This sounds familiar. As I’ve noted multiple times, Warmists claimed that “climate change” would cause more tropical storms that would impact land, especially blowing a gasket after the big year of 2005. Almost immediately, tropical systems started drying up, with landfalling storms dropping considerably. Then they claimed that Hotcoldwetdry would mean that there would not necessarily be more hurricanes, but that they would be stronger. When that failed to materialize, they started saying that “climate change” was killing off hurricanes, causing them to do other things.
Climate change may fuel more extreme storms
Researchers at the University of Toronto linked climate change to an increase in large storm systems. To put it simply, warming temperatures globally lead to more moisture in the atmosphere through evaporation. That increases the potential for more historic storms like the Blizzard of 2015. The study went on to say that overall these “mega-storms” will happen less often, but when they do form, they could be more severe. Last week’s storm didn’t affect the East at all, but the potential is there for the East to be impacted by storms in the future.
Tom Rickenbach, an associate professor with the Department of Geography at ECU said this: “I think what we can expect is that when it does snow, we could get more snow. and the number of snow events may not increase, they actually may decrease, but when we get them, they could snow more.”
Sounds like exactly what happened this year in the northeast
This reminds me of politician speak, or horiscopes, or fortune tellers where all outcomes will seem to be correct.
I think that is the intent. To make us and the general public think exctly that. It really seems to be a propaganda war being waged on the general public. In the old days Climate Change media reports usually came out after a warm day to make you think the warm day is a result of Climate Change instead of being just a warm day.
Don’t overlook that the Earth continues to warm because we’re adding megatons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. There is no reason, short of a new glacial period (not expected for many thousands of years), to expect the warming to stop without human intervention. (Catastrophic volcanic eruptions, catastrophic asteroid strikes or widespread nuclear war could slow the warming down for a while from dust and aerosols. In addition, the reduction in human activities that would result would likely cut greenhouse gas emissions. None of that is good.)
Scientists are still trying to understand and predict what will result from this proven warming.
It seems likely that the changes will significantly disrupt human civilization and social structure.
As said before-What’s the definition of “severe”? How can you say something is more severe unless you know what severe is? But here’s the best: “Scientists are still trying to understand …what will result from this warming. It seems likely that the changes will significantly disrupt human civilization..” So, they’re still trying to understand what will happen, but it’s “likely” that changes will disrupt human civilization. That’s a neat trick those astrologers do-they’re not sure, but wait, they are. In another post today J wonders why conservatives “are so afraid” of some things. There’s no one on the planet more afraid than liberals are of what might happen from non-existent warming that can’t be tied to CO2 which has happened in the past and gee, we’re still here. Best look in the mirror when you ask that question, J.
j,
The difference, of course, is that climate realists do not fear for themselves but for our descendants.
Regarding the way scientists describe the physical world in terms of probabilities makes science an easy target for propagandists like you. But that’s the way science and truth operates.