Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[WMD]

This is pretty accurate, but notice the troubling times are when it gets colder. Global cooling would be very dangerous for our society. Times of warming have always been associated with prosperity during the period of human civilization.

We are also much more technologically advanced and therefore more able to handle these swings than past societies.

Wow, how much do you get paid for this bullshit?

Lies, lies and more lies.

Trying to spread confusion.

But it is all lies.

I'm going to get laid now. Good night.

[neufox47]

All the hysteria articles that the video is pushing back at, are about the melt, not the calving. Why wouldn't the video be about melt? It is dishonest propaganda from the media to publish those articles, which is the whole point of the video. The only thing that matters is if the icecap gained or lost mass over the year. Everything else is meaningless.

Just like how the media ran headlines on the major news outlets about record breaking temperatures on Greenland last month. Well, turns out it the measurement was wrong: https://www.thelocal.dk/20190808/dan...nd-heat-record

But you don't see any headlines about that.

The video only presents graphs and photos that lead a viewer to believe ice is accumulating faster than it is melting in recent times. Which is absolutely false and misleading. Your pedantic defense that the media was only talking about melt is just that, pedantic, especially since there is only one mechanism by which ice arrives (snow, which is completely covered in the graph) and two main ones by which it melts, direct melting and breaking off into the ocean where it melts. The video almost completely ignored the fact that the icesheet has been losing mass almost every year. Just what was “dishonest” in the reporting? (que more semantics from dipshit while he ignores the completely misleading “reporting” from the climate deniers)

The “hysteria” that the media is reporting on isn’t just that Greenland is melting at X rate today, it is that Greenland is melting much faster than it has in a very long time, that melt rate is increasing and will do so logarithmically as temperatures increase. If we shouldn’t be hysteric about Greenland melting and causing our major cities to need significant sea walls and eventually to be abandoned, at a cost of many many trillions, I don’t know what we should be hysteric about.

Further almost no one is saying we have to get to 100% renewable with current tech, but that we should be getting to 30, 50, 70, 90 and 95 % as soon as practicable. Another straw man you’ve constructed, if it doesn’t get us to 100% then we shouldn’t do anything.

All your cost projections and hysteria that the “true cost” of renewables don’t consider the environmental impacts are laughable when all your costing on fossil fuels include $0 for the effects of climate change.

Future generations will look back on today and wonder how people like you could be so short sighted, so stupid, and so obviously wrong.

[neufox47]

This is pretty accurate, but notice the troubling times are when it gets colder. Global cooling would be very dangerous for our society. Times of warming have always been associated with prosperity during the period of human civilization.

We are also much more technologically advanced and therefore more able to handle these swings than past societies.

Therefore because a little warning is good, the climate can’t possibly get too warm! The technology isn’t there for renewables but is there to cheaply address 3, 6, and 20 ft of sea level rise!

[ron johnson]

Right. All of that was addressed in the post above. Perhaps you responded while I was typing. In any event, maybe it was comet or maybe it was something else.


Regardless, the Younger Dryas is a time period when things went back to full glacial conditions because ice was melting and things were getting warmer and all this meltwater from that giant ice sheet begins to pool up. We have a gigantic lake bigger than the Great Lakes combined it’s called quick glacial Lake Agassiz a giant meltwater Lake is filling up, some of it is trickling out into the Gulf going south through the Mississippi River but for the most part it’s just filling up, and the thing that’s keeping it from draining to the east is a dam of ice. At some point around 15,000 to 14,000 years ago that ice sheet broke and drained out into the North Atlantic.

Currently the North Atlantic is part of a really important circulation pattern called thermohaline circulation so warm surface water from the tropics wants to reach equilibrium the tropics are warmer the poles are colder and as it’s doing that it is releasing heat into the atmosphere through evaporation. That’s why Europe is much warmer than it should be for its latitude because it is getting heat from this warm body of water that is making its way north so as it’s making its way north it is getting cooler because it’s losing its heat and it’s getting saltier because it is evaporating. Cold salty water sinks in that sinking in the North Atlantic is critical for this entire circulation pattern. If the water doesn’t sink it doesn’t push the system to keep circulating. That’s the main push. At one point scientists thought it was the temperature gradient but it’s really the thermohaline circulation pattern is hinged is contingent on that sinking saltwater in the North Atlantic.

