<story><title>US-Canada heatwave &apos;virtually impossible&apos; without warming</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57751918</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>aww_dang</author><text>I appreciate that. From the perspective of the skeptic the Popper quote comes to mind.&lt;p&gt;Karl Popper — &amp;#x27;A theory that explains everything, explains nothing&amp;#x27;</text></item><item><author>JulianMorrison</author><text>There is a causal arrow from climate to weather. It just isn&amp;#x27;t as crude as &amp;quot;warm planet equals warm weather&amp;quot;. It would be closer to the truth to say &amp;quot;warm planet equals more unsettled weather, averaging warmer over the large scale, but including unseasonal cold as (for example) wind patterns distort&amp;quot;.</text></item><item><author>aww_dang</author><text>On the other hand, proponents of climate apocalypse frequently make a distinction between weather and climate.</text></item><item><author>aliasEli</author><text>&amp;gt; beating the previous national high temperature mark by more than 4C in one go, as happened in Canada last week, is virtually unprecedented.&lt;p&gt;This event should be a warning call to all people who believe that a global warming of only 2 degrees Celsius will be barely noticeable.&lt;p&gt;One positive effect is that scientists have collected a lot of data that will help them improve climate models.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>syops</author><text>Why does that come to mind?  The explanation provided does not explain everything even within the confines of climate science.  When massive amounts of energy are added to a dynamical system there will be chaos before a new equilibrium is obtained.  This is not controversial.  It’s settled science.  The heat dome in question is not just a bunch of new local high temps.  That’s the wrong thing to look at.  It’s a large high pressure mass doing things that the equilibrium established before the industrial revolution largely prevented.</text></comment>
<story><title>US-Canada heatwave &apos;virtually impossible&apos; without warming</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57751918</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>aww_dang</author><text>I appreciate that. From the perspective of the skeptic the Popper quote comes to mind.&lt;p&gt;Karl Popper — &amp;#x27;A theory that explains everything, explains nothing&amp;#x27;</text></item><item><author>JulianMorrison</author><text>There is a causal arrow from climate to weather. It just isn&amp;#x27;t as crude as &amp;quot;warm planet equals warm weather&amp;quot;. It would be closer to the truth to say &amp;quot;warm planet equals more unsettled weather, averaging warmer over the large scale, but including unseasonal cold as (for example) wind patterns distort&amp;quot;.</text></item><item><author>aww_dang</author><text>On the other hand, proponents of climate apocalypse frequently make a distinction between weather and climate.</text></item><item><author>aliasEli</author><text>&amp;gt; beating the previous national high temperature mark by more than 4C in one go, as happened in Canada last week, is virtually unprecedented.&lt;p&gt;This event should be a warning call to all people who believe that a global warming of only 2 degrees Celsius will be barely noticeable.&lt;p&gt;One positive effect is that scientists have collected a lot of data that will help them improve climate models.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>orwin</author><text>Or you know, the refutability criterion.&lt;p&gt;The denialist theory is that CO2 have no impact on temperature.&lt;p&gt;So let&amp;#x27;s build two closed of greenhouses with the same sun exposition, fill one of them with old ambiant air with 450 ppm of CO2 and one with current&amp;#x2F;predicted ambiant air (750 ppm of CO2), same humidity (or rather, a bassin with the same quantity of water). After a day under the sun, check the temperature of both greenhouses (well, actually, the energy contain in the air of both greenhouses would be better). If one of them have more energy than the second, this &amp;quot;CO2 have no impact on the climate&amp;quot; theory should die and his proponents shut up.</text></comment>