Tim, all of these models are based on the assumption that we are in a state of beneficial equilibrium _now_ or at least recently. Such prognostications also invariably fail to account for the adaptability of human innovation and resilience and always fail to give nature credit for adaptability as well. This has always been a weak link in the environmentalist world view. It always fixes on a certain state of being and seeks to preserve it at that chosen point. In other words, in the 1770s during the mini ice age a prediction of higher temperatures would have been greeted as salvation. As it turns out, due to unknowns which they (western Europe, North America) could not foresee (and even with our tech, neither could we) the mini ice age was directly responsible for hugely beneficial events and changes for the world at large. The problem with so much of the global warming models is that they are derived by people, scientists, our modern day priests, who openly hold political ideologies that are anti-capitalist and pro wealth re-distribution. Their models invariably support their ideological dreams. And since models are not pure science they are easily shaped. This conflict of interest, failure to account for beneficial outcomes and the polarized way in which this science is reported on have greatly damaged the credibility of climate science whether you are a ’believer’ or a ’skeptic’. Of course the main thing that damages credibility in climate models is that they routinely and predictably fail to predict the weather accurately for TOMORROW. |
n80 Of course the main thing that damages credibility in climate models is that they routinely and predictably fail to predict the weather accurately for TOMORROW.This is where your reasoning falls apart. First, climate and weather are really two different things. Second: Short-term weather forecasts are remarkably accurate. Accurately forecasting tomorrow’s weather is a trivial task today. Of course, television forecasters are typically focused on showbiz and ratings; they’re not to be entirely trusted. But real meteorologists - such as the ones who work for the National Weather Service - have an outstanding record of accuracy. |
@cleeds First off, the reference to short term forecasts was in jest. Second, the accuracy of short term forecasts depends on how you define 'short term' and how you define accurate. And while you might describe it as 'remarkably accurate' it is rather common, around here, for it to be utterly wrong. A prediction of 10% chance of rain and an actual occurrence of two hours of heavy rain might be considered 'accurate'....unless you are planning an outdoor wedding.The point being that you can be accurate most of the time and utterly inaccurate the rest. And these forecasts are based on computer models. The question is how much do you put at stake with computer models? For tomorrow or the next decade? Longer term forecasting (6-12 months) has proven to be if-y at best. Hurricane season predictions have been a joke for the last 10 years. When I was in the Air Force at a coastal base there was a large glass window looking over the flight line in the flight-ops area. Someone had used masking tape to frame a box on the window. Below it was written "Accu-View Weather window.....as a joke about how variable the forecasting accuracy was. |
