(07-19-2017, 10:26 PM)chuck white Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 07:58 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 06:38 PM)chuck white Wrote: Climate is just the summation of weather over a long period of time.

Yes. And by extension of that fact, we know that current weather patterns do not necessarily indicate changes in climate. 
But we have to be aware of changes not seen in our time or recent history. Florida is getting wet, Bangladesh is under salt water, Australia is drying up (in SOME places) and so forth. 
Simply put, we have more than likely screwed the pup. An overwhelming number of scientist who have expertise in the study of climate agree that our climate is changing. However, they use forensic models, not current weather reports, to support the argument. Even the huge ice shelf that recently broke off near the Arctic Circle may or may not be the result of a change in climate. 

We are arguing about definitions. And parsing the language is sometimes important. This is one of those times (IMHO).

Current weather patterns year after year do indicate a shift in climate.
When each year is a record breaking year.

Larsen C loosing 10% of it area... natural cycle.  Try telling that to Larsen B
Larsen B was stable for at least 10,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last glacial period.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf#cite_note-Queens-7][/url]

(07-20-2017, 07:24 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 10:26 PM)chuck white Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 07:58 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 06:38 PM)chuck white Wrote: Climate is just the summation of weather over a long period of time.

Yes. And by extension of that fact, we know that current weather patterns do not necessarily indicate changes in climate. 
But we have to be aware of changes not seen in our time or recent history. Florida is getting wet, Bangladesh is under salt water, Australia is drying up (in SOME places) and so forth. 
Simply put, we have more than likely screwed the pup. An overwhelming number of scientist who have expertise in the study of climate agree that our climate is changing. However, they use forensic models, not current weather reports, to support the argument. Even the huge ice shelf that recently broke off near the Arctic Circle may or may not be the result of a change in climate. 

We are arguing about definitions. And parsing the language is sometimes important. This is one of those times (IMHO).

Current weather patterns year after year do indicate a shift in climate.
When each year is a record breaking year.

Larsen C loosing 10% of it area... natural cycle.  Try telling that to Larsen B
Larsen B was stable for at least 10,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last glacial period.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf#cite_note-Queens-7][/url]

There you go again. 
No, "year after year" does make an argument for Climate Change. 
Perhaps "decade after decade" does, but even then fluctuations in weather are "normal" and we see that in the short time we have been recording weather with instruments. 
But perhaps your argument can be supported with a least on factor all science recognizes: The earths population has exploded exponentially and the population has been using fossil fuel in numbers so great that rapid changes can be seen that would never have occurred in a less densely populated world. 

Not easy, this stuff.

There you go again. 

No, "year after year" does make an argument for Climate Change.

(07-20-2017, 01:03 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 07:24 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 10:26 PM)chuck white Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 07:58 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 06:38 PM)chuck white Wrote: Climate is just the summation of weather over a long period of time.

Yes. And by extension of that fact, we know that current weather patterns do not necessarily indicate changes in climate. 
But we have to be aware of changes not seen in our time or recent history. Florida is getting wet, Bangladesh is under salt water, Australia is drying up (in SOME places) and so forth. 
Simply put, we have more than likely screwed the pup. An overwhelming number of scientist who have expertise in the study of climate agree that our climate is changing. However, they use forensic models, not current weather reports, to support the argument. Even the huge ice shelf that recently broke off near the Arctic Circle may or may not be the result of a change in climate. 

We are arguing about definitions. And parsing the language is sometimes important. This is one of those times (IMHO).

Current weather patterns year after year do indicate a shift in climate.
When each year is a record breaking year.

Larsen C loosing 10% of it area... natural cycle.  Try telling that to Larsen B
Larsen B was stable for at least 10,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last glacial period.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf#cite_note-Queens-7][/url]

There you go again. 
No, "year after year" does make an argument for Climate Change. 
Perhaps "decade after decade" does, but even then fluctuations in weather are "normal" and we see that in the short time we have been recording weather with instruments. 
But perhaps your argument can be supported with a least on factor all science recognizes: The earths population has exploded exponentially and the population has been using fossil fuel in numbers so great that rapid changes can be seen that would never have occurred in a less densely populated world. 

Not easy, this stuff.

There you go again. 

No, "year after year" does make an argument for Climate Change.

No there YOU go again. Chuck said year after year. He didn't say how many year after years.
What I think he meant and most of us mean is that when the records show a warming trend for more than the last century,
And it obviously has a direct correlation with our man made green house gasses. THEN when you see that the 10 hottest years on record all happened since 1998.
It should mean something other than what you want to call... just the weather.

(07-20-2017, 03:47 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 01:03 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 07:24 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 10:26 PM)chuck white Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 07:58 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Yes. And by extension of that fact, we know that current weather patterns do not necessarily indicate changes in climate. 
But we have to be aware of changes not seen in our time or recent history. Florida is getting wet, Bangladesh is under salt water, Australia is drying up (in SOME places) and so forth. 
Simply put, we have more than likely screwed the pup. An overwhelming number of scientist who have expertise in the study of climate agree that our climate is changing. However, they use forensic models, not current weather reports, to support the argument. Even the huge ice shelf that recently broke off near the Arctic Circle may or may not be the result of a change in climate. 

