look at it this way
To achieve all of these things AMBITION TO CONTROL/PERPETRATE EVIL/TOTAL DOMINATION, you will need a chief ingredient which is FEAR followed by unadulterated CRISIS.Tell people something will happen to them sometime somewhere somewhen and everyone falls in line quickly.For example, any military gunz in Iraq will tell you the reason he/she is in Iraq is to protect the USA/my family from danger which never exited in the first place.We all saw how they cook that up.Didn't we?
Now the same people are shouting about GW, which to me is just another avenue to start to killing again beside revenue ofcourse.
Not on it's own but it's a continuation of a ten year trend during which the air circulation systems all moved equatorward more often and increasingly for longer whilst global temperatures failed to rise and may actually be falling.
In comparison, the reverse happened from 1975 to 2000 and that was regarded as a climate change every time a bit of warm weather occurred.
It's obviously nothing to do with CO2 levels and insofar as CO2 might have any effect we are unable to separate it out from natural variability.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
That is too simplistic a statement. Yes, weather is part of climate, but weather modelling and climate modelling are two completely different disciplines (and, contrary to common belief, the latter is much easier than the former). This winter is well within the sort of thing predicted by climate change models. The issue is not temperature, it's energy (though one is a manifestation of the other). More energetic conditions will make for more extreme and unpredictable weather unless and until a new stability is reached. It's perfectly possible that under GW our climate will cool to that of, say, the same Canadian latitudes, because of disruption to the Gulf Stream.
In that case it is a nonsense to talk about 'global warming' (GW?). Increased energy in the atmosphere will cause increased instability and more extreme conditions. This will cause extremes of cold aswell as hot.
Yes, it is nonsense to talk about Global Warming' every time we have a hot day, cold day, wet day, windy day, sunny day, cloudy day etc etc.
The whole climate change thing is about a steadily increasing rate of temperature change (above that which may be considered 'natural', ) which isn't yet noticeable and possibly won't be noticeable for many years yet. The climate may be warming currently, but not at a rate greater than that which may be considered normal.
And the problem is that when the exceptionally fast rate of increase is finally noticeable, dammit, it will be too late.
So the next time we have 'interesting' weather and someone says Global warming, tut loudly and walk away.
Exactly. That's why climatologists prefer to use 'Climate Change' rather than 'Global Warming' these days. Strictly speaking, it is still a warming (average temperatures will rise), but, as you say, that doesn't imply a uniform increase worldwide; far from it.
The phrase 'Global Warming' goes back a long way, at least to the 1950s when the issue first seriously raised its head, but, as this thread amongst others has repeatedly shown, it's created no end of confusion, fuelled by the nay-sayers, the media, and everyone else unwilling to try and understand it.
johntheexpat's reply above summarises it nicely.
It is hardly surprising there is confusion as global cooling was all the rage only a few decades ago. The gamble we are all taking is whether the climate flips to an extreme situation, one way or the other.
The latest Danish research using deep Arctic ice cores shows a climate flip from Ice Age to warming as swift a change "as if a button had been pressed." They were even able to date the change to a precise year.Exactly 11,711 years ago.
http://halrager.org/WordPress/danish-arctic-research-dates-end-of-ice-age-to-11711-years-ago/
Of course modelling is easier because you can stick what you want in it to get the result you want to see. The weather is unpredictable and is more often than not wrong and yet we are expected to believe that climate models will prove to be accurate. The weather we see is part of that climate system and it is not being predicted. When you say this winter is seen within the models why was it not predicted and published? Or do the models only work 50 years in the future when the climate scientists are likely retired and can just say 'oops sorry we got it wrong'.
You'll deny it, but it's apparent that you're still confusing climate and weather. Climate is average weather, measured over decades. Weather is snow today.
It's all a matter of scale. None of this modelling is anything but highly complex, consuming huge amounts of processing power, and occasional glitches are inevitable. In order of increasing difficulty:
Short-term (up to about a week ahead) weather forecasting has become very accurate;Climate modelling is difficult, but because it's statistical rather than predictive it is possible to get a good idea of what is going to happen.Long-term (up to say a year ahead) weather forecasting is hugely difficult. You're trying to predict a single event (a mild winter, say) using the detailed techniques of weather modelling, and that is simply not possible with today's techniques and computers. Meteorologists got their predictions about last summer and this winter badly wrong. Their main fault, though, was not in the quality of their models (they were never under any delusions about that), but in letting themselves yet again be drawn into making forecasts which they knew damn' well they coudn't sustain.As I have said, the severity of this winter is well within what Climate Change models predict. In the context of your question, the severity of this winter WAS predicted and published. But not specifically in 2010, though. Just that we can expect more frequent and extreme examples of unusual weather events.
Climate Change models do not predict the weather. They predict the average weather over time and area, which is not the same thing at all. Weather models are no use for predicting the climate.