If you can't accurately see a week ahead how do you think you can see a century ahead?
Plus the long range predictions have never come true. So far they have proven to be just meaningless scare tactics with no validity.
Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos."
How many times are we going to have to hear the cry of 'WOLF!' in order to know that the greenies don't scientifically have any validity? How much more garbage will we have to eat in order to come to a reasonable conclusion?
Here is an example:
Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."
So you see the greenie science is flawed and when it is pointed out to the heads of the movement, they merely ignore proven scientific procedures and go on without any change of course other than a change in language.
We are not skeptical because you can't accurately predict the weather, but you can't even accurately predict anything.
You do raise a good question. What can we expect from the climate models? Perhaps five years is asking too much. What about ten years or 15?
At some point, rational people will be asking for evidence that the millions they spent in taxpayer dollars shows something. There is accountability. At some point the modelers must be fired if their models don't agree with reality.
Possibly because of a lack of good understanding of statistical probability and the global nature of the work climatologists do versus the more local and short term forecasting meteorologists do. The more data there is to work with, the more refined the long term implications become, but as that data is revealed the probability of a given outcome increases and at a certain juncture becomes relatively more reliable.
I don't know of a simpler way to put it. So I will go on and doubtless run afoul of another serial killer gaffe...
On a simpler level it's like a deck of cards where, as more and more cards are turned face up the probability of a given card being next in the deck increases. However, when it comes to weather there is not a finite or constant number of variables (cards) to work with. So a climatologist looks at a certain subset of variables over a large area for a long period of time and is able to say with a measured degree of accuracy that if X events occur there is a probability that the result will be Y over Z period of time.
It would be nice to know more about modeling and how the variables that are entered impact the outcomes over a given period of time, but it seems pretty straightforward that different variables in any model are going to have effects on the outcomes, so experimentally speaking I would expect that no single model would be accurate because each makes certain assumptions and the conglomerate analysis gives the statistical likelihood of an outcome occurring over a broader area and longer period of time rather than the short time periods and smaller local areas and regions that weather forecasting focuses on. Nonetheless, the probability of another outcome is always reflected in the prediction, and like an election, there is always the chance that the guy you don't like is going to get into office. This doesn't mean that pollsters are also hoaxters. Things happen...the best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley, y'know.
The fact that media makes its living on attracting our rapt attention makes it statistically less probable that the headlines are going to focus on outcomes 500 years in the future which rely on factors such as the general population continuing to use fossil fuels at the current rate. Rather, they're going to focus on Joe Blow says New York City will be underwater if we don't change our ways. And some people freak out...some moaning about the poor drowning people and others trumpeting their unassailable right to self determination. In the middle ground there are going to be folks who are relatively calm and seeking solutions based on what we DO know while the extremists on either side of the argument make a whole lot of noise, try to undermine the opposition view and call each other names. We all give in to it from time to time but the fact is that as more information becomes available, we need to react incrementally rather than thinking the solution is to etch our opinions in stone, which ultimately can mean winning by losing. Some trump card that is. .
There are many factors which affect global temperatures besides CO2 levels. The sun goes through 10 year cycles, but we understand those fairly well and they are predictable. The Earth's rotation goes through various cycles, some of which even cause ice ages at regular intervals, and those are understood quite well also. What science can't always predict, though, are various climate interactions occurring on the Earth itself. A large amount of cold water coming to the surface of the Ocean can affect global temperatures for a year, even 5 or 10 years. The well known El Nino/La Nina cycles are one example of this, but there are other cycles at work in the Ocean's temperatures as well. All these factors are quite confusing to people who aren't scientists, are climate denialists use this to their advantage. The denialists themselves never really have to explain anything, their strategy is only to confuse people and attack the scientists who actually do attempt to provide explanations and make sense of it all.