So if we take a giant pulse of fresh cold water into the North Atlantic then that thermohaline circulation pattern is shut off and that’s what happened. The influx of cold fresh water shut down the thermohaline circulation. So it stopped that distribution of global heat which plunged us back into near glacial conditions. This happened really quick and it lasted for about 1000 years and then within a century thermohaline circulation kicked back on and we proceeded to warm up into our interglacial conditions.

Why do we care about thermohaline circulation and the distribution of global heat as it relates to climate? The concern now is the melting of the ice caps could have climate repercussions due to all the cold fresh melt water. There are buoys all over the ocean and they are monitoring temperature and circulation and we are seeing a slowing of thermohaline circulation. What we don’t know is if the slow melting of Greenland and the trickle of that water into the North Atlantic will eventually have the same impact as a giant pulse of fresh water. So we are sort of running an experiment that we don’t know what is going to happen.

I would be hesitant to use the Younger Dryas impacts as directly translatable to the future of today's warming. The entire theory of CO2 caused catastrophic climate change depends on all these positive feedbacks amplifying future warming. How the positive or negative feedbacks will interact we don't know.

In the case of the comet impact, the leading theory is the first series of comets that hit 12,600 years ago struck the North American icecap when we were already in a deep ice age. The icecap at the time was 1 - 2 miles thick and covered all of Canada and parts of the Northern US. All this ice melted almost instantaneously causing a massive disruption in ocean currents. The Greenland icecap has much less ice, and has no conceivable mechanism to melt out that quickly. The 11,800 year ago warm spike is theorized to have been caused by a comet impacting the ocean releasing massive amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere.

Also, most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than today, and none of that warmth led to an ice cap melting disruption in the ocean currents.

There is a really great JRE podcast on this if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ

The guest, Randall Carlson, is one the most interesting guys around. I'm not sure if it was this podcast or one of the others that he was on, but it was because of his perspective on global warming that made me actually start researching the global warming narrative. Before that I accepted it all as true.

[Kinnikinnick]

Oh Ron Johnson!!

There you go again.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kkwiQmGWK4c




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[ron johnson]

Therefore because a little warning is good, the climate can’t possibly get too warm! The technology isn’t there for renewables but is there to cheaply address 3, 6, and 20 ft of sea level rise!

I'm not implying this.

[old goat]

This is pretty accurate, but notice the troubling times are when it gets colder. Global cooling would be very dangerous for our society. Times of warming have always been associated with prosperity during the period of human civilization.

We are also much more technologically advanced and therefore more able to handle these swings than past societies.

Hmmm, I'd like to know what the technologies are for dealing with ever increasing wildfires that destroy whole towns, massive floods, increasing numbers of Category 5 hurricances and tornados--all things we've seen in the last year, and growing ever increasing amounts of food on ever decreasing arable land. Central America's emigration has been driven as much by drought and crop failure as by gangs and violence. Man's main adaptation to climate fluctuations has mainly been to move--but witness the furor migration is increasingly causing and ponder the difficulty of migration for a technologically advanced urban society.

[ron johnson]

Wow, how much do you get paid for this bullshit?

Lies, lies and more lies.

Trying to spread confusion.

But it is all lies.

I'm going to get laid now. Good night.

Please, do tell me what is wrong with that statement. Keep in mind we are talking in the the context of +/- a few degrees of warming or cooling.

You haven't been able to disprove any of my points, all you are left with is saying BS and name calling.

[ron johnson]

The video only presents graphs and photos that lead a viewer to believe ice is accumulating faster than it is melting in recent times. Which is absolutely false and misleading. Your pedantic defense that the media was only talking about melt is just that, pedantic, especially since there is only one mechanism by which ice arrives (snow, which is completely covered in the graph) and two main ones by which it melts, direct melting and breaking off into the ocean where it melts. The video almost completely ignored the fact that the icesheet has been losing mass almost every year. Just what was “dishonest” in the reporting? (que more semantics from dipshit while he ignores the completely misleading “reporting” from the climate deniers)

The “hysteria” that the media is reporting on isn’t just that Greenland is melting at X rate today, it is that Greenland is melting much faster than it has in a very long time, that melt rate is increasing and will do so logarithmically as temperatures increase. If we shouldn’t be hysteric about Greenland melting and causing our major cities to need significant sea walls and eventually to be abandoned, at a cost of many many trillions, I don’t know what we should be hysteric about.

