[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I already explained to you that this logic is WRONG. The relevant figure is the average global temperature. Changes in the average global temperature combine increases in some places with decreases in other places. Looking at a single local temperature, like Greenland, DOES NOT TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. It's like saying that global inflation must be 200% if the price of a single good doubles.

[/ QUOTE ]

But "global average temperature" ultimately is useless as a predictor of the effects of GW, since the predicted disasterous effects are local phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. The impacts on local temperatures of global changes in the average temperature can be modelled.

[ QUOTE ]
If temperate climates increase 1.5 degrees and frigid climates decrease .5 degrees the global average went up 1 degree but GW has no immediate material impact.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you say that?

[ QUOTE ]
If the local temperature changes were measurable (which you've just conceded they aren't)

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
then the models would have to be able to sort through the complexities of the propogation of local effects to distant areas. They aren't that good.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asserting that the models "aren't that good", which is your subjective assessment of the models so I can't argue with that. It is definitely true at the chaotic-dynamic effects of changes in climate conditions is a real challenge to constructing a model. This is a fair criticism. But it doesn't lend any credibility to the hand-waving argument that since Greenland got colder global warming isn't happening.