Who is more accurate. A scientist predicting the age of the earth, or one prediction the weather next week?

Question

That should read predicting.

Answer 1

Both are a guess.

Answer 2

You can easily notice that all of the warmer answers are BS crap that they think they can fool everyone with. They act as if it is easier to predict the climate 100 years from now, than the weather 24 hours from now. Clearly this is stupidity in action. The overall climate is affected by many things that we have no current way of measuring, including changes to the ocean currents. Now their thought is that they can use a physical model instead of a statistical model. Their logic for this, is that if the amount of energy going in and going out of the system is known, then the overall effect to the temps will also be known. I actually agree with this point, but disagree that they are known. they are currently missing 30% of the heat. They don't know where it went! This is why a statistical model is appropriate. There is a large amount of uncertainty, and statistical models quantify uncertainty. The reason they do not like statistical models is that they are well aware that if they look at the problem using a statistical model, that the uncertainty is high enough that warming may not even be shown. They do not know the effects of clouds, (even whether or not they are negative or positive feedbacks. They do not know the effect of the oceans. They are simply guessing at the temperature sensitivity to CO2, based upon paleoclimate data, that 1.) Assumes all correlation is causation 2.) Does not even match with current temp records The only reason that the scientists are claiming the certainty that they are claiming is that they KNOW that no one wants to pay a scientist to say "I don't know". They are in a tough position, in which the world is asking them for answers and they are giving their best guesses. THey do not want to look stupid by admitting that it is their best guess. While this works for most people, SOme people who know what is going on, think it is absolutely foolish to pretend as if your guesses are actually reality. I, What are your qualifications? Clearly the poster never said anything about denying AGW, and most of your answer clearly does not address the question. So perhaps one of the things you might want to add to your qualifications to respond would be at least a second grade level of reading comprehension, cause you are certainly not demonstrating this.

Answer 3

Well he's not predicting the age of the earth, he's talking about the past: how old the earth is. That's not a prediction. However your point is still good.
Scientists have proved beyond all doubt that the earth is exactly X billion years old, and that man has been on earth for Z million years. Then 2 years later scientists prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is even older, and that man has been either more or less time on the earth than was first said. Then a couple of years later, we hear more infallible proofs, with another age to the earth. But if you dare to contradict them - well, you won't be burned at stake, but you will be considered to be an ignoramus!
And those who don't agree with them are the "bigotted narrow-minded people".

Answer 4

The age of the earth is estimated not predicted and is most likely off a few million years. The weather is predicted by sophisticated equipment that is quite accurate at the range of one week. So, weather prediction of the very near future is by far the most accurate.

Answer 5

You mean estimating not predicting.

The scientist measuring the age of the earth is probably more accurate. This is because the phenonon used to estimate earth's age is more linear than the complex unstable calculations involved on predicting the weather.

Answer 6

The age of the earth is not a prediction. It is the solution to multiple direct and indirect scientific hypothesis tests.

Also, since the age of the earth is fixed and not part of an ongoing complex dynamic system, its ‘answer’ may, in some sense, be considered more accurate.

Answer 7

Predicting the age of the earth would be more accurate. The earth's age is something stable while the weather is a static, ever-changing system.

Answer 8

You don't "predict" the age of Earth, you calculate it, and that has already been done. You can predict the weather, but calculating the age of Earth is more likely to be accurate, because the accuracy of a weather forecast depends upon events that have yet to occur.

Answer 9

How could somebody predict the age of the earth?

We are able to estimate the age of the earth and in various ways. Astronomers, geologists, chemists and biologists all agree. The earth is billions of years old. These predictions are based on tests that are repeatable and falsifiable.

Answer 10

Interesting question. The geological data for the Earth's age is quite substantive compared to how the weather may fair next week. So I will go with the Earth's age.

Answer 11

Chaos theory. Google it. (By the way, the age of the Earth is not a prediction. Kind of like how you can easily "predict" the weather 100 years ago.)

Great thanks.

By the way, if you pray hard enough, will God tell you the future weather?