Further almost no one is saying we have to get to 100% renewable with current tech, but that we should be getting to 30, 50, 70, 90 and 95 % as soon as practicable. Another straw man you’ve constructed, if it doesn’t get us to 100% then we shouldn’t do anything.

All your cost projections and hysteria that the “true cost” of renewables don’t consider the environmental impacts are laughable when all your costing on fossil fuels include $0 for the effects of climate change.

Future generations will look back on today and wonder how people like you could be so short sighted, so stupid, and so obviously wrong.

Actually Greenland has been accumulating ice faster than melting the past 2 years, but its not important. If you can't see that a report making headlines across major networks on 1 day of record melt during a summer of melting within the range of normal is propaganda I don't know what to tell you. If, at the end of the summer, they report that there has been record ice loss this year, I'd have no issue, but singling out a single day is nothing but stoking alarm. It's possible to have a record melt day in the summer and still gain mass over the year.

Sea levels have been rising at about the same rate of ~3mm/year since 1850, with no rate increase in recent times. Notice the first 100 years of this rise are before increasing CO2 levels: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...13002750#f0015

Yes, everyone is saying we need to get to 100% renewables. Just ask WMD, both his NY and Montana plans want 100% renewables. If you don't get close to 100% from non carbon, you don't end up seeing a significant decline in CO2 output. For the 100th time, look at Germany for an example.

Re: cost projections. Obviously this depends on your perspective. I don't view global warming as a major threat, really just for those living at sea level. If you are one to believe that fossil fuels are going to lead to extinction, well there is no cost greater than that.

[ron johnson]

Hmmm, I'd like to know what the technologies are for dealing with ever increasing wildfires that destroy whole towns, massive floods, increasing numbers of Category 5 hurricances and tornados--all things we've seen in the last year, and growing ever increasing amounts of food on ever decreasing arable land. Central America's emigration has been driven as much by drought and crop failure as by gangs and violence. Man's main adaptation to climate fluctuations has mainly been to move--but witness the furor migration is increasingly causing and ponder the difficulty of migration for a technologically advanced urban society.

There is zero evidence of an increase in the frequency or magnitude of droughts, forest fires, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. This is all media driven propaganda. Look in the latest IPCC report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

[MultiVerse]

I would be hesitant to use the Younger Dryas impacts as directly translatable to the future of today's warming. The entire theory of CO2 caused catastrophic climate change depends on all these positive feedbacks amplifying future warming. How the positive or negative feedbacks will interact we don't know.

In the case of the comet impact, the leading theory is the first series of comets that hit 12,600 years ago struck the North American icecap when we were already in a deep ice age. The icecap at the time was 1 - 2 miles thick and covered all of Canada and parts of the Northern US. All this ice melted almost instantaneously causing a massive disruption in ocean currents. The Greenland icecap has much less ice, and has no conceivable mechanism to melt out that quickly. The 11,800 year ago warm spike is theorized to have been caused by a comet impacting the ocean releasing massive amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere.

Also, most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than today, and none of that warmth led to an ice cap melting disruption in the ocean currents.

1 - You brought up Younger Dryas. The takeaway, regardless of cause whether comets or something else, is a pulse of fresh cold water into the North Atlantic resulted in thermohaline circulation pattern shut off. The point is abrupt climate changes have happened multiple times and do not appear to be random like a comet. In other words, once could be due to comets but that doesn't explain other abrupt climate change events in the geologic record.

2 - Unless regional cherry picked data is used a person cannot say, "most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than today." It is more accurate to say temperatures have oscillated around a mean for the past 10,000 years. But sometime around the early aughts, and relative to peak Holocene warmth 8,000 or so years ago, global temperatures have since returned to the Holocene maximum.

