Spain blanketed by snow. More than 50 years without this much. This is global warming??

Just another big volcano or two ...

From an article by the Washington Post:

“ The blockbuster storm has wreaked havoc across a region not used to seeing any snow, let alone up to a foot or more. ”

“ Meanwhile, a record low temperature of minus-32 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded at Vega de Lourdes in Leon in northern Spain.”

“ As much as 20 inches of snow fell in some of the suburbs of Madrid, with widespread amounts of 8 to 12 inches, easily making Filomena the biggest snowstorm to hit the region since 1971.”

just because global warming exists doesn't mean it's immediately got everywhere.

*hot

Some areas affected by climate change will get more snow than average. You have showed some examples. Other areas will become warmer during winter.

thats cause it hasnt taken full effect yet.
you see, we liberals want to solve this problem before it starts

Apparently it's easy to confuse a single weather event in a small country, in this case Spain, with long term climate averages. I'm not coming down on one side of the climate change / global warming issue or the other, and whether or not humans can or cannot cause it, by posting this. I'm just pointing out that if you want to debunk climate change, this is not the way to do it, imo. I know, a meme is a very limiting form to communicate complex ideas.

Not only is a meme a very limited form to communicate complex ideas, it reaches a tiny audience.

It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good. At least the pandemic has kept her off the front pages.

she roasted trump pretty good

The correct way to sum this up is the earth's temperature has risen, but not by much and very little of that can be attributed to human behavior. The Earth's temperature changes naturally and what we're seeing here isn't a global warm, merely hot and cold air patterns are changing, which is why places like the north pole area are melting, whereas places like Spain as we're seeing here are getting record breaking cold temperatures. So, climate change is 100% real, global warming is what has been massively exaggerated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

ice caps melting and nobody cares

College Station, Tx, this year and about 3 years ago got snow for the first time in a looooong time.

Like Spain, was the temperature exceptionally cold?

So insignificant specs of humans is causing global warming but the sun is not/ Got it! Libs are such morons! Besides the sun is eventually going to burn out and in that process of fusion the sun will get bigger and hotter. But what do I know I just passed Officer nuclear school and passed a Certified Physicist test. lol

Because of the fusion reaction the sun does expand slightly every single day. So not a hoax on that. But I imagine physics and facts mean nothing to a lib.

I just want to point out that this process of the Sun burning out is supposed to occur over the next 7 or so billion years. It's such a slow process that I'm going to just spitball and say we shouldn't even be able to measure the difference on the surface of the Earth for a thousand generations. Changes occuring on the scale of Geologic time are incongruent with the current recent trends in climate.

the sun's gotten cooler recently, not hotter.

This is you not understanding climate. Or science. Or what scientists have predicted.
But go on, because every part of the world isn't hotter 100% of the time it must be a fake news!

I swear you guys are like 3 year olds who were educated by trained monkeys.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Yes, you are 100% correct about that!

The left, which claims to be science driven, particularly lately when it comes to the covid pandemic, seems to think that matters like this can be "settled science" and no further discussion is necessary. In fact, they even go careening over the edge, imo, by attempting to suppress speech and free inquiry regarding these matters. Very troubling indeed.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that old timey liberals like Carl Sagan, would not approve. For him, skeptical thinking was a pillar of the scientific method. He would never dismiss someone's position by saying the matter was settled. He would engage them in dialogue and debate, and defeat them that way. You just don't see that attitude in the modern liberal. I won't get into why I think they're that way, because this issue is political enough as it is.

On the right, I think those who are skeptical of liberal motives (with good reason, imo) need to perhaps take a step back and look at the body evidence in the form of data. For those that have, and who have come to the conclusion that humans are not the cause of climate change, I think that has to be respected. Too many sheep out there...

Let's take a topic that's probably less controversial in 2021 than it was in 1995 America. Evolution.
There comes a time when the cris-crossing research has established a compelling predictive ability. Scientists predict that B evolved from A and therefore there ought to be other lifeforms which bridged that gap and there's a pretty good idea what the half-way point would look like.
Then lo and behold fossils are discovered which resemble the expected transitionary fossil.

After that happens 50, 100, 500 times you get pretty settled that evolution is real. Not that the burden of evidence to disprove it is impossible. Just that you have so much compelling evidence for it you would need to unearth an equal or greater body of evidence to unseat it.

Good scientists, and nobody's perfect ought to treat everything as preliminary. However some science has been so established that the probability it's wrong approaches zero to such a degree we have a much easier time assuming the probability may as well be zero.

