While I do not hold degrees in those, I have taken courses in college on both. Yes we would talk eye to eye.
I think we're beginning to see a decade change...the summers and winters are definitely different in the last 10-20 years... it also depends on where you live the further north you live the faster climate change is occurring...
Yeah, I can accept that. I do think 10 years is the absolute minimum for measuring climate change though.
seasons are climate and the arctic summer is 4 weeks longer than it was 20 years ago, so about a week every ten years, in the arctic at least it's on decade time line...
Daily you experience weather. So how can you detect climate change? We are told it is not climate, but is weather.
May we study your claim of a 4 weeks longer Summer? What is your support for this comment? https://www.livescience.com/32814-arctic-daylight-darkness-myth-equinox.html Crepuscular rays illuminate half of the sky in Antarctica. Credit: NOAA/Dave Mobley
Weather patterns in a region comprise climate. One can keep careful records over a period of years to see if the patterns of weather, climate, has changed.
you look it up and study it all you want, spring thaw comes earlier and freeze up comes later... no need an explaination fo arctic summer and winter daylight/darkness conditions, I lived there
it's not what you're told it's what you choose to believe or that you fail to understand... it's a simple matter of looking up the difference between climate and weather...it's inexcusable you haven't taken the initiative yourself at your age, you're smart enough that you don't need other to spoon feed you the info...
I know you're smart enough to do the search and understand what you read so then I have to assume you're just not trying...
You have described a vast area of Earth as a domicile. What part of the Arctic did you mean? Yukon ... I had not seen that reply. So excuse me for asking again. The Yukon has it's local peculiarities plus you lived on land. Most who speak of the arctic are trying to focus on the ice on the sea.
If it rains for nine months that is weather. Being able to count on approximately 9 months of rain per year would be one of many components of climate. If a 5 or 10 year running average of rain data showed that you could no longer count on approximately 9 months of rain per year, that would be climate change.
That's still weather. The shorter the time period the more it represents weather. The longer the time period the more it represents climate. There's no magic dividing line between weather and climate but less than 10 years is dominated by weather patterns whereas more than 30 years is dominated by climate patterns. There is grey area between the two where there are elements of both in play. Observing that precipitation amounts increased for a 9 month window over a 30 year period is climate. Observing that it rained a lot during one specific year for that same 9 month window is weather. Likewise... Observing that the global mean surface temperature increased/decreased over a 2 year period due to an ENSO cycle is weather. Observing that the global mean surface temperature increased since 1960 is climate.
Like mamasaid said, its by detecting signals in otherwise noisy data. There are a lot of techniques for doing this. None of these techniques were invented by climate scientists. And the way they are deployed and the sophistication of them aren't even remotely interesting or impressive compared to what is being done in other disciplines of science. For example, you can easily detect climate change with a just a trivial 10 year moving average of a dataset containing 30 years of monthly mean temperatures and it only takes middle school level math to do it.
of coarse I lived on land no one lives on the sea ice... I replied to your post regarding daylight and nighttime in the arctic, what do either have to do with the sea? does spring melt come sooner than 40yrs ago? yes... does winter freeze up come later than 40 years ago? yes... are changes in season length an indicator of climate change? yes... are polar bears the apex predator of the arctic suffering because of less sea ice? yes, no ice=no food
I will submit now that it does not matter. Let's drive at what the gist of this is. You have heard it is control, taxes, power shifts from group b to a, etc. But why not let scientists explain this who studied this since the beginning of these claims. A mere 40 minutes of seeing them explain it is better than you wasting hours of your time fretting the sea will swamp you and the mosquitos produced by warming will carry off your animals. Video can be rewound to start. This starts about midway in the presentation but i felt so good about this that I knew you would also love to see it. Why? Because you do not want your family scared out of their wits. You will rewind the presentation and start at the beginning since you love knowledge. You are devoted to truth. If you can save your children their life spent in utter fear, you will try hard. Thus watch the entire video.
May I point out that as large as the entire arctic is, it still is only a small fraction of the earth. I could point out the crane in the Antarctic that is perhaps vanished by today. See the photo of the crane that was used to construct the nearby power lines. See them also being covered by ice? This is the crane covered. I have seen this photo for the past 20 years.
Lets be crystal clear on the absurd tack you are taking: You are deferring to the authority of scientists to cast doubt on accepted climate theories, when the overwhelming majority (95%+) of imate scientific accept the accepted theories.
