Global Warming/Climate Change is a phenomenon not a model or a theory. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory that humans are causing the phenomenon of Global Warming/Climate Change (GW/CC). The article states that with GW, and hence higher ocean temperatures, some computer models predict more snow in regions like DC. It never argues that GW/CC is anthropogenic. It's basically saying that if GW is happening---a phenomenon we detect with data---then more snow could, paradoxically, be expected as a result and that this holds true regardless of its cause. The cause could be anthropogenic, solar, divine, or Aliens shooting us with a giant heat gun; the article has no bias either way. I don't know whether to believe the two are related. If they could be proven to be related, beyond computer predictions, then that would support that GW is real but say nothing about the cause of GW. On the other hand if the two are proven unrelated, then GW is not disproved only the idea that GW causes more snow in regions like DC. But again, that says nothing about the causes of GW.
The same logic holds true for the many examples that you mention. Predicting that more hurricanes will arise due to GW is completely neutral to the causes of GW; it only assumes that GW is a real phenomenon. If a model predicts more polar ice due to CC, it only assumes CC exists, not that it is caused by man.
But you mention Phil Jones, so that suggests that you doubt the phenomenon of GW/CC. I think the data is pretty clear that average temperatures have been on the rise for some time now. We can debate possible flaws in data collection methodology that may skew the numbers, but the data, as it exists, is clear: the earth is warming. If we agree to that, then we can argue its cause. I'm not expert enough in the field to give a strong opinion of it. My best guess is that humans have contributed significantly to it, largely due to our agricultural practices--but that's a different debate.
Peer review is flawed. Many good articles are rejected because of politics, many poor articles are accepted from laziness. Researchers/professors are terribly busy. Aside from the normal workload that most people might expect---teaching and managing a lab---they spend an awful amount of time writing and reviewing grants, sitting on committees and boards, attending and organizing conferences, and yes reviewing papers. Something has to suffer, and it's usually the thing they are least rewarded for: peer review.
Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming/Climate Change is a phenomenon not a model or a theory. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory that humans are causing the phenomenon of Global Warming/Climate Change (GW/CC). The article states that with GW, and hence higher ocean temperatures, some computer models predict more snow in regions like DC. It never argues that GW/CC is anthropogenic. It's basically saying that if GW is happening---a phenomenon we detect with data---then more snow could, paradoxically, be expected as a result and that this holds true regardless of its cause. The cause could be anthropogenic, solar, divine, or Aliens shooting us with a giant heat gun; the article has no bias either way. I don't know whether to believe the two are related. If they could be proven to be related, beyond computer predictions, then that would support that GW is real but say nothing about the cause of GW. On the other hand if the two are proven unrelated, then GW is not disproved only the idea that GW causes more snow in regions like DC. But again, that says nothing about the causes of GW. The same logic holds true for the many examples that you mention. Predicting that more hurricanes will arise due to GW is completely neutral to the causes of GW; it only assumes that GW is a real phenomenon. If a model predicts more polar ice due to CC, it only assumes CC exists, not that it is caused by man. But you mention Phil Jones, so that suggests that you doubt the phenomenon of GW/CC. I think the data is pretty clear that average temperatures have been on the rise for some time now. We can debate possible flaws in data collection methodology that may skew the numbers, but the data, as it exists, is clear: the earth is warming. If we agree to that, then we can argue its cause. I'm not expert enough in the field to give a strong opinion of it. My best guess is that humans have contributed significantly to it, largely due to our agricultural practices--but that's a different debate.
Peer review is flawed. Many good articles are rejected because of politics, many poor articles are accepted from laziness. Researchers/professors are terribly busy. Aside from the normal workload that most people might expect---teaching and managing a lab---they spend an awful amount of time writing and reviewing grants, sitting on committees and boards, attending and organizing conferences, and yes reviewing papers. Something has to suffer, and it's usually the thing they are least rewarded for: peer review.