They do not.
But if the data you produce using that method is reinforced by other data and other methods, would that not imply that it might be somewhat useful?
As I noted, the graphs don't work on this computer.
The explanation is likely cherrypicking, given the history of Darrin's posts.
The IPCC's contention is that the world is, in general, warmer than it would be otherwise for the increased CO2, though.
Sight unseen concerning the graphs, if the temperature stayed constant for the next hundred years, that would not disprove this thesis.
Can you tell me why not, and thereby attempt to demonstrate some understanding of the idea *you* are attempting to criticize?
They do not.
But if the data you produce using that method is reinforced by other data and other methods, would that not imply that it might be somewhat useful?
So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.
Isn't that confirmation bias?
Quid pro quo
My question remains unanswered:
So humans, given more and better data can form better underlying assumptions?
Answer that and I will answer yours.
They CAN.
That is the definition of confirmation bias yes, especially if one completely ignores contradictory data-sets.
So now are are at a point where we can tie into climate models.
I have contended that as time goes by, and we get more data, the models will get better at modeling our earths overal climate.
The ONLY assumption I have to make is that the people doing the modeling are acting in good faith, and avoiding the confirmation bias, which ties into your question.
Is this about right? (do you agree with this as stated?)
If those doing the science and computer modeling are competent and acting in good faith, I would expect the computer models to be in better agreement with observations as more data are added (assuming the data is good).
You have no idea how modeling works regarding the atmosphere and this is a great example of this. Do some research on how many different models are used into weather forecasting then come back and understand the methodology used. I've explained it to you before.
Yes.
And that's exactly what you did with the temperature data you posted.
oooh snap.
I didn't notice that obvious zinger.
Pick any four year period you want. It doesn't seem to matter.
Climate models <> weather models, as has been pointed out.
Stay in school, Manny.
Yes, I would say it is, as noted previously.
Since Chump pointed it out:
Would four years of climate data on temperature qualify as a 'small set of data'?
Right, because you will be guilty of confirmation bias in every case.
Modeling is modeling, btw. Different models may require different subject matter expertise, but the practice of modeling physical dynamic systems is the same.
You can randomly pick any four year period.
I would think you would see some differences in older periods vs more recent periods if global warming were significant.
I agree with this as well.
The good thing about the whole climate change is that we can expect to get that data one way or another in the next 15-20 years.
By the time my first grandkids are rolling off the delivery table, we should have some pretty good data.
I didn't built that website, so I don't know why they limited it to four years.
I would think you would see the tremendous flaw in your argument if more than one poster pointed it out to you, yet here we are.
I would fairly agree as well, although our climate seems to me to have a lot of complexities and unknowns/less knowns. The IPCC points out as much in their reports.
Definitely. That's why I have my doubts that ONE variable is the driving factor.
No, not really. If the theory of AGW is that there is "apparent unprecedented warming in the last century", then I would expect to see some warming in the last century.
No, obviously you would not see the tremendous flaw in your argument if more than one poster pointed it out to you.
In response, I have lowered my expectations once again.
Well, no one is asking for you to respond. You have every right to ignore this thread.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)