Copilot: [This comment] conflates two very different things -- weather and climate! The comment misunderstands how climate models work by mixing them up with short-term weather forecasts.
Here’s where it goes off track:
Weather vs. Climate – Weather refers to short-term atmospheric conditions (rain, temperature, wind) that can change daily, while climate is the long-term pattern of weather over decades or centuries. Predicting weather beyond a few days is difficult because of chaotic variables, but climate models don’t aim to predict daily weather—they analyze large-scale trends over long periods.
How Climate Models Work – Climate models don’t try to pinpoint the exact temperature on, say, June 8, 2125. Instead, they use data on greenhouse gas concentrations, ocean currents, solar radiation, and atmospheric composition to project trends—such as whether global temperatures will rise over the next century and by how much.
Proven Accuracy – While short-term weather forecasts become less reliable beyond a few days, climate models have successfully predicted long-term trends. For instance, early climate predictions from the 1970s correctly projected the warming effects of increasing CO₂. The underlying physics -- like how greenhouse gases trap heat -- remain well understood and consistently validated.
So, the issue with that comment is that it treats climate models as if they function like daily weather forecasts, which they don’t. Instead of saying, "It will rain on June 8, 2125", they say, "If greenhouse gas emissions continue at current rates, global temperatures will likely rise by X degrees by 2100". [end]
Son in law works at Battelle NW Labs with a couple of atmospheric physicists. PhDs, not MBAs. We in science know exactly were BS is, but cannot figure out why anyone would get addicted to crummy conspiracies. Guessing Julius Caesar's observation 'people believe what they want'. Suckers.
10 comments:
Because you don't like them?
Because they can only accurately predict climate change (aka weather) 3-4 days out, not 100's of years.
Minus: climate change (aka weather) .
No. Climate and weather are not the same thing.
They have the same accuracy window. About a week.
No.
Copilot: [This comment] conflates two very different things -- weather and climate! The comment misunderstands how climate models work by mixing them up with short-term weather forecasts.
Here’s where it goes off track:
Weather vs. Climate – Weather refers to short-term atmospheric conditions (rain, temperature, wind) that can change daily, while climate is the long-term pattern of weather over decades or centuries. Predicting weather beyond a few days is difficult because of chaotic variables, but climate models don’t aim to predict daily weather—they analyze large-scale trends over long periods.
How Climate Models Work – Climate models don’t try to pinpoint the exact temperature on, say, June 8, 2125. Instead, they use data on greenhouse gas concentrations, ocean currents, solar radiation, and atmospheric composition to project trends—such as whether global temperatures will rise over the next century and by how much.
Proven Accuracy – While short-term weather forecasts become less reliable beyond a few days, climate models have successfully predicted long-term trends. For instance, early climate predictions from the 1970s correctly projected the warming effects of increasing CO₂. The underlying physics -- like how greenhouse gases trap heat -- remain well understood and consistently validated.
So, the issue with that comment is that it treats climate models as if they function like daily weather forecasts, which they don’t. Instead of saying, "It will rain on June 8, 2125", they say, "If greenhouse gas emissions continue at current rates, global temperatures will likely rise by X degrees by 2100". [end]
LOL! Proven BS!
Son in law works at Battelle NW Labs with a couple of atmospheric physicists. PhDs, not MBAs. We in science know exactly were BS is, but cannot figure out why anyone would get addicted to crummy conspiracies. Guessing Julius Caesar's observation 'people believe what they want'. Suckers.
...and I worked with Nobel Prize winning physicists. :)
Steve Batelle used to sit in on our Project Review Committees and advise. He was an EMI solutions genius...
Probably a different guy.
I worked on WMAP, a successor to COBE and met with John Mather on occasion.
Post a Comment