremonies. So even if the chance for success was close to zero or the quality simply atrocious, people would have tried to grow grapes, no matter the cost, the quality or the quantity of the outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much the point.
There was also life on Earth during the Late Bombardment period. And boy, you better believe it was warmer than today! With MUCH higher CO2 and MUCH lower (read: zero) Oxygen levels.
Re:"On record" = laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
As coastal cities continue to flood, should we just say, "Well, we're not going to do anything about it, because it happened before in the pre-cambrian era?"
Responsible coastal development (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe, we should not socialize the losses of coastal properties via our National Flood Insurance program? For all the talk of climate change, I see homes swept away by hurricanes and then even bigger ones replace them in under two years. In my lifetime NJ beachfronts now look like a glass wall with massive homes built as close to the beach as possible.
If the government insures a property and it is lost to floodwaters - a condition of claim payment should be that the property becomes prohibited to future development. If private landowners and private insurers want to take on this risk - good for them.
Building these homes over and over again sticks the taxpayer with the disaster bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, we should not socialize the losses of coastal properties via our National Flood Insurance program? For all the talk of climate change, I see homes swept away by hurricanes and then even bigger ones replace them in under two years. In my lifetime NJ beachfronts now look like a glass wall with massive homes built as close to the beach as possible.
If the government insures a property and it is lost to floodwaters - a condition of claim payment should be that the property becomes prohibited to future development. If private landowners and private insurers want to take on this risk - good for them.
Building these homes over and over again sticks the taxpayer with the disaster bill.
Heresy! You surely don't mean that rich leftists should have to ensure their own coastal mansions??
Dang it, have to ruin my own snarkiness with a typo. Oh well ...
Re: Responsible coastal development (Score:2)
No waterfront property is below average price, so that's effectively the same.
Re:"On record" = laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
"it's okay when my house is flooded, because 1 billion years ago it was an ocean"
Re: (Score:3)
Moving slowly in from the sea over 100-300 years isn't so difficult as buildings and roads age anyway, and 100-300 years from now, society will be less recognizable to today than today would be to people in 1900 or 1700.
I argue any draconian measures to arrest GW that slows technological progress will be of more harm than good.
I'd rather live in 2100 with year 2100 tech and gw than 2100 with a pristine environment and year 2080 tech, slowed due to drags on the economy.
The real enemy continues to be sickness
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"On record" = laughable (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to ignore the rest of the shocking ignorance of this post and ask what makes you think we have to halt all technological progress to correct AGW? The tech that is causing the problem was literally invented in the 19th century! If anything, combating AGW will force us to use 21st century tech.
Also, a little fact about the economy, it works best when the money keeps moving. Like when you replace all your old crap by buying new crap.
Re: "On record" = laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they really weren't. Stop using Infowars as your encyclopedia. Find me a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal that said that, with proof that other scientists backed the claim.
You won't find the paper.
That's because it exists only in fantasy.
Give over, you can live your life in fantasy but don't expect us to live in your fantasy too.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they really weren't. Stop using Infowars as your encyclopedia. Find me a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal that said that
I think he was using Al Gore as his source; that's who made the outrageous claims about things being underwater by now.
high tides - sunny day coastal flooding (Score:2)
Is it worth bothering? (Score:2)
I mean, that's such an obvious conspiracy theory troll. You're not even trying to make the fiction that you believe it sound real.
Re: "On record" = laughable (Score:2)
Irrevelant. It was warmer in the Jurassic because CO2 and O2 were greatly elevated, as was humidity, and the magnetosphere was three times as strong.
It was also constant. The Jurasic didn't warm up at a fantastic pace, things were ADAPTED to the conditions.
The biosphere was healthy and diverse, not massively degraded.
All these factors impact the significance of temperatures. But they're never considered by deniers in their bid to corrupt the data by eliminating the facts that don't fit their claims.
Re:Second hottest year (Score:5, Insightful)
So what's to worry, it's colder than it was before. See? It's not getting warmer, it's getting colder!
(And yes, this is sarcasm. It's actually pretty sad that it is necessary to explicitly say so...)
Re:Second hottest year (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know the temperature of the whole universe used to be over a billion degrees and nobody died at all back then?
Did you know the arctic has actually cooled considerably since July?
Is this going far enough that I need to point out it's meant as parody? I seriously hope it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's Law. It's not just for religion anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
There are not only two years on record, so the second hottest isn't really the coolest...
Re: (Score:2)
But if we are talking about the arctic then we are talking about WEATHER and not CLIMATE.
