BartSimpson BartSimpson:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
If anything he postulates were true, the storm that just hit Vanuatu wouldn't have been the second strongest ever recorded.
'ever recorded'
Given that hurricane/typhoon measurements didn't exist in much of the world well into the 1960's then this isn't saying much.
You could say that Boston just had the most snowfall accumulation ever recorded but that pales with the certain knowledge that three meters of snow is nothing compared to the two or three kilometers of ice and snow that once covered the place.
Ever recorded . . by people. No one is claiming it's the biggest weather event 'ever', just 'ever recorded'.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The arrogant assumption that the 'recorded history' of anything is a complete data set is itself a logical fallacy.
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that the hundred and fifty odd years that we've been recording measurements from our environment is fully representative of the 4 billion years of our planets' existence. It's just more detailed than we get from rocks, or trees or ice.
The more data we get, the better our predictions become.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
And forming conclusions based upon observed and even unadjusted climate data is akin to me surveying everyone sitting in my chair right now to determine world opinions on the pressing matters of the day. Frankly, my data set would be more comprehensive than the climate data set is.
There are other records of climate activity, other than what we ourselves write down. We can read those records, and make extrapolations from them as well.
We have accurate climate data that goes back 800,000 years. I don't think you are that old, nor your chair that large. And we can use what we know to make predictions and observations on other planets as well.
And they turn out remarkably accurate, so we know we are doing something right.