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 through www.trevorharley.com

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, rather
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

Time will tell. The Independent's hack has woken up to Petoukhov's
research. Good for him. Lockwood's research from 2010 also points to
something similar. Both are interesting possibilities, but Keith's
point about it being decades until research points to one, or the
other theory being verified by outcomes is what we'll have to wait
for.

I don't agree at all with your point that whatever happens, it's due
to GW. That's just a soundbite and would not be reflected in the
scientific iterature, at all. Regional variations will happen and
whether individual ones can be linked to GW is just moot. Actually,
probably not even moot; I'd go for highly unlikely. This cold
December, in the UK and parts of last winter, are down to unusual
synoptics at the moment; there's just no proof of anything different
happening. If any other factor is at work, it will take a long period
of time to show. Meanwhile, GW unequivocally continues, whether, it is
causing these events, or not. Again, whether that GW is caused by CO2,
though extremely likely, given the avalanche of excellent, peer-
reviewed research, that I'm sure you'd appreciate, still has room for
debate - but not much, given that November 2010 had record global
temperatures (GISS) and the meteorological year 2010 is a record for
the GISS sequence, despite a plethora of cooling influences, not least
moderate La Nina conditions and a 3.5 year solar minimum, which is
just beginning to end.

Paul - still a tiny bit sceptical in Dawlish, but, in the words of the
forgettable Paul Daniels; "not a lot".

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. ))

"Trevor Harley" wrote:

....
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.

The large-scale predictions are being borne out by observations, e.g. the
climate as a whole is warming, the Arctic is warming faster than average,
atmospheric water vapour is rising and leading to an increase in intense
precipitation events, sea level is rising and so on. Predictions are bound
to be less certain over smaller areas and shorter timescales. I don't think
getting some of the detail wrong makes it pseudoscience.

On Dec 26, 10:18*am, "Togless" wrote:
"Trevor Harley" wrote:

...

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.

The large-scale predictions are being borne out by observations, e.g. the
climate as a whole is warming, the Arctic is warming faster than average,
atmospheric water vapour is rising and leading to an increase in intense
precipitation events, sea level is rising and so on. *Predictions are bound
to be less certain over smaller areas and shorter timescales. *I don't think
getting some of the detail wrong makes it pseudoscience.

Well put.

Graham
Penzance

On 2010-12-26, Len Wood wrote:
Quiite foolish trying to solve nonlinear, second order differential
equations on this time and space scale.

I'm not sure that nonlinear second order differential equations would
have played any part in the computer model used in this study, and nor
should they necessarily have done so.

Adrian

--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Pontrhydygroes, Ceredigion, Cymru aber.
12mi/20km ESE Aberystwyth, 860ft/260m asl ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais/weather/ uk