Scientists Don't know enough about how the earth's climate works to make a long term prediction like GW?

Question

If you go back a decade or two back when the weather reports were on and they tried to predict the wheather they were a lot more modest and didn't really think they could turn up 100% accurate predictions. Now look at today, the climate scientists think they are 100% right, shouldn't they be a bit more modest? doubt their own work? cause we can't make a prediction like GW without knowing enough about how our earth's climate system works to make such a long term prediction, Especially because you said it was a NATURAL proccess that is gradual. Can't put my finger on it but theres a word for when you think your right even though it could be wrong.........pride? ego? forgot lol

Answer 1

As others have said, you must distinguish between weather and climate.

Weather is much more chaotic than climate. Climate is the average of weather over a 30 year period.  A simple example would be that it's very hard to predict the temperature at (say) 1749 57th street, Seattle, WA at 8:47 AM on September 27th, 2008.  But it's quite easy to accurately predict the average temperature for the entire month of September, 2008 in Washington state.  The prediction won't be perfect, but it will be quite close.

Climate scientists definitely don't think they are 100% right.  That's why you'll read ranges of estimates (e.g. 1.7 - 4 C warming by 2100).  And the climate scientists disagree on specific details all the time. The scientific literature is full of such debates.  But on the basic principles of global warming there is a vast amount of collaborative evidence from numerous scientists all over the world. So clearly they are justified in being confident in that.

The thing to keep in mind is that while scientists don't know everything about climate, they do know quite a lot.  And what they do know confidently shouldn't be dismissed just because they can't answer every detailed question to everyone's satisfaction. We have to act based on the best available information, which in this case is that: global warming is happening, humans are primarily responsible for it, there will be significant consequences if we allow our greenhouse emissions to continue to grow.

Answer 2

I throw cat bones on the table so i can read the future weather

Answer 3

At the same time, skeptics will see the tiny amount of evidence, collected by scientists, that Mars or Pluto are undergoing climate change as proof that man is not a cause. The old "let's blame the sun" misdirection, while ignoring the mountain of evidence collected regarding Earth. That's called cherry-picking.

BTW...scientists don't think they are 100% correct. You said that.

Answer 4

dude,it is all computer generated bullshit ! like a video game that programs the outcome ,get it ! http://globalwarmingheartland.org

Answer 5

Consider the math required to average the world temperature. It is hard to look at the weather ch. temperature in the Dallas area and they are all over the place. So I think that anything that is Global is a LIE,which the Left is propagating.If they are successful there will not be a working class. Don't let them take your freedom from U.

Answer 6

Still not understanding the science, Michael? Or deliberately distorting the truth?

Weather is not the same as climate. They are connected but about as much as agricultural science is connected to nutritional medicine.

NO climate scientist has ever claimed they are 100% right or that they can predict things with 100% accuracy (I notice you never give sources when spouting this rubbish). All predictions are coached in probability terms and/or ranges (of temperature, seal level rise, etc).

Trying to compare science of today and science of the past ("go back a decade or two"), no matter what discipline is just plain silly - it assumes that there is no such thing as progress.

Your concluding argument (that it is gradual) is based on the fact that "you said it was a NATURAL proccess" - who is this  'you' who suddenly appears?? You talking to me...?

We know from your previous questions that you have already stuck your head in the sand, don't want to listen and do not comprehend the science, the theories, the facts or even the plain English used in climate change reports, but please, if you're going to ask a question, do so rather than simply ranting and exposing us all to your outdated and dangerous opinions.

Answer 7

Climate is not weather.  Weather is unpredictable because it's a complex system that is highly variable and chaotic.

Energy flows at the planetary scale are somewhat easier to predict.  If the energy going out doesn't equal the energy going in, some energy is trapped and the planet heats up.  

We know that CO2 traps outgoing heat (infrared radiation).  We know that we've added significant amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.  We haven't witnesses this degree of change before and we don't have a laboratory planet to perform tests on, so sure we're left with computer models and estimates and they're probably not going to be 100% accurate.  But we do know that whether the temperature rise is 5 degrees or 10 degrees, we're going to have some very bad times.  It would be nice if we could we knew it would be 3.4 degrees hotter in 2020 and not 5.4 degrees, but it really doesn't matter.

Where most of the variation comes into play is the heat storage and tgransfer capacity fo the oceans, and the periodic changes in upwelling currents in them that bring cold water to the surface.  Oceans cover 3/4 of the earth's surface, they're the greatest heat sink, and their currents have irregular current cycles, "oscillations", that affect temperatures for a few years (El Nino Southern Oscillaiton) to a few decades (Arctic Oscillation).  So it's not possible to perfectly predict exactly when or exactly how much those currents will affect a given year, but if the planet is not letting heat out due to more CO2, that heat is still trapped and temperatures will march upward over time, even if some of that heat temporarily is offest by cool ocean currents.  In fact, as cool water is upwelling in one place you can be sure that warm water is flowing down to fill its place, and over the long run the oceans warm and acidify.  During the Permian-Triassic Extinction that process killed the vast majority of all marine life.

You'll see a lot of discussion over details on this site such as whether temperature stations are completely accurate or whether or not the different levels of the atmosphere are reacting exactly as expected, but the bottom line is that in addition to our measurements of increased greenhouse gases and our measurements of increased temperatures (a 120+ year trend), and in addition to past warmings that were associated with greenhouse gases in the earth's past, and in addition to the melting glaciers and ice caps, we've now measured the energy imbalance of the planet, confirming in yet another way that the earth is warming:

Earth's Energy Out of Balance: The Smoking Gun for Global Warming

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Imbal...

Surely it's not "arrogance" or "ego" for scientists to report these independent findings that all point to global warming being a very real and present problem for us.

Thanks for encouraging rational discussion on this topic.

Answer 8

I have NEVER mocked you, but I have answered your questions respectfully.

Predicting short term weather is actually harder than predicting long term climate.  The weather data is "noisy", the climate data much smoother.  This graph shows it clearly.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Year to year, things jump around a lot, due to weather.  Take the 5 year average (the red line) and you see the climate change.

It's common in science for short term behavior to be noisy, while long term behavior is predictable.  Radioactivity is another example.

These statements are flat wrong.

"The government has been paying these people to find a problem not solutions. [ That's just wacked ]"

Wrong.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.h...

"Even now the race is on to rename GW to climate change as the predictions of doom & gloom are not coming true."

Wrong.  To scientists it's ALWAYS been "climate change".  The term "global warming" was invented in the 1980s by a REPORTER for a story.  It's use never had any scientific significance.

Answer 9

Actually, the issue is clouded when we think of short term meteorology as being the same as climatology. The reality is that the two are not synonomous.

Meteorology has increased in its precision and accuracy because of advances in meteorological data acquisition and interpretation.

Climatology also looks at long term trends, which allows for the more accurate ascertaining of information with a sacrific for precision.

The reality is that we know a great deal about the earth's climate, and that is why there is concern. It is misinformation that fuels the debate against anthropogenic global warming.

The reason that many scientists do not doubt their work, is because it is supported by others, and man is inherently defensive. Many scientists are afraid to express doubts in their work these days because disinformationists such as Rush Limbaugh will take your doubts and turn it into your admission that you are wrong.

You are right to question science, but you must also question those that would emphatically push you in the opposite direction.