global warming…er, climate change…er, bloody WEATHER

Many people have commented that climate change has come to be what philosophers and logicians call a “non-falsifiable hypothesis,” that is, a theory or belief that explains everything and is therefore impossible to be contradicted by observations or contrary evidence…

The author – Steven Hayward – made my day with a link to everything believed to be caused by global warming, …climate change, er – bloody weather. The list includes

• Forest decline
• Forest expansion
• Acne
• shrinking brains
• Lawyer fees increase
• zoonotic diseases
• squid tamed
• itchier poison ivy
• haggis threatened
• Hedgehogs go bald
• hibernation ends too soon
• hibernation ends too late

Um……As Pirates’ Cove points out: a changing climate can create national security issues. But, the climate has always changed. That is part of nature, a reality that envirowacko left conveniently forgets

It’s called WEATHER

Could man have an impact on the weather? Well, it seems to sort of make sense. The problem is that for all the computing power, all the measurements, all the models – the predictions concerning the impact of man on global warming,  climate change, bloody weather  have been something a Las Vegas bookie would bet AGAINST. The predictions would be the stock you’d short sell.

More Hayward: Judah Cohen, a private “seasonal forecaster,” took to the pages of the New York Times to explain how the warming arctic led to more snowfall over the Siberian land mass, which in turn cooled the air circulating over the northern hemisphere, and there you have it, big cold weather storms in the United States and Europe. Or, as Mr. Cohen puts it, “the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.” (Bryan Walsh at Time magazine offers a rundown of similar counterintuitive explanations for why warming causes cooling.)

Cohen might well be correct about this. But if he is it raises a number of troubling questions, starting with how the Met Office missed this factor, and failed to include it in the climate model they use to issue seasonal forecasts. Needless to say, if Cohen is right then a lot of other climate scientists are wrong, which means our grasp of climate dynamics is rather incomplete.

….We don’t understand the climate past with reasonable precision, as the intense debate about the “hockey stick” graph showed, and the computer models predicting a 2 to 5 degree rise in the future are clearly riddled with large uncertainties, given the range of prospective temperatures they spit out

So, Pirates cove poses a test that I think might be fair to request the models be measured against. Any takers?