Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by melatonin
Notwithstanding the title of the thread, (although the good Dr did actually refer to the possibility of disruptive snow in 20 years not ten or any
other number) Snow is really incidental, where I am there has been snow yearly to some degree or another.
So I guess you see where the strawman comment of mine came from.
These last two years however, are more important in the prolonged low temperatures, and beginning at an early stage, (it's actually -8 where I
am tonight) and I am near the coast. I think you know rightly the thrust of this thread, which is to point out the ambiguity of the statements that
our experts make year in and year out, in that they always have to qualify everything they say, at end of their statements, often in a miniscule
paragraph.
Science is uncertain, or ambiguous, at its forefront. That's the norm. It would be pretty easy if we could perform a single study and discover
unerring truth.
I post two links of published experts opinions which end up in gobblydegook for our salivation,
www.dailymail.co.uk...
The problem there is David Rose. He is not a reliable source of climate science. Indeed, most of the media is quite crap. Even Monbiot.
Rose misrepresented the findings of Mojab Latif; who was somewhat peeved about it:
The Mail on Sunday article said that Latif's research showed that the current cold weather heralds such "a global trend towards cooler
weather".
It said: "The BBC assured viewers that the big chill was was merely short-term 'weather' that had nothing to do with 'climate', which was still
warming. The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view."
Not according to Latif. "They are not related at all," he said. "What we are experiencing now is a weather phenomenon, while we talked about the mean
temperature over the next 10 years. You can't compare the two."
dinky-link
www.independent.co.uk...
This is based on a recent new study from a pair of russian scientists. It might be a prescient study (as the study was completed in 2009) or perhaps
not. New studies like this need time to be digested by the scientific community.
It's up to you to make what you want of these ideas, maybe trying to read between the lines is as good as anything else, but that's my opinon.
I essentially wait and see. In science, shiny new studies are viewed as highly provisional. But the media cares little for how science works - they
are more concerned with controversial heads. Much like your own, lol.
So, again, snowy regional winters are not inconsistent with long-term global warming. Indeed, perhaps you already know that some scientists suggest
that alterations in the gulfstream due to climate change will eventually disrupt the normal climate of northern Europe long-term (so these type of
ideas are not unusual in this field and have been around for a while).
However, we are having a pretty cold winter - but parts of the Arctic are several degrees above their norm, and we are on course for the warmest year
on record in the GISS data (and close in others). So global warming hasn't disappeared.
I think it was Holdren who was recently scorned by certain peeps for suggesting the term 'climate
disruption' was more informative than climate
change. Perhaps it is.
edit on 25-12-2010 by melatonin because: (no reason given)