Climate Change(d)?

[Shadowy Man]

But I would agree it seemed to be premature and a bit hyperbolic to state that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”.

It's not hyperbole, it is propaganda. The politics of it has an agenda. It is an anti modernization, anti capitalist, anti-human agenda.

I agree there could be an agenda for some but I think you extrapolate here to a point that quickly becomes nonsensical. Unless you have explicit evidence of this kind of motivation I will remain skeptical of that.

And further to imply that the science is fabricated to support an agenda is definitely unsupported.

Also, “Settled” doesn’t mean “can predict with zero uncertainty all future events”.

Behave. It is a religion. The settled science is not to be questioned. To question or doubt the science is to be a climate/science denier!!! A heretic.

You are extrapolating far too much from
What I said. But you already know your conclusion so there’s no need to examine what it really means.

But I do understand they science is not always easily understood by the layman, such as you are, and far more often than not I have found it is not communicated well either.

The layman still knows bullshit by its smell.

If only that were true. We wouldn’t have flat earthers and moon landing deniers and other forms of anti-science ignorance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my latest, and first (only?) piece on Climate Change(d), we discuss the issues that is whether Climate Change is the right term anymore and asking if we are in Climate Changed.

Circling back to the OP: Apparently, 2023 was the 23rd year in a row that was, on average, warmer than the second warmest one of the 20th century (1997), and the 12th or so that was warmer than the warmest year on record prior to this century (1998).

So, yes

And not only was 2023 the hottest year on record the increase was far beyond what was expected:

Even Climate Scientists Weren't Ready For 2023, And That's a Worry

What we don't know can still hurt us very much indeed.

www.sciencealert.com

Strange how reality tends towards the more extreme outcomes than the average prediction. (Yeah, there are outliers that predict things going bad very quickly but that's not mainstream thought. In most situations you're better off discarding a few observations off the top and bottom. Go with the 90% or 95% interval.)

And note that the IPCC estimates completely ignore methane hydrates. This is not because they are unimportant (they could turn out to be worse than the high case estimates for the damage done by CO2) but because the science isn't there yet to put numbers on it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a couple of ways to look at that. One would be that they haven't a clue what they are talking about. They can't predict the weather for Wednesday but they are 100% certain the world is going to be on fire and the oceans will be boiling one, two, ten years from now. And we may still get snow and it will cause chaos? ffs, talk about hedging your bets and snow always has caused chaos.

Settled science, lol.

The problem is that weather is climate + a chaotic factor. As with all chaotic systems the future state rapidly becomes impossible to predict but the underlying trend will dominate in the long run.

Will the professional gambler be up or down after the next hand of blackjack? The odds tip slightly towards down and the spread between high and low is more than 2x the bet size. Will the same guy be up or down after 100 hands? Unknown, but note that the deviation will be nowhere near 2x 100 bets. Will the professional gambler be up or down after a million hands? If he knows his business, virtually certainly up. (The hard part comes in avoiding being kicked out when they figure out what you are. By local law it's completely legal to count so long as it's in your head, no aids used. But it's also legal for the casino to trespass you for doing it.)

 

[TSwizzle]

See. For example:

Why snow days are becoming increasingly rare in the UK

Since 1979, the average number of snow days has fallen by about five per decade.

theconversation.com

Or something a bit more academic:

https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/091221-NERC-LWEC-WaterReportSource11-SnowHistoryProjected.pdf

Good grief. the first article has a painting of a "frost fair" from 1683!! This tells me I am already dealing with propaganda.

next, onto the article that "is a bit more academic". It's another piece filled with weasel word "suggests" reduced snowfall using models.

Some winters are worse than others, that is not new.

You may need to do more than casually glance at these links.

No, I don’t think I do.

But I haven’t seen an Interest on your part in having a substantive discussion of actual science .

I would sooner discuss the science surrounding miracles or the resurrection with Christians than the nonsense that gets posted here. Actual science would be a novelty.

 

[TSwizzle]

But I would agree it seemed to be premature and a bit hyperbolic to state that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”.

