2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Could a massive dam between Alaska and Russia save the Arctic? (adn.com)

When that article was wrote in 2010 the scientists were predicting an ice-free summer minimum in the Arctic Ocean by 2030 - I notice @Akrasia has pushed it out to 2035 - thought we were to "follow the science"? Or have the goalposts moved again?

Anyway, the article linked above - Damming the Beiring Strait would be a massive project and would be interesting to see what effects it would have on the Arctic region as a whole.

What is called climate change modelling is equivalent to a flat Earth assertion so proponents and opponents have created their own little world where proving each other wrong is beside the point that the planet is round, rotating with specific values attached. In itself such a false argument is fine when it is contained within the small academic world, however, sometimes its explodes into wider society where it does not belong and therein is a genuine problem for humanity.

I didn't dig anything up, however, it is useful to see that in the modelling world, opponents can suddenly become proponents of dire predictions. If the summer is hot it is a sign of global warming, if there is a severe Atlantic storm or a cold snap then it is climate change in winter, if it is a mild winter then it is global warming so wider society is kept chasing its tail on account of a climate change/global warming conviction without going anywhere. The referenced post was an example of that.

While some in the meteorological community will continue to pursue the misadventure with the Earth science of climate, some meteorologists will be ahead of the curve so to speak and recognise the vast area of research which opens up when a balance is struck between weather and climate within the larger umbrella of planetary dynamics and planetary climate. The frequent use of Von Humboldt, who recognised that extreme assertions lead to polarising convictions whereas research anchored in interpretation encourages enjoyment of nature, is meant to convey that my perspective is neither new nor outside normal consideration.

We all get a sugar rush from an approaching storm, hot or cold snaps and extreme events, however, the wider perspective of cyclical nature in terms of cause and effect has been sidelined so climate change modellers could go on a rampage with computer modelling. For example, just as the Arctic sea ice season begins, then hurricane season in the Northern hemisphere starts to wind down so it takes nothing to consider how the motion of the polar latitude into the dark hemisphere of the Earth influences both sea ice and hurricane season at lower latitudes as the cold spreads out in an expanding cuircumference with the North pole at its centre.

The only means to negate the polarisation of climate change opponents/proponents is to raise the standard of consideration.

The area surrounding the South pole where the Sun remains constantly in view is expanding as the South pole turns further and further into the light hemisphere of the Earth and where the distance to the planet's divisor and dark hemisphere grows. This radius reaches its maximum on the December Solstice and therefore creates a maximum circumference called the Antarctic circle.

Chances are that observers won't even bother looking at the images affirming facts.

Planetary climate is the rate of change in that circumference and that is determined by the degree of axial inclination to the orbital plane. Jupiter's inclination is most distant from the orbital plane so has negligible equivalents of the Arctic/Antarctic circles while those circles of Uranus are enormous with rapid changes from Equinox to Equinox. This is planetary climate in respect to planetary dynamics, nothing more and nothing less

Society cannot afford the pretence which takes the name of climate change modelling no more than it can take the type of intellectual and perceptive weakness where people are lost but will bluff anyway with stock phrases and misguided slogans. No wonder the dictator in Russia thought the West was weak when it is only misguided in certain matters and the silly exploits of meteorologists to sequester climate as a long term weather issues without reference to basic planetary dynamics in a Sun-centred system.

Most participants in this newsgroup are afraid as they realise a minority group tried to take the reins of planetary climate through computer modelling and burned heaven and Earth on that account. Once again, society cannot afford a stupid indulgence which reflects the nadir of scientific consideration.

People with public influence in the political and academic sphere (aside from the Taoiseach) generally get the change in perspective with climate matters long before the wider public do so they will be a marked shift away from dire predictions and more towards a softer approach to environmental concerns such as pollution and waste. It doesn't matter to these people that they are leaving the Earth science in tatters through the misuse of computer modelling, but ultimately the meteorology community will be left to drag the climate change modelling chain with them for some time to come.

In the meantime, there is the actual topic of planetary climate to consider for the exciting topic it is is relation to the other Earth sciences of biology and geology. It is a lighthearted affair so while the climate change opponents/proponents will continue to mock each other, research goes on in the background where common sense is not considered a dirty word.

The computer generated hallucination that is climate change modelling is a subculture which attracts those who have not fully developed their reasoning and perceptive faculties-

These students hardly are aware they are following a subculture because while energy and oil concerns are limited to pollution, the overreach into human control of the weather/temperatures by modelling dire outcomes is not just exceptionally weak but totally invalid.

The meteorological community has a large hand in creating a hysterical atmosphere insofar as weather is a component of planetary climate as opposed to trying to make weather look like climate without reference to a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system.

It is not easy to walk away from this debacle without clearly creating a stable ground for genuine climate research that does include computer modelling for interpretative purposes as opposed to predictive purposes.

Theorists have been doing this to solar system research for the last 250+ years, so it is no surprise that misguided students are following suit with works of art.

Genuine climate research is inspirational insofar as it expresses how all the components come together to make life possible on Earth and especially the human condition which cannot suffer extreme heat nor cold.

From experience, the proponents of modelling monstrosities tend to walk away from the havoc they created and leave behind nothing but a train wreck. It happened before.

Humanity can influence the environment in terms of pollution, waste and an abysmal use of planetary resources, however, humanity cannot by any action or inaction can control the planet's climate.

The role of modellers, at least genuine modellers, is to simulate weather conditions across latitudes using different inclinations in order to appreciate what makes the Earth's climate so amenable to life on the surface, in the oceans and in the skies.

The maximum inclination to the orbital plane is 90 degrees. The 'N' point in the above graphic will always turn parallel to the orbital planet (blue line) representative of the entire surface of the plane. The closer to the orbital plane, the larger the Arctic/Antartic circles and therefore the greater variations in atmospheric, oceanic and surface conditions across an orbital circuit while the further removed, like Jupiter, the more benign the conditions.

The climate change modelling community, as a subculture, are pushing hard with dire predictions presently based on their non-dynamical assertions whereas a more balanced approach allows genuine modellers demonstrates not only the limitations of human influence but opens up consideration on proper climate research.