Comment 34937

By JonC (registered) | Posted October 24, 2009 at 17:35:40

Again, since you didn't address any of the other points, I assume you again yield on all other points. Now to clarify your one objection.

Smith, I don't want to blow your mind, but on any graph showing anomaly from mean exactly half of the area will be above the mean and half the area below the mean. That is the definition of the term, you dimwit. If you go back another century, the mean will move, and so on. What's actually important about that graph is the rate of change, which far exceeds anything we've observed in the historical record.

The fact that you think that all climatologists do is extend trends into the future, again explains how little you know. If you actually care, you can research the science behind the theory at any number of sites. Which I believe. The models are a different beast all together. They're based on the best understanding of relationships between variables that we have at the time. We know there are several relationships affecting global temperature and the level of the relationship as well as their impact on each other. Here is an example of the complexity of feedback loops in just one factor, sea ice http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~jwang/... As a better understanding of the relationships is developed, a better model is developed.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds