ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

[kd8cgo]

Your thinking is not deeply flawed, just flawed. :wink:

Especially when it comes to a fallible, continually changing thing called science.

Ask yourself why does science change? Because it is based on the best available evidence at that time. People literally spend their whole lives working to advance, hence changing, scientific understanding. This is not a bad thing.

Mormons have a local consensus, but they don't have a scientific consensus - they do not base their beliefs on evidence. It's not the consensus that's of issue, but the (lack of) evidence.

Governments releasing information should be held strictly separate from scientists publishing, they are very different processes. Some scientists work for governments, some don't. If the published work is not widely convincing, it is not accepted as consensus. Check for modern citations of past published work, see if it ever was, or is still held in high regard, and why. Check journals and other publications concerned with the advancement of science, Google Scholar is a wonderful tool for this kind of thing.

Remember the pause in global warming, that is no longer a pause?

Yes, researcher's were puzzled, as is usually the case when something unexpected happens. They began looking for evidence for the cause. Then they found it, and published some papers.

Remember when NASA told us that we had a hottest month last year, then decided it wasn't actually the hottest month?

This isn't that unusual, numbers are revised all the time as more data comes in, and individual study methods are scrutinized by the scientific community for errors and omissions. This is a good thing. It's kind of the point of the scientific method actually.

How about the recent report of global temperatures being the highest on record - ignoring the fact that all ice core and sediment cores indicate that temps have globally been up to around 4 times higher. Are those not records of temperature? because many scientists would say that they are.

4 times higher, what do you mean, that makes no sense? "Highest on record" might be loose english form, but is commonly understood what it means, and well spelled out in the source publication as to what data is being used and compared - in this case human records, i.e. what we have recorded firsthand with direct measurement.

Remember when NASA's group said that the summers in the arctic would be ice free by 2013, when in fact, from 2013-2015, we have seen arctic ice making a return in total volume..?

I remember several claims like this, by scientists who published them in papers no less! You'll note that it was never accepted as scientific consensus however, for fairly obvious reasons. Consensus in science is generally conservative, and to change it takes some pretty darn compelling evidence.

Remember when NASA said that 1998 was the hottest year on record, then admitted that they were wrong, and blamed the Y2K bug.. yet all their predictions were based on this faulty data for many years?

Honestly, no, I don't remember this one, probably because it was never major news. I went and looked at that page, and I see they fixed a data discrepancy in a US data set that was getting updated (autonomously?) from a global data set. "All their predictions" were not based on this data set, nor any one data set in general I'd say. The corrected data set did not change the outcome of any global temperature analysis, 1998 remained the warmest in the satellite data records until it was supplanted in 2010, well after this exchange took place.

..but the science is settled, right?

Yes, the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is settled, and has been for decades. Not to say that it couldn't change tomorrow with sufficient newfound evidence. As you've noted before, science doesn't mind changes, it's based on it. The probability of changing the basic hypothesis is very small based on the lack of forthcoming evidence for that over the time of study. The probability of improving and updating climate modeling for better predictive accuracy is guaranteed, since that's the goal of many scientists today.

Funny that my theory on weather station distribution x time x proportion not being modeled correctly into global climate data still goes uncontested on this thread. I was really hoping that someone would bust my balls on that.

You haven't presented your findings to anyone who could examine it or explain it for you, unless there are climate scientists in here that I'm unaware of. A large part of devising and implementing statistical methods is for the express purpose of making models more accurate given limited granular data. If you think you've cracked the case with a more simplistic assessment of the distribution of terrestrial sampling locations... um, ok? Not meaning to be rude, but I just don't count neptronix among my trustworthy sources for scientific findings on climate data

PS, did you know that aerosol forcing models are still up for debate today and thus the projected effect of substances that cool the earth has to be majorly revised now, because it appears that the IPCC was significantly incorrect in their understanding of this?

Yes I knew that! (go me!) All forcing models are up for debate, its science. Sometimes we get good news, sometimes bad. This study is very new, and only shows 4 cites so far, so we'll have to see how it pans out in the long run. Aerosols still have large error bands in the forcing models comparative to other forcing mechanisms, as you can see here and elsewhere.

The author of the study:

Stevens said his study is something to be mulled over, but it does not call into question man-made global warming.

