Global warming (was Re: The Eowyn Challenge)
- Sigh. OK. Please let the record show that I tried.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
> If everything settled down and we got the same weather we always had, with fewer freak
> events, that would certainly falsify it.
> But it's a mistake to deny that the pattern of increased warming and variability is very
Your confidence in knowing what constitutes "settled down" and "the same weather we
always had" and "freak events" is pretty remarkable, given how recent our ability to detect,
measure, and track these things globally is a _very_ recent phenomenon. Prior to the past
few decades, our data for such things is almost purely inferential and anecdotal, and
_highly_ sensitive to the assumptions that go into characterizing, weighting, and assessing
it. So too are the models that predict future climate, which have historically thus far failed
miserably. For example, they did not predict the leveling off and slight cooling we've had
in the past decade; for another example, they have failed miserably to predict the
temperature trends in the tropical atmosphere. And yet none of this counts as _any_
reason to think that the climate models, or the theory of global warming that is based on
them, might be wrong; indeed, if you think they might be, why, you're just a flat-earther
(says Al Gore).
> Global warming, though, is a pattern, rather than single events. One big strange
> snowstorm in England in April is by itself neither evidence for, nor evidence against,
> global warming.
Well, DUH! Who said that it did? AGAIN, this was what we call a "joke". Look it up.
But thanks for the lecture. I mean, it's not like I have science degree and work at NASA.
Oh wait, I DO!