It's not hyperbole, it is propaganda. The politics of it has an agenda. It is an anti modernization, anti capitalist, anti-human agenda.

I agree there could be an agenda for some but I think you extrapolate here to a point that quickly becomes nonsensical. Unless you have explicit evidence of this kind of motivation I will remain skeptical of that.

I don’t think you are skeptical in the slightest. You are all in with the cult.

And further to imply that the science is fabricated to support an agenda is definitely unsupported.

Sure, Jan. Did you learn nothing from the Covid shambles?

Also, “Settled” doesn’t mean “can predict with zero uncertainty all future events”.

Behave. It is a religion. The settled science is not to be questioned. To question or doubt the science is to be a climate/science denier!!! A heretic.

You are extrapolating far too much from
What I said. But you already know your conclusion so there’s no need to examine what it really means.

Unlike you I have an open mind but so far there has been zero evidence presented of the coming climate apocalypse.

But I do understand they science is not always easily understood by the layman, such as you are, and far more often than not I have found it is not communicated well either.

The layman still knows bullshit by its smell.

If only that were true. We wouldn’t have flat earthers and moon landing deniers and other forms of anti-science ignorance.

And climate apocalypse cultists (just stop oil etc) are just the same as these cranks.

 

[Shadowy Man]

See. For example:

Why snow days are becoming increasingly rare in the UK

Since 1979, the average number of snow days has fallen by about five per decade.

theconversation.com

Or something a bit more academic:

https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/091221-NERC-LWEC-WaterReportSource11-SnowHistoryProjected.pdf

Good grief. the first article has a painting of a "frost fair" from 1683!! This tells me I am already dealing with propaganda.

next, onto the article that "is a bit more academic". It's another piece filled with weasel word "suggests" reduced snowfall using models.

Some winters are worse than others, that is not new.

You may need to do more than casually glance at these links.

No, I don’t think I do.

I believe you.

But I haven’t seen an Interest on your part in having a substantive discussion of actual science .

I would sooner discuss the science surrounding miracles or the resurrection with Christians than the nonsense that gets posted here. Actual science would be a novelty.

I agree with you here as well. It would indeed be a novelty for you.

 

[Shadowy Man]

But I would agree it seemed to be premature and a bit hyperbolic to state that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”.

It's not hyperbole, it is propaganda. The politics of it has an agenda. It is an anti modernization, anti capitalist, anti-human agenda.

I agree there could be an agenda for some but I think you extrapolate here to a point that quickly becomes nonsensical. Unless you have explicit evidence of this kind of motivation I will remain skeptical of that.

I don’t think you are skeptical in the slightest. You are all in with the cult.

No. I just know how to read science results.

And further to imply that the science is fabricated to support an agenda is definitely unsupported.

Sure, Jan. Did you learn nothing from the Covid shambles?

Different subject.

Also, “Settled” doesn’t mean “can predict with zero uncertainty all future events”.

Behave. It is a religion. The settled science is not to be questioned. To question or doubt the science is to be a climate/science denier!!! A heretic.

You are extrapolating far too much from
What I said. But you already know your conclusion so there’s no need to examine what it really means.

Unlike you I have an open mind but so far there has been zero evidence presented of the coming climate apocalypse.

Unlike you, I know the science.

Having an open mind doesn’t help if you don’t fill it with actual science.

But I do understand they science is not always easily understood by the layman, such as you are, and far more often than not I have found it is not communicated well either.

The layman still knows bullshit by its smell.

If only that were true. We wouldn’t have flat earthers and moon landing deniers and other forms of anti-science ignorance.

And climate apocalypse cultists (just stop oil etc) are just the same as these cranks.

I agree that those who make overly apocalyptic proclamations do a disservice to the actual science.

 

[TSwizzle]

I agree that those who make overly apocalyptic proclamations do a disservice to the actual science.

And yet the cranks influence the policy makers.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I agree that those who make overly apocalyptic proclamations do a disservice to the actual science.

And yet the cranks influence the policy makers.

And so do the deniers. We have not had a sensible climate and energy policy in the forty to fifty years that we have known we have needed one.

With the two sides pushing and pulling we end up with a mishmash of hardly useful approaches when we needed a holistic, visionary overhaul of our energy policy.

 

[TSwizzle]

I agree that those who make overly apocalyptic proclamations do a disservice to the actual science.

And yet the cranks influence the policy makers.

And so do the deniers.

There you go with the denier crap again.

We have not had a sensible climate and energy policy in the forty to fifty years that we have known we have needed one.

With the two sides pushing and pulling we end up with a mishmash of hardly useful approaches when we needed a holistic, visionary overhaul of our energy policy.

You really do believe that you can stop the planet’s climate from changing for the first time ever. What are you smoking fella?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I agree that those who make overly apocalyptic proclamations do a disservice to the actual science.

And yet the cranks influence the policy makers.

And so do the deniers.

There you go with the denier crap again.

Sure, Jan.

We have not had a sensible climate and energy policy in the forty to fifty years that we have known we have needed one.

With the two sides pushing and pulling we end up with a mishmash of hardly useful approaches when we needed a holistic, visionary overhaul of our energy policy.

You really do believe that you can stop the planet’s climate from changing for the first time ever. What are you smoking fella?

Nothing as strong as you are, fella.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You really do believe that you can stop the planet’s climate from changing for the first time ever.?

Ha! Like you know even one iota of anything about climate science.

 

[steve_bank]

See. For example:

Why snow days are becoming increasingly rare in the UK

Since 1979, the average number of snow days has fallen by about five per decade.

theconversation.com

Or something a bit more academic:

https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/091221-NERC-LWEC-WaterReportSource11-SnowHistoryProjected.pdf

Good grief. the first article has a painting of a "frost fair" from 1683!! This tells me I am already dealing with propaganda.

next, onto the article that "is a bit more academic". It's another piece filled with weasel word "suggests" reduced snowfall using models.

Some winters are worse than others, that is not new.

You may need to do more than casually glance at these links.

No, I don’t think I do.

But I haven’t seen an Interest on your part in having a substantive discussion of actual science .

I would sooner discuss the science surrounding miracles or the resurrection with Christians than the nonsense that gets posted here. Actual science would be a novelty.

Clever retort, but useless hand waving. You know no science to begin with.

One can quote mine science without knowing science. The same science and methodology used for weather forecasting and hurricane predictions are used to model climate.

The fact is the world is measurably getting hotter and the ice melts are causing oceans to measurably rise. That is indisputable simple measurements. Miami is moving roads inland, islands are going under.

The only possible debate is causation.

All known cyclical causes have been ruled out. The rapid rise in temperature papers coincident with the rise of industrialization. Coal became cheaper due in part to better water pumps and steam engines in mines. Coal usage in cites soared both industrial and domestic home use. There was hazardous air pollution in European cities well before cars.


Yes or no questions, care to go on record?

1. Should we continue to fill the atmosphere with pollutants and not worry about it?
2. Thinking of future generations, should we expand use of fossil fuels rather than reduce?
3. Should we care about pollution affecting life in the ocean?
4. Should we worry about chemicals in our drinking water?

 

[TSwizzle]

The fact is the world is measurably getting hotter

An imperceptible slight warming does not a catastrophe make. The earth warms and cools, there is such a thing as natural variability.

and the ice melts are causing oceans to measurably rise.

Not really or and certainly not significantly so far.

That is indisputable simple measurements. Miami is moving roads inland, islands are going under.

Good grief.

 

[steve_bank]

Again a lack of basic physics, The total increase in energy in the oceans by a 1 degree C rise is enormous.

The two terminals on a battery represent a difference in potential energy. Water in a high lake represents potential energy difference relative to lower altitudes. Run water from the lake down through a turbine and electricity is generated. The amount and rate of erregy, power, is proportional to the potential energy of the water in the lake.