That's what he said in his press release, as well.

"I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously," he wrote, "even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely."

Not paradigm changing, but very interesting, and if supporting findings are found could be good news for cooler temperatures.

 

[tomjasz]

You are simply one of the best "e" gurus I've had, but your thinking and perceptions on this one show a lack of understanding and reviewing scientific peer reviewed studies.
Your mix of atheism with science, for me, is outrageous as the "one book" crowd. That said I do enjoy reading your thoughts and respect that view. I just can't wrap my brain around the logic.

Cheers,

Tom

 

[nutnspecial]

Honestly, I think whatever the argument is, it needs refined/defined?
I'm missing what it is, unless it's over the potential that the mainstream climate info is highly shaded to guide us in potentially the wrong direction for some hidden purpose.

To which I would have to agree. From what I see, it's pretty arrogant to take it for face value based on the rest of the information, and also the lack thereof. Look it up.

Peer reviewed and mainstream doesn't weigh to much with me when I think the system itself is a nice little subversive machine that drives mass opinion in whatever way it's programmed to.

Look closely at it, and you too might see there's no way it could be anywhere near as impartial and just as we are led to believe. Motive is another thing to look at once you can grasp a bit more of the picture.

That said, of course I still believe sustainability and responsible living are key. But I believe in getting there on our own, not being steered into controlled eco cities, or taxing co2, all driven by the same multinat.corporations that sold us all the shit leading to the necessity for sustainable change in the first place. Hook line sinker.

How does that go, problem, reaction, solution? All three can be from the same source you know.

 

[neptronix]

I'm just gonna bow out of this thread. I understand what i am saying is very unorthodox and there is no use pushing the climate agnostic view any further. Nobody has understood my line of skepticism when i explained it, ever. This debate is very polarized and i'm not going to unpolarize it or reveal the shades of gray between the black and white all by myself.

Thanks guys, for the fairly respectful debate. I've had this debate with many other people and it's been a lot less pretty :lol:. I love endless sphere because it's full of bright people.

I'm gonna go hammer away some more on v2.0 of my current bike; adios amigos.

 

[kd8cgo]

I really like hearing everyone's opinions on these kinds of topics, as I think they're some of the more important stuff we can spend time talking about. I don't mean to chase anyone off or be overly dismissive, but I of course have courage of convictions just like everyone else.

One thing I often like to interject into more serious debate or discussion of large scale problems, is the "relevance factor". How relevant is this issue to you on a personal level - what impact will it have on your life? For me, global warming isn't so much a political issue as I (and any member of the general public) am functionally disenfranchised within current political systems. Political input or opinion is not relevant nor will it impact the outcome one way or the other on a large scale, so long as we continue to go along with this incarnation of social and civil organization. The only practical relevance is what impact it could have on myself and those around me I care about. The only rational use I have for this information is: if it could be true 1. how can I prepare and 2. what can I do now to limit my own impact on others now and in the future. Since I can not know with 100% certainty that what expert opinion holds is indeed true, I must base my decisions on the worst of the two cases. The only meaningful impact an individual can have is to change their own behavior, and/or completely stop participation with the current regime in power. The first is akin to "voting with your dollar" and the second is far more drastic and comes with its own set of very serious risks.

 

[Punx0r]

The problem, Neptronix, is you are second-guessing a decade of research by thousands of clever scientists. You also want all of that distilled into a comprehensive but brief "idiot's guide".

That's just not realistic. Accept a scientific consensus when one exists. Consensus is not based on flawed experiment methodology or statistical analysis where someone forgot to correct for something obvious.

That sounds like fundamentalist religious thinking, punx0r.
In order to automatically accept consensus without understanding it, you have to suspend your intellectual capacity and rely on faith while also completely ignoring the past. It sounds like you believe something without understanding it because enough people told it to you again and again, without questioning it.

No. Those two things are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. I can understand basic arguments like "CO2 is a greenhouse gas, reduced ice coverage increases solar absorption, warmer temperatures increase Antarctic sea ice due to freshwater runoff into the ocean", but I am not arrogant enough to think I could possibly properly critique the methodology and data analysis behind not one study, but all of them. That would require me to have a sound academic grounding in mathematics and years of experience designing experiments and applying statistical tools to the data to produce conclusions that turned out to be repeatable. I would have to be at least as smart as the leading scientists who conducted the original research but, again, not it one area of investigation, but in all areas of the field! This is what I was saying about presuming to second-guess ~10,000 man-years of work by people who are likely all smarter than me.

