Climate

And YES it did get distorted into some grand conspiracy theory which has been debunked several times. But who pays attention to the debunking of fake news when it is so much easier to just keep repeating the fake story that fits one's world view.

Indeed.

So today there is a blizzard here in northern Oregon, I guess that should once and for all put a nail in the coffin of global warming.

+5C here right now, and it´s been thereabouts all night. I´m very roughly on Anchorage´s latitude here, and normal nighttime temps here 30 years ago at this time of year was -5 to -15. In the last 5 years, we had 1 year like that, barely.

Seriously, Sweden has, as a very blatant example of climate change had an upswing in wine production in the last 20 years, something utterly inconceivable 40 years ago, and not just down south, but almost halfway north at least.

There´s also the old truth that ticks are nonexistant north of Dalälven ((the)Dal-~river), a truth old enough to be recorded back in the 16 the century, it´s no longer a truth in the last 20 years.

Basically, the rate of sudden change is drastic.

Relax wrote:Other than that not being true, as the T rise isn't what is claimed to begin with due to their blatant T manipulation. It was so blatant, the IPCC got caught manipulating it and emailing about it... THey were busy schemeing ways to get around WHY the T's weren't rising like they predicted and how to manipulate the data to show otherwise.

Other than those blatant lies, you would be correct.

Except... all those things you just listed were facts, not "lies".

What we also know to be true historically is a complete collapse of the ice sheet over Canada in a few Centuries time due to the enormous thousand km long drumlins, eskers, etc across Canada where we can calculate flow rate for their creation. Several thousand meters of ice, KABOOM, Gone. That is not a gradual change in T.

The temperature swings were not gradual. By not gradual we are talking centuries for 10C swings, not millennia.

The difference between gradual and not gradual, illustrated:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Feel free to look at what kind of temperature shift was required to wipe out those ice sheets, then compare it to what's happening NOW.

(Yes, it's a web comic. But the data is accurate... and it's presented in way that helps drive the point home to some of the clueless.)

gcomeau wrote:
The difference between gradual and not gradual, illustrated:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Feel free to look at what kind of temperature shift was required to wipe out those ice sheets, then compare it to what's happening NOW.

(Yes, it's a web comic. But the data is accurate... and it's presented in way that helps drive the point home to some of the clueless.)

Amazing that you need a cartoonist to get a decent and easy to view graph like that.
I guess everyone else tried to stick to "normal" sized papers and horizontal curves too much.

Tenshinai wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
The difference between gradual and not gradual, illustrated:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Feel free to look at what kind of temperature shift was required to wipe out those ice sheets, then compare it to what's happening NOW.

(Yes, it's a web comic. But the data is accurate... and it's presented in way that helps drive the point home to some of the clueless.)

Amazing that you need a cartoonist to get a decent and easy to view graph like that.
I guess everyone else tried to stick to "normal" sized papers and horizontal curves too much.

I suppose scientists tend to over estimate both the knowlege AND intelligence of mere mortals. OR they are in denial over anti-science scepticism not to mention hatred.

I love the cartoon. It's funny though not terribly scientific. It lacks error bars.

WeirdlyWired wrote:
I suppose scientists tend to over estimate both the knowlege AND intelligence of mere mortals. OR they are in denial over anti-science scepticism not to mention hatred.

Probably a bit of both...

Tenshinai wrote:

WeirdlyWired wrote:
I suppose scientists tend to over estimate both the knowlege AND intelligence of mere mortals. OR they are in denial over anti-science scepticism not to mention hatred.

Probably a bit of both...

And one thing that gets overlooked: Climate is what we predict the 4th of July 2018 will be for planning the fireworks display, while weather is what actually happens on that day.

Not encouraging:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... are_btn_fb

‘Airpocalypse’ smog events in China linked to melting ice cap, research reveals

Tenshinai wrote:Not encouraging:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... are_btn_fb

‘Airpocalypse’ smog events in China linked to melting ice cap, research reveals

The emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity is responsible for at least half, and possibly up to two-thirds, of the fall in summer sea ice in the Arctic since the late 1970s, according to recent research.

Which "greenhouse gases" are they referring to? CO2 gas which is known to make plants flourish, or perhaps H2O vapor which has much more effect as a "greenhouse gas" than CO2 or nearly any other?

These "experts" are doing nothing more than guessing because they cannot even get their models to work properly, and that is because half the temperature "measurements" they use are actually "estimates," not direct measurements and the fact that they don't begin to understand how half of the variables they need to account for work.

It wasn't until a couple of years ago they finally admitted they didn't take solar variability into account and more recently variations in our planet's orbit around Sol. How many other factors do they need to recognize but don't?

"Experts." Bah. According to many of them the Medieval warming period didn't happen and neither did the mini-ice age of the late 1700s - early 1800s.

robert132 wrote:These "experts" are doing nothing more than guessing because....

Your sig line is particularly appropriate for this post...