[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Ok so it warmed up after february, but the summer was poor, all following the patterns of sudden atmospheric volatility and instability brought about by contracting gasses. SNOWY WINTER TO FOLLOW

Sustained cold and snow through much of the northern hemisphere, most unlike last year and not in keeping with global warming.

Edit:

It's a bit early I know, but it seems pretty clear that this is again another notable cold and snowy winter.

[puppypower]

One research team appeared to have induced fusion using chemical means.

If only one research team had found a rise in global temperatures, or if the temperature had only been measured at one specific time. you would have a valid argument.

But there's a large amount of data and it broadly agrees. (You wouldn't expect perfect agreement because there are other factors involved).

The Corona pandemic was just a test balloon in terms of social consequences of disrupting the supply chain.

No, it was (and is) a viral pandemic.

These planning is not being done by scientists, but by liberal artists and lawyers to create a virtue single data point solution.

It's hardly relevant to the topic, but illustrative of your grasp of facts that your statement there is more or less the opposite of what happened.
The scientists (post 2009) came up with a pandemic preparedness plan.
The artists like Boris decided to defund it because "pandemics don't happen".

In terms of global warring and climate change, there are many layers of affects going on at the same time. However, not all the layers are as clear cut and as well supported by the data. Science does indeed measure a change in global temperature that has increased over the past 100 years of record keeping. This heating is true and has been verified. I can accept that. It is hard to screw up reading a thermometer.

The extrapolation of this observed global heating, into large scale changes within climate, is a reasonable premise. However, the exact connection is not as conclusive as the hype. Computer models rarely get anything right at 100%. They have the temperature curve to extrapolate but after that, it starts to get shakey. Most models had the north pole melted by now. Obviously the rise in temperature did not have as much impact as the overly scary premises of the models. This comes from the so-called experts who hav never faced this before.

The problem is climate change occurs at any temperature. We see blizzards in the winter and thunderstorms in the summer, at any average temperature, higher or lower than the long term average. At the same time, longer term geologic data, tells us the earth has been warmer and colder before,.This has occurred many times without man. As such, the impact of man may be over stated. This climate change extrapolation is not as done a deal, as looking at a thermometer.

Again, the assumed premises; man made heating and apocalyptic climate change, if true would be  new to the earth. It would be one species altering the climate. Since this is new and we do not have large scale pilot test data, we do not know the percent accuracy of our assumptions, since we only have one on going active scenario, for all of human history. This is not like the geological data that has a billion years of data of the earth doing this all by itself.

The melting of the glaciers, that formed during the last ice age, occurred without humans being very important to the cause and affect. This event is still on going and shows nature can do it all by itself. Does anyone in the consensus disagree with this assessment that nature has done climate change before, without man? This time frame also has plenty of hard geological data, based on a well documented retreat of glaciers, before man kept science records. How does science explain this and why is this not weighed into the political hype? Omitting data to change the weight of the desired data, is called data fraud.

The third, and most nebulous layer of the problem, is remediation. This layer is where humans have zero experience. Human have never had to save the planet from the impact of global warming. Any attempts to impose any man made changes, are very speculative pilot tests at best. There are zero planet saving experts on the earth, with any proven planet climate mediation experience. The odds are the political boneheads and their suck-ups, will screw things up, as they work their way up the learning curve and lie about the problems they create. If the boneheads kill people, do they go to jail for pretending to be experts in a planet saving field where there is no expertise? The risk for everyone is so high that there has to be consequences for a screw up.

One last consideration is entropy. The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means we cannot just reverse the steps, leading to the measured global warming and climate change,  The second law states that entropy of the universe has to increase and cannot just decrease by going backwards. We cannot reverse course and obey the second law at the same time. That would reverse the second law, and set up an entropic potential.

Lowering the chaos and entropy of climate change will need a path that works with the direction of entropy. If and when the boneheads screw things up and cause mass human suffering, will they get to go to jail or do they get a pass? I do not have much faith in the lying hypocrites. What do lawyers know about entropy?

