Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam."

I think I understand what you're getting at. Unfortunately due to the nature of weather, and most other mass natural phenomena, we don't have any ability to make "specific" predictions.That is to say, no one would be able (at this time anyway) to predict that next year you will see X number of cyclones, or these animals will move over here. The nature of the predictions of what will happen have to be general.Then again, predicting the outcome of climate change is not the same as proving climate change is happening, or what its major causes might be, or what its likely length and intensity might be.The science has been in tracking global temps and other factors which are believed to contribute to such temperatures. While a perfect model of the atmosphere has not been created, their accuracy has been getting better and better, particularly over the last 10-15 years.It is from that, models of the atmosphere, matched with measured factors, and compared to actual global temps, that a decision about climate change is made. In this case it is increasingly clear that:
1) global temps are increasing.
2) man made contributing factors are playing a significant role.Now sure it is possible that natural factors do play a part, and indeed we could remove manmade factors only to have natural ones put the whammy on us. But that goes back to Jar's point. It makes no difference what NATURE is going to do. If we can see that we are able to control a factor, why not do so?As far as predictions go, that flows from the determination, and stand regardless of prime contributing factor. You accurately noted that such phenomena have occurred throughout history. Yeah, because temps went up and down. So we see temps going up and people can start making predictions of what will happen as they rise. Not pinpoint, just general. But its not those predictions which prove climate change.All they need to do is predict temps go up. They are.Edited by Silent H, : prediction

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I think I already cleared up Legend's issues. But I'd like to correct something you said... Variation of mass surface features can include absence. I'm not sure why that would not be thought so. With a return of adequate rain/snow/animals all things can come back.For example that glaciers have all disappeared from the state of Illinois, does not mean they are gone forever. In the geologic view this is our state of variation right now. Absence.Does that make sense?The question would be if the temp changes we are seeing are a natural variation, that is from largely non-natural sources. The mass results are most definitely natural variations brought on by the temp changes no matter the source.You can't point to an unusual/extreme variant, and from that inherently deduce an unnatural cause.I hope this is clear.Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Can we please keep debate civil? There was no reason for the insulting nature of your response. I certainly was not insulting you.It is apparent that a miscommunication has been made. Let me try this again, but using your example.It would be true to say that we expect a relatively consistent system (for example rain in a rain forest) to stay within a certain margin. If there is an large change... and that can include up to a total absence... it makes sense to say something out of the ordinary is happening.Given that global temps are increasing, I suppose that could be linked to atmospheric disruptions leading to this unusual occurrence. In this example then the loss of rainfall being a natural occurrence due to the temp rises. However, in theory it is also possible to be linked to something else besides global temp change, which might not be natural process (for a hypothetical say some mean corporation is seeding clouds outside the area and preventing sufficient humidity for rainfall in that area). It is important then to find the link to the rising temps and not something else.Okay so assuming that is found... such a link does NOT allow a conclusion that the raise in temps are not natural. Until the exact factors are found, the temp changes could be primarily natural... or not!In this case we have found that the largest factor is man made sources. But it was from detailed analysis of atmospheric factors, not whether an unusual rainfall event has occurred.In other words one event can have more than one source, hence the event cannot be used to prove either one. And that goes if you have many unusual events. As long as they allow for the same possible sources, no single source is proven.One last time, an unusual event says something has changed, not necessarily what the exact mechanism is. In this case it took finding the atmospheric factors to make that determination. Predictions which would have been true regardless of source of the rising temps cannot tell us what was the cause of those rises.Edited by Silent H, : crucial NOT

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

To clarify, we actually don't know how fast temperature fluctuations can occur naturally. The time frame of our techniques do not allow for a degree of precision to check our recent time frame.That said it is clearly unusual for recent recorded history, that is while people have been around to record temps.I think the fit of the models have been getting such that we can say they are getting more accurate without having to wait a long time to see what happens. As it is no model could predict many natural fluctuations to come. They are really looking into the recent past to see how accurate a prediction is made be a model, over the time already recorded... that is when trying to determine if man made sources are the prime factor.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I asked you to be civil in another thread. I've grown tired of your accusations of playing dumb and asking if I think you're stupid.Apparently you did not understand what I was doing. I was using rainfall in a rain forest of an example of how an examination might proceed, just to show that the existence of the phenomena does not mean what kind of specific factors were related. I was not actually speculating on a cause for current phenomena.Also, I mentioned this pertained to multiple phenomena. You avoided this point I made and discussed multiple phenomena. That makes no difference to ascertain the specific causative factor.In conclusion, it appears you did not understand what I meant by "atmospheric factor". Hot weather is not a factor in rising global temps, it is the result of factors. I am talking about the physical factors which lead to rising temps. That means sources of heat as well as components of the atmosphere which trap heat.One more response from you like this and I will have to assume you have no interest in rational conversation. If you have a reasonable point, all of the insults are not only not necessary, they are contradictory to a purpose of making your arguments accessible to a reader.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Well, I don't really disagree with your statement. It would tend to seem that gradualness is more of a norm. However, given that the time frames we see are so large, its hard to claim this kind of quick temp change has not happened before. It really could be lost in the data.You are right about the little ice age, but then looking at a large temp history record, we are actually in a rare stable period so its hard to say rare cannot happen, also there are some massive climbs and dips throughout. While they might represent 100s or 1000s of years of change, given the nature of the data, it is possible that they involved large spikes (like we see today) over tens of years, followed by dips then climbs, in a sort of zig zag to the top.I hope that makes sense. Uh oh, looks like you stepped into it with that claim. If it makes you feel any better I know what you are saying. I agree that jack seems to be using a different definition.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard