Today is a good day.

[Jacob]

........

It may be that a more scientific analysis of historical and complete weather data would yield a better link between temperature and extreme weather.

What on earth makes you think the analysis is not being undertaken?
The whole subject is centred on the study of historic and prehistoric climate, weather and change.
It has to be - you can't talk about change without looking at history.

 

[Cobbs]

Got to hand it to you, Deema - when you set out to start an argument, you really know how to go about it. I have to wonder why though...

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Which weather events are not affected by climate change?

I did not say there was no statistical link between climate change and extreme events.

Read wot I sed - "I simply asserted the blaming every weather event on climate change is daft".

 

[Chris152]

Today is a bad day. A convicted felon of very poor moral standing and bone spurs becomes president of the most powerful nation, and thus 'leader of the free world' (for the time being).

I heard some seagulls earlier, the sky is grey and it's still cold. Hopefully, with a news blackout for the foreseeable, I can keep spirits up and hide in the workshop.

 

[Jacob]

I did not say there was no statistical link between climate change and extreme events.

Read wot I sed - "I simply asserted the blaming every weather event on climate change is daft".

Climate change affects every weather event. They aren't separate issues.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

What on earth makes you think the analysis is not being undertaken?
The whole subject is centred on the study of historic and prehistoric climate, weather and change.
It has to be - you can't talk about change without looking at history.

The evidence has little to do with the prehistoric - how far back do you go - the Mesozoic when dinosaurs trudged through a tropical wonderland??

The evidence base is largely centred round changes since the pre-industrial era, usually assumed as the climate during 1850-1900:

• before which activities and impacts of humanity were fairly limited
• observational data became sufficient to accurately estimate global climate

There was limited climate variation before ~1950 which may reflect:

• a lag in the impact of rising CO2 levels
• a global population which has grown over 3 fold from 1950 to 2025
• rising per capita consumption of fossil fuels

 

[RonnieI]

The predictions still hold unfortunately, nothing has altered of the bigger picture, though anomalies and variations will crop up all over the place.
Reversing the trend by 2000 was good advice but probably already too late. Warnings were being issued in the 70s

I remember as a kid in the early 1970s that the climatologists were predicting a new mini ice age by the early 2000s

 

[Jacob]

I remember as a kid in the early 1970s that the climatologists were predicting a new mini ice age by the early 2000s

See earlier posts. It was a popular idea but not a mainstream prediction of the science.

 

[John Brown]

I remember as a kid in the early 1970s that the climatologists were predicting a new mini ice age by the early 2000s

Obviously, as scientists learn from the collective body of prior research and accumulate more data, their predictions start to become increasingly inaccurate.
So if you really want to know what the future holds you should practice ichthyomancy or alectryomancy.

P.S. Where's my flying car? They said we'd have flying cars...