- Start at 1998, and you'll see global surface temperatures stable. (Yes, that's right Josephine, "According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005...")
- Start at 1860 and you'll see that temperatures have been rising.
- Start one thousand years ago, and depending on which graph you look at, and how the data has been compiled and used, you'll see a temperature record that has been rising and falling.
- And now, start back 425,000 years (using results from the Vostok Ice Core, complied by NOAA), and what do you see?
We see that temperatures have been falling and rising and falling and rising and falling and rising and falling and rising and falling and rising ... In fact, notes the site that hosts this last graph, "there’s quite a bit of fluctuation": First of all, There are long periods of time when the average global temperature was as much as 9°C colder than now. These were Ice Ages. Much of the northern part of the world was covered with thick sheets of ice, much like we see today in Greenland and Antarctica. The most recent Ice Age ended about 12,000 years ago. There were also times when it was warmer than today. On the whole, we are in a relatively warm period. What causes these changes in climate?
Monday 21 May 2007
It's all about where you start.
When you're looking at and presenting global surface temperatures, it really is all about where you start .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
PC said...
When you're looking at and presenting global surface temperatures, it really is all about where you start .
This is exactly correct, and most of the public don't know this as fact.
Recently, I wrote a proposal on forecasting algorithms for a local start-up company that wants to outsource its development as their developers (programmers) have no expertise in that field.
When I submitted my report to them, they read it and came back with a question, asking how far back the historical data can be used in the model in order to make a reasonable forecast of say the n-th time-step ahead (eg: 5 weeks time-step ahead or 5 months time-step ahead), because they only have 4 data-points if monthly forecast is to be applied (they only just started collecting data in January , 2007 as they are a start-up). I told them to forget it, using 4 data points for a monthly forecast is just equivalent to tossing a coin. Despite only having 4 data points for monthly data, I stated that they can build a weekly forecast instead because they have about 16 weekly data points (4 months) .I also said that as a rule of thumb in building a forecasting model, the number of data points shouldn't be less than 12 and can only do an estimate of 1 or 2 time-step ahead into the future and no more than that because 12 dataset points are still not enough to build an accurate model. They also asked, if the number of different data points for model building changes the model parameters or not? I said that model parameters are data points dependent , the parameters of the model would be different when it builds on datasets with different number of points. It basically means that the more historical data that you can go back in time to build a forecasting model, the accuracy in predicting future n-th time step ahead values increases. The less historical data that one goes back in time to collect for building model, means less accuracy in forecast.
I have seen many debates on the internet where the proponents of global warming are ONLY concentrating on the last 150 years. This means the model is built on a sample data points of 150. In my view, any robust time-series analysis should always use the maximum amount of data that you can get, because, the more data that goes into the model building (algorithm training), then the more accurate is the time-series reconstruction or prediction (forecast).
That's a good site you link to. However, you don't follow their argument all the way. "What causes these changes in climate?", they ask. If you click through, you'll see that there is a close relationship between temperature and CO2. Look at this graph:
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_co2.htm
and especially at the right-hand spike in CO2 levels.
CO2 and temperature form a positive feedback loop. When one increases, for whatever reason, the other follows. I think you can argue that we're not responsible for initiating global warming. But we're responsible for making it worse, and we could mitigate it by restricting CO2 emissions. I.e. we didn't start the fire, but the last thing we should do is throw more wood on it.
As for starting from 1998, you realise that was an El Nino year and the hottest on record? Hardly a logical starting point, especially when that gives you only nine data points to draw your conclusion.
As Falafulu put it, it's "just equivalent to tossing a coin."
Eddie makes the point I was champing at the bit to make, namely that the pithy smackdown favoured by many AGW skeptics (including our esteemed host!) is predicated on a very selective timescale. I'm speaking of course of the oft-trotted-out "The world has been cooling since 1998."
But to further interrogate the post, it seems (and please correct me if I misinterpret) that you are using the graph to make an argument that the observed warming is largely a manifestation of a natural cycle? Is this your point?
DenMT
PC
How dare you! Quoting actual data and facts! Naughty boy;-)
I notice Augie Auer was in the news on the weekend and quoted as saying he thinks "global warming" is a crock and will be forgotten by the media in five years as something else will come along to worry about. I happen to think he is right.
