How can they say that?

Question

How can anyone say that in a hundred years the climate will change to this extent or to that extent? Global warming advocates are most guilty of this but recently so is the global cooling side. This is arrogant beyond belief. Everyone who has ever watched the news knows that weather cannot be predicted accuratly into the next 12 hours, so why do these people think they can tell us how the weather will be in the year 2107? This questions is not pro or anti global warming, it is just a heads up to people not to believe what you hear from the media or certain enviromental groups about the future of Earth's climate.

Answer 1

There is a difference between predicting specific weather events compared to the probabilities that such events will occur. Compare with playing cards in Las Vegas. The house won't be able to predict which hand you will get or who will win in a certain hand. However, the probabilities is on their side and they ensure that they( the House) will win in the long-term. In the same way it can be said what the trends will lead to over longer periods.

""Even though climate is chaotic, with weather states impossible to predict in detail more than a few days ahead, there is a predictable impact of anthropogenic forcing on the probability of occurrence of the naturally-occurring climatic regimes.

In our chaotic climate, it is impossible (indeed meaningless) to try to attribute a specific (eg severe) weather event to anthropogenic global warming. Hence, it is a false dichotomy to suppose that some recently-occurring drought or flood is either on the one hand caused by global warming, or on the other hand is merely due to natural climate variability.

Rather, the correct way to address such an issue is to ask instead whether anthropogenic climate change will increase or decrease the probability of occurrence of the type of drought or flood which we (or journalists pursuing some weather story provoked by a recent drought or flood) are interested. Such probabilities can be obtained, for example, from the JSC/CLIVAR Working Group on Climate Modelling's multi-model ensemble, made for the IPCC fourth assessment report.

In a chaotic climate, one cannot expect the time-series of global temperature to increase monotonically under the impact of anthropogenic climate change. Hence, for example, global mean temperatures were especially warm in 1998 because of the occurrence of a substantial El-Niño event. By the bullet above, it is meaningless to attribute the 1998 El-Niño event to global warming. Only by looking over long enough periods of time can one see the trend in global mean temperature due to anthropogenic climate change, above the "noise" of climatic variability."

This means that there is no predectibility for specific events, but the trends can be predicted.
Hope this helps.

Answer 2

You are absolutely right. The global warming crowd cannot predict what will happen in 100 years. And the skeptics don't have proof that the climate won't be even WARMER than predicted. We have the ability to measure very long trends - in the ranges of thousands and tens of thousands of years - but we do not yet have the accuracy to reliably predict the climate in the centurial or decadal ranges. Regardless of what the alarmists may tell you, the computer models cannot even accurately predict the past, much less the future. The computer models cannot even predict each other.

Some alarmists point out to Hansen's famous prediction in 1988 that fit very closely back in 1998 and say, "See, we CAN predict the future correctly." Of course they don't really emphasize that this was only one - the middle - of three predictions. So with a broad brush he was able to get in the ballpark over a short time. Fast forward the same prediction to today and we find that the same "accurate" prediction now has over 100% error. The more dire prediction is absurdly too high, and the more conservative prediction - based on us "arresting" fossil fuel use - is STILL ~60% TOO HIGH.

But to the scientists credit, many are still in the process of readjusting models. Each revision of the IPCC has predictions adjusted lower. Many of the web sites and the claims you hear from Alarmists here and in the media regurgitate these old predictions. You see some of the alarmists like Bob or Dana actually calling the IPCC predictions TOO "optimistic" (but if a skeptic ever questions the IPCC...then, their findings are "irrefutable").
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At0JQeuM4zJ9SkSF64oeARUjzKIX?qid=20070807150713AAbb45q

