Luke [Skywatcher], those aren't scientists. Those are weather modelers who don't do a very good or even partly good job and are more akin to tribal shamans. They chant incantations, wave palm fronds and sheafs of papers proclaiming doom.
The fact is that over 100 years, temperature has increased a mere fraction of a degree, with much of that having increased last century.
To claim that particular weather events are related to that is ridiculous. The claim that climate volatility has increased because of this non-existent 'global warming' is also silly.
Science is at basis about cause and effect, with replicable observation, not coincidence or correlation. Correlation is not causation - a most fundamental blunder of most so-called scientists.
Look here, weather modelers using garbage in = garbage out computers: <The scientists took all the information that shows an increase in extreme rain and snow events from the 1950s through the 1990s and ran dozens of computer models numerous times. They put in the effects of greenhouse gases — which come from the burning of fossil fuels — and then ran numerous models without those factors. Only when the greenhouse gases are factored in do the models show a similar increase to what actually happened. All other natural effects alone don't produce the jump in extreme rainfall. Essentially, the computer runs show climate change is the only way to explain what's happening. >
People can write software to tell computers to put out whatever they want the computers to put out, no matter what data is put in. It's like the amusing number tricks where after a sequence of take this off that, add 34, divide by your age, count to 4, add the number of your toes, and hey presto, you were born on that date: mathematical magic. No, just arithmetical trickery for people who don't understand things.
The computer modelers didn't mention cloud cover, altitude of and density of cloud cover, snow cover, plant cover, solar cycle and output. Those things have a very large effect on climate.
Mqurice |
