That's your own assumption, I simply stated that they're different. Which they are.
Saying a theory on climate is wrong (regardless of what it is) because of a wrong prediction of 12 hours of weather is like saying Florida is a desert because it hasn't rained in a week.
Weather is what clothes you should wear today; climate is what clothes you should have in your closet.
Meteorology and climatology aren't even the same field of study...
Could be, you're right. It's bad science though and a pet peeve of mine. Like when there's a random cold day in the summer and a layman says SO MUCH FOR THAT GLOBAL WARMING!
There's plenty of legitimate rebuttals against climate change.... A random weather anomaly isn't one of them.
Beating a dead horse at this point though. Have a good one, pede
Climate is weather over a long period of time. Thirty years, fifty years are typical windows of observation. It's not entirely illogical to question global long-term models, when local short-term models are so often wrong.
Saying meteorology and climatology aren't the same field strikes me as short-sighted, since they're related. Climate study encompasses many fields, but weather patterns and potential feedback mechanisms are pretty important.
As an example: Clouds, because of both upwards radiation and downward cooling, are extremely important to the global temperature, but we don't yet know enough to quantify their impact. Some argue the total radiative forcing from clouds is a net positive, some argue net negative. Some argue for or against certain positive/negative feedback mechanisms. It's not settled.
After being disabused of some of my more popular beliefs about this subject, and listening to people who actually do the science, the only thing I know for certain is that the people making grand declarations of doomsday are jumping the gun. Human CO2 has definitely been a minor contributor to global mean temperature, but no solid evidence of current or impending catastrophe exists.
Weather isn't the same as climate brah
Is your point that climate change predictions are true because they are different from weather? Because if you are.....
That's your own assumption, I simply stated that they're different. Which they are.
Saying a theory on climate is wrong (regardless of what it is) because of a wrong prediction of 12 hours of weather is like saying Florida is a desert because it hasn't rained in a week.
Weather is what clothes you should wear today; climate is what clothes you should have in your closet.
Meteorology and climatology aren't even the same field of study...
I assumed that about you because it's easy to understand that both are different. It's also easy to understand OP's comparison can both be true.
Could be, you're right. It's bad science though and a pet peeve of mine. Like when there's a random cold day in the summer and a layman says SO MUCH FOR THAT GLOBAL WARMING!
There's plenty of legitimate rebuttals against climate change.... A random weather anomaly isn't one of them.
Beating a dead horse at this point though. Have a good one, pede
Climate is weather over a long period of time. Thirty years, fifty years are typical windows of observation. It's not entirely illogical to question global long-term models, when local short-term models are so often wrong.
Saying meteorology and climatology aren't the same field strikes me as short-sighted, since they're related. Climate study encompasses many fields, but weather patterns and potential feedback mechanisms are pretty important.
As an example: Clouds, because of both upwards radiation and downward cooling, are extremely important to the global temperature, but we don't yet know enough to quantify their impact. Some argue the total radiative forcing from clouds is a net positive, some argue net negative. Some argue for or against certain positive/negative feedback mechanisms. It's not settled.
After being disabused of some of my more popular beliefs about this subject, and listening to people who actually do the science, the only thing I know for certain is that the people making grand declarations of doomsday are jumping the gun. Human CO2 has definitely been a minor contributor to global mean temperature, but no solid evidence of current or impending catastrophe exists.