What's my point? I thought was obvious: Don't drop context.
Selected contexts often show something different to the whole truth.
Here's two examples. Eddie says, "There is a close relationship between temperature and CO2." Well, yes there is. When you examine the complete context using that Vostok data, you can see that temperature rises PRECEDE CO2 rise. An inconvenient truth, perhaps, but there it is.
Wishing your facts says something is very different to discovering what the facts actually are.
And Eddie also ignores the complete context with this comment: "As for starting from 1998, you realise that was an El Nino year and the hottest on record?"
Well, yes it was, no it wasn't, and perhaps you should ask yourself why I posted that the way I did.
19998 was an El Nino, which made it warmer.
1998 was (and still is) the hottest year since the surface temperature record has been kept, but the point of the post is to look at the whole context, and there in the graph supplied are instances of higher temperatures. Three instances.
And if you clicked on the link supplied, you'd see your point regarding the claim of stable temperatures since 1998 already answered:
"In response to these facts [that there has been no warming since 1998], a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate."
What say you?
PC: Well, I say first and foremost, exccellent use of the word 'Tosh' in an argument as quoted above.
To the matter at hand, that context is important to debate on climate change is an inescapable truism. You can point the finger at 'warmists' for selectively isolating timescales which exaggerate trends, and obviously 'skeptics' are guilty of the same sin. As a truism, there is little to be gained in a debate - my main interest is in a discussion of the importance of your featured graph, and the implied argument for current warming being a natural trend...
DenMT
(Furthermore, the CO2-lag argument you invoke as vaunted in The Great Global Warming Swindle has been widely addressed as you will no doubt be aware - CO2 does not necessarily initiate warming, but is a highly significant forcing. Not 'inconvenient' in the slightest.)
Thanks for ferreting that data out. Good job.
I'm glad you like Prof Carter's use of the word, Den, and pleased too that you demonstrate what he calls "passing by" the facts of early century temperature rise, which inconveniently preceded growth in anthopogenic CO2, and mid-century cooling, which occured during that growth.
"...the CO2-lag argument you invoke ... has been widely addressed"
But not well answered. Perhaps you could try here?
"CO2 does not necessarily initiate warming, but is a highly significant forcing."
Well, as AUGIE AUER said back in March in 'The Free Radical', and repeated over the weekend, "Water vapour is responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm.
"Within the remaining 5%, there isn't much clout available for carbon dioxide; it only contributes a meagre 3.5% or so.
"However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total.
"Even if CO2 doubled in the atmosphere due to man's activity, its impact on greenhouse processes would remain miniscule."
Or perhaps you should have a look at the IPCC's own calculaton on CO2 forcings, which as CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON notes[pdf] has been quietly revised downwards with each new report.
"Note that the IPCC’s 2007 report has reduced its estimate of the entire anthropogenic contribution to climate change since 1750 to just 1.6 watts per square metre. This is little more than 1% of the natural greenhouse effect, which contributes 20C to global temperatures.
"Since 1% of 20C is 0.2C, it is legitimate to deduce that about three-quarters of the 0.8C rise in
temperature over the past 100 years is attributable to natural causes...
"...conclusions in the peer-reviewed literature [cited in Monckton's article] differ startlingly from the UN’s conclusion that “most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [to have been] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations".”
PC -- That Bob Carter article maintaining that global warming stopped in 1998 is pretty flimsy. Two words he never mentioned: El Nino. That alone should signal where his concern for "context" lies.
As for the need to avoid dropping context, I simply note that the Carter article seems to be one of your favourites. But while you've linked to it often, you mention El Nino in relation to the article only once. Seems like you've been dropping your context. :-)
You say temperature peaked higher than current levels three times in the (distant) past. Well, that was actually predicted and accepted by climate scientists
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
The important point is that the situation is different now because of the rates of increase. Both temperature and CO2 are riding very steep slopes.
The related point, which I mentioned earlier and you didn't really address in your follow-up comment, is that CO2 and temperature are closely related. When one rises, the other follows -- the "positive feedback loop" I mentioned. So, in some cases temp precedes CO2; recently, it's been the other way round.