What we do know with absolute certainty is that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas. We know exactly how much additional heat gets reflected down to Earth's surface at any given level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and there is even a mathematical formula for it: ΔF = α Ln(C/C0). Current CO2 levels are causing an additional 1.6 watts per square meter of heat to be reflected back to Earth's surface, as opposed to pre-industrial levels. This amounts to about a 1% more energy than naturally reaches the Earth's surface from the sun itself. None of what I've said so far about CO2 levels is debated by any scientists at all, it's based on math and the laws of physics. The only thing that's up for debate is how this affects the Earth's climate. It's not that hard to figure out that this should be causing the Earth to heat up in the long term. Are we going to keep delaying action until Miami is under water, or are we going to take action now?
You want me to believe a theory that can't be proven?
With proof comes accurate predictions.
I haven't seen those 2 happen.
I'll stay with the Farmers Almanac. At least it's about 50% accurate.
No we don't expect anyone to predict weather more than 10 days forward, but we expect climate models to predict at least a trend in climate, otherwise what is the point in having them.
I think a mean temperature forecast 5 years in the future is not really forecasting the weather. As far a I know, the only ones that forecast "weather" more than about one month in advance are crackpots and the Old Farmer's Almanac, and the Old Farmer's Almanac is not even close to be accurate from what I've seen.
It WOULD be better if the climate models were more accurate in the interannual to decadal time period. With more observations, more memory and faster computers, I think we will get there Nevertheless I think they're the best guess we've got right now. The alternatives are (1) climatology and (2) persistence. Climatology does not work because clearly this is a warmer world than it was 50 years ago, and that has to be taken into account. Over the past few years, persistence may have worked better on a year-to-year basis, but certainly not on a decade-to-decade basis. Climatology and Persistence are also fundamentally brain dead ways of forecasting, since they ignore physics. They are quite clearly inferior these days for short-term weather forecasting, and I believe persistence will be surpassed for short-term climate forecasting, and there's no reason at all to think it will work in the long term
Over decadal time periods there really is no alternative to climate models. Even at their level of inaccuracy they are still our "best guess" at future climate. If someone had an alternative they would bring it forward, and they haven't.
The NSA is focusing it efforts on Making sure U recycle.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky8x0ykF_t...
What was once a silly spoof is coming to life.
Here's the articles
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/2...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/2...
http://offgridsurvival.com/dhsgreenpolic...
Global Warming is a hoax. The earth has been cooling for the last 15 years.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/23/global-co...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...
We're overdue for a ice age.
The sun controls the earths temperature. Not Co2 emmisions. And if you have more Co2 plants need less water which leads to a higher h20 air contents which means no desertification and the receding of desert land.
will the SUN come up today, as it always has?
weather predictions are based on probability. read a book on atmospheric science or meteorology,and see the different things which affect the weather, including the earth sciences and the ocean sciences.
We don't expect them to be accurate because we believe they are overstating their position.
I've seen several posts (both questions and answers) that seem to contain the general theme of "Since climate scientists can't accurately predict what temperatures will be in 5 years, AGW is a hoax"
But, would we actually *expect* that? If not, can someone explain in simple terms why not? Any other thoughts?
Durrr, are you serious? You propose to reshape the global and geopolitical world economy upon predictions of doom , yet simultaneously don't want to offer a simple prediction for a short term time period?? I shouldn't have to point out to you the lack of logic by adopting this stance
NGDCs .. Maybe Climatologists can not incorporate the nuclear energy factors from hunger / fasting etc etc along with Patience in its minute details .. :O ..
.. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index... ..
if you can't prove a theory then what's left to believe, unicorns?
Ian? Is that you? I heard you got injured pretty badly, are you OK?
These people have the same mentality as conspiracy theorists ie they are too dumb to understand how dumb they are being.
Simple minds demand simple answers.
Ignorance
The simple terms are that you mistakenly use the word "think" in your question. Echo chambers and copy machines do not think.
Climate change deniers are dim-witted people. They do not believe if physics.
People who are not dim-witted and who actually believe in the laws of nature do not deny climate change.
There is no exception.