3 - Over the last 800,000 years greenhouse gas concentrations never exceed 300 ppm and never go below about 180 ppm (parts per million). There is a natural range of variability in these fluctuations of greenhouse gases. We have our preindustrial at about 278 ppm. Then, in January 1979 were up to 336. In 2012 we are up to 393. 2013, 400 ppm. So now we are over 400 ppm.

4 - This is important because as we look over the geologic time record we understand that CO2 and greenhouse gases are really important in regulating the climate mode that we are in. Seeing greenhouse gas concentrations increase, we know that greenhouse gases trap heat so what we’re doing is we are changing our atmospheric concentrations to a level that we haven’t seen in this current icehouse phase and so we can expect changes.

[bodywhomper]

This is stupid.

From the ipcc sr15 summary for policymakers doc:

" Climate models project robust7
differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C,8 and between 1.5°C and 2°C.8 These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence), heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence).
{3.3}

B.1.1 Evidence from attributed changes in some climate and weather extremes for a global warming of about 0.5°C supports the assessment that an additional 0.5°C of warming compared to present is associated with further detectable changes in these extremes (medium confidence). Several regional changes in climate are assessed to occur with global warming up to 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels, including warming of extreme temperatures in many regions (high confidence), increases in frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation in several regions (high confidence), and an increase in intensity or frequency of droughts in some regions (medium confidence). {3.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, Table 3.2}

B.1.2 Temperature extremes on land are projected to warm more than GMST (high confidence): extreme hot days in mid-latitudes
warm by up to about 3°C at global warming of 1.5°C and about 4°C at 2°C, and extreme cold nights in high latitudes warm by up to about 4.5°C at 1.5°C and about 6°C at 2°C (high confidence). The number of hot days is projected to increase in
most land regions, with highest increases in the tropics (high confidence). {3.3.1, 3.3.2, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}

B.1.3 Risks from droughts and precipitation deficits are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in
some regions (medium confidence). Risks from heavy precipitation events are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in several northern hemisphere high-latitude and/or high-elevation regions, eastern Asia and eastern North America (medium confidence). Heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones is projected to be
higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming (medium confidence). There is generally low confidence in projected changes in heavy precipitation at 2°C compared to 1.5°C in other regions. Heavy precipitation when aggregated at global scale is projected to be higher at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). As a consequence of heavy precipitation, the fraction of the global land area affected by flood hazards is projected to be larger at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). "

Sent from my SPH-L710 using TGR Forums mobile app

[NWFlow]

You're going to have to back up the "not synchronously" part with some evidence. It's impossible to believe in attribution studies when you can't find any increasing trend in frequency or intensity of extreme weather events from historical data of the last 150 years. If the IPCC can't find it, you can bet its not there.

And actually there is a period in the instrumental record that has approached or exceeded modern temperatures in the US. Check the heat of the 1930's. Many US high temperature records were set during that decade, it also had by far the the worst heat waves in US history: http://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.co...-heatwave.html

Please stop asking for evidence and then citing obviously agenda-based sources. Also, my post you are responding to wasn't talking about extreme weather events, I was talking about global temperature development. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond assuming you just misunderstood my post, but please note that this "bait and switch" tactic is a bullshit debate tactic often employed by people trying to refute scientific evidence without corresponding supporting evidence.

It seems like maybe you don't understand the concept of uncertainty in the scientific process and your arguments switch somewhat haphazardly between rejecting the economics of renewable energy sources, global temperature development over the Holocene, and frequency of extreme weather events. I don't know much about the economics of renewables, but I do know that analyses of trends in global temperatures and frequency/intensity analyses of extreme events especially beyond the instrumental record require different proxies with different spatial and temporal resolutions. Thus, the uncertainty regarding global temperature development over the Holocene is lower than the uncertainty associated with reconstructions of extreme weather events. I'd agree with you that we are much less certain about short-duration extreme events (i.e. flooding / intense precipitation / intense tropical storms) than we are about global temperature development -- and this is well-reflected in the IPCC report, no?

[NWFlow]

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617#ref11

Here's a nice study with a good library of cited literature more about extreme events, and also has a nice discussion (with cited literature) regarding attribution studies.