I have a similar attitude to maths and physics. My level of competence in these areas is far below what the leading minds were producing 300+ years ago. The brightest minds have continued to build on that for the intervening centuries. I have no hope of truly understanding the work produced today, so I accept it because the scientific model is the best system we have to determine the truth. Maybe I could understand it if I dedicated my life to study, but then that would only be in one small area - what about everything else?

Another thing worth bearing in mind is that climate science is still in its infancy and has developed very rapidly. No one should be surprised if something said 10 years ago turned out to be wrong.

 

[arkmundi]

James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate change published between 2013 and 2014. Powell identified 69,406 authors named in the articles, four of which rejected climate change as being caused by human emissions. That’s one in every 17,352 scientists. http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

Much citation to supposed science refuting anthropogenic climate change is old science. Hence the above from a more recent year of research. It took an organization to pull off that review. Far beyond any single persons ability.

 

[tomjasz]

I'm just gonna bow out of this thread. I understand what i am saying is very unorthodox and there is no use pushing the climate agnostic view any further. Nobody has understood my line of skepticism when i explained it, ever. This debate is very polarized and i'm not going to unpolarize it or reveal the shades of gray between the black and white all by myself.

Thanks guys, for the fairly respectful debate. I've had this debate with many other people and it's been a lot less pretty :lol:. I love endless sphere because it's full of bright people.

I'm gonna go hammer away some more on v2.0 of my current bike; adios amigos.

You are a nice fellow. Again, I respect your view. In my life there have been moments when I thought no one understood. Only to learn later inline that I was wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong, just flawed. <wink>

 

[markz]

James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate change published between 2013 and 2014. Powell identified 69,406 authors named in the articles, four of which rejected climate change as being caused by human emissions. That’s one in every 17,352 scientists. http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

Much citation to supposed science refuting anthropogenic climate change is old science. Hence the above from a more recent year of research. It took an organization to pull off that review. Far beyond any single persons ability.

Those 4, are they on the payroll of oil companies?

 

[Gloop]

I basically stopped reading neptronix post when he said the Arctic sea ice was rebounding...really?
Although to be technically correct the Arctic sea ice, on its precipitous decline, did rebound 8 times in the last 35 years.

Nor has he commented on the methane issure in the Arctic and how it will impact climate...The 50 Gt release they are predicting to happen "anytime" after the sea ice goes, that's equal to about 170x the annual emissions from humans. And it will continue year on year once it begins because there are more than 1700 Gt of methane in Arctic Siberian Ocean alone...If this methane event happens you can say goodbye to food in the next 20 years. Sea level rise isn't even an issue.

I have about 50 books on climate change on my book shelf, and another 100 on my computer.
I have even skimmed 3 climate denier books and they just peddle the same falsehoods, impervious to truth.
Yet I do not claim to know more than the scientists. Do you really think they would make such an elementary mistake as not accounting for more warm-location temperature sensors? What about non-temperature measurements, such as declining snowline, increasing treeline, and increasing desert borders? What about the 4% more H20 the atmosphere now hold cause its warmer? Are these flooding events not real?

I guess i have less patience for people who are climate deniers...I spent many years on the streets as a climate change activist and have lost my patience after countless arguments with trolls online and offline.

If you really care about civilization and prosperity, I suggest you read "James Hoggan, Climate Cover Up, the Crusade to Deny Global Warming" and "Noami Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt, How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming."

NASA took us to the moon, but people won't believe them on climate change. The science isn't even difficult to understand.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[kd8cgo]

Posting PIOMAS data with unsupported regression lines on it is exactly the kind of crap that I would call over playing your hand. That is from a google sites page from a user called "arctischepinguin" - I mean, why would you consult and parrot something like that if you want to enhance public opinion of climate research? It's the same as pointing at this random temperature graph or that one, and drawing conclusions from it in a near vacuum of supporting scientific literature. (edit: I realize in your post you don't reference the trend lines, but PIOMAS has their own pretty graphs of the data without the superfluous markup)

Nor has he commented on the methane issure in the Arctic and how it will impact climate...The 50 Gt release they are predicting to happen "anytime" after the sea ice goes,

This is also selective bias in the affirmative. This is not a consensus view, it is an extreme view. If drawing trend lines over top of PIOMAS data is overplaying your hand, this doomsday rhetoric is going full retard. As far as I can tell many of these methane pulse discussions originate around a Nature article called Climate science: Vast costs of Arctic change. The authors pontificated on the economic costs associated with a rapid methane pulse release, and the associated tally of $60 Trillion made world headlines. The article did not conclude that this methane release was eminent or even likely, it rather concluded that "Methane released by melting permafrost will have global impacts that must be better modelled, say Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams. (emphasis mine)" In other words, we need to better study something that may have catastrophic impacts. Skeptical Science addressed this exact thing on their site shortly after this started to proliferate around various news sites and blogs.

The books are good if you want to understand the PR manipulation that goes into manufacturing consent on this particular issue. It is a peek at the obstructionist climate coverage through the lens of social sciences, which is useful. The NASA page is great intro and they give some publicly relate-able starting points without over extending themselves on things they do not actually know with reasonable certainty - which is good.

I admire the passion on subjects like this, but really so much of the stuff that gets slung at the "other team" is rhetoric that only plays well in the originating camp's echo chamber. Gloop, your first sentence began with "I basically stopped reading neptronix post..." - that's just into the realm of daft dismissal, not useful engagement. We can and should do better, these are our e-bike friends, not some seething cronies in a corner office.

 

[Gloop]

Natalia Shakhova, and Igor Semiletov, over the past 10-20 years I believe they have studied the Arctic Siberian ocean and have concluded that a 50 Gt methane burp is "highly possible" anytime after the sea ice is gone. Peter Wadhams agrees with their views and concludes its very likely to happen. Now that i reread the quote I see it says at any time, not specifically relating to the zero-sea ice event.

"we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly
possible for abrupt release at any time, That may cause ∼12-times increase of modern
atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming"

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf
That was in 2008.
2011
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html

You can see their interviews on youtube.

And i just pulled the first piomas graph i could find off google, the data is correct. The trend lines are irrelevant. What's clearly wrong is neptronic assertion that the Arctic sea ice is "rebounding".

Anyway i agree with skeptical science on most things, but here you have Gavin Schmidt and David Archer, computational climate modellers, saying methane emission's cant possibly happen as fast as what people in the actual field, Wadhams, Shakhova, and Semiletov are saying. So I disagree with them. I believe the scientists in the field.

How much methane is in the Arctic Siberian Ocean?

http://arctic-news.blogspot.ca/2014/08/horrific-methane-eruptions-in-east-siberian-sea.html

What would be the impact of a 1 Gt release of methane?

http://arctic-news.blogspot.ca/p/potential-for-methane-release.html

anyway i should apologize for anything in my previous post, as i say climate deniers ruffle my feathers. in my entire life i have seen maybe only 2 or 3 people that changed their mind on climate change, and never because of an internet debates. So frustration extends to where I know we can't even convince people it's happening what chance do we have of stopping it. As i said i used to be a real climate activist, tried to cycle across the country for climate change, always trying to "spread the gospel", but it never worked. I tried to start a student movement at universities by showing off my climate artwork, flyering people and cars, but students are too busy and don't care either.

People already had a mindset and no one is willing to change.

We can't stop climate change. Once it get's serious, we'll have to geoengineer really heavily, eliminating a large percentage of sunlight if enormous amounts of methane start pouring out of the Arctic. Heavy geoengineering is our only hope of extending civilizations lifespan, but probably not for long.

 

[kd8cgo]

I see that assertion at the end of that pdf, which I'm not sure of the context that was produced. It's not a paper, but a Question & Answer format, and very brief. I believe that is a supporting document filed by the researchers at the 2008 EGU General Assembly, where I assume they presented on the topic. I only mention this, because it's not a citable source in the traditional sense, nor a published finding. Not that it's irrelevant, it has the same merit as YouTube interviews or press releases where scientists explain their positions.

