@ Michael: What leads you to suspect cherry-picking of data? Motive?
@lemon: I'm pretty sure that was a legend about Zheng He - or maybe he really thought that - I don't think he was listening to scientists who had studied the place.
@ Michael: What leads you to suspect cherry-picking of data? Motive?
@lemon: I'm pretty sure that was a legend about Zheng He - or maybe he really thought that - I don't think he was listening to scientists who had studied the place.
Enjoy the weather while we've got it.
It seems this year to be running on some weird cycle of One week sun, followed by One week rain.
So be prepared to be wet again next week :o)
As I said I do believe in climate change:
A GLOBAL cooldown will usher in a 100-year mini-ice age, UK Experts
Posted on May 8, 2017 by Russ Steele
Details in the UK Daily Star:
nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/
Experts told Daily Star Online planet Earth is on course for a “Little Age Ice” within the next three years thanks to a cocktail of climate change and low solar activity.
Research shows a natural cooling cycle that occurs every 230 years began in 2014 and will send temperatures plummeting even further by 2019.
Scientists are also expecting a “huge reduction” in solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 that will cause thermometers to crash.
When an article merely states that "experts" have some point of view, it is pretty unclear who the 'experts' are, how many they are, whether they represent a majority opinion of 'experts', whether the 'experts' consulted have been cherry-picked, etc. I'm not familiar with the Daily Star online, but this is bad journalism.
The Daily Star is a newspaper that used to specialize in in topless models, full page spreads. Along with The Sun, its main competitor. Tabloid journalism at its perkiest.
Check out their news page www.dailystar.co.uk/news , real quality.
@Alien: Did you read the entire article?
Or perhaps you would like a Russian source:
"seven scientists affiliated with the Russian Academy of Sciences - See more at:
There is a theory, by Henrik Svensmark, Denmark, that says climate is primarily affected by cloud cover.
The amount of cloud cover is dependent on the level of cosmic ray flux, where the higher levels of cosmic rays create more clouds.
The levels of cosmic rays is modulated by the sun, where higher solar activity reduces the effect of cosmic rays. Solar activity, sunspots, is entering a period of decline. Less sunspots means more clouds. More clouds means cooler temperatures.
Sunspot activity has been recorded since 800 BC, by the Chinese, so it is possible to compare solar activity with ice core samples and weather.
I would guess that Kunming is in for a hot summer this year but wetter weather for the following next few years or longer.
there are numerous theories. What do most of them agree about concerning current climate change? Of course, it's not necessarily the majority of theories that will turn out to be correct, but evaluating them is beyond me, as I am not a climatologist. I must rely on the (usually honest) dialogue between those who are climatologists, and perhaps add doubts when there are obvious reasons to suspect (for political or economic reasons, for instance) the honesty or competence of any particular ones. Perhaps you can do better than this, but I don't know how.
Science is never about the knowledge of Absolute Truth, it's just about the best we've (they've) come up with so far. My obviously unprofessional opinion is that the world is getting warmer, and that the Industrial Revolution and its aftermath has a lot to do with this - whether recent local weather is a reflection of this, I don't know. Maybe somebody with more expertise can help here, maybe not.
Svensmark's book:
The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change, Henrik Svensmark
DVDs:
The Global Warming War
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Youtube:
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?
Clouds and Climate Professor Henrik Svensmark
What the media isn't telling you about Climate Change.
Appreciate the contribution. I'm too lazy to dig up all the many, many scientific articles with contrary opinions, but scientists do this regularly among themselves and I generally trust them, unless I have specific reasons not to. Let us know if you do or don't, and why.
Anyway, I guess recent local weather can't be pinned down that accurately, at lest not yet. Tell me if you can do so, one way or the other.