As you can see, it is not a matter of will the weather change.
"Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?"
-- Edward Lorenz
(paper presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 1972)
June 24th and it's only 40 degrees!!! So much for global warming, you stupid scientists! lol
Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said today
Yes, it is the climate that has changed. As a result, the weather.
Coldest Air in 4 Years On The Way Early Next Week (48-72 hours below 0 F.)
Is this your first Minnesota winter? You arrived with a light jacket and a confident smirk? "How bad can it be - bring it on!"
(Insert sinister laughter-track here.)
Old Man Winter is about to rock your world; 2-3 days worth of world-rocking, to be precise. A burst of Siberian air will keep daytime "highs" below zero next Monday & Tuesday. Lows may reach -15 F. in the metro, maybe -35F up north.
Why the big difference from last winter? A year ago jet stream winds blew from the Pacific, consistently, keeping the coldest air of winter bottled up over northern Canada. This year winds aloft are light & erratic, allowing polar air to surge south. A lack of significant snow on the ground will temper the chill (slightly), but by Monday there will be NO doubt in your mind that you live in one of the coldest major metro areas on Earth. (Source)
Citrus-Killing Freeze. Meteorologist Chad Merrill from WeatherBug sent me this nugget on the unusual cold that's gripped the southwestern USA in recent days: "Ice covers an orange at an orange grove in Redlands, California, Tuesday, January 15, 2013. A cold snap that has California farmers struggling to protect a $1.5 billion citrus crop has slowly started to ease, though frigid temperatures were still the norm Tuesday morning throughout the state and across other parts of the west."
So far 2012 has been a very active tornado year compared to last year and the average annual trend back through 2005.
According to graphs provided by the Storm Prediction Center, there were 416 preliminary tornado reports through April 9, 2012. Compared to past years, this is a very busy start to the severe weather and tornado season.
The average annual trend from 2005-2011 indicates that there would normally be about 332 tornadoes through April 9. During the time period from Jan. 1-April 9, 2011, there were 92 tornadoes. (Source)
Following a notoriously active and deadly tornado year in 2011, the low number of tornadoes in 2012 may go down in the record books.
The number of tornadoes in January, February and March 2012 climbed above normal. However, in April, typically the most active month for severe weather in the U.S., there was a below-normal number of tornadoes.
Severe weather has been unusually quiet since the spring. Even during the fall, when there is normally a secondary peak in severe weather, there was a lull. (Source)
Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions (i.e., more or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change is caused by factors that include oceanic processes (such as oceanic circulation), variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions, and human-induced alterations of the natural world; these latter effects are currently causing global warming, and "climate change" is often used to describe human-specific impacts.
If global warming is as bad as they say then it needs to hurry up and take effect for this week and warm the weather up like now please
In closing, some final words from Michio Kaku. He summarizes it nicely.
I don’t remember who pointed me at this transcript of Deepak Chopra interviewing Michio Kaku, but if I remember who it was, I fully intend to hate them.
… pseudoscience "interview" snipped, see source article …
The whole thing is like this. It’s just brimful of gibberish. I mean, I expect Chopra to sound like a character from Star Trek, that’s his shtick, but Kaku claims to be a scientist. He’s on every other show on the Science Channel, and here he is spouting New Age twaddle and grossly misrepresenting good science.
And the whole interview is like this– this segment is just the part that I’m in the best position to evaluate. Between the two of them, though, they manage to say all manner of idiotic things about physics, biology, cosmology, and computing. Among other subjects.
Somebody ought to be ashamed of this. Ideally, Kaku would be, but that’s clearly not possible given that he went on Deepak Chopra’s radio show in the first place. But somebody ought to be ashamed. I’m just not sure who– the Huffington Post? the Science Channel? Tim Berners-Lee for inventing the Web that let me read this gibberish? Guglielmo Marconi for inventing radio?
I don’t really care who, but there better be some shame around here somewhere. Because this is completely ridiculous. (Source)
Both, cenpuppie and adjensen had strong opening statements which were successful in succinctly stating their arguments. I must lean in favour though, of cenpuppie, as she/he (sorry) had provided a higher number of credible sources than adjensen, who mainly relied on personal knowledge.
The sources provided by cenpuppie effectively supported her/his argument, delving into a lot of different weather anomalies during 2012. I would have liked to see cenpuppie use excerpts form the sources though, in order to prove their point.
As for adjensen, you too provided a good source, but i would have liked to have seen further sources backing up your claims (for example, the weather/climate difference).
Both fighters continued their arguments well, with cenpuppie using further sources to back up her/his claims. Adjensen also came out strong, using numerous sources to his/her advantage.
Adjensen had good rebuttal points, effectively proving that short term weather changes are not representative of climate change. Adjensen did not, however, expand his/her argument, choosing to focus solely on the North American region. I would have liked to have seen adjensen touch on the international sphere of things.
cenpuppie's arguments were kind of vague. I would have like you to use excerpts from your sources instead of merely posting the links again though.
Both arguments were satisfactory in the body statement, but both could have been better.
Winner: adjensen (only just)
I feel that cenpuppie could have ended her/his debate stronger. I would have also liked to have seen some incorporated text and cenpuppie's own words for the last sources posted. Just linking sources and not using anything from them directly is probably not a strong move, especially for a closing statement.
Adjensen closed his/her arguments just as good, if not, a tiny bit better than cenpuppie. Although adjensen's use of a blog (albeit, a science one) as a source, and his use of a "Facebook" quote put me off, the writing was good. Furthermore, the debate was about climate change, not global warming.
All in all, both arguments were great, but i would have to give the closing statement to cenpuppie. As such, i have come to the conclusion that cenpuppie had won this debate, although by a slim margin.
Well done, both participants.
What an interesting debate... What I found most interesting was that neither person denied that the climate was changing in some fashion, therefore it made it much more difficult to separate that aspect of the argument from the base, is the extreme weather in 2012 indicative of climate change.
The arguments were both well formed, and well documented. Both fighters pressed their arguments but in the end.. Cenpuppie made one fatal mistake... He quoted a known sensationalistic 2012'er, Michio Kaku, in that one moment, anything he had posted before went out the window in a cloud of dust. For that reason, and that reason alone, by a very small nudge, Adjensen is the winner in my opinion.
Id have to give the win to adjsensen because while reading the debate I learned several things about climate and weather that I hadnt been aware of. In my opinion cenpuppie could have invested a little more time and thought o his posting. cenpuppie made sense, but adjsensens trick was not to outright deny global warming but to reframe it.
The following statements won me to adjensens side:
"climate change doesn't work like that -- it's a slow process that can take hundreds, thousands or even millions of years to come to fruition"
"As we have seen, short term meteorological reports in a localized region are representative of weather, not climate.