Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
Climate studies is a popular thing. Using the Cray computer on the University of California San Diego campus to model climate is one of the classes students will go through. Even then, 30 year windows are used to smooth data. Look up the texts. Go take the classes. Then come back and tell me not to use academic definitions of "climate" and "weather" interchangeably - as you have done.
And I believe in global warming. A late old friend told me stories of her time as a navy wife in San Diego during WW2. She told of me stories where October and November would bring snow to the beaches. These are the same beaches my wife runs around in, in a tiny two piece playing beach volleyball with her girlfriends, today.
This time period I am speaking of would be barely 3 points on a graph of climate change. The extreme oscillations from such a graph would warrant the application of more techniques to divine some conclusion. Those techniques are the issue. You can take the same raw data and apply different methods to come to differing conclusions.
You may be sure of your conclusions. But the science of this subject is truthfully much less settled and should be open to debate.
|
To keep apples,apples,the students would use the same models the climatologists used,which would incorporate the same statistical tools.Given the same database as the climatologists used,the output would have to be identical,model for model.
Different 'methods' would yield different results,but the students would have to defend their arguments in peer-review,if they were claiming different conclusions based on the same data.
If you try and cook the books,you'll have your family jewels raked across hot coals.