people keep demanding explanation for 'instances' of extreme weather... or the lack thereof. "if the el nino doesn't occur, we're being lied to..." is at odds with "is global warming responsible for flooding in the midwest?" these are instances... geographically isolated from each other, but when combined with other extreme events, portend trends of things to come.
without 'instances', there can be no trends. without 'trends', there can be no climate change.
so i ask whether instances of extreme weather, or overall trends are more important in determining exactly what is happening? and which will be most instrumental in persuading skeptics of climate change... fifty years of slowly rising sea levels, or the first 150-degree day in death valley?
2007-08-23 11:03:08 · 7 answers · asked by patzky99 6 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Hi patz!
As you point out, significant instances are what build trends.
In my opinion it is trends, very long-term trends that must be considered when analyzing weather and climate.
A single season is but a fleeting moment in global time.
I'm not sure even 50 years is long enough on a planetary scale.
2007-08-23 12:04:12 · answer #1 · answered by zen 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Global warming and climate change is very much based on trends and the standard base period that is used for comparison purposes is one of 30 years (usually 1960 to 1990, sometimes 1950 to 1980), other base periods may be longer, anything shorter than this would be unreliable.
No single event can be attributed to global warming as such an event may or may not have occurred anyway. By definition, climate is all about trends; one of events are the realm of meteorology.
2007-08-23 11:19:18 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I disagree. For example take the trends of the stock market. Trend it all you want, go back 200 years and still you cannot say what the market will be at the end of the year. You cannot even know if it will be higher or lower than todays close.
And if the seas rise, what are we make of that? At one time Florida was completely under water. And if the seas go down, well there once was a land bridge between Asia and North America, and the English Channel was dry. If these happened again, would man be to blame? Man couldn't the first time.
My point is that it does no good to advance the science by making predictions. No one is going to be better than 50% over time. It does the science harm by making guesses. The only reason why scientist make predictions is to get their name in the paper and to make a name for them self.
2007-08-23 11:25:19 · answer #3 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Penny stocks are loosely categorized companies with share prices of below $5 and with market caps of under $200 million. They are sometimes referred to as "the slot machines of the equity market" because of the money involved. There may be a good place for penny stocks in the portfolio of an experienced, advanced investor, however, if you follow this guide you will learn the most efficient strategies https://tr.im/e3f14
2015-01-25 03:44:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's perhaps unfortunate, but in dealing with climate instances (also called "weather") are useless in determining scientific truth.
Instances are more important in swaying public opinion, which is definitely unfortunate.
2007-08-23 11:36:44 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's impossible to attribute any particular weather incident to GW. Unfortunately, the news media will do so, because they require "events" in order to be news.
2007-08-23 11:12:21 · answer #6 · answered by cosmo 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
By definition trends. "warming" doesn't connote an event, it has some kind of time base.
2007-08-23 12:02:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