I looked for more work by the team, a recent paper "Geochemical and geophysical evidence of methane release over the East Siberian Arctic Shelf" - 2010 on their work on methane release in the Arctic shelf. This is a formal piece and as such has been more carefully crafted. Much is of course, beyond the use of a laymen, but it is a fairly readable paper. Mostly they are working on the mechanisms at work for methane release in the region. What I find interesting here, are several quotes as to the implications of the work:

Given that the CH4 reservoir is enormous, estimated at 1400 Gt, the release of only a very small fraction has the potential to dramatically alter modern biogeochemical cycles. Thus, the implications for global climate depend critically on whether time scales are geologic or human.

Further efforts to derive more accurate regional emission fluxes and determine seasonal variations are needed to understand the current role of the ESAS in carbon cycles and to begin to predict the future impacts of warming Arctic climate.

This does not read like the 2008 comment does. They still obviously harbor great concern on the issue, but do not seem to put forth bold claims with the certainty one might infer from the conference pdf. When I see large climate models and research groups start revising CH4 forcing in the models, then we know that consensus is bending to this type of thinking. It's possible that the research will pan out, but with the tepid claims at the end of the formal work, not even going so far as to state the problem is definitely on the human time scale, should be some indication for us. They don't attempt to assign probability of outcomes in this work, it appears not enough is yet known to do so, or maybe there is more scientific work I can read on the subject and check citations.

Not meaning to beat you up on the PIOMAS, but we can always strive for better and more clear communication, can't hurt. I didn't want to leave it for someone to pick up the inference that PIOMAS data supports the terminus of those trend lines.

 

[Punx0r]

in my entire life i have seen maybe only 2 or 3 people that changed their mind on climate change, and never because of an internet debates.

I did. Through a combination of FUD in the media and my own faulty reasoning and laziness in not properly examining the issue I didn't realise how strong the scientific consensus had become.

Incidentally, that NASA page is a great brief but comprehensive summary. Thanks for the link.

 

[LockH]

Hehe... You guyz. I actually love and force myself to "change my mind" (even though I don't trust what others say, especially whatever *I* think. :wink: )

One of my fav quotes from American Ben Franklin something like most folks die at 25 years old but aren't buried until they are 75 years old. (Meaning thoughts and perspectives form then atrophy as "fixed" at a young age.)

Love the "young" where their brains are still "flexible". Had fun "rave" dancing decades ago where (in the darkness... somewhere) folks discovered they were "dancing with their Dad". :wink:

 

[Punx0r]

Three of the world’s most complete temperature tracking records – from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climactic Data Center and the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre – begin in 1880. Prior to 1880, temperature measurements were made with instruments like thermometers. The oldest continuous temperature record is the Central England Temperature Data Series, which began in 1659, and the Hadley Centre has some measurements beginning in 1850, but there are too few data before 1880 for scientists to estimate average temperatures for the entire planet. Data from earlier years is reconstructed from proxy records like tree rings, pollen counts and ice cores. Because these are different kinds of data, scientists generally don’t put proxy-based estimates on the same charts as the “instrumental record.”

The above-mentioned agencies and others collect temperature data from thousands of weather stations worldwide, including over the ocean, in Antarctica and from satellites. However, instruments are not perfectly distributed around the globe, and some measurement sites have been deforested or urbanized since 1880, affecting temperatures nearby. Each agency uses algorithms to filter the effects of these changes out of the temperature record and interpolate where data is sparse, like over the vast southern ocean, when calculating global averages. Generally, all three datasets agree quite closely (see graph above) and are in agreement on the trend of global warming since the Industrial Revolution.

http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

 

[LockH]

More temp records ("global climate change") in history seen on ES here:
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1125&p=17181

 

[TheBeastie]

Its interesting to note that during the Summer months in the southern hemisphere there's little climate change/global warming articles in the global news front and seems pretty clear that's because its Winter in the northern hemisphere...

But once its gets warm in the North all the climate change articles come out to shine..
The more I look at even the most established respected local news papers online in Australia these days the more I see everything is tweaked and aimed at just getting that mouse click to view the web page and I wonder just how far are news creators willing to go before a critical mass decides its not worth clicking on..

