Settled science update: global warming means more snow, less snow, record snow and no snow.

Please explain, Bags...I'm very confused

Does being confused mean that I get a diploma?

The whole idea is to keep The Public confused, soop, so yes, you get a diploma for cottoning on to that .

YAY!!!
#imnotasdumbasithink

It means more ice as well (even though they keep telling us less; maybe as in less is more?).

N hemisphere sea ice in the middle of the range.

S hemisphere sea ice above average all year.

So, as of today, global sea ice area covered is above average since records began in 1979.

#justsaying

Whew! I'm glad that's settled then . Now I don't know what to expect weatherwise.

I cannot quite find BAGS links but the media is dreadful at reporting science issues. I get the impression that, rather than trying to understand what is happening and explaining it, they find it easier to make cheap headlines about it. Whether this is health scares like MMR or anything else.

Weather is always a "chaotic system." Global warming can cause "unusual" weather patterns in different parts of the globe. Warming of the oceans affects ocean currents and this affects the jet stream winds and messes up the usual weather patterns.

To get a measure of this it is necessary to look at weather patterns over a long period like a couple of centuries. If global warming continues it could reach a point where it "runs away" and cannot be controlled.

The question is do we just ignore this risk or do we try to do something about it.
It's like ignoring any potential risk. You will be damned if you ignore the threat and the worst happens, and damned if you try to do plan for this event and it doesn't happen therefore having wasted a lot of rescources.

One incontrovertible fact is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing since the industrial revolution.

Henry L. Mencken - "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

The links are from the University of Illinois Dept of Atmospheric Sciences Cyrosphere Data.

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png

IPCC leader Rajendra Pachauri now admits that global warming has been nil for seventeen years in spite of escalating CO2 levels. Scientifically speaking, that looks like a falsification of the hypothesis that is based on global warming being 'caused' by (rather than correlated with) CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

A few years ago the IPCC said ten years' data was necessary to falsify the hypothesis. Then they said fifteen or sixteen years. Now he's saying it has to be thirty or forty years. Just keep changing the goalposts, guys.

All the catastrophic predictions are based on feedbacks, which are not understood.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the effect is logarithmic, so we have seen most of the effect the increases are going to have since its level has increased from historically very low levels (below which we wouldn't be here because there'd be no plant life, on which all animal life ultimately depends).

BUT, the computer modelled positive feedbacks (water vapour, clouds, etc) are wrong. It isn't happening.

And there are negative feedbacks too.

We know hardly anything. I'm all for more research but most of the billions spent on climate panic would be far better spent on solving problems of water and food shortages, health and education for the poorest people in the world, and so on, all of which would have an eventual impact on population growth.

In short, the computer-model scenario predictions are wrong. No shame in that. But we do need to get our heads round that idea and stop wasting time, money and effort that could be more effectively used elsewhere.