,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
so...
the science seems pretty confused on this, but the one thing most individuals can know without the science is the claim the CBC report ends with, and the Minister emphasizes: "more extreme weather events" aren't true where they live.
the science seems pretty confused on this, but the one thing most individuals can know without the science is the claim the CBC report ends with, and the Minister emphasizes: "more extreme weather events" aren't true where they live.
not that the science is the thing that interests me, but there's a long post on Carbon Brief discussing many theories carbonbrief.org/qa-how-is-arct…
Here's 3 quotes from it related to what interests me:
Here's 3 quotes from it related to what interests me:
"It is physically plausible that global warming will make the polar jet stream more unstable and lead to more Arctic outbursts.
However, overall winters are getting warmer, and I don't really see evidence on-the-ground (so far) that long-term trends in cold spells are any worse."
However, overall winters are getting warmer, and I don't really see evidence on-the-ground (so far) that long-term trends in cold spells are any worse."
“The main reason for the disagreement among climate scientists is because the observations are strongly suggestive of a causal link and the models suggest there is no link. "
"they cannot definitively prove a causative link between Arctic amplification and mid-latitude extremes without climate models, but if models are not fully representing the climate processes involved, they will not simulate a robust link."
editors thought that little trip from "there is no evidence" to "models will be our evidence now that we know what's happening" (but not through evidence) was worth taking.
That's interesting.
That's interesting.
