Global warming didn't go anywhere. As we've established, Canada was as warm as the US was cold. Yeah, it will be back, I'll probably have tornados again by the end of the month. Last time I predicted that, it's exactly what happened. As I write this, the snow has disappeared faster than the US middle class. The predictions are for near spring temperatures for the rest of the month. Then the storms should start again by March. So don't worry, thing will get back to SNAFU soon enough.
If you think I'm disappointed that the winter here was cold, I'm not. Weather isn't climate, so my belief in AGW hasn't waned. But I did enjoy the cold temperatures, and I know next summer will have fewer bugs because of the recent cold temps.
Summers have become so brutally hot that the Harper's Ferry Nuclear plant has to shut down during parts of the summer because the river water that cools the reactors is too hot and won't get the job done. This January, a tornado hit my home town of Huntsville and tore up the historic district. THIS HAS NEVER happened before in January! Winter tornados used to be unheard of, until the last few years. Now, we live under the threat year-round.
Weather deals with what you immediately observe. Short term trends are not climate. Short terms trends do not influence climate. Weather is not climate. Local events do not indicate global trends. You can't evaluate the state of climate trends by looking out of your widow.
comment is based from yet? I suspect a few others may be getting it narrowed down by now.I thought it was clear by now, its a source issue.
So once again you use YOUR local weather events to suggest that they are evidence of global warming but then later say that other peoples local weather events are not proof of global warming.
Have you figured out where my comment is based from yet? I suspect a few others may be getting it narrowed down by now.
Sorry but that's not true.Climate scientists are not meteorologists, and are not in the business of predicting the weather.
Climate deals with long term trends. Weather deals with what you immediately observe. Short term trends are not climate. Short terms trends do not influence climate. Weather is not climate. Local events do not indicate global trends. You can't evaluate the state of climate trends by looking out of your widow.
Main Entry: cli·mate
Pronunciation: \ˈklī-mət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English climat, from Middle French, from Late Latin climat-, clima, from Greek klimat-, klima inclination, latitude, climate, from klinein to lean — more at lean
Date: 14th century
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2 a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors <a climate-controlled office>
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere <a climate of fear>
Main Entry: 1weath·er
Pronunciation: \ˈwe-thər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English weder, from Old English; akin to Old High German wetar weather, Old Church Slavic vetrŭ wind
Date: before 12th century
1 : the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
2 : state or vicissitude of life or fortune
3 : disagreeable atmospheric conditions: as a : rain, storm b : cold air with dampness
4 : weathering
— to weather : in the direction from which the wind is blowing
2 a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
Climate deals with long term trends
For those who use a dictionary and the correct definitions from the real world.
Brownout, this is why I enjoy your input here so much. You alone have given me reason to consult the dictionary more times in 4 months than I have in probably 10 years. Way to go!
I agree that climate and short term trends have nothing to do with climate change but I have to pull you up on a couple of points:
Sorry but that's not true.
For example the Met Office conduct lots of research into climate change and they're the main weather forecasters in the UK. They admit that they're using exactly the same models to forecast long term climate change as they do for seasonal weather forecasts.
https://www.electro-tech-online.com...-global-warming-so-quickly.103732/#post846110
This isn't the only reason why I'm a just bit sceptical.
At best we only have around 200 years of real temperature measurements and about 50 or so sears of really accurate temperature records which have been used to calibrate data gathered from other proxies from the last 100,000 or so years. It just doesn't seem like very good statistical analysis.
Earlier on you said that the mildest winter in in 200 years is rare? I disagree, not when you consider the age of the earth.
Then there's all the other mistakes regarding the Himalayas and tree rings and all the conspiracy theories which have resulted from lots of the research being kept secret.
You have to ask yourself what would happen if a group of scientists found conclusive evidence to debunk anthropogenic climate change and almost completely prove it's a natural phenomenon. How long would it take for the majority of scientists to come round? Or would their work be suppressed? What about the carbon credits?
There are some compelling evidence to support CO2 absorbing enough energy from the sun to warm the earth but I'm also not convinced of the so-called runaway effects i.e. the reduction in the ocean's ability to sink CO2 could be negated by increased growth in vegetation.
Then there's the unacceptably wide range in predictions ranging from a 1°C rise which will be of little consequence to a 6°C which will cause havoc.
Fortunately so far, the temperature rise has been on the lower end of climate change predictions:
"New analysis has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office is at the lower end of likely warming."
**broken link removed**
They use the same models.EDIT: I looked at your Met site, and weather was listed seperately from Climate Change. I'm I to believe that because both are studied by the same organization, they are necessarily the same?
At the Met Office we use the same model to make weather forecasts as we do to make our climate predictions
How is using 150 years of inaccurate temperature records and 50 years of accurate records to calibrate 100,000 years of data from other proxies good statistical analysis?The proxies have been dinigently gathered, complied and studied. The statistical analysis has been peer reviewed. I think it's pretty solid.
Once in every 200 years is not rare on a geological timescale.A weather event that occurs once in 200 years is very rare. I don't understand your statemen at all.
I was expecting you to have read the IPCC report.I haven't seen predictions that have that wide of a tolerance. Your article didn't really say what the "low end" is supposed to be.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaClimate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.
Since when have I ever done that?Once again, no need to point out the fact that I probably have typos. With all the tags, I'm not spell checking.
Some proof is already emerging. Some of the trends already look like the models. I don't want to wait until the temp has risen to start taking the science seriously; it might be too late to do anything about it by then.
They use the same models.
I've quoted this before, but you obviously didn't read it, not that I blame you because it was part of a huge block of text.
https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2010/02/julia-slingo-2.pdf
In my opinion the sort term forecasts from the Met Office are excellent but the seasonal forecasts are poor.
How is using 150 years of inaccurate temperature records and 50 years of accurate records to calibrate 100,000 years of data from other proxies good statistical analysis?
If the records went back 1000 years or more then maybe I'd be more inclined to agree, but 200 is 0.02% of 100,000.
Once in every 200 years is not rare on a geological timescale.
It theoretically means that such temperatures could've been recorded 500 times in the last 100,000 years. Whether they have or not is subject to pure speculation, since the last 99,800 years of data is just a rough guess.
I'l right I got it slightly wrong, it's a 1.1 to 6.4°C temperature rise over the next century.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since when have I ever done that?
My typing/spelling is far from perfect, I think you're confusing me with someone else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?