We need to make it clear to those in power,  if they makes changes that violate the second law and cause chaos in the world, they need to pay the price. If they decide to hide behind the Swamp to avoid paying the price, then it should become legal for others to enforce the law. Once there are  consequences for the boneheads, they will think a little deeper before screwing this up. It may be better to ride the course and accept the better world that will result.

If the consensus of science is on board with the politics of remediation they may also be held accountable. Maybe we can see that happens to the consensus when there is not just a reward system for carrying the  water for the boneheads. I predict the consensus will break if there are also consequences for their support and advice.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

https://www.weatherboy.com/from-paris-to-athens-from-hawaii-to-texas-heavy-snow-blankets-the-globe/

[puppypower]

https://www.weatherboy.com/from-paris-to-athens-from-hawaii-to-texas-heavy-snow-blankets-the-globe/

This large percent global snow cover was an interesting week long regional global cooling event, during this period of global warming and climate change. This event is still called climate change, whether it is up or down. This flexibility in nomenclature makes for easy semantic gaming.

The term climate change reminds me of a skit on TV, from the 1960's, that featured the black comedian Flip Wilson. One of his characters had the line, " the devil made me do it". No matter what it did, that was questionable, it was excused after the said the "devil make me do it". He never thad to defend his actions, such as grabbing a cute girl, since the buzz words said all that needed to be said. "Climate change" is the "devil made me do it", for the modern era.   

Moscow set a 400 year snow record. Their official snow record predates the official modern  science weather records from 1880, by nearly 300 years. When someone says this event was the worse on record, that does not mean, "for all time". Instead, a record setting event is based on how long the records were kept. This can confuse people who think record setting means all time. This area of semantics was another Flip Wilson show.

As an analogy when the infatuated male tells his gal that he will love her for all time, this sounds good but does not include all the time before he met her, which also is part of all time. However, she will ignore his logical and unscientific inconsistency for time, and try to rationalize it to herself to her own satisfaction. All that needs to happen is to induce an emotional buzz, so one can do leave reason and engage in emotional thinking; limbic instead of cerebral centric.

Moscow has broken the science based record of 1880, for snow, more often than its own record for snow from 1700. These record keeping semantics are also ripe for gaming the system. The record for the earth, in terms of global heating and climate change, goes back nearly 5 billion years to its creation. This is the official genuine earth record for all time.

I pointed out three records, side-by side, so one can choose which is best for their arguments, when you need to call something record setting for a motivating special affect.  I tend to use geology and a 1 billion year earth record, which is much different from the 100 year record. This can explain why we may not agree. Try, as an exercise,  using the 1 billion year record of geology, and see how this changes the conclusions. This geology baseline is always avoided because of the impact on the final curve.

Based on some of the early climate change predictions, the north polar cap should be melted by now. Gore had polar bears trying to escape on icebergs, even though they are expect swimmers who float well.  Say this worse case scenario had occurred, as predicted 20 years ago and the thermal capacitance of the Arctic ice was now gone. This recent global change in climate, toward a larger snow cover, should not have occurred, without the cold thermal capacitance of the ice caps. Air moving over an unfrozen and open Arctic sea; 0C water, would have inhibited this.

Imagine if we had acted 20 years ago, based on the advice from all the non proven experts at global remediation, who use the 120 year record, and we decided to regulated those evil fossil fuels that the experts say are the cause. The death toll would been huge due to the freezing cold in places, that were not prepared for cold, due to the international global warming hype and drum beat, during a time when fossil fuel was very scarce and doubled in price.

 Luckily, those who resisted running blind into remediation, saved the day. I do not need to be thanked since I was doing my job targeting the truth.

[Bored chemist]

The record for the earth, in terms of global heating and climate change, goes back nearly 5 billion years to its creation

No.
Unless someone, or something records it, there is no record.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

https://www.weatherboy.com/from-paris-to-athens-from-hawaii-to-texas-heavy-snow-blankets-the-globe/

This large percent global snow cover was an interesting week long regional global cooling event, during this period of global warming and climate change. This event is still called climate change, whether it is up or down. This flexibility in nomenclature makes for easy semantic gaming.