This has led me to believe that during the winter months in the Northern hemisphere when there is a large slow down climate change articles I imagine the news creators understand that they know their readers are thinking somewhere a long the lines of this youtube video below...

[youtube]rVNe2ubSjxg[/youtube]

Right now its been snowing in Queensland which is the equivalent to Florida in Australia...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-17/thick-snow-blankets-southern-queensland/6626630
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbane-news-weather-traffic-and-transport-in-your-courier-mail-bff-blog/story-fnqcjzme-1227443888952

Snow at Wallangarra, south of Stanthorpe, makes for a unique Queensland landscape.

When I went into my local computer store today which recently moved around the corner they had a outside restaurant heater setup inside because its so cold.

Sometimes when I see an aussie whos a bit overly concerned about climate change I wish I could remind them of the amount of garbage furnace power plants in China they have going over there which seem to be on a large enough scale to provide all of Australia's electricity needs.
http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=56285&p=1011606#p1011606

 

[LockH]

WOW. One guy's feeling sorta cocky about the situation anyway.

 

[montyp]

Right now its been snowing in Queensland which is the equivalent to Florida in Australia...

It is not that unusual for it to snow in Florida. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_in_Florida. Maybe this is my US-centric perspective - but the weather in the US (+south-eastern Canada) seems to have a higher deviation than other parts of the world.

 

[Ratking]

Interesting conversation, but I have an unanswered question.
Where is the evidence that we are accelerating global warming instead what could be a natural occurrence?
I am fairly neutral in this discussion since I lack the necessary information to take a stance(before you try to insult me too much )

An English scientist proclaimed that we had a small ice age in front of us in the next 15-20 years. How does this fit your picture?

 

[arkmundi]

Watching the arctic sea ice extent wax & wane has its moments of high drama. Earlier in the year it was looking as if 2015 was going to be a record breaking year. Which, from a political point-of-view, given we heading into the COP21 Paris finalization of new International agreements, can be a useful prod. But..
Climate Central, July 6th, 2015: 2015 Arctic Sea Ice: How Low Will It Go?

But that background warming driven by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t the only factor that affects what happens to Arctic sea ice from year to year and season to season. Weather patterns can act over that trend, sometimes reinforcing it and sometimes counteracting it. In 2012, an intense storm helped drive the summer extent to a record low, whereas in other years, weather has had less impact and the summer melt has fallen in line with the decades-long decline...
... Right now, given the melt so far this summer, it seems unlikely that 2015 will break 2012’s record, Scambos and Meier said, but it will still be in line with the overall downward trend. As Meier put it: “Not extreme, not record-setting, but still far lower than what was normal for the 1980s and 1990s.”

Note that the cross-over only happened mid-June, recently. Salient to the on-going dialogue is the need to access current data. See https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/.

An English scientist proclaimed that we had a small ice age in front of us in the next 15-20 years. How does this fit your picture?

The global climate trends are more predictable than regional weather patterns consequent to those trends. As I understand it, the poles are warming far faster and moderate approaching the equator. One consequence of that a weakening of the jet stream. So its vascilating more, swinging more. See, for instance:
Global Warming Linked To More Extreme Weather And Weaker Jet Stream.
It means, that while in California, hotter & dryer is the regional weather pattern of consequence, it could be colder & wetter in other places, like here in New England. We are experiencing record winter snowfall. And for the USA in general, things like the Polar Vortex.
[youtube]_nzwJg4Ebzo[/youtube]

 

[tomjasz]

Interesting conversation, but I have an unanswered question.
Where is the evidence that we are accelerating global warming instead what could be a natural occurrence?

So tell us what the "natural" occurrence was? All the other events, recorded in ice were catastrophic and linked to those events. What was or were the modern events?

 

[Punx0r]

Easy summary of evidence: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Introduction to climate change: http://skepticalscience.com/Welcome-to-Skeptical-Science.html

Most popular climate myths addressed: http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Specific piece about an impending ice age: http://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

 

[dnmun]

it is pointless to try to respond to him. he is one of those types of people who think they know it all already so there is not any need for them to learn anything new. so they avoid going to college or engaging in any arena where they have to show performance in learning new things.

from dr jeff at the weatherunderground, june 2015 hottest on record:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3049