So arguing (as I presume you would) that it's OK to let CO2 trend upwards as it has been doing, fails to address the consequences of this positive feedback cycle.
Also, need I point out that the 1940-1975 cooling can be accounted for by the rise in sulphates and other aerosols in the atmosphere? When scrubbers were built into into smokestacks to cut down on these aerosols, warming continued.
Actually, appealing to this cooling period conveniently ignores that CO2 is a forcing not a feedback, which very few people seem to appreciate. Once it's up there, it stays up there for centuries, so any simple comparison of CO2 emissions levels with temperature levels is a flase comparison on the face it. I think we should be looking at cumulative CO2 levels. (I'm still looking for those graphs...)
Now, if I may play a little tag-team with DenMT. When looking at recent temperature trends, scientists often graph the final 150 or so years not because it bolsters a pre-conceived political agenda but because that's when reliable temperature readings from thermometers began.
As for your uncritical quotations from Monckton, the fellow is a gifted amateur, but an amateur nonetheless. Here's what a real climate scientist thought of his report:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/02/monckton_curious_take_on_the_s.php
On such matters, I tend to lump in with the thousands of climate scientists involved in the IPCC review process. Of course, there are maverick scientists, but they are welcome to do research and publish their findings in the journals. Richard Lindzen, for example, publishes a lot on clouds; he appears to have added to the IPCC understanding, but even he has not seriously challenged the consensus.
Bob Carter, Augie Auer, Lord Monckton, Climate Audit ... you really need to practice some quality control on your sourcing. As you say: "Wishing your facts says something is very different to discovering what the facts actually are."
Eddie said...
Also, need I point out that the 1940-1975 cooling can be accounted for by the rise in sulphates and other aerosols in the atmosphere? When scrubbers were built into into smokestacks to cut down on these aerosols, warming continued.
Could you quote some publications that show the modeling on this?
final 150 or so years not because it bolsters a pre-conceived political agenda but because that's when reliable temperature readings from thermometers began.
That is exactly why it needs to be dismissed. It is simply crazy for even any scientist to say that? A short time-window in time-series analysis is something that is very unacceptable especially such as polarising topic as global warming. Sorry , that you can't do that. You can do it, but as I said in my previous message that with such a short dataset, you cannot get an accurate model. The error rate is high that the model may be unreliable.
FF - IANACS, so I take a lot of my understanding from places where actual climate scientists blog. Also, the IPCC. This bit, from the AR4 WG1 Ch02 is interesting:
[I]t is _extremely likely_ that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF [radiative forcing] estimate is _likely_ to be at least five times greater than than due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is _exceptionally unlikely_ that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF.
Seriously, the more I read the AR4, the more I realise how many scientists were involved in the process, and how careful they've been with the data. For instance, the scenario in The Day After Tomorrow, in which the THC shuts down and the Northern Hemisphere freezes over, is pretty much rejected. Hardly the work of alarmists.
Now, I know what you're thinking: he hasn't provided links to the models. Well, they're there in the AR4. Hunt around for them yourself.
On your point about the inadequate length of the temperature time series. Well, I agree with you that 150 years is a short period of time to be basing such broad-ranging policy outcomes on. However, I was probably a little unclear in my original point. What I meant to say was that there are many graphs available, and sometimes it's convenient to look at a graph of non-proxy data. As it turns out, such a graph is 150 years long. That doesn't mean governments are making momentous decisions on the basis of these graphs alone.
Other (proxy data) graphs are available that go back far longer in time and can be helpful in policy setting; I'm sure everyone here is familiar with many of them.
Eddie said...
FF - IANACS, so I take a lot of my understanding from places where actual climate scientists blog.
Your point is? First, I take my understanding by reading the real peer review publications in climate modeling and less from other sources sources such as ClimateAudit etc. I just pop in there sometimes to see, what is being discussed. The reason I read the real scientific papers is to understand first hand and not get information second hand as in your case regarding the issues of debate about what is efficient modeling and what is inefficient.
Well, they're there in the AR4. Hunt around for them yourself.
I am sure that I can hunt around for them, but you're here to defend your view, so don't jump in to air something that you cannot provide a link to, so that to back up your claim. If you make a claim then show the link. Don't assume that you can dumb the question here, then expect others to hunt the answers for you. So, if you could find that link, then post it back here.
