Well, considering that metorology and climatology are within the same branch of atmospheric sciences-meteorology being a study of short-term atmospheric effects on geology and climatology being the study of long-term atmospheric effects on geology, I think even a layman can deduce the symbiance, here.
Besides, any day-to-day meteorological anomoly suddenly becomes a banner which the global warming crowd touts.
Point well taken - though not entirely accurate, since climatology is not simply atmospheric science, but also encompasses geological and oceanographic study as well, and deals with historical as well as present conditions.
The general public, on both sides of the issue, often don't know the difference. And, to be fair, the global non-warming crowd is just as bad about pointing to weather effects as "evidence" of their beliefs.
I guess what I find annoying is the continual suggestion that the issue is somehow "undecided", or worse, not happening at all, when it is the unambiguous and non-controversial conclusion of the field of climatology that human-caused global warming is a significant problem. There simply is no dissent in that field.
There is plenty of room for debate as to what is the right course of action, but to suggest "it ain't happenin'" is (IMNSHO) just silly.
4 comments:
Irony, thy name is meteorology.
Anyone who knows how meteorology relates to climatology, please raise a flipper.
Well, considering that metorology and climatology are within the same branch of atmospheric sciences-meteorology being a study of short-term atmospheric effects on geology and climatology being the study of long-term atmospheric effects on geology, I think even a layman can deduce the symbiance, here.
Besides, any day-to-day meteorological anomoly suddenly becomes a banner which the global warming crowd touts.
Ah, butx let us not get snotty, here :)
Point well taken - though not entirely accurate, since climatology is not simply atmospheric science, but also encompasses geological and oceanographic study as well, and deals with historical as well as present conditions.
The general public, on both sides of the issue, often don't know the difference. And, to be fair, the global non-warming crowd is just as bad about pointing to weather effects as "evidence" of their beliefs.
I guess what I find annoying is the continual suggestion that the issue is somehow "undecided", or worse, not happening at all, when it is the unambiguous and non-controversial conclusion of the field of climatology that human-caused global warming is a significant problem. There simply is no dissent in that field.
There is plenty of room for debate as to what is the right course of action, but to suggest "it ain't happenin'" is (IMNSHO) just silly.
Post a Comment