As has been said over and over, local weather is not proof of climate change or the lack of climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
But if we are talking about the arctic then we are talking about WEATHER and not CLIMATE.
As has been said over and over, local weather is not proof of climate change or the lack of climate change.
climate - noun - the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Perhaps you are thinking of global warming? (which, as the name suggests, refers to global average temperature and is not specific to any particular region).
Re: Second hottest year (Score:2)
And that matters why?
Congratulations (Score:2)
You're obviously an Einstein level savant for figuring that out for yourself so fast. I was wondering for a long time if "second hottest" meant there was ONE year that was hotter.
Re: (Score:2)
You might not be aware that the main meaning of savant is not savant syndrome (previously "idiot savant"), but someone who is an accomplished scholar or learned person. Einstein was definitely savant.
Re: Second warmest on record? (Score:2)
There are vineyards in Chester, up in the northwest of England.
No, it's never been so cold you couldn't. Beer developed alongside wine and, when hops were added, became cheaper and easier to transport. Even in major wine countries like France.
Same reason everywhere has bees but mead isn't commonly drunk.
Re: (Score:3)
Same reason everywhere has bees but mead isn't commonly drunk.
I like beer, I like wine but mead is just a awesome special treat, it's so fucking good I just don't have an adequate vocabulary to express its goodness.
Absolutely try a decent mead if you have a chance.
Re: Second warmest on record? (Score:2)
My favourite bought are Lindesfarne and Bunratty. You can't import them in the US as mead due to food regulstions there.
For homemade, a mix of light raw and white honey will ferment like crazy. Tannin is good for smoothing, I use half a pint of Yorkshire Gold tea. Purists would murder me in the streets if they knew.
Re: (Score:2)
We have a local mob here that make it from wild honey - nom nom nom. I am very impressed that you make mead!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Chester isn't Caledonia (Scotland) where Romans reported vineyards 2000 years ago and King John's census of the British Isles located vineyards in Scotland sometime around 1250.
Too cold today
We now produce wine in Denmark, on Gotland [gotland.com] (a Swedish Island), and, indeed, in Scotland [ukvines.co.uk]. But the primary reason for viticulture is economics - not climate. It is possible to produce wines in Scotland, but with modern transportation, it's a lot cheaper to import wines from regions where they are easier and cheaper to produce. In medieval times, transport was a lot less efficient and reliable, and there was a strong demand for wine for the sacrament of the last supper. That's why wine was produced locally in
Re: Second warmest on record? (Score:2)
The Romans reported vineyards in Scotland?
Do tell.
Photo of text, transcription and the museum it is in.
Also, Scotland has microclimates. It's not blean, desolate and cold, except towards Westminster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chester isn't Caledonia (Scotland) where Romans reported vineyards 2000 years ago and King John's census of the British Isles located vineyards in Scotland sometime around 1250.
Chester is in northern England, so Nothern Europe.
Too cold today
https://food.list.co.uk/articl... [list.co.uk]
Re: Second warmest on record? (Score:2)
Not is there much evidence the Norse drank wine that wasn't imported. That would be in the timeframe you claim wine was made.
Re: Second warmest on record? (Score:2)
Vinyards all over England.
Never any vinyards in Norway.
So? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: leaders (Score:2)
Plenty of religions don't advocate overpopulation. Norse Paganism, for example. Large families are described as the work of the Ice Giants and Jotuns by Snorri. They also had very incorrect ways to control population.
Re:I thought Obama fixed climate change though (Score:5, Interesting)
He did a good number of things to help reduce global warming: Restrict coal power plant emissions, improve automotive fleet emissions standards, sign the Paris climate accord, and subsidize renewable energy and EV sales. All things Trump has undone or is working on undoing.
China will have the US over a barrel once global carbon trading is mandatory. I'd say that you collectively deserve it, but on the other hand most Americans who voted didn't vote for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't he do anything that Trump or Republicans couldn't undo? Either he didn't have right priorities or he was so ... impotent.
Re: (Score:2)
To put some law or regulation in place which couldn't be undone he'd have to usurp democracy. Which is something Trump and the Republicans have demonstrated they're willing to try, but Obama was too good for that. You call that "impotent?"
Re: (Score:2)
Yes—after all, Republicans weren't "potent" enough to usurp ACA. Again, priorities or impotency.
Re: (Score:2)
That was priorities. They did make changes that will eventually lead to the system's practical collapse, but to avoid quickly becoming too unpopular to win even with the playing field heavily tilted in their favor, they chose not the kill the system outright. This gave them plausible deniability.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? His war against American industry and under the table payouts to solar panel companies that had political supporters on their boards did plenty to help our climate.