Actually, appealing to this cooling period conveniently ignores that CO2 is a forcing not a feedback, which very few people seem to appreciate.
Do you understand the feedback control theory of a dynamic system or State-Space ? Climate is a dynamical system, so it should be treated like one. If you do understand those subjects, then post back here, so that we can continue, if not take a look at the links shown above and try to digest them before we continue.
There is a problem with the members of the general public's trying to adopt the semantic meaning of the terms climate feedback and try to talk as if they know. The concept is easily understood by anyone of what it means, however it is quite complex in terms of modeling and it requires one to understand its derivation in order to fully comprehend its inefficiency when it is applied to climate modeling. Note, I had already debated here at NOT PC about the mis-understanding of climate feedback coupling systems even to the real climate scientists that you frequent their blog sites. Now, may be a good task for you to ask those scientists to help you out for information on climate feedback systems before you can come back to continue the debate. I can guarantee that your blog authors are most likely to have no understanding of climate feedback coupling dynamical systems. May be they understand the semantic meanings but not the modeling. This is a very important topic in climate modeling because if certain conditions are violated in the formulations of the models then the model must be ruled unreliable. This is not Falafulu's view, it is the view of a NASA climate scientist who is a world leading authority in the application of Feed-back control theory to climate modeling in which I have had email exchanges about his publication on the subject.
Falafulu Fisi, as a general and well-intended comment (please take this constructively) your style of 'argument from authority' tends to suck the life out of a lot of the debates on climate science that you involve yourself in.
I fail to see how understanding the minutiae of a highly technical and narrow concept is necessary in order to discern between a feedback and a forcing, and to use these general concepts in argument.
It seems in the above comment that rather than attempting to engage Eddie's argument, you simply wish to invalidate his opinion based on his insufficient authority.
DenMT
DenMT said...
It seems in the above comment that rather than attempting to engage Eddie's argument
As I have pointed out in my previous message, that the members of the public tend to follow the simplistic view of the IPCC, where in reality the simplistic models quoted in the IPCC are inefficient. The most inefficient of them all the the modeling of climate feedback systems. Again, if I had to make a claim, then I must point to the source which is shown below (see link), where this workshop was a NASA sponsored one, and they (about 30 of them) wanted to address the shortfall of modeling climate feedback systems. Shortfall means misleading, unless one had to persist in accepting that the model inefficiencies are not misleading. Such a scientist must be living in a dreamland if he/she had to keep using inefficient models.
http://grp.giss.nasa.gov/reports/feedback.workshop.report.html
This workshop was chaired by Dr. William Rossow of NASA , who had published his peer review work on the subject of non-linear coupled feed-back climate systems. I had made a few email exchanges with Dr. Rossow in the past, regarding his paper on the subject, in which I have read.
Dr. Rossow, was an IPCC author in 2001, but his report on feedback from 2001 is still unchanged in 2007, since there has been slow progress in the modeling of the most complex subject of them all in climate modeling domain. If someone is close to solving climate feedback systems, then we're looking at getting closer to understanding the big question? Is human responsible or not?
Now, look DenMT, I know Eddie is an academic, where he had been busy in the past Googling & digging for the name Falafulu, and I am sure he can understand the debate about climate feedback and forcing. The workshop on climate feedback (see link above) , shows, that we can't keep trumping up feedback as final, while in reality, this most complex topic of all in climate modeling is no way close to being final. Now, this is the problem when I hear people keep saying, Oh, but CO2 is having a positive feedback. Yes , this is true, but this conclusion only comes from computer modeling, unless you can point me out to any work that has been done in directly measuring this feedback effect. If one understands that the current feedback model is inefficient (refer to the workshop), then he/she would have put no emphasis on climate feedback and forcing that the ultimatum had been solved. This is simply misleading and this appeals to the members of the general public.
The link I provided for the climate feedback workshop is the wrong one. Here is the correct one.
WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE SYSTEM FEEDBACKS
FF - your comment misses the point that Eddie is not arguing the effects of atmospheric CO2 as a feedback - he is pointing out that CO2 is widely conceived to be a forcing AS OPPOSED to a feedback mechanism.
