and hurricane Sandy on Climate change today.
He had no proof though , and he said there would be more droughts too . He is predicting the future 2050 to 2100 .
A global Warming Prophet or profit?
For one thing, the IPCC report uses scientific information that was available at the time of writing. Unless some of the literature were written by someone with a crystal ball, they would not have know about this year's winter.
edit
Or perhaps the IPCC could ask Al Gore if it could borrow his time machine.
Raisin Caine
You are putting straw man arguments in my mouth.
What Climate Realist means to say, is that they had no idea a polar vortex was a consequence of AGW. So when it happens, they have to go to their vast array of literature, where they predict every possible outcome and show that it is caused by AGW. If they actually forgot one possible outcome and it occurred, then they would have to quickly write another journal article, which would have no trouble being published through their "peer-review".
So what he means to say is that the warmers are in a no-lose situation. They spend billions on "research" to cover every possible future scenario. Of course, do not expect all of these scenarios to hit the IPCC report, because there are just too many to count.
This is just standard science right here. Ask any psychic and you will find that you should make your predictions vague and numerous. People remember correct predictions and forget incorrect ones. This is particularly useful when you have a ton of publications that hardly anybody ever reads.
It's make believe just like algore's movie. AGW cultists would love nothing more than to claim the polar vortex is a perfect example of extreme weather caused by global warming except the inconvenient fact that this same type of polar vortex in the 70s was proof positive that an ice age is coming. Also there is proof that polar vortex has been occurring long before humanity could possibly be blamed for it.
Inconvenience indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vorte...
"These cold-core low-pressure areas strengthen in the winter and weaken in the summer due to their reliance upon the temperature differential between the equator and the poles."
I do expect better of you. Really.
Just like the 1998 el Nino year, the polar vortex this year was an anomaly.
Edit: Update 1: @Linlyons: "the polar vortex this year was an anomaly."
"Not according to Jennifer Francis (and others). ‘Astonishing’ Ice Melt May Lead to More Extreme Winters"
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/aston...
anomaly? (Merriam?Webster) something that is unusual or unexpected.
Yes, an anomaly.
Which is not to say that it could become more common as the arctic warms.
Seems that lots of folks comment on the cold.
What's even more 'astonishing' is that, with all that cold, January was the 4th warmest ever recorded.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/envi...
You do realize Mike that IPCC reports take an awful long time to prepare, draft, edit, re-draft and finally approve line by line?
Here's a handy timeline of what exactly WGII entailed (I'll just give you the years):
2009
- Experts & Governments Scope Report
- IPCC approves Report outline
2010
- Governments & organisations nominate Authors
- IPCC finalise Author teams
- Author teams announced
2011
- First Lead Author s Meeting (LA1)
- Second Lead Authors Meeting (LA2)
2012
- Expert review of First Order Draft
- Third Lead Authors Meeting (LA3)
2013
- Government & Expert Review SOD & Summary for Policymakers (SPM)
- Fourth Lead Authors Meeting (LA4)
- Final Government Review of SPM
2014
- Plenary preparation meeting
- Plenary SPM approval & Report acceptance
- Publication of AR5 Report (mid 2014)
And if one also takes into account that all authors (309 from 70 countries) are volunteers who have their own full-time research jobs, it is really not hard to understand why writing a report of this nature takes such a long time.
<
There is no discrepancy. It is just that the First Draft was written long before this last winter.
When you engage in lying, it becomes hard to remember what the last lie was. It seems that climate realist has no problem with them providing the reasons for a cold winter after it occurs. In other words, AGW can explain anything that happens. They don't even seem to have any problem with this. It is science to them.
If you had been a reviewer and suggested it, they probably would have added it. They would love to erase the part about fewer cold-related deaths.
I just went through the WG II Summary for Policymakers: http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf
I've been reading a lot this winter about the "Arctic amplification" and the effect on the jet stream and the incursion of cold Arctic air deep into North America and Europe and Russia. There's also been a lot of snow storms and record snow. People have been joking but we are reminded that all of this is consistent with a warming world (indirectly due to melting Arctic sea ice).
Yet, the above SPM doesn't mention any of this. In fact, all it says about cold is that there will be fewer cold-related deaths and all it says about snow is that snow cover is declining and nothing about a vortex or the jet stream.
Why the discrepancy?
