...is some kind of concession? ......of some sort of error in the term "Global Warming"?
We all know that the existence of thermal conveyors would mean that under global warming conditions, some areas are bound to COOL as the conveyors are disrupted. (Just to use one example.) So in the light of the complexity of the impact of more heat in a system, isn't "climate change" a good term? (What could possibly be wrong with it?)
=============================
Uh, bringing up snow storms is irrelevant to my question -- but as someone who used to farm (and therefore I had to pay much attention to the weather), I'm AMAZED that someone associates snow storms with some sort of argument AGAINST global warming. After all, precipitation often is increased because of the additional atmospheric moisture brought about by warming. For example, one expects a warmer winter to lead to more snow along the Atlantic coast-- because more water from the ocean evaporates into the air! Likewise, as a farmer where the winters could get extremely cold, we always hoped for a snowy winter because that meant that the temperatures were HIGHER and thereby more protective of the winter wheat crop. (Plus, the extra snow made an excellent thermal blanket to keep the grown warmer.)
So your post illustrates something I've noticed often in the Global Warming debate: the loudest voices and biggest deniers tend to know the least about science.
Bookmarks