Slashdot Mirror
A Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow
Ponca City, We love you writes "NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow. 'The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was... in the 1970s,' says Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist. 'So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, DC, for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming.' Increased snowfall also fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures increase the amount of atmospheric moisture, bringing more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures."
that the AGW true believers aren't intentionally preventing contrary opinions from being put into peer reviewed journals.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy. If authority mattered the earth would still be the center of the universe. When the authority is preventing contrary opinions from being considered they are no longer an authority.
The hockey stick is a lie. It's been exposed. I find it hilarious that "Global Warming" believers were first whining about the term "Climate Change" being used and now they've fully embraced it. They will embrace whatever term is most socially acceptable. Nobody doubts that the climate changes. We have days, we have seasons. Why would things not shift on a larger time scale as well?
People ignorantly dump their time, effort and money into cults all the time while the people at the top get rich. The idiots at the bottom don't prove the lies at the top.
Work Safe Porn
Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change
The OP was asking, quite reasonably, what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate change.
You have ignored the question and replied with various carefully selected bits of evidence from different isolated locales that do support your notions of global warming or climate change.
You've missed his point: there are serious people coming up with disconfirming cases. Those Greek hydrologists, for example, who found that of the local long-term temperature records they compared to model results, there was most an anti-correlation between the model predictions and the data.
It is easy to hand-wave and dismiss the odd thing here and there. It happens all the time in science. But with regard to GW/CC and AGW in particular, there are a LOT of odd things, and the current flat trend in "global temperature" is one of them.
Scientists are more interested in where and how their models are WRONG, and I'm not hearing a lot of that from the GW/CC folks. I'm hearing a lot of what the OP pointed out: the carefully crafted political use of every climate event whatsoever to attempt to bolster their position that we need to kill everyone and invade Poland before it's too late. Or something like that--I may have the details of their proposed solutions wrong, but they sound dire enough to warrant a really high degree of certainty, and a complete lack of faith.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
No, it sounds like he has said there is no warming trend in the past 14 or 15 years. "Almost significant" means "not significant."
Yes, it sounds like "no warming trend" to you because you must have been asleep in intro stat. Non-significance cannot be used to argue that there is no effect. The sample size is small, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A DECADE AND A HALF. You need to look at larger trends, as he points out.
Think about it this way. If we did a significance test on a large sample of women and men to see if their mean heights differed, we'd get a significant effect. Men are taller than women. But then, you come along and say, "Hey, when you break the sample into smaller groups of 2 men and 2 women each, NONE of the results are significant! There is no height difference between men and women!" Yeah, well, that's just because you don't understand significance tests.
What's particularly ironic here is that you suggest that there is may be no evidence that convinces AGW supporters that AGW is not happening, when you seem to be quite willing to accept garbage statistical arguments as "evidence" against AGW. Wow.