6 ms·

What would constitute evidence against a dangerous climate change model? What would falsify the hypothesis?

Retric 18y ago
Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Their assumptions where wrong, but coverage area is not the same as thickness. When you look at the average temperature over 10 years and it starts to drop then we can say global worming is wrong but local effects are so complex we don't really know which areas will worm vs cool.
- coryrc 18y ago
  > the average temperature over 10 years and it starts to drop So the last 10 years then? http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/12/15/clintontemps.jpg http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/12/15/clintontemps.... (If the data is wrong, let me know, but don't just complain about the source)
  - anthonyb 18y ago
    Looks wrong to me. If you're after climate/temperature data it's out there. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_... Both from a google search: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=graph+global+mean+temperature http://www.google.com.au/search?q=graph+global+mean+temperat... ps. Your source sucks.
  - Retric 18y ago
    From 1970 to 2008 that graph shows a slow increase in temperatures. If you plot the average every 10 years it's increasing. Was that trying to refute my point? Anyway, graphs don't help they show people what they want to see. I just want data and then we can break out some statistics. Second, is that the global average temperature or some local measurement? Because individual local measurements are also meaningless. Anyway, take global data over 200 years averaged into 10 year blocks and see what best fits the data. Hint: it's probably not linear.

Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Their assumptions where wrong, but coverage area is not the same as thickness. When you look at the average temperature over 10 years and it starts to drop then we can say global worming is wrong but local effects are so complex we don't really know which areas will worm vs cool.

coryrc 18y ago
> the average temperature over 10 years and it starts to drop So the last 10 years then? http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/12/15/clintontemps.jpg http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/12/15/clintontemps.... (If the data is wrong, let me know, but don't just complain about the source)
- anthonyb 18y ago
  Looks wrong to me. If you're after climate/temperature data it's out there. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_... Both from a google search: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=graph+global+mean+temperature http://www.google.com.au/search?q=graph+global+mean+temperat... ps. Your source sucks.
- Retric 18y ago
  From 1970 to 2008 that graph shows a slow increase in temperatures. If you plot the average every 10 years it's increasing. Was that trying to refute my point? Anyway, graphs don't help they show people what they want to see. I just want data and then we can break out some statistics. Second, is that the global average temperature or some local measurement? Because individual local measurements are also meaningless. Anyway, take global data over 200 years averaged into 10 year blocks and see what best fits the data. Hint: it's probably not linear.