General Climate Discussion

[Jackal1]

So why can the weatherman do it better than you?

I have yet to see one who can.
Predicting day to day weather shouldn`t be much of a problem , especially with the technology used today, but it is completely off target most of the time.
It is also a far stretch from making 100 , 200, 250 year predictions.
You can`t predict the unpredictable.

[Angus]

I scratch my head and claim you wrong in all.
As with the boiling kettle, you can't tell where the first bubble forms, but you can predict that:
1: it will boil
2: roughly when.

But, alas, not simple enough. I am baffled that you don't get it, so I guess I'll have to find something else to predict....
BRB

[Jackal1]

I scratch my head and claim you wrong in all.

You are going to be doing a lot of head scratching in the future Angus. 
I`ll give you an example. As of 6:00 P.M. last night, the weather was predicted for here as Thunderstorms moving into the area
late in the evening with rain through the night and into the morning. No rain, no thunder blunders.
So much for the accuracy.

As with the boiling kettle, you can't tell where the first bubble forms, but you can predict that:
1: it will boil
2: roughly when.

It will still only boil the water in the pot, not the kitchen.
Very simple.

[Angus]

Yes indeed, very simple.
Why don't you go and make out big bucks as the weatherman?
You know, I sometimes prove to be more correct. But when the prediction is something big, it's normally something I cannot forsee, and normally turn out to be true.
BTW, the world's most important weather forecast was before D-Day...and the weather guy gave a report that was quite good.
You still do not seem to get the point, predicting something minor in an "infinately" big system is very much harder as foreseeing something major.
For the minors, there are too many factors. I can predict that we have days below the freezing point in January, I can also predict that it will not happen in July. But I cannot foresay if it's rainy or sunny 8 days from here........capiche?

[Jackal1]

It still remains the same. You cannot predict the unpredictable.
You cannot factor in the Unknowns, which are many, many.
Impossibility is an impossibility no matter how you try to look over it.
It cannot be done.
The best that can be done ,and that you use very often is IFs.
IF a rabbit had wings  his butt wouldn`t hit the ground so much.

[lazs2]

it won't boil at all if the wind blows out the fire or the gas runs out before it boils or an earthquake moves it off the stove.

In fact.. it will turn to solid ice if the temp in the room is cold enough and one of the above happens.

Or.. it might not.

in any case.. a pot of water on the stove is nothing like a complex global climate.. although.. the computer models these algore acolytes use are about as simplistic.

lazs

lazs

[Angus]

So you're stuck.
First look up the meaning of the word prediction.
Then look at your own words. You've glued yourselves to the statement that basically nothing can be predicted.
When it goes to the eather....a highly difficult factor to be precice about with location and time, predicting is tough, however vastly more correct than throwing a dice.
And getting to the kettle again, which seems to be a highly unpredictable and very doubtful for you to comprehend...well, I predict that my rice will boil tonight, or potatoes anyway.
I'll go as far as 99.9%. How's that?

[Holden McGroin]

Then look at your own words. You've glued yourselves to the statement that basically nothing can be predicted.
When it goes to the eather....a highly difficult factor to be precice about with location and time, predicting is tough, however vastly more correct than throwing a dice.

The precision of the data into the model is what I find difficult to accept.

When you figure the prehistorical temperature of say Reykavik, we need to take this data and that data and and don't forget the growth rings and ice cores, and of course what do the saga's reveal... and then you get 15.23 degrees average temperature in the year 1593.

Then you have to do this again for Darwin Australia, Manaus Brazil, Rangoon, Zanzibar, Dodge City Kansas, Lisbon, Irkutsk Siberia, and 45 other places, and add in some places away from any settlement, and then average them all together and somehow be within 1/2 degree celsius. 

My education in significant digits just doesn't jive with this precision.
 

[lazs2]

Ok angus..   I do finally get it...   You believe that the climate of the globe and it's causes are no more complex than you boiling water for tea.

lazs

[Angus]

No, and don't twist things.
It's you that state that since you cannot predict complex things down to detail, the big picture or total cannot be predicted/estimated.
So, you claim that since the weatherman cannot say how your local weather is going to be in one week, - or a day, he has no clue of the overall total, hence no reliability.
So, that is how I comprehend what you're saying and I challenge your logic with a thing much simpler, yet to complex, so I have to agree with Moray on this one, you do not seem to understand what you are talking about, say alone your own logic.
So try to twist around, the tactics are moronic basically....

[lazs2]

ah...  so, since the "science" has been around for 40 years or so...   It is safe to say that 40 years ago todays climate was predicted by those "scientists"

It is you who is twisting things.   You are taking a proven an observable and.. simplistic thing like boiling water and then using it to "prove" that the "scientists" of today can predict global climate 50 years from now.

A better example would be you adding a slight bit of heat to a pot of water on a 110 degree day at noon and predicting from that at what time the water will boil.   you would say.. for example.. it will boil in 10 hours.   You would have no idea how much gas you had available.. you would not take into account that the temp in the room would go down 50 degrees by then.. you would not take into account that someone would come home and either turn up or down the heat.

Your prediction would be as worthless as the long range forecasts we get now.

lazs

[AKIron]

Here's what I'm wondering, why the name change? Why was the looming catastrophe prosletyzed as Global Warming changed to Global Climate Change? Isn't this "climate change" supposedly the result of Global Warming?

Of course I have my own opinion about the name change based on the obvious but how do the doomsayers justify this?

[Baitman]

Here's what I'm wondering, why the name change? Why was the looming catastrophe prosletyzed as Global Warming changed to Global Climate Change? Isn't this "climate change" supposedly the result of Global Warming?

Of course I have my own opinion about the name change based on the obvious but how do the doomsayers justify this?

The news media is starting to worry that we might start into a cooling period and then all their credibility would be thrown out the window.

[Jackal1]

Here's what I'm wondering, why the name change? Why was the looming catastrophe prosletyzed as Global Warming changed to Global Climate Change? Isn't this "climate change" supposedly the result of Global Warming?

Of course I have my own opinion about the name change based on the obvious but how do the doomsayers justify this?

It`s a simple case of CYA.
A weak one, but about the only avenue they had left for a sure bet.
One chip on red and one on black.
Gotta run. I`m deep into experimentation on kitchen boiling. 

[Angus]

Take care, it might be to complicated for you.
Let us know if you succeed.