http://www.climatedialogue.org/melting-o...
Of course none of this proves or disproves AGW, What global ice mass decline shows is that the world is warming no matter what the cause is. The following are papers on polar ice melt/gain and glacial ice melt/gain.
http://cirrus.unbc.ca/454/lec/Shepherd20...
http://www.ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velic...
http://www.geology.byu.edu/wp-content/up...
Regarding snowfall, it is region dependent. Reading the 2013 IPCC report we see that snowfall has increased in areas such as Europe by a large margin but a shorter snowmelt season. After looking at the report we see that snowfall has increased during the winter seasons and decreased during non-winter seasons, the overall impact being a decrease in overall snow extent. Of course this is not a regional analysis but a global one so taking one instance, such as that of Antarctica, is problematic as it does not deal with the statement.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/...
I would say 4 is the closest to reality if leaving out the A part of AGW. All this indicates is that the world is warming. It has nothing to do with anthropogenic or natural influences.
Edit: Of course there will be regional differences dependent on the source of warming. However, as certain regions will react differently and regional changes are more questionable when it comes to long term future warming but the overall effect, as more energy enters the system, there will be a greater probability that energy will store itself in ice causing it to melt. Snowfall is also regionally dependent.
I have heard warmers state things like "snow will be a rare event". BUT, for the most part they do claim and should claim #4.
Of course as a scientist, you should recognize what #4 is actually saying. Saying that things will change, but we have no ability to predict how, is saying next to nothing. You should know the risk of looking at events in a post hoc analysis. If this method is valid, then psychic readings have proven right consistently enough to be accepted.
Simply put, the value of science is in prediction. If you are making no predictions, then you are not performing science. If you are making such general predictions that most anything can be considered as meeting the predictions, then you are not performing science.
I frequently harp on the warmers for looking at things in a post hoc manner and declaring it as evidence of AGW. I would harp on the "deniers" for the same activity (because they do this as well), but there is a difference. The skeptics are not asking for people to change their actions, the warmers are. Someone can tell me the sugar plum fairy floats on clouds of cotton candy, but until they ask me for money, I am neither going to attack their belief nor ask for evidence of their belief being true.
Fact is that while the warmers on here are quite defensive, they need to realize that they are asking for changes that will cost trillions and impact many. Take Africa and other third world countries for instance. Clearly they do not have much money to set up infrastructure. Clearly they need an infrastructure including electricity. Clearly coal is now the cheapest method of powering their countries. Clearly the infrastructure including electricity has the effect of extending life expectancy. So any movement towards a more expensive form of energy has inherent costs. Thus, while you may be defensive, you hold an EXTREMELY LARGE burden of proof. In fact, your burden of proof is higher than that of a normal scientific field because of its relation to political action.
The most likely answers would be 4. 1 and 3 are completely unscientific. 2 sounds more scientific than 1 or 3, but why would a scientist need to look at the amount of snow to determine if global warming is happening. To determine if global warming is happening, look at the temperature record.
They probably say #4.
But I think we should say that the total amount of snow and ice added up for the entire world over a period of some years would be evidence of warming. This *must* be a world wide total that takes into account more in some places and less in others; more at some times and less at others; but if the total world average is going down it is evidence of warming. Not evidence of the cause of the warming though. So it is evidence of GW but not AGW.
AGW is definitely going to cause more snow.
http://phys.org/news/2011-03-global-snow...
AGW is definitely going to cause less snow.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...
AGW is also completely falsifiable. If we don't see patterns we expect.. like less snow in one place and more snow in another place or perhaps more snow over there and less snow over there somewhere or about the same amount of snow there, like north or south, maybe more snow in like a town in the west and maybe more snow in the town just east of that town, or maybe about the same in those two towns but maybe more snow just north of there, or maybe less there and about the same in some town on the east coast or maybe more in a city in Italy, but maybe less just 1 mile west of that city, and perhaps less in New York one year and then maybe more the next year. So yeah, if we don't see these types of patterns t that would be evidence against AGW.
This is irrelevant who and what say about AGW, snow and ice.
It is relevant that there are not enough evidence either for or against AGW and relation to snow and ice to it.
As long as scientists do not have thousands of years RELIABLE data about AGW, snow and ice (and they do not have it), it is all useless talk about AGW, ice and snow and name it all SCIENTIFIC. We are talking here about climate not the weather, and climate does not change radically in a matter of hundred or less years. You can't collect scientifically proven data in that short period of time about climate change.
This is not a scientific talk. PERIOD.... :D
I know what you are driving towards, but I will take the "Ottawa Mike" approach to answering these questions. You can use this general response to apply to each question.
We talk about climate change as though we will reach a new climate and all will stabilize with this new climate. That is not true. What mankind is experiencing now and will continue to experience is an ever changing climate. There is enough latent heat stored in the system now to continue changing our climate until it has reached an equilibrium and then will continue to change until the natural carbon sinks return the atmospheric levels of CO2 to the 280ppm that existed before the industrial revolution. We are talking about what is very likely to be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years for the CO2 levels to return to 280ppm. The climate will be changing all during this time and we have not even as yet to stabilize the amount of CO2 that we are emitting into the atmosphere. With every 1C that we add to the warming allows for a 4% increase in atmospheric water vapor increase. Where this additional moisture precipitates back out at will be determined by how the weather patterns change across the planet.
Climate scientists, started off by saying there would be definitely be less snow and ice (our children won't know what snow is) later on they said of course occasionally there will be snow and ice, and then later on again they said AGW will cause more snow and ice.
So they say all four scenarios as their predictions fail, this way they can never be wrong.
The answer is 4 and what it means is there will be more drastic and unpredictable weather events as global warming occurs.
3 and 4 are the same 4 is just more wishy washy. The main problem is unexpected changes are explained away by unexpected natural variation or unanticipated human activity and viewed as simply a part of the scientific process.
Which of these statements do actual climate scientists say about the interaction of AGW and snow, ice, et cetera? And, if you happen to know, what is scientifically incorrect about some or all of the other statements, and/or why do scientists not say them?
1. Less snow and/or ice proves AGW, more snow and/or ice disproves AGW. If we know that there is less snow and/or ice, anywhere or at any time, this definitively demonstrates that AGW is true; if we know that there is more snow and/or ice, anywhere or at any time, this definitively demonstrates that AGW is false.
2. Less snow and/or ice provides evidence for AGW, more snow and/or ice provides evidence against AGW. With AGW, we should be seeing less snow and ice everywhere and at all times, so if we're seeing that, this suggests AGW is likely true; if we're not, this suggests that AGW may be false.
3. Less snow and/or ice provides evidence for AGW, but so does more snow and/or ice, anything that happens provides evidence for AGW. AGW predicts any and every change in snow and ice, as well as no change at all, so whatever happens, it provides evidence for AGW.
4. With AGW, we will expect some changes in the pattern of snow and ice, but they are not as simple as a blanket "less" or "more". AGW is likely to cause some areas (and times) to have more snow and/or ice, it is also likely to cause some areas (and times) to have less snow and/or ice. Seeing the patterns of change scientists expect is evidence for AGW; seeing patterns scientists don't expect would be evidence against AGW. (if you chose this one, and happen to know some of the expected/not expected patterns, feel free to mention them)
Also, any other thoughts?
Global Warming ended in 2012, confirmed by our Satelite reports 11/28/2012 that ICE accumulation shows no more over warming on earth. Infact the weather has returned to normal naturally like it was in 1977. Mike