[Kinnikinnick]

Ron Johnson is either a shill for the fossil fuel industry or most likely simply unable to even understand the sources that he himself posts.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[neufox47]

Actually Greenland has been accumulating ice faster than melting the past 2 years, but its not important. If you can't see that a report making headlines across major networks on 1 day of record melt during a summer of melting within the range of normal is propaganda I don't know what to tell you. If, at the end of the summer, they report that there has been record ice loss this year, I'd have no issue, but singling out a single day is nothing but stoking alarm. It's possible to have a record melt day in the summer and still gain mass over the year.

Sea levels have been rising at about the same rate of ~3mm/year since 1850, with no rate increase in recent times. Notice the first 100 years of this rise are before increasing CO2 levels: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...13002750#f0015

Yes, everyone is saying we need to get to 100% renewables. Just ask WMD, both his NY and Montana plans want 100% renewables. If you don't get close to 100% from non carbon, you don't end up seeing a significant decline in CO2 output. For the 100th time, look at Germany for an example.

Re: cost projections. Obviously this depends on your perspective. I don't view global warming as a major threat, really just for those living at sea level. If you are one to believe that fossil fuels are going to lead to extinction, well there is no cost greater than that.

Sea level rise is accelerating. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Greenland getting that warm is unusual and getting that warm as frequently as it is is very unusual.

You dismiss cost projections by saying it doesn’t matter because you don’t live on the coast, oh good I’m sure the economy will be fine!

[SumJongGuy]

Ron Johnson is either a shill for the fossil fuel industry or most likely simply unable to even understand the sources that he himself posts.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Most definitely a sock puppet for a banned poster.

[From_the_NEK]

Ron Johnson is either a shill for the fossil fuel industry or most likely simply unable to even understand the sources that he himself posts.

Has he actually even replied to posts outside this thread? His troll game is either very strong or he is getting paid a lot by the Russians to sow discontent and misinformation.

More likely, as seems to be the case with most of the climate deniers I know, is that he is just here replying as just another way to "Stick it to the Libs!"

This can't be a conservative vs liberal argument but it always comes back around to that.
This shit is going to fuck up this planet for the survival of our species as we currently exist.

[SumJongGuy]

Has he actually even replied to posts outside this thread? His troll game is either very strong or he is getting paid a lot by the Russians to sow discontent and misinformation.

More likely, as seems to be the case with most of the climate deniers I know, is that he is just here replying as just another way to "Stick it to the Libs!"

This can't be a conservative vs liberal argument but it always comes back around to that.
This shit is going to fuck up this planet for the survival of our species as we currently exist.

Probably also uses his coal rolling diesel pick up to block the electric car charging stations whenever he can..

[k2skier112]

There is zero evidence of an increase in the frequency or magnitude of droughts, forest fires, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. This is all media driven propaganda. Look in the latest IPCC report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

you and your ilk are anti-science. you have an end result already made up, you try to fit data and observations to meet your end result. why do you hate science?
oh. and you're a fucking idiotic moron

[Bunion 2020]

Has he actually even replied to posts outside this thread? His troll game is either very strong or he is getting paid a lot by the Russians to sow discontent and misinformation.

More likely, as seems to be the case with most of the climate deniers I know, is that he is just here replying as just another way to "Stick it to the Libs!"

This can't be a conservative vs liberal argument but it always comes back around to that.
This shit is going to fuck up this planet for the survival of our species as we currently exist.

See post # 546, this is his forum

you and your ilk are anti-science. you have an end result already made up, you try to fit data and observations to meet your end result. why do you hate science?
oh. and you're a fucking idiotic moron

See post # 533

[old goat]

There is zero evidence of an increase in the frequency or magnitude of droughts, forest fires, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. This is all media driven propaganda. Look in the latest IPCC report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

I did and it says exactly what I said. I guess you think that you can throw in a source, claim it proves your point, and nobody will actually look at the source and see that it doesn't say what you say it says.