DenMT
DenMT -- You make a good point about Falafulu's favourite form of argumentation, and how policymakers don't need a complex understanding of the forcing/feedback cycle. His actual goal appears to be to stifle progress on policy issues by claiming that policy makers need a full understanding in order to set good policy. What other conclusion can we draw from this?:
[Climate feedback] is quite complex in terms of modeling and it requires one to understand its derivation in order to fully comprehend its inefficiency when it is applied to climate modeling.
Note also another favourite tactic of his and PC's, to rubbish one form of scientific authority (the IPCC and prominent climate scientists) while lauding another set (who just happen to agree that warming is fake, or not caused by humans, etc.)
Incidentally, his own unique twist on the argument to authority is what I would term "argument to Falafulu Fisi's authority". Check out that ego.
I'm not going to get deep in the weeds of the science with him because that's what he wants.
Instead, I want to point out that, at the end of the day, climate science is incredibly complex and probably beyond the capacity of policy makers to truly understand at the level FF seems to advocate for. At some point, you need to choose a source and trust that source. You and I have done it for the IPCC; FF and PC and others have done it for their various sceptic sources.
That's what's at the heart of this debate -- not the science, but the question of WHOM YOU TRUST.
The sceptics are actually anti-science in the respect that they are deeply distrustful of mainstream science and have gone looking for alternative science that confirms what they want to hear.
A final point: Falafulu, you know damn well that I apologised completely and unreservedly for my error on the Adolf Fiinkenstein blog. Your bringing that up now without the full context is self-serving and dishonest. That tells me all I need to know about your debate style.
(Unfortunately, Sir Humphreys is down now, which is a shame, so no link to that classic thread in which you tried to say that you can interpolate a 100-year hole in a 400-year time series.)
Eddie said...
His actual goal appears to be to stifle progress on policy issues by claiming that policy makers need a full understanding in order to set good policy.
No, I didn't say that policy makers need a full understanding in order to draft good policies, you're just putting words into my mouth. What I mean to say is that policy makers are relying of simple models and acted too quickly when the science is not settled yet. That is the issue that all skeptics are arguing about. If there was no IPCC, then the general public would have not been divided and polarised in such issues as climate change. This is fact and you can't argue with that. No IPCC, the issues about climate change would have been left to where it belongs, and ie, the domain of argument and counter-argument put forward in climate related journals as any other academic disciplines would. Do we hear Psychologists arguing the best way to raise our children, by forming a UN body? No, not at all, that is left to the peer review process for researchers to put forward their argument and counter-argument. Do we hear economists, telling us about the potential economic doom of the future that we need to have a UN economic panel to draft policies? Hell no. That is left to the process of peer review as stated. Each government can take their own advise from their own experts in that specific discipline to draft policies.
The sceptics are actually anti-science in the respect that they are deeply distrustful of mainstream science and have gone looking for alternative science that confirms what they want to hear.
No, wrong. Do you think that the 30 top scientists who attended the NASA sponsored workshop on Climate Feedback Systems are anti-science? Boy, which planet do you live in? It seems that you're the one that is anti-science in thinking that skeptics are, because they raised doubts about the alarmists? In the history of science there has always been an argument for and against about the validity of some concepts. Now, those scientists never involved in name-calling (deniers, etc) at all, they just let the argument and counter-arguments went thru the proper process of publication in peer review.
I can give you an example. Since the development of Quantum Mechanics (QM) from the 1920s, there were some opposing views to its interpretations (Copenhagen Interpretations - CI) and also the founders were of course the proponents of CI (Neil Bohr, Heisenberg, Max Born, etc). The opposing view was Einstein, Schrodingers and others. There was a vigorous debate during the 1930s about who's interpretation of physical reality is more correct. No one called anyone any names, they just let the debate settled in peer review work. Upto today, the issue of that debate is not solved yet. That is what real science is all about, that is don't try to suppressed opposite views.
"[FF's] actual goal appears to be to stifle progress on policy issues by claiming that policy makers need a full understanding in order to set good policy."
This is illuminating. Presumably you think "policy makers" shouldn't have a full understanding before they shackle us??
How much (or how little) "understanding" would you allow them before they go ahead and act to stop us from acting?
