On Dec 26, 9:40*am, Trevor Harley wrote:
On 2010-12-26 09:24:32 +0000, Graham Easterling said:





On Dec 25, 8:34 pm, Trevor Harley wrote:
On 2010-12-25 18:00:46 +0000, Adrian said:

On 2010-12-25, Trevor Harley wrote:
Whatever happened to making predictions and seeing what happens, rathe
r
than interpreting evey piece of evidence post hoc in support of your
theory?

I think you missed the bit about the paper having been submitted for
publication over a year ago. It is a shame the process of review has
taken so long.

Adrian

But last winter was cold too. A few years ago when we were having dire
wet mild winters several papers were being cited then showing they were
just what GW predicted, too. Still, time will tell.

--

Trevor
A little sceptical in Lundie, near Dundee
Weather throughwww.trevorharley.com

I think it's important to distingush between global warming - which is
happening, and predictions as to what the effects of this might be.
It's the uncertainty which is the main danger of global warming.

It's also important not to take all headlines at face value. I suspect
most people think storminess (with regard to wind) has increased in
the UK over the last decade, when they couldn't be more wrong.

From a less cold (currently near 6C), cloudy & now quite windy
Penzance.

Graham
Penzance

But how else can we evaluate the GW hypothesis apart from the
predictions it makes? And IF it really does make contradictory
predictions that can account for any observied outcome, then it's not a
true scientific hypothesis. It's a pseudoscience, like psychoanalysis.

Now it could be that this new paper predicting colder winters explains
why earlier predictions about mild wet winters were wrong, and those
who made those predictions agree with the cold winter hypothesis. Then
we shall just have to see, but it's going to take many winters before
we can really tell.

While not disputing the basic theory, I am left with a nagging feeling
that many GW supporters want it both ways, and are willing to attribute
any deviation from the long-term mean (even an insignificant) to a
proof of GW.

The snow is still 7 cm deep here.

--

Trevor
Curious in Lundie, near Dundee
Weather throughwww.trevorharley.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Opinions from "supporters" or "deniers" don't count for anything
really. The academic research says it all. ))