We are arguing about definitions. And parsing the language is sometimes important. This is one of those times (IMHO).

Current weather patterns year after year do indicate a shift in climate.
When each year is a record breaking year.

Larsen C loosing 10% of it area... natural cycle.  Try telling that to Larsen B
Larsen B was stable for at least 10,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last glacial period.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf#cite_note-Queens-7][/url]

There you go again. 
No, "year after year" does make an argument for Climate Change. 
Perhaps "decade after decade" does, but even then fluctuations in weather are "normal" and we see that in the short time we have been recording weather with instruments. 
But perhaps your argument can be supported with a least on factor all science recognizes: The earths population has exploded exponentially and the population has been using fossil fuel in numbers so great that rapid changes can be seen that would never have occurred in a less densely populated world. 

Not easy, this stuff.

There you go again. 

No, "year after year" does make an argument for Climate Change.

No there YOU go again. Chuck said year after year. He didn't say how many year after years.
What I think he meant and most of us mean is that when the records show a warming trend for more than the last century,
And it obviously has a direct correlation with our man made green house gasses. THEN when you see that the 10 hottest years on record all happened since 1998.
It should mean something other than what you want to call... just the weather.

Well year after year is not decade after decade or a century. 
But, believe what you will. 
I think the science is in: The climate is changing. 
But I wouldn't bet a nickel on what the weather will be on September 1st.

(07-20-2017, 03:47 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 01:03 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 07:24 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 10:26 PM)chuck white Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 07:58 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Yes. And by extension of that fact, we know that current weather patterns do not necessarily indicate changes in climate. 
But we have to be aware of changes not seen in our time or recent history. Florida is getting wet, Bangladesh is under salt water, Australia is drying up (in SOME places) and so forth. 
Simply put, we have more than likely screwed the pup. An overwhelming number of scientist who have expertise in the study of climate agree that our climate is changing. However, they use forensic models, not current weather reports, to support the argument. Even the huge ice shelf that recently broke off near the Arctic Circle may or may not be the result of a change in climate. 

We are arguing about definitions. And parsing the language is sometimes important. This is one of those times (IMHO).

Current weather patterns year after year do indicate a shift in climate.
When each year is a record breaking year.

Larsen C loosing 10% of it area... natural cycle.  Try telling that to Larsen B
Larsen B was stable for at least 10,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last glacial period.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf#cite_note-Queens-7][/url]

There you go again. 
No, "year after year" does make an argument for Climate Change. 
Perhaps "decade after decade" does, but even then fluctuations in weather are "normal" and we see that in the short time we have been recording weather with instruments. 
But perhaps your argument can be supported with a least on factor all science recognizes: The earths population has exploded exponentially and the population has been using fossil fuel in numbers so great that rapid changes can be seen that would never have occurred in a less densely populated world. 

Not easy, this stuff.

There you go again. 

No, "year after year" does make an argument for Climate Change.

No there YOU go again. Chuck said year after year. He didn't say how many year after years.
What I think he meant and most of us mean is that when the records show a warming trend for more than the last century,
And it obviously has a direct correlation with our man made green house gasses. THEN when you see that the 10 hottest years on record all happened since 1998.
It should mean something other than what you want to call... just the weather.

Well year after year is not decade after decade or a century. 
But, believe what you will. 
I think the science is in: The climate is changing. 
But I wouldn't bet a nickel on what the weather will be on September 1st.

(07-20-2017, 06:22 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 03:47 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 01:03 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 07:24 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 10:26 PM)chuck white Wrote: Current weather patterns year after year do indicate a shift in climate.
When each year is a record breaking year.

Larsen C loosing 10% of it area... natural cycle.  Try telling that to Larsen B
Larsen B was stable for at least 10,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last glacial period.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf#cite_note-Queens-7][/url]

There you go again. 
No, "year after year" does make an argument for Climate Change. 
Perhaps "decade after decade" does, but even then fluctuations in weather are "normal" and we see that in the short time we have been recording weather with instruments. 
But perhaps your argument can be supported with a least on factor all science recognizes: The earths population has exploded exponentially and the population has been using fossil fuel in numbers so great that rapid changes can be seen that would never have occurred in a less densely populated world. 

Not easy, this stuff.

There you go again. 

No, "year after year" does make an argument for Climate Change.

No there YOU go again. Chuck said year after year. He didn't say how many year after years.
What I think he meant and most of us mean is that when the records show a warming trend for more than the last century,
And it obviously has a direct correlation with our man made green house gasses. THEN when you see that the 10 hottest years on record all happened since 1998.
It should mean something other than what you want to call... just the weather.

