A guy can dream, can’t he? Anyway, the Daily Mail has a vested interest in poo-pooing the possibility of its readers being crushed beneath hundreds of meters of ice.
No, wait! The Daily Mail LOVES to manipulate its readers with Terrible Things That Can Kill Them. So what is their agenda here? :dubious: I suppose it doesn’t matter because they’ll come up with something else next week.
Because the dreaded Polar Vortex, which nobody had mentioned before six months ago, is making a return next week a local weatherperson (NOT Tom Skilling, who sits at the right hand of Zeus and knows all and sees all about the weather) reassured us that it will not snow. :rolleyes: A lady from the NWS rolled her eyes at such talk and flatly said that won’t even be record-breakingly cold, but she could be in on the conspiracy. I’ll get my ice age yet!
Simple. The headline “CLIMATE CHANGE TO CAUSE ICE AGE” is alarmist and likely to get lots of people buying the paper. “ALARMIST CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WRONG AGAIN” is dishonest but likely to get tons of smarmy science denialists to read it, plus furthering the agenda pushed by the paper.
Dude, I don’t want to troll you. Er, not true. I very much want to troll you because it’s like shooting fish in a barrel, but I also want to maintain my posting privileges. Be assured that I’m on the side of the angels when it comes to climate change. I just like ice ages, and burying those smarmy Brits under a kilometer of ice is a two-fer. Though warming them up enough that they learn to appreciate the goodness of an ice-cold, lightly-hopped, pale lager on a summer day rather than what they usually drink, which is tasty but gets gross if it’s too cold, would work. But stop making it so much fun to mess with you!
I thought something smelled fishy. I have not slept for like 30 hours and my brain was being dumb. Plus, you know, can’t tell the difference either way. Like, anything you just said could have been said by any of the resident retards.
My statement is that the forecasts are generally accurate. My proof are the articles shared earlier. Graphs and other details are given in the article. Two papers are referred to for further details, and they are linked in the articles.
You might enjoy Goddard pointing out both the idiocy of the media, as well as why all these young whippersnappers who act like they know something about climate and weather are damn fools.
I should tone this down or I’ll have to cross the UK off my list of retirement locales because of my wiseassitude, like happened with Canada. I don’t know how I’ll break it to that guy in Bournemouth who wanted to hire me after a 3 minute telemarketing convo.
Polar Vortex is a new catch phrase idiots use to sound smart. The phenomenon is also called a negatively indexed arctic oscillation. Back when I was a school boy it was called planetary waves.
Somebody else please answer this because FXMastermind: Does the climate change we are experiencing preclude an ice age, or does tying up all that water in ice sheets screw things up for folks in lower latitudes? And that polar vortex and cool spring kept snow on the ground much later than usual, increasing the albedo of north-central North America. Then from our pals at Wikipedia,
On the one hand, Bournemouth is a lovely town on the southest end of the UK. Remember “Every the summer we could rent a cottage in the Isle of Wight, if it’s not too dear?” Bournemouth is just a couple clicks across the drink from it. And Victoria, BC is really nice, too, on the south end of Vancouver Island and one of the last places in Canada the glaciers will go.
On the other hand, while I never had much desire to live in Hawaii, living there would mean I could spend my afterlife, short as it will be, in Goofy Goff’s body farm, without my heirs paying for transport. Decisions, decisions.
The proof is found in the articles which discuss one or more papers.
The Guardian article shows this in the first chart presented in the article, followed by a counter of three contrarian claims (the first referring to a draft version of the IPCC report, the second to a model ave. vs. a shaded range, and the third to limiting the data to a shorter time range).
More details are given in the SKS article which looks at four IPCC reports. In addition, two papers by Rahmstorf (2011 and 2012) are mentioned which show TAR and AR4 accuracy, as well as Frame (which evaluates FAR). In addition, a paper by Brysse argues that if any, the IPCC has been underestimating.
The AGU article links to two papers, the first (Rahmstorf, see the next article), and the second (Santer) analyzes satellite records versus models.
The RTS article looks at the Rahmstorf paper, which compares 2001 and 2007 data with 2011, and discovered that the IPCC got only sea levels wrong as they underestimated them.
The Ars Technica article refers to the paper by Frame, which shows IPCC projections from 1990 to be “on target.” The article refers to a second paper (Foster) uses a different approach and leads to the same conclusion.
Assiniboia 6.9C (44.4F) – Breaks previous low of 7.0C (44.6F) set in 2013.
Elbow 6.7 (44.1F) – Breaks previous low of 7.2 (45.0F) set in 1973).
La Ronge 4.9 (40.8F) – Breaks previous low of 5.6 (42.1F) set in 2003.
Weyburn 6.1 (43.0F) – Breaks previous low of 9.0 (48.2F) set in 2013.
Wynyard 7.3 (45.1F) - Breaks previous low of 8.4 (47.1F) set in 1994.
You say that because you are stuck like a broken record on “global warming,” which is why you are an idiot. As you have been told hundreds of time, the issue is “climate change,” which can fuck things up all sorts of ways in all sorts of places.
