
Originally Posted by
Laviticas
Latrinsorm, actually have talked with a few experts. One said if we go by known data, technically we are still in an ice age when compared to long term geological data. Others neglect that long term data and use roughly 150-200 years of recorded data. I think it's a joke to say we know how the climate is supposed to be as if it's some static ecosystem.
We can be in an ice age and still have manmade global warming. Think of it like a car: if you're going 55 and tap the brakes, you're still going forwards, just not as fast as you were before.
The reason people "use" 150-200 years is because those are the years that go wildly off-model. They've already gone through eight hundred thousand years in the past that are consistent with the model, no journal would publish a 200 year by 200 year block series of papers for that span saying "yep, model works here too" every time. Einstein didn't publish thousands of papers exhaustively detailing all the situations where Galilean relativity corresponded reasonably well with his, he published the one where Galilean relativity went completely off the rails. Academic papers have tight space limits, you've got to get to the good stuff and leave the rest in citations.
It's certainly true that dynamic systems are harder to model than static ones, but scientists have a lot of time on their hands and no girlfriends. Just ask one of them to see the model, and you can judge for yourself.
Hasta pronto, porque la vida no termina aqui...
America, stop pushing. I know what I'm doing.