Well year after year is not decade after decade or a century. 
But, believe what you will. 
I think the science is in: The climate is changing. 
But I wouldn't bet a nickel on what the weather will be on September 1st.

Year after year of records being broken that were decades or many decades old is meaningful in my book

(07-20-2017, 06:47 PM)tvguy Wrote: My best guess is we have messed with the balance of our environment and we are seeing the signs of weather changes that will, in time, reveal a change in our climate.


LOL we are seeing it NOW.

(07-20-2017, 06:53 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 06:47 PM)tvguy Wrote: My best guess is we have messed with the balance of our environment and we are seeing the signs of weather changes that will, in time, reveal a change in our climate.


LOL we are seeing it NOW.

Scientist are you? 

Quote:Central Chile to endure unusual snow, record cold this weekend

Quote:Up to five centimetres come down in the city's first snowfall for decades, causing havoc in the Chilean capital.

Quote:This year is on track to be the second-hottest on record, surprising climate scientists who thought natural weather patterns could break a multiyear trend of record-breaking temperature increases.

Global temperatures this year have been 1.64 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average of 56.3 F, according to NOAA. That's second only to last year, by a difference of about 0.29 F. Last year is the warmest on record.

(07-20-2017, 06:53 PM)You say thatWonky3 Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 06:47 PM)tvguy Wrote: My best guess is we have messed with the balance of our environment and we are seeing the signs of weather changes that will, in time, reveal a change in our climate.


LOL we are seeing it NOW.

Scientist are you? 

(07-21-2017, 05:33 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 06:53 PM)You say thatWonky3 Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 06:47 PM)tvguy Wrote: My best guess is we have messed with the balance of our environment and we are seeing the signs of weather changes that will, in time, reveal a change in our climate.


LOL we are seeing it NOW.

Scientist are you? 

 
No but I play one on TV.

Your claim that only "in time" we will we see changes in our environment amazes me. There are islands going under water. There are glaciers melting that have been frozen for thousands of years.

I can go along with saying NO individual record setting heat is proof. You won't even admit decades of record breaking weather is proof.
At some point you have to use common sense. Common sense tells me that the ten hottest years ever since we kept records were all since 1998. And the logical conclusion is that is because of climate change.

(07-21-2017, 09:14 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-21-2017, 05:33 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 06:53 PM)You say thatWonky3 Wrote:

(07-20-2017, 06:47 PM)tvguy Wrote: My best guess is we have messed with the balance of our environment and we are seeing the signs of weather changes that will, in time, reveal a change in our climate.


LOL we are seeing it NOW.

Scientist are you? 

 
No but I play one on TV.

Your claim that only "in time" we will we see changes in our environment amazes me. There are islands going under water. There are glaciers melting that have been frozen for thousands of years.

I can go along with saying NO individual record setting heat is proof. You won't even admit decades of record breaking weather is proof.
At some point you have to use common sense. Common sense tells me that the ten hottest years ever since we kept records were all since 1998. And the logical conclusion is that is because of climate change.

Okay. 

Quote:Tropical storm Harvey has set a new record for rain in the continental US
It may still surpass the all-time rain record

(09-01-2017, 12:58 PM)chuck white Wrote:

Quote:Tropical storm Harvey has set a new record for rain in the continental US
It may still surpass the all-time rain record

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/29/16223338/hurricane-harvey-storm-record-rainfall-flooding-texas

Quote:Irma is now the strongest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded outside of the Gulf and Caribbean

Quote:With sustained winds now at 185 mph and gusts up to 220 mph, the National Hurricane Center confirmed today that Hurricane Irma is now the strongest Atlantic storm ever recorded outside the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean.

The latest advisory report from the NHS, also shows the Category 5 hurricane is on pace to break the record for hurricane wind speed (which is currently set at winds of 190 mph).

(09-05-2017, 10:49 PM)chuck white Wrote:

Quote:Irma is now the strongest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded outside of the Gulf and Caribbean

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/09/05/hurricane-irma-is-now-the-strongest-atlantic-storm-ever-recorded-outside-of-gulf-and-caribbean

Quote:With sustained winds now at 185 mph and gusts up to 220 mph, the National Hurricane Center confirmed today that Hurricane Irma is now the strongest Atlantic storm ever recorded outside the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean.

The latest advisory report from the NHS, also shows the Category 5 hurricane is on pace to break the record for hurricane wind speed (which is currently set at winds of 190 mph).

Quote:The U.S. has never been hit, since we started collecting records in 1851, by two Category 4 or stronger hurricanes in the same season,” said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist and co-founder of Weather Underground. “If Irma follows the current National Hurricane Center projection, that will happen.”

Quote:Based on assessments by the National Weather Service and analyses by various meteorologists, Harvey rained down more water on a metro area than any storm in U.S. history. The estimated 34 trillion gallons of rainfall across East Texas and western Louisiana is about the same as Tropical Storm Allison in 2001, 2015’s Memorial Day floods and last year’s Tax Day floods — combined.