Need I remind you, 10 years ago they said snow would be a thing of the past:
"an increased probability of extreme warm days and decreased probability of extreme cold days"
Further confirmation of what I said.
If you talk about extremes, you do that based on what the 'normal' should be. If you don't know the 'normal' you can't claim something to be extreme.
So can you please tell me what 'normal' is?
I would much like to have a graph for the next ten years, telling me what you expect the 'normal' temperature to be, the 'normal' cloud cover, where the 'normal' wind should come from and how hard it would 'normally' blow, where the 'normal' weather events should take place and what amount the 'normal' rainfall would be.
So that when we know the 'normal', we can start emit CO2 or stop emitting CO2 to drive the climate to this 'normal' state. Ofcourse in good EU fashion, we should put a commitee in place to guard this 'normal'. So that they could tell us how to lead our lives so that the 'normal' is safe guarded.
P.S. Can you please decide that it's 'normal' for this summer in Holland to be 25C, we had such a crappy summer last year.
Seems like Dr Herbie is right;
Global Warming is to blame!1!1one!
Through the delicate interconnected nature of the climate, broken off ice sheets (caused by global warming, why else would they break off, that's not normal) can create pressure zones wich can make storms wich can drive cold air to europe and that's why we have snow!
This is getting more rediculous by the day.
"Just imagine a world where you never had to worry about global warming, where the ice caps, the 'drowning' Maldives and the polar bears were all doing just fine.
Imagine a world where CO2 was our friend, fossil fuels were a miracle we should cherish, and economic growth made the planet cleaner, healthier, happier and with more open spaces.
Actually, there's no need to imagine: it already exists. So why do so many people still believe otherwise? "
It's nothing new. FWIW this is why climate scientists have moved away from the phrase "global warming", which was intended to indicate the expected change on a global scale but was often misleading, to the more acceptable "climate change", which better reflects the consequences at a more localized scale which may be extreme changes in either direction.
As to what is "normal", it should be reasonably obvious that continually hitting "record breaking" levels of temperature simply cannot be "normal".
If in any given region it gets hotter during the hot season than ever before and colder during the cold season, such that new record extremes are being set, then that is by very definition not normal. The climate for that given region is clearly changing, hence "climate change"
Warming, as in "global warming", is a reference to the overall planentary temperature, not to warming in a localised region.
Of course there is a 'normal', not over a short space of time, of course, but the typical figures over the course of a year don't deviate significantly. Until more recently, where they are becoming more extreme.
Fine. Let's apply your argument to something different.
There is no "normal" in terms of taxes - they are always on the move. Who are we to decide it's going the wrong way?
Hence I conclude that green taxes going up is an entirely natural event that is entirely not caused by human activity (it's part of a natural solar cycle, don't 'cha know) and not something that you should seek to avoid.
Indeed I can provide numerous citations for this entirely ficticious argument:
It's called an election. We have it sometimes.
And comparing apples to oranges isn't an argument. Normal is a reference of frame, if you claim extreme you have to name the normal.
Instead of attacking the argument I made, provide me with some credible source where they describe for the next ten years what the 'normal' is.
@evildictaitor: "I see that you have adopted the Bart Simpson defence., I didn't do it"
Well evildictaitor, I have a very low carbon footprint. If you have read my comments from that other thread I created in November, you will know that. Anyways, Here are some scientific graphs that show CO2 didn't do it either:
logarithmic net downward IR forcing effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:
carbon dioxide's contribution to the whole greenhouse effect:
Graph 1: e^x * lg(y) is still exponential if x > y.
Graph 2: There isn't a tipping point in radiative forcing for carbon-dioxide. Nobody is claiming that. There is a tipping point with things like the ocean's ability to absorb carbon dioxide which isn't included on that graph.