How does this winter compare to last year using a hypothesis?

When they are inventing theories to explain cooling on warming, or insufficient warming on significant warming or whatever......AGW is loosing its credibility even with those who want to believe. Some still cling to the warming Arctic as the cause for cooling but I have to remain skeptical if not amused.....and the NCAR is independent?... of what?

I guess because it is "independent," we can't question its conclusions.

If you can't falsify a hypothesis, I think it makes it a wild guess.

It's a little hard to understand if there is an actual question in this question, but I think you asked something similar in your answer to another question, so I'll attempt to answer that.

Just saying something like "The harsh winter/spring this year is a result of diminished arctic sea ice" would just be idle speculation if there is not some science to back it up. Some scientists may make such statements based on their experience and intuition regarding atmospheric phenomena. I am not one that likes to do that. The best way to test a hypothesis like that (probably the only practical way) is to run models with identical initial conditions except for sea ice extent and see what differences arise. Whether people have actually done that, I don't know. It would surprise me if they have, since the season is still ongoing. However they may very well have already run numerical experiments like that in the past, so they know the results.

In your other answer you also asked about how you could have the same thing happening in some prior year with more extensive sea ice. Certainly there may be different ways to arrive at the same endpoint, so you can't use that as an argument against a hypothesis. Again, the best way to test would be with models.

EDIT: Empirical evidence is great and of course it should be used when available, but how long are you going to wait for it to accumulate? 20 years? 100 years? 1000 years? And when you have it you have to be able to tease out the contributions from many uncontrolled variables, models give you a way to run controlled experiments in a scientist's lifetime. The models give you a way to interpret the empirical evidence that is unavailable without them.

That is stupid last year was a mild winter happens once or twice a decade

In the 1990s Missouri had a mild winter the next year the highs were 10 and lows -10

belows .

And its called a Artic Oscillation not melting ice caps . The warmers are getting desperate .

All they see is high taxes and this $$$$

So as to have a greater season, I consider Vince younger must run the ball extra. He has almost the more serious team of receivers within the league and pass blocking off that's mediocre at pleasant. He would not but have the aiding forged he wants to be a exceptional pocket passer. So, for now, he must capitalize on his athleticism and run the ball extra. In order to support maintain the protection off stability and open up downfeild throws.

The Arctic ice during the period they are talking about (not summer ice) is only slightly less than normally, and is the same as last year and the year before.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea...

To me that is an outright lie.

Anyone with any knowledge on the subject will tell you it was caused by a negative arctic oscillation.

If my hypothesis is correct, the difference this winter with last is weather.

Harvey Mushman

If global warming is so easy to disprove, how come each and every one of these 174 arguments fails to do so?

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Edit

Kevin and Jennifer know about weather. But if you think they don't, go one better than sending them an email. Publish a paper.

Science ≠ journalistic hype ≠ your lame Wattsup copycat+wannabe anti-science spin of journalistic hype

By the way, have you EVER asked a question here that isn't a crappy anti-science trick?

It is robust "hypothesis" that you are actually intelligent enough to know the difference between trend and variation, but shamelessly dishonest enough to deny that difference whenever it suits your copy-past anti-science deception of the week.

I think the hypothesis now is that no matter what happens, it is irrefutable proof of Climate Change. Most alarmists have lost touch with reality and are certifiably psychotic IMO.

Alarmist: "Children won't know what snow looks like in the UK."

Skeptic: "The UK just had one of it's snowiest seasons in history."

Alarmist: "Yes, that fits in perfectly with the CAGW hypothesis."

Skeptic: "How?"

Alarmist: "Warmer weather increases moisture, resulting in more snow."

Skeptic: "They've also had one of their coldest winters as well."

Alarmist : "Yes, that fits in perfectly with the CAGW hypothesis."

Skeptic: "So less snow, more snow, warmer temps and colder temps all fit in with the CAGW hypothesis?"

Alarmist: "Yes, exactly."

My hypothesis is that global warming was too easy to disprove for the layman. Too specific. Which is why it was rebranded as ACC. Then you can blame every bit of weather you dislike on ACC.