Two feet of global warming devastate the NE

[brenthutch 384]

https://whatsupnewp.com/2022/01/photo-gallery-snow-blankets-newport-during-blizzard-of-2022/
 

And they said snow would be a thing of the past 

[murps2000 86]

Is this climate or weather related?

[JoeWeber 2,316]

40 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

Is this climate or weather related?

At least when he had a TI job at US Government Subsidized Skydive Happy Valley before they folded (f'n how?) he had another audience. Now it's just us and his never ending song. 

[brenthutch 384]

47 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

Is this climate or weather related?

Yes

[mistercwood 287]

[murps2000 86]

41 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yes

But not both?

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, murps2000 said:

But not both?

It’s weather, just weather.  Until meteorological phenomenon fall outside the range of natural variability it is all just weather. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves, cold snaps…it is all just weather.  When these things become more frequent or more powerful than in the past, I will rethink.  Until then, it’s just weather.

[murps2000 86]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It’s weather, just weather.  Until meteorological phenomenon fall outside the range of natural variability it is all just weather. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves, cold snaps…it is all just weather.  When these things become more frequent or more powerful than in the past, I will rethink.  Until then, it’s just weather.

If it’s just weather what is the purpose of the thread? And can you define the natural variability range for us? IOW, if there were no snow or 4 feet of snow, would that be outside the natural range?

[brenthutch 384]

3 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

If it’s just weather what is the purpose of the thread? And can you define the natural variability range for us? IOW, if there were no snow or 4 feet of snow, would that be outside the natural range?

If it happened in the past it is in the range of natural variability.  I posted years ago that the reason for the impasse was that the alarmists would claim that the biggest xxx in a hundred years was proof of climate change while I maintained it was proof that it was no worse than it was a hundred years ago.

[murps2000 86]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

If it happened in the past it is in the range of natural variability.  I posted years ago that the reason for the impasse was that the alarmists would claim that the biggest xxx in a hundred years was proof of climate change while I maintained it was proof that it was no worse than it was a hundred years ago.

Okay now I see. You can’t nail it down. Everyone says you move goal posts but I think you just make them infinitely wide for your team.

[lippy 773]

4 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

Okay now I see. You can’t nail it down. Everyone says you move goal posts but I think you just make them infinitely wide for your team.

You're giving him too much strategic credit...It's simpler than that: he's right, stupid scientists are wrong.

[murps2000 86]

21 minutes ago, lippy said:

You're giving him too much strategic credit...It's simpler than that: he's right, stupid scientists are wrong.

I don’t think I am. He knows what he’s doing and he’s good at it.

[billvon 2,406]

46 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

If it’s just weather what is the purpose of the thread? And can you define the natural variability range for us? IOW, if there were no snow or 4 feet of snow, would that be outside the natural range?

I just checked outside and there is no snow in San Diego.  And I did my research and it turns out that ski mountains MAKE snow, and there are a lot of those in the Northeast, and the snow gets everywhere.  But is the mainstream media reporting on THAT?  Of course not!  

Snow is faux.

[yoink 321]

Brent has proven time and time again that he doesn’t understand how single data points relate to statistical sets. 

He barely reads more than a single paragraph into any article before reposting it in order to get people riled up.

This is not a rational person you can convince via discourse and reasoned argument. Brent has absolutely no interest in expanding his understanding  on ANY subject or changing his opinion. 
 

Surely you all have better things to do with your time.

[olofscience 422]

8 hours ago, murps2000 said:

Okay now I see. You can’t nail it down. Everyone says you move goal posts but I think you just make them infinitely wide for your team.

I tried to get him to make an actual prediction, it was like trying to nail jell-o to a wall...

[olofscience 422]

4 hours ago, yoink said:

He barely reads more than a single paragraph into any article before reposting it in order to get people riled up.

No, he barely reads more than the TITLE before reposting. He doesn't get to the first paragraph...ever.

Then he even gets the title wrong...

[brenthutch 384]

37 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I tried to get him to make an actual prediction, it was like trying to nail jell-o to a wall...

I gave you my prediction/s.  You just don’t like them.  Let’s review a few.

Globally dependence on fossil fuels will continue unabated 

CO2 levels will continue to increase 

 

Weather events will remain within historical norms 

Global food production will remain at or near record levels 

Northern sea ice will remain and Polar bears will be just fine

The notion of a Green New Deal will remain in the realm of magical thinking (very expensive magical thinking)

EVs will not overtake IC vehicles in the next four years (Olof predicted they will)

They are the basically same predictions I have been making for the past decade.  I have to say they have stood the test of time. On the other hand, go back and watch Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth and see how well that has worn.

To be fair I did blow the one about Tesla going bankrupt  

 

[olofscience 422]

33 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I gave you my prediction/s.

Using the vaguest words possible  with that wording, you should take up writing horoscopes!

39 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I have to say they have stood the test of time.

Yes horoscopes are still pretty popular these days for "predictions" 

[kallend 1,635]

Troll is feeding well today.

[ryoder 1,390]

9 hours ago, yoink said:

Brent has proven time and time again that he doesn’t understand how single data points relate to statistical sets. 

Wait...Who is "Brent"?

[brenthutch 384]

35 minutes ago, kallend said:

Troll is feeding well today.

You’re just pissed off because 

“meanwhile in the Arctic”

[SkyDekker 1,129]

On 1/30/2022 at 8:50 AM, brenthutch said:

You’re just pissed off because 

“meanwhile in the Arctic”

So there is quite a bit less sea ice and in areas where it used to be passed the 1981-2010 median levels it has now shrunk to less than those same median levels.

[brenthutch 384]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

So there is quite a bit less sea ice and in areas where it used to be passed the 1981-2010 median levels it has now shrunk to less than those same median levels.

It’s low point was in 2012, it has been recovering ever since.

[olofscience 422]

6 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

So there is quite a bit less sea ice and in areas where it used to be passed the 1981-2010 median levels it has now shrunk to less than those same median levels.

Don't feed the troll, he posts misleading graphs all the time and he also can't read graphs. Take it from the Polar Science Center.

[JoeWeber 2,316]

25 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Don't feed the troll, he posts misleading graphs all the time and he also can't read graphs. Take it from the Polar Science Center.

Must be the site owners need a certain amount of new topics per day and Brent fills the bill.