This is a very irresponsible post. Even in the article you linked to, the meteorologist cited explained that a heavy snowfall is not unprecedented in the region. And furthermore, you have done enough reading to understand that global warming does not mean that every spot on the planet will automatically be transformed into a steaming swamp.
Did you read the piece on Valentia Zharkova? Have you read Henrik Svensmark's The Chilling Stars or E. Kirsten Peters's The Whole Story of Climate? You are obviously free to make an act of faith in the global warming hypothesis. But I don't think the science is there to support said hypothesis. And the science tends not to find its way into the mainstream media.
Of course I have read the piece, as well as some of the criticism as to the precise relevance of the Grand Solar Minimum. It's not an act of faith that I engage in, but a weighing of the evidence, including the geological and solar. Is there a definitive answer? No, but I prefer to err on the side of caution for the sake of future generations. The science will continue to be reassessed as new evidence emerges. That is how science works.
'Global warming strikes again' as a headline for a post about a snowstorm is misleading at best, and does not belong in a rational discussion of scientific hypotheses. It better suits media clickbait, whether mainstream or otherwise.
(Are you assuming I rely on the 'mainstream media' for my understanding? There are other sources, including personal ones.)
Only a few years ago, the Independent was telling us in a headline that snowstorms are a thing of the past. In the 1970s, Time magazine warned us about the coming ice age. The phrase "global warming" was abandoned in favor of the more ambiguous "climate change" because blaming global warming on every form of extreme weather — hot, cold, wet, dry, whatever — had become risible. Climate is a chaotic system, governed by a non-linear dynamic. Change is the nature of it. Science is about refining knowledge, not telling the future. That's the job of alchemy and astrology. And what does it mean to err on the side of caution? Let our all-wise politicos devise some program or other? My sarcasm re "global warming" was addressing the shabby discourse involved in all this — the slippery terminology, the scary predictions. An iceberg in Greenland that has been given much attention because it has been receding is now growing again. Of course, we are being told that is only temporary. But so does the growth appears to have been. Can any longterm prediction be made on the basis of this? I doubt it.
This is a very irresponsible post. Even in the article you linked to, the meteorologist cited explained that a heavy snowfall is not unprecedented in the region. And furthermore, you have done enough reading to understand that global warming does not mean that every spot on the planet will automatically be transformed into a steaming swamp.
ReplyDeleteDid you read the piece on Valentia Zharkova? Have you read Henrik Svensmark's The Chilling Stars or E. Kirsten Peters's The Whole Story of Climate? You are obviously free to make an act of faith in the global warming hypothesis. But I don't think the science is there to support said hypothesis. And the science tends not to find its way into the mainstream media.
ReplyDeleteOf course I have read the piece, as well as some of the criticism as to the precise relevance of the Grand Solar Minimum. It's not an act of faith that I engage in, but a weighing of the evidence, including the geological and solar. Is there a definitive answer? No, but I prefer to err on the side of caution for the sake of future generations. The science will continue to be reassessed as new evidence emerges. That is how science works.
ReplyDelete'Global warming strikes again' as a headline for a post about a snowstorm is misleading at best, and does not belong in a rational discussion of scientific hypotheses. It better suits media clickbait, whether mainstream or otherwise.
(Are you assuming I rely on the 'mainstream media' for my understanding? There are other sources, including personal ones.)
Only a few years ago, the Independent was telling us in a headline that snowstorms are a thing of the past. In the 1970s, Time magazine warned us about the coming ice age. The phrase "global warming" was abandoned in favor of the more ambiguous "climate change" because blaming global warming on every form of extreme weather — hot, cold, wet, dry, whatever — had become risible. Climate is a chaotic system, governed by a non-linear dynamic. Change is the nature of it. Science is about refining knowledge, not telling the future. That's the job of alchemy and astrology. And what does it mean to err on the side of caution? Let our all-wise politicos devise some program or other? My sarcasm re "global warming" was addressing the shabby discourse involved in all this — the slippery terminology, the scary predictions. An iceberg in Greenland that has been given much attention because it has been receding is now growing again. Of course, we are being told that is only temporary. But so does the growth appears to have been. Can any longterm prediction be made on the basis of this? I doubt it.
ReplyDelete