Really it's not a week,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/new-york-snow-storm-accumulation-total-2020-12-17/

All in the North hemisphere have felt sustained cold and snow for a sustained period.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Global weirding is back

https://amp.dw.com/en/cold-winter-global-warming-polar-vortex/a-56534450

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/feb/19/john-kerry-endorses-climate-weirding-term-warns-of/

https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias

[Bored chemist]

Global weirding is back

It never went away.

[puppypower]

The record for the earth, in terms of global heating and climate change, goes back nearly 5 billion years to its creation

No.
Unless someone, or something records it, there is no record.

This is a long term record of climate, based on geological evidence. This is not real time evidence, anymore than 100 years old weather data is real time. If we use the 1 billion or so year geological timeline of evidence, what we see today is not unusual, unique, or even record setting. Change is normal. There were even long spells where CO2 rose and temperature fell. A window was left open and the greenhouse affect was not dominate.

Governments and politicians control the purse strings behind climate science. Scientists who are with the program will get better funding, from the government bureaucrats and lawyers, since the needs of politics are part of the equation. This is why they all will ignore the longer term records, like geological data, and sell this based on shorter term records. The latter is better in terms of the desired results and a continuing gravy train. Scientists are not dumb when it comes to acquiring an sustaining funding.

Real Science is about looking at all angles, since something can be learned no matter how you look at things. Even mistakes can create learning. The observed beat down of anyone willing to looking in certain directions, is not based on the philosophy of science. This is how politics works to help sell their version of the half truth.

Some of the results we see is also an illusion. We can now measure temperature from satellites in space and get readings from remote locations on the earth, that were never measured in 1890. These reading s has been added to the modern average. This is a way to game the system. You scan the earth for high points and plant there.

Has anyone tried to normalize the data, by using weather data from only from monitoring locations from 1890, while using only mercury thermometers? Even 1/10 of a degree is a big deal, right? This would be a way to compare apples to apples in terms of the 120 year record.  Or are we using data collection points and data collection methods that make composing the records based on  apples and oranges? Maybe these new record needs an asterisk; tech steroids

The next question is who has experience in global climate remediation? Where did they get their experience; which planet?  We know this skill have never been applied on earth. How do we know the solutions offered are correct and are  not being proposed by political boneheads and yes men mercenary scientists; Fauci?

If these solutions do not work, but cause human suffering, will those in charge be tried for crimes against humanity? We need some assurance and accountability for remediation screw ups, Right now it is win-win for the mercenary scientists who use the 120 old record with apples and oranges.

[Bored chemist]

Has anyone tried to normalize the data, by using weather data from only from monitoring locations from 1890, while using only mercury thermometers?

What do you think "normalise" means?

[Bored chemist]

Fauci?

And that's the bit that makes it really clear you are off on a conspiracy rant again.

[Bored chemist]

If these solutions do not work, but cause human suffering, will those in charge be tried for crimes against humanity?

What if the scientists and politicians who are paid by the oil companies (which, let's face it, actually have a lot of money- unlike the environmentalist lobby) are ignoring the science and maintaining a "carry on regardless" policy because they knew that the problems won't really hit home until after they have made their millions?

Who will hold them to account for those who die in the floods and hurricanes?

How will we go about holding you to account for supporting them?

[puppypower]

If we use the 1 billion year old earth record, as the gold standard, this is called playing long ball science. If we use the 120 year standard this called playing short ball science. Short ball is easier to manipulate since the data set is based on a short term trend. Short term trends are often noise within the longer term trends of the long ball approach. Long term trend noise, can become the star for a short term trend analysis. Long term noise, is not a long term trend, even if it can be called a short term trend. The conclusions will be different.

Let me give an analogous example of short versus long term data and trends. Say you just met a person named Sue. You just met, and you are trying to figure out what makes her tick. She seems somewhat unique. Would knowing about her past make that easier? Would knowing nothing about her past, before she appeared, make it easier to come up with alternative explanations? Low ball has fewer checks and balances, so even an erroneous conclusion may sound possible with only short term data. This data may be noise on longer term trends.

