Is there a pre-Global Warming temperature conversion formula?

It is always baffling to me that the ignoramuses, despite having it explained to them many times, somehow are incapable of understanding the simple concept of average global temperature.
Global warming means that this very average global temperature is evidentially (as in, HAS BEEN FUCKING MEASURED) rising.
It does not mean that it gets warmer everywhere at the same rate, because the complexity of climate means that the rise of the global average temperature can wreak havoc in different parts of the world and cause local spikes in either direction.

And me without my popcorn.

There’s no reason you couldn’t take any global climate model, plug in some parameters… initial climate conditions (you’d have to decide what temperatures you wish to use as a starting point… would it be from 50 years ago? 500 years ago? 5000 years ago?) then whatever variables you see as appropriate to remove the effects of the anthropogenic climate change that we all know is happening (so keep the CO2 levels constant, for example, but there would be many such items on the list), then run it forwards to today’s date… and repeat many, many, many times. You’d end up with a coarse estimate of what the temperature might be. Not in your garage. Maybe in your state or your continent.

This is, after all, what predictive climate models do. They take what we know from observation, then use what we know about physical processes to model an outcome based on statistical probability.

In a way, yes there is, because NOAA consolidated 6,000 temperature stations around the globe into 1,500 and used an algorithm to smooth out the data. So there’s an algorithm out there somewhere.

NOAA link

There isn’t as I’m sure you’re aware. Climate change works on averages. You can throw a one even with a weighted dice. Climate change is resulting in more extreme weather however like the freakish cold you are getting in the States just now and the freakish wet weather we are getting in the UK

@ragingloli

I know what you mean.
Those ignoramuses always seem to screw it up for the smart folks.
It’s sort of like a law of nature.

The theory of global warming predicts warmer summers and colder winters. This is because climate change causes weather to become more extreme on average. As such, the premise of the question is ill-conceived.

I thought the “Global Warming” hoax was ripped apart years ago…

@DWW25921
Just like the moon-landing~

No really… I mean, wasn’t it debunked though? I thought it was.

No, it was not.

Actually, the climate models that seem most reliable predict just what has happened. Because warming stirs the pot, ocean currents, sea ice concentration and jet streams all get displaced. That’s dragged the frigid air that normally caps the North Pole down over Canada and the US. Last year, it was Europe and Russia that got the same. As cold and snowy as winter storm Hercules got, it’s just one more indication that we are fouling up the climate with excessive CO2 emissions.

Expect to see more extremes of every kind. That means more searing heat waves, drier droughts, wetter rainy spells with the flooding and mudslides that brings, bigger storms that do far more damage than we are used to, and Arctic blasts that drive blizzards and ice storms. We are on track to warm by 4ºC (7.2ºF) by 2100 just from CO2 release. If that triggers a massive melting of methane clathrates all bets are off on how bad it gets. Methane is 75 times as effective as CO2 in its greenhouse effect. But that’s all stupid science. Who needs science when ideology makes anything you want be true?

Silly @josie, surely you know better: It’s all predicted!

No matter what the weather climate does, it all fits somebody’s model, so it’s all predicted and it’s all Bush’s fault, too. “The climate models that seem most reliable” is a contradiction in terms. There are no climate models that are at all “reliable” in terms of predicting actual outcomes (much less predicting “weather”, which is still more art than science), but somebody’s model, within the wide range of predictions that have been made (and generally disproven) will once in a while have a data point fall within its predicted curve, and this is trumpeted as “accuracy in modeling”. Then the model will be shelved until another data point somehow manages to land within the wide range of “predicted outcomes” and more headlines will ensue. There is no such thing as “a reliable climate model”, for starters.

The fact is that climate is so hugely complex and our observations are so rudimentary (and few, given that we’re talking about global scale here) and prone to error and falsification, and our models themselves are so weak, given how little we actually know about what makes ice ages and interglacial periods happen (because every ice age and warming event until now positively cannot have been anthropomorphical, and yet ice ages and warming periods have happened before in Earth’s history) that all we can tell with some degree of certainty is that some warming seems to be happening in some parts of the planet’s atmosphere and ground. Even that much knowledge is not as certain as some would like to believe, because there have been problems with the processes used to gather the data – so even that knowledge is not a slam-dunk certainty.

We also know that humans have made changes to the atmosphere. Yes, that is also pretty certain. But whether the human-caused changes to the atmosphere have actually caused “climate change” is up for debate – among the scientists who still practice, you know, science.

@josie what a relief! I’m so glad you made this clever observation. It’s cold outside your house, so the expert consensus on global climate change is what, just like, a big oopsie? Thanks for enlightening us!!!!

“Global Warming” doesn’t mean that everywhere is always warmer. That’s why the more correct term is “Climate Change”. The overall worldwide average may be warmer but locally, weather gets more extreme: warmer when it’s warm, colder when it’s cold. More rainy, more windy, more violent storms. Without climate change your winter would likely have been milder, not colder.

I’d like the see the moderated answer(s).

@CWOTUS If anyone should know better, it’s you. Disagree with the science all you want, but don’t pretend to be ignorant of the method. Global warming is a theory. Any model of it must contain a set of specific predictions to count as a model of global warming. So while their predictions need not be precisely the same in all details, they must all be consistent with the theory. Otherwise, they are models of something else. Note also that models of global warming do not even pretend to predict the weather. They predict patterns of extreme weather frequency, but not the weather itself. And finally, the standard in science is not “slam-dunk certainty” (nor any properly operationalized notion thereof). Science is inductive, which makes certainty impossible. This is as true for the theories you like as it is for the theories you dislike. Thus your entire argument reduces to an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

I might as well point out also that global warming has been a scientific theory since before either Bush was president. As such, your attempt to drag in the Republican’s persecution complex is both irrelevant and laughable.

@josie Moderators will restore off-topic posts upon request when threads are moved from General to Social, but they don’t restore posts that wouldn’t be appropriate anywhere (e.g., spam or personal attacks).

One primary driver of the extreme weather is the slowing of the jet stream. This also isn’t completely well understood, but is likely caused by Arctic amplification

As the Arctic warms dramatically (5°C on average if my memory serves me correctly) the temperature difference between the Arctic and lower latitudes decreases, and weakens the jet steam—It’s something like 14% slower than in previous decades.

Roughly speaking, the jet stream divides the warm front from the south from the cold front from the north. As the jet stream slows, its waves stretch father south and north, and becomes more “locked” in its pattern—resulting in more prolonged cold or warm weather.

Just curious @josie, did you actually graduate from high school? In order to understand climate and weather you need more than the basic arithmetic operations. Yes, 17 minus 2 equals 15. But the topics you are discussing here require different sets of formulas, which they don’t show you on Fox.

Climate change deniers are like chimps who have learned to count. That’s not good enough to save our atmosphere. We need the human mind to move forward.