>> Let me end with the golden rule of temperature extremes: the bigger the temperature extreme the SMALLER the contribution of global warming. Think about that.

>> Let me end with the golden rule of temperature extremes: the bigger the temperature extreme the SMALLER the contribution of global warming. Think about that. This frustrates me because "global warming" refers to the average temperature sure, but it is really only useful as a measure of the total _energy_ in the atmosphere. More energy = more extreme _events_, such as this one. Whereas the way I read his point seems to be making the claim that because the temperature of the event is further from the normal temperature, that is less about global warming. Hence why "climate change" is a more accurate phrase. > I think this event has yet to be fully explored and scientifically analyzed, but currently it looks like this is a rare 1 in 1000 years event that could have occurred with or without climate change. In the past we would have written this event off as an anomaly, a record setting event that stands out but isn't the norm. But now it seems like people are very quick to shout 'climate change' for literally any kind of weather anomaly and I am trying to understand why. Because there seem to more and more* of these "rare 1 in 1000 years" events. The increased frequency is why people shout 'climate change'. * it could just be increased reporting in our highly connected world, but I don't think so.