You were doing fine until …
Care to state the probability of this result? … better yet would be to post a link to the distribution curve … I’m genuinely curious as to what is most likely …
“May” is a weasel word, and shows your understanding of statistics is as meager as my own … climate is average weather, you can choose to divorce the two “climate has nothing to do with weather” … but then your rhetoric ignores little details, like what a divergent zone is and how it effects climate … and one must consider the validity of such a divorce …
I don’t claim superior understand of climatology, only that I’m slightly better informed about basic meteorology than the average poster here … perhaps as little as an appreciation of how dominate and profound the impact of Navier-Stokes equations has on all these discussions …
Care to tell us whether 3°C in 100 years is a big deal?
Ha ha.
I also have to notice that him reaching to claim that he has a better understanding of Navier Stokes equations is not so impressive when one notices that climate scientists use those equations in their modelings. Finding climate scientists that are ignoring those equations is what is hard to do.
The point here is that one can report to know more about an item like an equation, but it is harder to show that scientists are using it to disparage the current state of the science, as in published articles showing that thanks to those equations scientists that are telling us that the issue cannot be ignored are wrong. No such luck for the ones trying to reach for FUD.
And on top of that what, what those equations are helping us to realize is not the issue at hand, the issue is the confidence we should have for the record of past temperatures. Not the simulations of what it is likely to happen.