6 ms·

> Meanwhile blaming every weather anamoly on climate change is rather tiresome. Not nearly as tiresome as disregarding the clear and ongoing increase in the fr

by rosser 7y ago

> Meanwhile blaming every weather anamoly on climate change is rather tiresome. Not nearly as tiresome as disregarding the clear and ongoing increase in the frequency and intensity of these anomalous weather events, where every record set just the previous year being toppled yet again is somehow another mere "weather anomaly", only to be considered in isolation. We seem to have rather a lot of these anomalies, though, don't we? They also seem to be getting more extreme. Perhaps those are data points we might consider. When a class of anomaly becomes less anomalous in frequency (that is, they happen more often, perhaps even becoming the norm), but more anomalous in intensity (read: are bigger), mightn't that suggest something beyond mere fluctuation in a dynamic system? I wonder what might be dumping all kinds of extra energy into the system, such that it behaves like we're observing... EDIT: Phrasing

chrisco255 7y ago
Oh, you mean this: http://climate4you.com/images/ARCTIC%20Temp%20201907%20versus%20last%2010yr%201200km%20Hadl_Reyn_v2-GHCNv4.gif http://climate4you.com/images/ARCTIC%20Temp%20201907%20versu... http://climate4you.com/images/ANTARCTIC%20Temp%20201907%20versus%20last%2010yr%20Hadl_Reyn_v2-GHCNv4.gif http://climate4you.com/images/ANTARCTIC%20Temp%20201907%20ve... What's unusual about it? Over the past 20, 200, and 2000 years, how have those regions varied in temperature and extent? What were the causes of any shifts?
- anarchy8 7y ago
  Are you aware that that site is a well-known climate change denialist disinformation site? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Humlum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Humlum
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    When I search for information like this I can only find this sort of site. Could you suggest a better equivalent?
    - Fezzik 7y ago
      That may indicate something about the legitimacy of the data and conclusions the author(s) reach. Phrased another way: if the only person you can find peddling a claim is someone like Alex Jones, it is not a misuse of your mental faculties to conclude that the claim is probably wrong. Because he has a track record of regularly being wrong. It is not proof of that fact, but it is certainly an indicator. Edit, to add: hence, there are no other sources.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        "There are no other sources" for maps of temperature variation? What is that supposed to mean? Temperature variation is the point of this entire argument. If skeptics show me maps of temperature variation, and then enthusiasts tell me those maps are wrong, and then I ask for links to the right ones, and then enthusiasts tell me those don't exist, what am I supposed to think?
        Fezzik 7y ago
        Ah, sorry - I thought you meant for the conclusions from climate4you/Climate Realists, not just the graphs. The IPCC has generated loads of plotted climate data, and I recall very similar graphics. I am on my phone but I am happy to look stuff up when I am back at a computer.
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        The source is NASA GISS. That site is an indirect source of the actual data. It doesn't matter that the site has a viewpoint that is different than yours. Are the facts incorrect? No, no they're not. To the best of my knowledge. EDIT: MORE DATA FROM NASA SHOWING 2019 IS NOT AN UNUSUAL YEAR: https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234 https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234 We're on pace to beat the 2007 sea ice extent in the arctic and may even beat the 2009-2018 average depending on how fall and early winter go in the arctic. Meanwhile, antarctic sea ice extent continues to hew close to average.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    According that site the source is NASA GISS. At any rate are you aware that clouds and H2O have a much more dramatic effect over the environment than CO2? Are you aware that low clouds have a cooling effect and that even small changes in low cloud cover can have dramatic effects on the Earth's energy budget? Are you aware cloud cover decreased by 2-6% between 1983 and 2009? Are you aware that climate science is an incredibly young and immature field and that we still don't have a handle on all the factors that drive climate change? https://journals.eco-vector.com/0205-9614/article/view/11444 https://journals.eco-vector.com/0205-9614/article/view/11444
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - zdrummond 7y ago
      https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

by rosser 7y ago

chrisco255 7y ago

Oh, you mean this: http://climate4you.com/images/ARCTIC%20Temp%20201907%20versus%20last%2010yr%201200km%20Hadl_Reyn_v2-GHCNv4.gif http://climate4you.com/images/ARCTIC%20Temp%20201907%20versu... http://climate4you.com/images/ANTARCTIC%20Temp%20201907%20versus%20last%2010yr%20Hadl_Reyn_v2-GHCNv4.gif http://climate4you.com/images/ANTARCTIC%20Temp%20201907%20ve... What's unusual about it? Over the past 20, 200, and 2000 years, how have those regions varied in temperature and extent? What were the causes of any shifts?

anarchy8 7y ago
Are you aware that that site is a well-known climate change denialist disinformation site? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Humlum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Humlum
- jessaustin 7y ago
  When I search for information like this I can only find this sort of site. Could you suggest a better equivalent?
  - Fezzik 7y ago
    That may indicate something about the legitimacy of the data and conclusions the author(s) reach. Phrased another way: if the only person you can find peddling a claim is someone like Alex Jones, it is not a misuse of your mental faculties to conclude that the claim is probably wrong. Because he has a track record of regularly being wrong. It is not proof of that fact, but it is certainly an indicator. Edit, to add: hence, there are no other sources.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      "There are no other sources" for maps of temperature variation? What is that supposed to mean? Temperature variation is the point of this entire argument. If skeptics show me maps of temperature variation, and then enthusiasts tell me those maps are wrong, and then I ask for links to the right ones, and then enthusiasts tell me those don't exist, what am I supposed to think?
      - Fezzik 7y ago
        Ah, sorry - I thought you meant for the conclusions from climate4you/Climate Realists, not just the graphs. The IPCC has generated loads of plotted climate data, and I recall very similar graphics. I am on my phone but I am happy to look stuff up when I am back at a computer.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      The source is NASA GISS. That site is an indirect source of the actual data. It doesn't matter that the site has a viewpoint that is different than yours. Are the facts incorrect? No, no they're not. To the best of my knowledge. EDIT: MORE DATA FROM NASA SHOWING 2019 IS NOT AN UNUSUAL YEAR: https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234 https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234 We're on pace to beat the 2007 sea ice extent in the arctic and may even beat the 2009-2018 average depending on how fall and early winter go in the arctic. Meanwhile, antarctic sea ice extent continues to hew close to average.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  According that site the source is NASA GISS. At any rate are you aware that clouds and H2O have a much more dramatic effect over the environment than CO2? Are you aware that low clouds have a cooling effect and that even small changes in low cloud cover can have dramatic effects on the Earth's energy budget? Are you aware cloud cover decreased by 2-6% between 1983 and 2009? Are you aware that climate science is an incredibly young and immature field and that we still don't have a handle on all the factors that drive climate change? https://journals.eco-vector.com/0205-9614/article/view/11444 https://journals.eco-vector.com/0205-9614/article/view/11444
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - zdrummond 7y ago
    https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/