"I'm not going to get deep in the weeds of the science..."
Illuminating again, since in your view neither your nor "policy makers" need to or should get too deep into the weeds of the science -- and neither have you.
I'm still waiting for example for a substantive comment on the point of the post itself.
"That's what's at the heart of this debate -- not the science, but the question of WHOM YOU TRUST.
Nope. Not at all. It's not at all a battle of argumentum ad authoritia.
What's at the heart of this debate is the CLAIM that there is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming happening, or about to happen, warming that is or will be so dire that the world's freer markets need to be shackled to solve it.
That's the claim, and like all scientific claims it needs to be tested against the evidence to see if it stacks up.
If it doesn't, then it's out.
It's not a balancing act. The warmists are making the wild claims, so therefore the onus of proof is on the warmists.
"The sceptics are actually anti-science in the respect that they are deeply distrustful of mainstream science and have gone looking for alternative science that confirms what they want to hear."
To the contrary. The "sceptics" are looking at the science to see if it says what its supporters say it does, and so often crucial evidence is found wanting, and its supporters are found to be fudging or worse (see for instance the Mann Hockey Stick and the Phil Jones/Steve McIntyre correspondence).
The point remains that the claims for AGW are far from proven, and more: As a commenter at Climate Audit said recently on Monckton's efforts noted in today's post at 'Not PC', "When Einstein was told by a reporter that a large consensus of scientists believed his theories were incorrect Einstein replied “It only takes one to prove me wrong.”"
THAT is the correct scientific approach, not this bogus consensus.
"Monckton [et al] doesn’t have to get all his facts correct. He is demolishing the notion that a consensus exists."
Eddie said...
Incidentally, his own unique twist on the argument to authority is what I would term "argument to Falafulu Fisi's authority". Check out that ego.
Eddie, you posted in your message that you get your info from the IPCC? And you enthusiastically stated that their authority must be accepted without any question. You seem to be a hypocrite to me? Isn't refering to IPCC an appeal to authority? Besides, I don't appeal to authority, I just merely pointed out research that addresses the problems with current climate modeling and that is all I was doing. Also those published work, I do understand the points that are been raised there. People who are appealing to authority are the likes of you , who often quoted Real Climate, without having any understanding of the modeling they have put forward.
DenMT said...
he is pointing out that CO2 is widely conceived to be a forcing AS OPPOSED to a feedback mechanism.
You perfectly described how it should be ie, only conceived to be, well said and that is why there are skeptics because your very statement is not a certainty, it is only a perception at this stage. I have said in the past, here at NOT PC and everywhere, that there is no single model in the whole IPCC report that nailed down CO2 as the driver (forcing) and this is fact and not perception, unless you can point me out to a model where CO2 is included as the driver function (forcing).
'argument from authority' tends to suck the life out of a lot of the debates on climate science that you involve yourself in.
I have mentioned before, that I don't appeal to authority as you and eddie do. I simply quoted publications most of the time that published by climate researchers related to numerical modeling. I already know these numerical modeling and that means I regard that as having authority myself in the understanding those topics. Why, I like to point out those publications is first, I don't publish scientific work in climate modeling where I could refer to my own work, second you yourself had asked here at NOT PC last year (2006) to state my authority regarding climate science and I did reply to you.
Can you get your head around the fact that the debate about global warming is all about mathematical modeling? We do have model that predict the next 50 years or so. Did someone travel to the future to witness those disasters, then come back to the present time to tell us we're doom? NO, the model took us into the future, and that is where the debate is all about.
The over-reliance on computer model is the heart of the disagreement and you simply can't deny this. If you're happy with the IPCC's prediction & forecasting, then how about if I can advise you on the predictions of currency movement, interest rates, stock price, etc, so that you can gain maximum benefits from that? Are you keen to play your money using my forecasting service? If not, then why not? After all, it is the same model and algorithms that the IPCC are using to forecast disasters in the next 50 years or so, as the forecasting software algorithm I have written? I bet that you won't risk to gamble your money using my service, however you would be willingly accept the same mathematical predictions of the IPCC. That seems to be appealing to authority. Same maths, but one could be more trusted than the other.
Post a Comment