Record cold and snow in Brazil

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sculptor, Aug 1, 2021.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,194
    You have all these misconceptions because you are fundamentally ignorant of the history of this. From the beginning this field of study has been referred to as "anthropogenic global warming" which means man made changes that cause warming. The planet is warming overall; that is well proven. It will not warm everywhere at the same rate. Some places will be _cooler_ due to AGW. One example of this is rainfall - a warmer climate evaporates more water, which causes larger rainstorms, which causes transiently lower temperatures in the areas affected.

    People shorten that to "global warming" or "climate change" sometimes. Up to them, not you.

    The terminology is really pretty simple to understand, unless you have a political agenda that requires you to not understand it.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,027
    eschewing obfuscation

    Where, exactly is the planet warming?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,194
    See my reply above.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,027
  8. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    exchemist likes this.
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,027
  10. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    All I've done is point out the alarmists narrative since day one of global warming. It's evolving in their minds.

    I have no misconceptions whatsoever.

    Please tell me what it was like in a typical climate decade when the co2 level was some 8,000ppm?
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,027
    OK
    so, I ask
    "Where, exactly is the planet warming?"

    and you refer to your post wherein you posted:
    "The planet is warming overall; that is well proven. It will not warm everywhere at the same rate. Some places will be _cooler_ due to AGW."

    and
    You think that that is precision?
    amazing
     
  12. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    It was obvious. Some places get warmer ,others may be cooler.That is not news or up for debate. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

    Or are you going to lecture us on which precise places are getting warmer and which are getting relatively cooler?

    To show what? That only you on this forum understand the complexities of climatology?
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,027
    WOW
    Do you think that you could get anymore vague?
     
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,338
    Talk about being determinedly ignorant. WOW is right.
     
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,338
    What do you say to the Climatologists? You realize there are both Republican and Democrat climatologists. I guess they are more interested in the science than they are in politics.

    Politicizing science seems kinda stupid, but that is nothing to politicizing a pandemic, that is flat out bat-shit crazy.
     
  16. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    Fraid you are a waste of space even on the pie charts. The only benefit I get from your posts on this subject is seeing others' frustrated attempts to clear up your misleading covert insinuations (and a lesson in how to be wilfully obtuse if the occasion lends itself -obviously I apologise if you are actually obtuse)
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2021
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,027
    It seems that a lot of the people who would sing the "global warming" song have only bothered to learn the chorus, while ignoring verse and bridge.
    And, maybe they do not even know the whole chorus, and they know only the hook(mantra?).
    So, when they claim to know the song, they actually know very little of the song;
    which they seem happy to repeat endlessly and mindlessly.

    Is ignorance really bliss?

    ..................................................
    Anyone know the polar warming song?
    chorus, verse, and bridge
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2021
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,560
    Cute analogy. But it's the most-people-don't-know-therefore nobody-knows fallacy (which probably has a better name).
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,380
    Yes, the terminology has changed, but the basic science has been the same since day one.

    The terminology has changed partly in response to popular misconceptions, like some of the ones you appear to be labouring under.

    For instance, scientists found that many people who hear "global warming" wrongly assume that it means that everywhere on the planet is warming, and doing so at the same consistent rate. To try to address that misunderstanding, the term "climate change" began to be used more in relation to global warming, because it is an accurate description of how global warming affects the planet. The fact is, as you know, some places will get colder and some will get warmer, due to global warming. The fact that the average global temperature is rising doesn't mean that the average local temperature is rising everywhere, although these days that's pretty much the situation, in fact. But also, average temperatures don't tell us anything about how stable the weather is at a particular location. Global warming is making extreme weather events more likely. Perhaps you've noticed. But sometimes those extreme events involve cold, not just heat.