In thermodynamics the most basic form is a heat engine. Het, aka energy, alwus flows from a higher to a lowe ynerture region. Strms and clmate in geral sdrven by differnces in heat in the ebvironment.


Cold air over warm water, cold with a higher density sinks, warm air at the surface with lower density rises. A hurricane is born. Warmer water means a greater potential energy difference between hot water and cold air, air moves faster with greater kinetic energy and storms are more intense.

Same principle as increasing voltage across a electric heater to increase heat.

Storms on land occur when a cold front meets warm air. It is a short jump to see increased winter snow storms can be driven by global warming.

Like a car or computer, storms require energy. It is an inescapable consequence of the Laws Of Thermodynamics. Storms and lightning are phenomena that occur when potential energies reach a threshold.

Physics and Thermodynamics for dummies... the 'for dummies' series of books are well written and intened for the average reader.

Thermodynamics for Dummies book by Mike Pauken

Physics For Dummies

Buy Physics For Dummies Paperback Book By: Steven Holzner from as low as $4.45.

www.secondsale.com

So, you are not going to answer the questions, did not think you would. To make resoanable rational responses woud mean bringing yiur clmate views into question.

 

[steve_bank]

In weather reporting lake effect is used to describe heavy snowfall in the Great Lakes region..

A 'heat engine'.

Global warming does not mean less snow.

What is a Lake Effect Snow?

Lake effect snow is common across the Great Lakes region during the late fall and winter. Lake Effect snow occurs when cold air, often originating from Canada, moves across the open waters of the Great Lakes. As the cold air passes over the unfrozen and relatively warm waters of the Great Lakes, warmth and moisture are transferred into the lowest portion of the atmosphere. The air rises, clouds form and grow into narrow band that produces 2 to 3 inches of snow per hour or more.

Lake effect snow warning issued for parts of Rochester region, up to 3 feet possible in some areas

Heavy lake effect snow is expected to bury parts of western New York this week. Here's what to expect here.

www.democratandchronicle.com

How much snow is expected to fall in western NY storm?

Between 1 and 3 feet of lake effect snow are expected to fall in the most persistent lake effect snow bands, with much of the area expected to see 1 to 2 feet of snow, according to the Weather Service. The pending lake effect snow is again expected to pummel the Buffalo area, where more than 2 feet of snow fell over the weekend in blustery con

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree that those who make overly apocalyptic proclamations do a disservice to the actual science.

And yet the cranks influence the policy makers.

And so do the deniers.

There you go with the denier crap again.

We have not had a sensible climate and energy policy in the forty to fifty years that we have known we have needed one.

With the two sides pushing and pulling we end up with a mishmash of hardly useful approaches when we needed a holistic, visionary overhaul of our energy policy.

You really do believe that you can stop the planet’s climate from changing for the first time ever. What are you smoking fella?

So you are complaining about being considered a "denier", and accuse a poster of thinking this is the first time the climate on Earth has changed. So good enough for the goose, but not the gander.

 

[Elixir]

Fuckwit Newsom thinks EV are a panacea.

Fuckwitz in Santa Monica think we can burn all the fossil fuels we want, to no bad effect.

 

[steve_bank]

It could be poring rain and Twizzler would post a link saying it was warm and sunny.

 

[Elixir]

I agree that those who make overly apocalyptic proclamations do a disservice to the actual science.

And yet the cranks influence the policy makers.

And so do the deniers.

There you go with the denier crap again.

We have not had a sensible climate and energy policy in the forty to fifty years that we have known we have needed one.

With the two sides pushing and pulling we end up with a mishmash of hardly useful approaches when we needed a holistic, visionary overhaul of our energy policy.

You really do believe that you can stop the planet’s climate from changing for the first time ever. What are you smoking fella?

So you are complaining about being considered a "denier", and accuse a poster of thinking this is the first time the climate on Earth has changed. So good enough for the goose, but not the gander.

The not-so-funny thing about that, is that this is probably the first time earth's climate has changed this quickly absent any major impact or vulcanism event.