Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Right, more snow and rain is part of the climate change models. As are much different jet stream patterns, due to the melting Arctic ice.
|
Would you care to check the current arctic ice situation and post back please, maybe with a chart ? Is it higher or lower than last year, or maybe the year before or the year before that ?
Oh never mind, here is the chart
Note how 2012 dipped a long way - was that the ice melting or just something to do with how we measure it - satelites and LIDAR/RADAR. There was a big storm which broke up a large part of the ice. I don't know, but it is a question. It has been ice free before.
Just out of interest how long into the past does the record (above) extend ?
As for more snow, less snow, more rain, less rain - hmmm...
Quote:
‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’ predicted David Viner of the University of East Anglia in March 2000.
Voluminous evidence is itself testament to global warming’s weakness as science. As Karl Popper argued in the 1920s, it is almost always possible to find evidence to support a proposition. Come rain or shine, drought or storm, global warming came to acquire the characteristics of phlogiston in the 18th century theory of combustion.
‘Chemists have made phlogiston a vague principle, which is not strictly defined and which consequently fits all the explanations demanded of it,’
the great French scientist Lavoisier wrote.
‘Sometimes it has weight, sometimes it has not … Sometimes it passes through the pores of vessels, sometimes they are impenetrable to it …
‘It explains at once causticity and non-causticity, transparency and opacity, colour and the absence of colours.’
It must be conceded that proponents of phlogiston explained their ideas with rather greater elegance than 21st century believers in global weirding. So the science is inherently weak.
|