    The term "anthropogenic", or "man-made" if you like, is used to distinguish between climate change due to natural effects and those due to human activities. It is important to separate out those effects, because deniers used to make a habit of conflating the two effects, mostly arguing that the observed warming trend can be explained entirely by appealing to natural processes, which is false. Of course, there's no debate among experts about that any more. There's zero doubt among experts that the current warming trend would not be occurring but for human activities, primarily the use of fossil fuels.

    Clearly, to understand the current climate, it was important for scientists to understand the factors that have driven climate changes in the past. Predictive models are, in fact, often tested on known historical scenarios. The effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on global temperatures are now well understood by the experts.

    The retards are another matter. Who are you listening to?
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2021
    exchemist and geordief like this.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,380
    Pretty much everywhere, on average. There are some nice maps that show the global temperature anomaly in comparison to various benchmark years. You should take a check them out.
    It is if you have vested interests in fossil fuels. For now. Of course, your children and your children's children probably won't be thanking you for sticking your head in the sand.
     
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,027
    That is a fallacy/trap which I usually avoid
    though
    I have been known to stumble into a few traps in my day.

    It seems that there are few generalists, most are specialists.
    The trick is in studying the knowledge base within one specialty, then stepping back to gain a broader perspective, then diving into the knowledge base of a proximal specialty, then stepping back........etc...

    as always
    perspective matters

    .......................................
    skipping merrily ahead/and back
    the southern ocean had been cooling from 1990 to 2010(reversed now) while the antarctic peninsula(actually an island) had been warming at @.6 degrees C per decade
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,774
    Something that drifted through my twitfeed a few days ago:

    Science is not the truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes its opinion, it didn't lie to you. It learned more.

    (Mohamad Safa↱)

    One of the disgusting things about your behavior is that in your rage you overlook what is already commonly recognized. That is, it's bad enough if, like the topic post and thread, you're overlooking the literally observable result of increasing variation from mean temperature—meaning more pronounced hot and cold weather—with a warming trend. Per the thread title, the record cold and snow in Brazil might feel like a surprise in day to day life, but, as Exchemist↱ noted at the outset, "It seems to be what we have been told to expect, viz. increased frequency of extreme weather events."

    But in addition to depicting yourself as decades behind the science, that rage comes across like an angry child trying to learn how to say mean things.

    And while it is not uncommon that one's political needs might move them to inflamed passions, no, not all such occasions are the same.

    So, here's a quick story reminding how science works: Once upon a time, creationists held to a point about the whale-bear because they thought it was hilarious, and took satisfaction from smacking Darwinism about the whale-bear. And, let's face it, they had hooted about that one from the moment Darwin suggested it. But then the actual fossil record of the whale-bear turned up; its name is Ambulocetus natans. And it's not quite that the next ting that happened was creationists collectively saying, Fine, just show us the rest of the transitional fossils, too! but that demand is essentially what it came down to, over time, with creationist and designist hollering about transitional fossils common enough to even be found at Sciforums.

    It's similar why our thread-starter↑ is down to asking for n othing more than everything, for instance. The half a whit of civility he pretends isn't worth much compared to his distortive doubtmongering, but it's not an unfamiliar routine either in general or particular.

    Still, consider that we are apparently supposed to pretend our around observing the destabilizing averages, when the hot gets hotter, the cold gets colder, and the average temperature in all that does in fact describe a warming trend.

    The idea that society is how far into the discussion, and folks at Sciforums are somehow so uniquely behind is, well, in a word, it seems kind of retarded.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,194
    All you've done is parroted conservative talking points.
    Ha!
    It would be miserable, since humans have a hard time living in those CO2 concentrations.
     
  24. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,194
    It is warming overall. On average, the planet is getting warmer. Some places are getting much warmer. Most places are getting a little warmer. A few places are even cooler; see map below for the few places in 2020 where it was cooler. (Specifically, a few ocean locations.)
    I did not claim precision. I was speaking OVERALL. Again, see above.

    Actually reading the post you are replying to can save you time.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitorin...le-mntp/map-percentile-mntp-202001-202012.png
     

Share This Page