Answer 3

Theory, I guess.
Well, I think what they base it on is how the Earth's climate has changed in the past, based on extensive research.
I look at it like this: if a balloon is inflated very slowly with air at X rate until it bursts, it will take Y amount of time before it bursts.
Now, the faster balloon is inflated, the less time it would take to burst, (theoretically, of course).
Because of research, science knows that Earth's climate changes, and they have an idea of how fast based on the amount of greenhouse gases were present when the changes took place.
Global warming makes weather much harder to predict, since the balance is going out of wack. It was easier to predict the weather 50 years ago. We may have induced 3k years of global warming in 20 years.
Global cooling can happen because of the elimination of sunlight. This can happen fast, in seconds, as proven by frozen mammoths found frozen while standing. It is brought on by global warming. In the past, scientists found, global warming was caused by global volcanic eruptions - too much heat and ash coupled with clouding (evaporation of water).
The earth is warming at a faster rate than what the volcanos caused, if we don't slow it down, we may not survive the ice age that it will bring.
FYI, in the 1980's scientists predicted exactly what's happening now - and they said that if we continue pumping greenhouse gases at that rate, we would cause a situation where we will be subjected to the next ice age. That situation is the global warming(runaway greenhouse effect). The current observed amount of CO2 (338ppm) exceeds the geological record of CO2 maxima (~300 ppm @ 800k years) from ice core data. So, it's logical to say that we will be at the end of our current warming very very soon, and nature will promptly enter a million+ year ice age to balance out.
What is most arrogant is that some people want to believe that nothing dangerous is happening, and that inaction is the best choice.
People are quick to believe that smoking is hazardous to one's health, among other things. How did they ever come to that conclusion - people have been smoking for thousands of years, and humans are still here. Did you know that apples are poisonous? I don't think it hurts more to TRY to find a solution than to do nothing.
In any event, you can always think for yourself.

Answer 4

The weather is simply what the atmosphere is doing at a certain place at a certain time. It is highly chaotic and almost impossible to predict with a high degree of accuracy.

The climate, on the other hand, is the average weather for a given area. It too is quite variable but comparatively easy to predict.

It is analogous to rolling a pair of dice. I can't know what number might come up in one, two, or even ten rolls, because it will essentially be random. However, since some numbers are far more likely to be rolled than others, it is perfectly possible to predict what the =average= roll will be.

This is all irrelevant of course, because global warming theory makes predictions based upon physical laws. it doesn't attempt to extrapolate future trends from past ones. When you see a scientist giving a range of projected outcomes for future warming, the ranges are due to the results of different emissions scenarios (say, a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases being released), not uncertainty in the projection.

Answer 5

Global warming or not (I think not), you can somewhat predict the weather in advance, but only in general terms. The Old Farmer's Almanac has been published annually since 1792.

From wikipedia: To calculate the Almanac's weather predictions, Thomas studied solar activity, astronomy cycles and weather patterns and used his research to develop a secret forecasting formula, which is still in use today. Other than the Almanac's prognosticators, few people have seen the formula. It is kept in a black tin box at the Almanac offices in Dublin, New Hampshire.

Answer 6

Exactly. No one can predict the future. The believers are turning into a militant faction that demands acceptance of their views. I wish they just show us that they are right by predicting the climate 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years out and show us how they came to those results. Once they do that, then how could anyone be a doubter?

Except that isn't what is happening. What is expected is that we believe their word just because that's what they believe. They offer no proof except an explanation of past trends. And they have the arrogance to proclaim that the only proof they can offer is knowledge of what will occur hundreds of years away. Near predictions aren't possible and are inaccurate and can't be done. Only long term predictions are accurate. Right.

Answer 7

You may want to look into a book called Climate Crash - it's heavy - but it talks about the history of and the science of Paleoclimatology - which tracks the history of climate and how they've set up their predictive models to help predict what future climate and weather might be.

Answer 8

It's much easier to predict long term climate than short term weather.

Especially now that man made greenhouse gases are the major factor in climate. Proof, from the actual data:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

I do agree that people should not trust the media about this.

They should trust scientists who are united in saying that global warming is real, and mostly man made. Proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

EDIT - A near life experience - There is no real controversy in the scientific community about the anthropogenic basis of global warming. Proof given above.

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

There is significant controversy about some of the details, but not about the fact that man made greenhouse gases are the major cause. Even Richard Lindzen has given up on that one, because of the overwhelming data. He just thinks a miracle will save us.

Answer 9

global warming is statistically true, global warming caused by humans is re-diculous!!

it started with the end of the ice age and continues on its natural cycle.

dont for get the statistics gathered by humans is fallible to within +- 4% which would wipe out the whole theory of human cause any way.

dont for get the missing data. during the collapse of the soviet union the russian siberian collection centers did not report temp. this skewed the results too hot.

recent data shows it going back the other way.

Answer 10

because they have been studying weather for centuries they can predict by seeing how much hotter the earth is getting every year. they are also seeing on average how much the world produces greenhouse gasses which polute the planet and cause global warming. they use this information to predict what the weathr will be like in 2107