Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> John Larkin thinks that all simulations are as flakey as his. Things like
> record breaking heat-waves and forest fires aren't actually simulations, but
> if your brain has been addled by enough climate change denial propaganda you
> can write it all off as "extreme weather".

Which is exactly what it is, and it is what climate science has always said
will happen mor frequently and more extremely.

One problem with the climate discussion is that the climate crisis is often
called "global warming" by a seemingly small average temperature rise of a
couple of degrees C. This amount of warming of the entire atmo- and biosphere
is in fact a gargantuan amount of energy being dumped into an inherently
unstable system which had settled in a temporary local optimum for the past 12k
years.

It's funny how electrical engineers that have no trouble understanding how a
comparatively small disturbance can throw a marginally stable circuit into
chaos will flat-out deny that similar things are happening in nature.

John Larking is not too stupid to understand what is going on. His denial is
simply his way of coping with the truth.

--
robert

On 2021/08/05 1:56 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
> They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
>
> https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
>

Hey, Chicken Little, tornadoes are down from 1954 - 2017, is that
because of climate change?

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

Hurricane landfall has been pretty steady since 1900:

https://tropical.colostate.edu/Publications/papers/klotzbach_et_al_2018_bams.pdf

So, who you going to believe? a newspaper that needs to sell
papers/advertising to survive or the scientists who actually record the
data?

John :-#)#

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:04:09 PM UTC+10, Robert Latest wrote:
> Anthony William Sloman wrote:

<snip - there was a snip there but Robert Latest hasn't bothered to mark it>

> > John Larkin thinks that all simulations are as flakey as his. Things like
> > record breaking heat-waves and forest fires aren't actually simulations, but
> > if your brain has been addled by enough climate change denial propaganda you
> > can write it all off as "extreme weather".
>
> Which is exactly what it is, and it is what climate science has always said
> will happen more frequently and more extremely.

Tropical cyclones are extreme weather, but climate science suggests that they won't happen any more frequently, but that they will become more extreme.. It doesn't have to be both.
> One problem with the climate discussion is that the climate crisis is often
> called "global warming" by a seemingly small average temperature rise of a
> couple of degrees C. This amount of warming of the entire atmo- and biosphere
> is in fact a gargantuan amount of energy being dumped into an inherently
> unstable system which had settled in a temporary local optimum for the past 12k
> years.

Actually, exactly the same amount of energy is being dumped there by the sun all the time. More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean that the effective radiating altitude - from which it is radiated back into space - moves up a bit, and all the temperatures a lower levels move up a bit too. The global temperature that is going up is the temperature at the surface of the earth, and in particular at the surface of the oceans. The one degree Celcius we've seen there so far means that there is now 6% more water vapour in the air over the oceans, and when that condenses out and fall as rain, it releases 6% more energy into the atmosphere wherever it condenses out, which is available to drive more energetic weather events - like more extreme tropical cyclones.

> It's funny how electrical engineers that have no trouble understanding how a
> comparatively small disturbance can throw a marginally stable circuit into
> chaos will flat-out deny that similar things are happening in nature.

Not so funny when you realise that weather has always been chaotic, and that the difference we are seeing are merely the same old weather with a bit more energy.
> John Larking is not too stupid to understand what is going on. His denial is simply his way of coping with the truth.

You don't give enough credit to the climate change denial propaganda he soaks up like a gullible sponge and recycles here. It keeps his right-wing friends happy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

does make the point that part of the climate change denial program goes back to the right wing idea that it is okay for rich people to lie to the rest of the population if it helps them get richer. It's not put that way, but worrying about the well-being of the population as a whole is definitely part of the socialist mind set and thus automatically rejected by right-wingers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:42:42 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2021/08/05 1:56 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
> >
> > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
> >
> Hey, Chicken Little, tornadoes are down from 1954 - 2017, is that
> because of climate change?

It might be. Tornado spawning isn't isn't well understood.

> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends
>
> Hurricane landfall has been pretty steady since 1900:
>
> https://tropical.colostate.edu/Publications/papers/klotzbach_et_al_2018_bams.pdf

But they have become a bit more energetic. A warmer ocean drives more energetic hurricanes, but any hurricane drains the energy out of top fifty metres of the affected ocean pretty efficiently, and a more energetic hurricane drains the energy from a larger area. They aren't expected to become more frequent as global warming gets worse, but the hurricanes we do see are expected to become more energetic. Look at the wrong measure and you get the wrong answer

> So, who you going to believe? a newspaper that needs to sell
> papers/advertising to survive or the scientists who actually record the
> data?

Not the guy who is cherry-picking the data to get the answer he likes.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 23:42:30 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:

>
>On 2021/08/05 1:56 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
>>
>> https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
>>
>
>Hey, Chicken Little, tornadoes are down from 1954 - 2017, is that
>because of climate change?
>
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends
>
>Hurricane landfall has been pretty steady since 1900:
>
>https://tropical.colostate.edu/Publications/papers/klotzbach_et_al_2018_bams.pdf
>
>So, who you going to believe? a newspaper that needs to sell
>papers/advertising to survive or the scientists who actually record the
>data?
>
>John :-#)#

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYBSwS3XcAAkRn9.jpg

Snowpack in the Sierras interests me, and there have been repeatable
measurements since the 1800s. It's erratic year-to-year (which
encourages alarmist extrapolations) but there seems to be no big
longterm trend.

http://www.thestormking.com/Weather/Sierra_Snowfall/2015_Snowfall_Plot_web.jpg

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 7:40:20 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> Snowpack in the Sierras interests me, and there have been repeatable
> measurements since the 1800s. It's erratic year-to-year (which
> encourages alarmist extrapolations) but there seems to be no big
> longterm trend.
>
> http://www.thestormking.com/Weather/Sierra_Snowfall/2015_Snowfall_Plot_web.jpg

There certainly have NOT been surveys of the Sierra snowpack from the 1800s;
you can't even do a visual without aerial machines (there aren't a lot of hot-air balloons with
high altitude winter capability).
That long timeline is for one station, not for the mountain range.

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 23:50:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 7:40:20 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> Snowpack in the Sierras interests me, and there have been repeatable
>> measurements since the 1800s. It's erratic year-to-year (which
>> encourages alarmist extrapolations) but there seems to be no big
>> longterm trend.
>>
>> http://www.thestormking.com/Weather/Sierra_Snowfall/2015_Snowfall_Plot_web.jpg
>
>There certainly have NOT been surveys of the Sierra snowpack from the 1800s;
>you can't even do a visual without aerial machines (there aren't a lot of hot-air balloons with
>high altitude winter capability).
>That long timeline is for one station, not for the mountain range.

It's close enough to Sugar Bowl for me.