[ron johnson]

1 - You brought up Younger Dryas. The takeaway, regardless of cause whether comets or something else, is a pulse of fresh cold water into the North Atlantic resulted in thermohaline circulation pattern shut off. The point is abrupt climate changes have happened multiple times and do not appear to be random like a comet. In other words, once could be due to comets but that doesn't explain other abrupt climate change events in the geologic record.

2 - Unless regional cherry picked data is used a person cannot say, "most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than today." It is more accurate to say temperatures have oscillated around a mean for the past 10,000 years. But sometime around the early aughts, and relative to peak Holocene warmth 8,000 or so years ago, global temperatures have since returned to the Holocene maximum.

3 - Over the last 800,000 years greenhouse gas concentrations never exceed 300 ppm and never go below about 180 ppm (parts per million). There is a natural range of variability in these fluctuations of greenhouse gases. We have our preindustrial at about 278 ppm. Then, in January 1979 were up to 336. In 2012 we are up to 393. 2013, 400 ppm. So now we are over 400 ppm.

4 - This is important because as we look over the geologic time record we understand that CO2 and greenhouse gases are really important in regulating the climate mode that we are in. Seeing greenhouse gas concentrations increase, we know that greenhouse gases trap heat so what we’re doing is we are changing our atmospheric concentrations to a level that we haven’t seen in this current icehouse phase and so we can expect changes.

1. What other abrupt non comet related events are you talking about? There is nothing remotely abrupt about our warming over the past 150 years.

2. What regional temperature data am I cherry picking? The best record we have is from Greenland.

3/4. If we look over the geologic time record we actually don't understand that CO2 is really important in regulating the climate. If you look way back in time there is virtually no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. In more recent times there has been correlation, but the correlation is not temperature following CO2 levels, the correlation is that CO2 levels have followed temperature with a lag time of 800 years.

None of this is to say rising CO2 can't cause temperatures to warm, but the record doesn't give evidence of this.

Also as a side note, life on earth is dead at CO2 levels of 180ppm. I'd rather be sitting at 400ppm than 280.

[SumJongGuy]

In other news, BOTH arctic and antarctic volume shrunk to historic lows. Think about that for a minute. It's the middle of winter down in the antarctic and still shrinking.

July 2019 was hottest month on record for the planet
Polar sea ice melted to record lows

[ron johnson]

This is stupid.

From the ipcc sr15 summary for policymakers doc:

" Climate models project robust7
differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C,8 and between 1.5°C and 2°C.8 These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence), heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence).
{3.3}

B.1.1 Evidence from attributed changes in some climate and weather extremes for a global warming of about 0.5°C supports the assessment that an additional 0.5°C of warming compared to present is associated with further detectable changes in these extremes (medium confidence). Several regional changes in climate are assessed to occur with global warming up to 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels, including warming of extreme temperatures in many regions (high confidence), increases in frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation in several regions (high confidence), and an increase in intensity or frequency of droughts in some regions (medium confidence). {3.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, Table 3.2}

B.1.2 Temperature extremes on land are projected to warm more than GMST (high confidence): extreme hot days in mid-latitudes
warm by up to about 3°C at global warming of 1.5°C and about 4°C at 2°C, and extreme cold nights in high latitudes warm by up to about 4.5°C at 1.5°C and about 6°C at 2°C (high confidence). The number of hot days is projected to increase in
most land regions, with highest increases in the tropics (high confidence). {3.3.1, 3.3.2, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}

B.1.3 Risks from droughts and precipitation deficits are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in
some regions (medium confidence). Risks from heavy precipitation events are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in several northern hemisphere high-latitude and/or high-elevation regions, eastern Asia and eastern North America (medium confidence). Heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones is projected to be
higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming (medium confidence). There is generally low confidence in projected changes in heavy precipitation at 2°C compared to 1.5°C in other regions. Heavy precipitation when aggregated at global scale is projected to be higher at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). As a consequence of heavy precipitation, the fraction of the global land area affected by flood hazards is projected to be larger at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). "

Sent from my SPH-L710 using TGR Forums mobile app

Did you not read the first sentence you quoted? "Climate models project..."

The same climate models that have been so accurate in the past... I think Greenland was supposed to have melted by now.

My statement was that there is no evidence of an increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather in the record. This is the case.