I find the modern mass of evidence for anthropogenic climate change to be in about the same ballpark. Your mileage may vary.

I recall in the early days of the pandemic that CDC and WHO recommendations were changing if not by the day perhaps by the hour. That's a symptom of young science. The early findings didn't always jibe with the later findings. Over time the clashing subsided and we were developing a clearer but not very perfect view of what was happening. Some argued to throw the baby out with the bathwater because experts were changing their minds constantly. But that's the process of science. It takes time to establish the throughline of consensus by checking each other's work.

I said preliminary when I meant all science is provisional.

Of course, I am not implying that all science is agenda driven. And certainly advances in one field of science can lead to further understanding in other areas. So yes there can be an evolution of what is considered correct.

When science does not even have an answer of definitive cause of the Little Ice Age, I am skeptical of the certainty of anthropomorphic climate change/global warming given how it is pushed by politicians to enact taxation to redistribute wealth on a global level. (U.N. agenda)

It’s interesting you should bring up evolution. Whether it’s true or not, the Australian aboriginals were not considered highly evolved by the early Europeans who first encountered them. But interestingly they practiced three things as a society that make them unique on the planet. They herded no animals, they planted no crops and they built no permanent structures. The reasoning for this was they did not design their environment and they could not know what change would happen if they did these things. That seems like some highly evolved philosophical intelligent thought.

I believe the answer lies in that the first weather apparatus started to appear mid 17th century. It took another couple centuries for the accuracy and widespread use of weather stations to proliferate. So what happens is when you look further back into the weather records the data becomes more coarse and less reliable. Predating the earliest written records which specifically were measured from instruments you have to rely on writings which were more general, perhaps even fictionalized. And prior to that use the geological record which shows climate events (not weather) over the course of epochs. Modeling a climate requires a huge amount of data. That data improves exponentially over time with technology. So when you have a centuries old climate event you often lack the large data set you need to model it.

Another very similar read and published only a few years ago: "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake" Cara Santa Maria, Steven Novella

Perhaps a bit too similar if you already read Sagan. For the newcomer it deals with more recent topics.

Thanks for the info!

My pleasure.

I have not read the book, but I shall put it high up on my list. Your thoughtful commentary is greatly appreciated!

The more we learn the more we realize how little we know.
R. Buckminster Fuller

It's a very good book. Sort of a primer on critical thinking technique.
I think there's more than one flavor of skepticism. I subscribe the the flavor Carl championed within his lifetime as Scientific Skepticism. It adheres to requiring evidence before believing something to be true. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
In other words to be convinced you really ought to set the bar high for the proof. Primary sources, rigorous methodology. Consensus from numerous sources.
That and a near rejection of anecdotal evidence. "I can feel it working" is so laden with personal bias and has next to no methodology it should be weighted as the flimsiest of evidence.

I also don't want to accuse others of not questioning. The problem is very often a problem with weighing the legitimacy and accuracy of sources. That and distrust of experts poisoning people against highly rigorous pursuits which really ought to be weighted as the most compelling.

Unfortunately so much modern research is funded by people with an agenda expecting support of that agenda.

Sorry for the sass earlier. You clearly are interested in broadening your horizons.

Awww, there you are weighing your sources completely wrong. Science is cross-checked and funding comes in from numerous sources. If the science is corrupt it will be surfaced.
The only other possibility is a conspiracy of such breadth and depth it defies all odds of surviving more than 15 minutes under scrutiny. Occam's razor this bitch and you find you make the fewest unfounded assumptions accepting that science is by and large straight and self-correcting.

You say that with the smarmy attitude that I don't question what I've been told. But a lifetime of unearthing facts and keeping up with the sciences to the best of my ability means I can often spot when somebody else hasn't. If I'm not sure it's research.

Keep in mind that even the experts don’t know everything. It’s a good thing you keep on learning, as we all should.

No hokum Sherlock. That's why experts publish their work and subject their findings to being picked apart to the most minute detail. Experts are wrong all the freakin' time! But they are more often than not corrected by other experts who build upon the work of others moving the needle a little bit closer to the objective reality over time.

"global warming/cooling" (TM) by thepeoplescube

https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/climate-change-definitions/what-is-the-polar-vortex/#:~:text=How%20Is%20the%20Polar%20Vortex%20Affected%20by%20Climate%20Change%3F&text=The%20change%20is%20warming%20higher,bringing%20polar%20air%20farther%20south.