Fortunately, the price decrease in the solar energy sector has seen the same pattern that literally EVERY other technology has seen. Which leaves us to believe that all politicians together have done jack-squat to affect anything.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about? His war against American industry and under the table payouts to solar panel companies that had political supporters on their boards did plenty to help our climate.
There were about four solar panel companies, only one of them had political supporters on its board, and it got the least money of all of them because it folded before it could collect it all. Guess you missed the details, though, since you're bringing up that old tired shit.
Fortunately, the price decrease in the solar energy sector has seen the same pattern that literally EVERY other technology has seen. Which leaves us to believe that all politicians together have done jack-squat to affect anything.
The fossil fuel companies have literally been conspiring against solar power, wielding their influence in government to keep it down to protect their control of the energy market. For example, the way GWB wouldn't grant a license to bui
Re: I thought Obama fixed climate change though (Score:2)
Carbon emissions for Americans were dropping during Obama's term. As oil shale was booming. Hmmm...
Re:Big whoop! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
During most of the 4.543 billion years that earths exists, it was not habitable by humans. And even during long periods when earth was more or less habitable, most places where people live now, were under water or otherwise inhabitable
Thank you for this important reminder, that the planet's climate can change â" drastically and dramatically â" with human involvement neither for nor against it.
That is not an important reminder, it's something we all know and it's also irrelevant to the current debate, which is over global warming which we know to be anthropogenic because of physics. HTH, HAND!
Re: Big whoop! (Score:2)
We have 100,000 years of data.
But don't let facrs detract from your scumbag fantasy world.
Re: I will save the world and YOU will pay for it! (Score:2)
The ones who really vote - Congressmen and Senators - would never support such a thing.
Re: Oh really? (Score:2)
Nobody sold global cooling in the 70s, outside of scifi.
Re: (Score:2)
Washington post - Jan 11, 1970 - "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In Future"
Held? Hail? What?
Re: (Score:3)
I have a few dozen other examples from respectable sources.
Those same sources were also posting articles about global warming. Now, over the period between when GW was postulated (late 1800s) and today, or hell even twenty years before today, have those specific sources posted more articles about global warming, or global cooling? Do your actual homework before you suggest that one spate of articles represents a flood of media. Perhaps someone should explain to you how media works: someone writes an article, then all the various papers report on the article, and th
Re: climate change has to change (Score:2)
Not sure sterilizing the only planet with known life is irrevevant.
The corruption has been on the side of deniers, exclusively. A fact they conveniently ignore.
Re: People believe this bullshit? (Score:2)
Global warming has been accepted since 1895.
That makes it more established and better tested than Relativity.
And, no, nobody believes in it. You do not pray to the God of maths for 1+1=2. You KNOW it.
The deniers are the ones who can't add.
Re: (Score:3)
They will not care unless/until the disaster lands on their front porch.
I've got news for you, they don't care then, either. We know people who have lost three homes in a row to fires in California. You'd think after the second one (if not the first) they'd make finding a home that's in a defensible situation a priority, but they just keep moving into more flammable shit-shacks built in forests. Everyone's in denial, and it's going to kill us all.
Sadly, government doesn't care either. If your home gets burned down in a big fire, FEMA gives you a check and slaps you on the ass.
Re: Economic arguments (Score:3)
Scientists get paid for observing, whether refuting or confirming.
Your cynicism doesn't alter that reality, it alters only your own.
Re: Since 1900 (Score:2)
We have 100,000 years of records.
Re:Good News (Score:5, Insightful)
Having lived in Alaska, I take this as good news. Cold is bad
Just wait until you find out how much Alaskan infrastructure is dependent on what is currently permafrost remaining permafrost.
Re: (Score:2)
10 years ago Al Gore assured us the Arctic would be ice free in 5 years.
He didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're making my point. You say 'outlier' and I say 'hysterical predictions'. That's what the mainstream media reports, and what people remember is that New York City is supposed to be underwater already.
Al Gore reported it as being an outlier, and the media reported it in big letters because that's how they get eyeballs. It's the media's fault, not Al Gore. Don't blame Al Gore.
Start reporting seriously, instead of trying to push a political and economic agenda under the cover of environmental sky-is-falling scare tactics, and people will take the issue more seriously.
That's not how any of this works. The scientists are reporting their results as usual, and the media is warping it into bullshit to sell media as usual. That's the media's fault, but they're not doing what you're doing. Remember, media is overwhelmingly owned by massive, polluting, amoral corporate interests. They would rather push t