Say we found out that Sue was from an abusive past that goes back to her childhood and then into her first marriage. This long ball data, strongly suggests a present day scenario of Sue, that may be due to at least some lingering affects, from her difficult past. This large ship of behavior does not turn on a dime. A lingering trajectory may better explains what we see.

Her two days of sheepish accommodation is not because she was sheltered and is shy with people. The opposite is true, since she is out going but is trying to avoid the wrath of father and mother figures. If we can ignore the long ball of data, and you are a convincing used car salesman, you may get others to think she was pampered in isolation. Al Gore was a professional career politician from a family of professional Politicians. He was better at short ball.

The warming up, from last ice age, did not officially end in terms of the long ball data. Glaciers receded all the way from south of NYC,  several thousand miles northward, since that long ball cycle of global warming began.

The recession of the glaciers made it all the way to the Arctic circle, before we seemed to notice the short ball opportunity. The denier beatdown scam was politically motivated, and not science based. It was designed to make one not look at the long ball data, through public shaming. If you did that, you would be called yucky. Nobody wants to be yucky, so we accommodate, based on long term patterns of conditioned behavior.

The short ball approach begins the story of the glaciers retreating, the day before yesterday, which is ripe for manipulative fantasy. We are told to ignore the last ice age, and then the retreat of the glaciers, over several thousands miles of melting, and focus on just the last 100 years, which is not in any way, shape, or form connected to the last ice. This is unique and is all backed by a consensus of passengers riding a gravity train.

Don't get me wrong science jobs are good no matter where they come from. But the credibility of science is also important. Mercenary science may not solve both objectives.

Part of the way this low ball scam is being played, is based on how we have been conditioned to reward fear mongering. If someone in the news claims that a large tornado or hurricane is going to devastate a city, and it does not happen; weather station, we all thank God, everyone is safe. We do not get mad for being manipulated by fear mongering. We do not demand they resign, but we are conditioned to say, "we are better safe than sorry". Pandering to fear can override even common sense if the herd begins to stampede with a type of fear that is never wrong, but is better safe than sorry.

The doom and gloom predictions of the computer models do not pan out each year, over the past 20 years, but like any form of fear mongering, this gets a pass, since it is better safe than sorry. This is not how good science theory works. A rational theory needs to be able to make accurate and reproducible predictions. It does not need to depend on fear mongering, to erase lack of compliance to the scientific method. We do not care, if the climate change theory is accurate, it makes us feel safer if we try. Even if we fail, it is better to be safe than sorry. The better approach is the long ball approach and not to sweat the noise from the data or from politicians.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

.

The recession of the glaciers made it all the way to the Arctic circle, before we seemed to notice the short ball opportunity. The denier beatdown scam was politically motivated, and not science based. It was designed to make one not look at the long ball data, through public shaming. If you did that, you would be called yucky. Nobody wants to be yucky, so we accommodate, based on long term patterns of conditioned behavior.

The short ball approach begins the story of the glaciers retreating, the day before yesterday, which is ripe for manipulative fantasy. We are told to ignore the last ice age, and then the retreat of the glaciers, over several thousands miles of melting, and focus on just the last 100 years, which is not in any way, shape, or form connected to the last ice. This is unique and is all backed by a consensus of passengers riding a gravity train.

Yep, glaciers have been receding for longer than the CO2 levels have been inreacing. They also grew in the years of the little ice age. That is global warming

If you accept that the air has a higher evaporative quality and the thermal levels are gaining greater altitude it is no wonder that the glaciers retreat and that the retreat speed increaces with accelerated temperatures.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-57011369

[Bored chemist]

The doom and gloom predictions of the computer models do not pan out each year, over the past 20 years,

Except that the data shows that we are getting a greater number of "extreme" weather events.
We just had the coldest April in over half a century, and there was snow around the UK.

[Kryptid]

You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.

Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.

[The Spoon]

You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.

Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.

So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.

Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.

So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?

Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?