4 ms·
What I wonder about is why nobody seems to be talking about the lack of correlation between global temperature and global warming theories. My understanding is
by gibsonf1 18y ago
What I wonder about is why nobody seems to be talking about the lack of correlation between global temperature and global warming theories. My understanding is that there has been increasing cooling in the last decade, with the coolest year this past year. Where exactly is the warming? (This is not to question the warming that occurred up to 1998)
- axod 18y ago"The emperors new clothes" Don't mention the truth! Just smile, wave and say the clothes look lovely.
- netcan 18y agoSo are you suggesting that trends mean global temperatures should be obvious to any casual observer or that the technicalities of policy decisions should be?
- Devilboy 18y agoWarming / cooling pattern for the last decade or so: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Global_Warming_Map.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Global_Warming...
- Tichy 18y agoI think the climatologists are capable of including natural cycles into their calculations. Global warming is not about absolute warming every year, it is about deviations from the expected temperatures. Since it is only a couple of degrees, it is unlikely that an individual would even notice it. Would you notice if one year is on average one degree warmer than the previous one? There have always been variations (cold winters and warm winters, rainy summers, etc.). These natural variations are already taken into account.
- coryrc 18y ago> it is about deviations from the expected temperatures. So, the worse their predictions, the better it proves global warming? If global warming is science, it should be falsifiable. So when the models predict temperatures different from what actually happens, you are saying these deviations prove global warming. But why can't the models just be wrong?
- Tichy 18y agoNo, I don't think it is like that. I don't think the models give the wrong results, rather, they would model the climate with and without human influence and compare the results. They can see a deviation from the temperatures that would have to be expected without human influences. As for falsification, obviously they don't have a second earth to experiment with. What they do is try to gather as much historical data as possible (for example by drilling into the ice of the poles), and test their models on that. Or so I suppose - I am not a climatologist. Are you? Of course models can be wrong, we are always just talking likelihoods... But what makes you so sure that they are wrong?
- jamesbritt 18y ago" But what makes you so sure that they are wrong?" My question is, how would one know if they were wrong?
- Tichy 18y agoAs I said, the models are tested on historical data. Of course that is far from perfect, but it is also better than nothing. Not sure what other things they do, I am not in that area of research. But it is not as if nothing at all is known about climate. There is a certain knowledge of physics, and climate responds to the rules of physics. So some things can be derived (heat refelecting from CO2 layer and stuff like that, I suppose). It is not just a bunch of religious types making up stuff.