3 ms·

It is always possible, that a measurement of any kind is flawed, though I consider it highly unlikely (I was very suprised, that there were any spots in Scotlan

by _ph_ 4y ago

It is always possible, that a measurement of any kind is flawed, though I consider it highly unlikely (I was very suprised, that there were any spots in Scotland, which have snow all year around at all, so they are probably fameous and any melting would be easily noticed). But that isn't the point. It could rather be a local phenomenum. It is always likely, that the local climate of a spot develops somewhat independent of the global climate. The thing is: we can't "measure" the global climate. The global climate is the result of thousands of independant measurements. Like the one presented here. And they speak a very clear message, which to no suprise follows the raise of CO2 in the atmosphere.

irthomasthomas 4y ago
It feels like you really cherry picked his comment to reach that conclusion. What about 1933 and 1959? And snow in NZ?
- _ph_ 4y ago
  I am really not understanding what you want to say. And of course you would have had years without snow in the past, as there are always warmer and colder years in any region, there are always fluctuations. But the average temperature determines whether a year where the snow completely melts off is rather likely or unlikely. So the frequency of the snow-free years is a direct measure of the average temperature in that region of the world. And snow in NZ doesn't tell anything at all on its own. It might just have been a cold year in that region, it could even be, that climate change would mean a cool down for that region. Climate change is about the temperature increase in the sum over all the world. It doesn't mean that every part of the globe equally warms up. A lot of the local temperatures are determined by geographical features and resulting stable weather influences. Take the gulf stream. That makes Europe much warmer than the equivalent parts of the nothern America. But if that fails due to climate change, temperatures in Europe would considerably go down.
bArray 4y ago
> [..] so they are probably fameous and any melting would be easily noticed). Famous in the 1700's? I believe the Scottish life was a lot more humble than it is now. I imagine these all-year snow locations would be more remote, harder to access and not a leisurely walk. > The thing is: we can't "measure" the global climate. Surely we can? It shouldn't be too difficult to have many weather stations around the world to make such measurements. Even satellite data could be quite accurate. > And they speak a very clear message, which to no suprise follows the raise of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm not sure there is a clear message. I remember reading a while back of the effect of methane vs carbon dioxide on global warming, and methane by tonne was exceptionally worse. Maybe we should be concentrating efforts on ozone?

by _ph_ 4y ago

irthomasthomas 4y ago

It feels like you really cherry picked his comment to reach that conclusion. What about 1933 and 1959? And snow in NZ?

_ph_ 4y ago
I am really not understanding what you want to say. And of course you would have had years without snow in the past, as there are always warmer and colder years in any region, there are always fluctuations. But the average temperature determines whether a year where the snow completely melts off is rather likely or unlikely. So the frequency of the snow-free years is a direct measure of the average temperature in that region of the world. And snow in NZ doesn't tell anything at all on its own. It might just have been a cold year in that region, it could even be, that climate change would mean a cool down for that region. Climate change is about the temperature increase in the sum over all the world. It doesn't mean that every part of the globe equally warms up. A lot of the local temperatures are determined by geographical features and resulting stable weather influences. Take the gulf stream. That makes Europe much warmer than the equivalent parts of the nothern America. But if that fails due to climate change, temperatures in Europe would considerably go down.

bArray 4y ago

> [..] so they are probably fameous and any melting would be easily noticed). Famous in the 1700's? I believe the Scottish life was a lot more humble than it is now. I imagine these all-year snow locations would be more remote, harder to access and not a leisurely walk. > The thing is: we can't "measure" the global climate. Surely we can? It shouldn't be too difficult to have many weather stations around the world to make such measurements. Even satellite data could be quite accurate. > And they speak a very clear message, which to no suprise follows the raise of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm not sure there is a clear message. I remember reading a while back of the effect of methane vs carbon dioxide on global warming, and methane by tonne was exceptionally worse. Maybe we should be concentrating efforts on ozone?