if you are not trolling and actually want to understand the scenario it's the speed of change which is the issue, not the change per se.
And this is exactly where I want you. As you may already know, one of the pillars of climate change is what are commonly known as "return periods," which are nothing more than the time elapse between the same event occurring twice or more. So, for example, a 3+ inches of snow even in Miami may have a 500 year return period or a 90+ day dry spell on top of Mt. Waialeale may have a 250 year return period. In essence, all climatic events have a return period. Since there's, arguably, about 50 years of reliable weather data... has anyone ever wondered how it is that a scientist allocates a 100, 200 or 300 return period to a climatic event if they only have 50 years of reliable weather data? I tell you how: THEY MAKE IT UP! Yes! They make shit up. In reality, they do not know, they haven't a clue. What has been happening though is that the data that is now coming in is providing climatologists a clearer window on the frequency of weather events, and one of the unintended consequences of the newly collected data is the
perception that the return periods are getting shorter and shorter. Bullshit. The issue has been the staring point all along, and I don't see many scientists publicly stating that they were wrong. In fact, they will never admit to any wrongdoing because doing so would bring the man-made global warming house of cards in a heart beat.
No species has dominated the planet like us, you honestly can't believe we can't have a massive impact on the earth with the drilling, polluting, building we are doing can you?
No, I don't. Take for example 10,000 years ago: Britain was completely covered in an ice sheet then, in a blink of an eye the ice started melting and folks from other parts of Europe started moving in. This was way before the fossil fuel era began. That's 11,180 years prior to any human burning anything other than trees or dry moss.
The predictions are coming true that's how we know it's correct, they use computer models to map the data they have from all around the world, satellites, ice cores, oceanography and it's all in accord. You really think the weather is that mysterious to us? we have satellites floating around in space taking precision pictures of the earth, space ships that send remote controlled cars all over mars, instruments that detect gravitational waves from lightyears away.. it's not rocket science it's climate science much easier and the consensus from the world is in.
Ok then. What is the weather going to be like in Manhattan on 10/15/17?
Sure people will try to profit that doesn't negate the facts, that's just shitty people. The only way to at least start to tackle the issue is to accept it, denial is causing stagnation and it's funny because it's the same issue you find fault in only the inverse, oil/gas want to delay any changes due to economic impacts.
As someone who has owned and operated various personal weather stations (PWS) throughout his life and has had to deal with miscalibrated PWS all these years, I am a little skeptical, to say the least. I had one weather station that regularly recorded temperatures 5-10 degrees lower than a station up the hill. I used to exchange the data with the guy that monitored the station up the hill and we both had the data from both stations posted on Weatherunderground.com. I was even interviewed by a bunch of students from the local junior high about the discrepancy... I told then I had no idea what was causing the disparity but that my hunch was that cooler air was accumulating at the bottom of the valley and hence the lower temperature readings from my station. Fast forward 10 years and I find out, after buying a second station, that the original station was miscalibrated. 10-15 years worth of data down the drain.
El Azizia had the highest recorded temperature in the world for 90 years before it was deemed invalid by the WMO.
Tread lightly my friend.
