Good point. If one area has winter then global warming can't be happening. Winter happens every year. And yes, precipitation is higher than average due to it being another el-nino year. This has nothing to do with a climate change globally.
Your reasoning makes as much sense as my heating bill has towards proving GW. They call it global and not Northeast or Quebec warming. Stephen Harper must have lots of oily friends in high places, or is it high friends in oily places?
This is the most played-out, bogus, and un-enlightened argument these bozos have going. Why don't you meet up with your buddy Michael Mann and falsify data and put together some fake graphs?
If scientists can't come to a conclusive opinion on it, then list three National Academy of Sciences from three countries which haven't concluded that climate change is happening. You can't, because there aren't any National Academies of Sciences from any country that states this. Zero. That's what's called "a conclusive opinion."
Alright, since you're trying to squirm out, let me be more specific: you can't find a single National Academy of Sciences that states that climate change isn't occurring and that it isn't man-made. Ie. every single National Academy of Sciences on the planet states that anthropogenic (ie. man-made) climate change is occurring. That is a conclusive opinion.
I suppose you are oblivious to the concept of increased volatility with an underlying trend. (Not to mention seasonality.) Yeah, that figures.
Well this illustrates why you and I have problems here even though we both wish to conserve. I like to see statements supported by facts and you seem to be unswayed by facts. I just explained to you that your studies were based on models. Your models were said to be incorrect because they were making guesses as to the movement of the land mass. I showed that a new group of researchers put sensors in the land mass which will tell us how much the underlying earth moved. If they know how much the landmass moved then can then tell us about the ice mass. That study has not been released - although they did tell the previous models were wrong. So - how they hell can you make statements about what grace showed? Do you have some secret results?
The satellite measurement of gravitational attraction (and therefore mass) of the south pole showing decreasing mass is not based on a model. It's a gravitational measurement. More mass means more gravity, less mass means less gravity.