If the warming is measurable then you would have the following:
more record temps for hot than record temps for cold. (globally)
Steadily increasing number of cooling degree days - by region and globally
Steadily decreasing number of heating degree days - by region and globally
You could surmise the following:
Higher net moisture content in the air - air is warmer so it can hold more moisture AND there is more heat available to support greater rates of evaporation.
With a net higher moisture content you could say that globally you "should" have more net precipitation.
Is this a trick question? All weather patterns are consistent with global warming. Increased rain, increased drought, more snow, less snow, warming, cooling (AGW was responsible for that polar vortex), extreme weather, more huricanes, less hurricanes- anything.
Some claim Sandy was aggravated by Climate Change .
High seas came flooding in when it was the high tide
3mm of water is nothing .
No proof at atomic level
Raisin Caine --
>>You people with your falsifiability. Who needs that in science? Darn Karl Popper.<<
How do you explain he fact that since Popper's falsifiability makes no empirical predictions it is not, itself, scientific? Popper also argues for individual statements rather than induction - although there is no reason that there is even a difference.
Finally, since no hypothesis can ever be shown to be true - it logically cannot be shown to be false, either - and that sort of fcks-up the whole falsifiability-thing, at least as defined by Popper.
Too bad you've never read anything Popper ever wrote, statements like "Darn Karl Popper" only exposes your ignorance of the philosophy of science and the scientific method epistemology of human knowledge in addition to your ignorance of practical science - since there is not one scientist in the world who cares about, thinks about, or considers Popper's concept - for the simple reason that it has not relevant place or meaningful use in conducting scientific experiments, analysis, or research or in the development of scientific laws or theories.
None. The weather patterns we live with now have all occurred before so called AGW was supposed to have began.
None is the simple answer. There is a fundamental difference between weather and climate which can be looked up in a dictionary.
You people with your falsifiability. Who needs that in science? Darn Karl Popper.
Any unusually cold weather would not be consistent with global warming. However, consistent =/= proof and inconsistent =/= disproof. What matters is the trends.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
None. All weather occurs within climate normals.
If you are an alarmist, all of them.
Just a simple question.
None.
That is the simple answer.
Weather patterns are a daily phenomenon, while global warming is an occurance measured over the years. The two are not commensurate.
It is clear that Alarmists have propagandized themselves into a corner. A theory that cannot be falsified is not a valid theory.
-----------------------
