The world has never seen such freezing heat

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Again, this is blatantly wrong.

I can't predict the weather 2 weeks from now. But I can predict global average temperatures for the decade of 2030-2040 pretty easily.

You know that comparing your ability to predict "weather" 2 weeks from now and your ablility to predict the average global temperatures for 2030-2040 is apples to oranges and is a complete misrepresentation of what snopy was saying, right? Just making sure before you trip and fall off that high horse.

[KrazyHorse]

is a complete misrepresentation of what snopy was saying

No, it isn't. It's a perfect representation of what he was saying.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


Do the models include cloud cover now?

I was under the impression that they did.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Felch


Well, yeah. There are political implications to history, and all sorts of amateurs refuse to shut up. People have a right to try to determine their destiny.

They can argue all they want about history because there are basically no real answers.

On the other hand, science is science. And there are all sorts of answers which just don't pass the laugh test.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I was under the impression that they did.

I looked it up. They do, but in a simplified manner. Apparently there's a lot of disagreement between models on how to properly account for clouds.

[KrazyHorse]

That may be, but the real question is how important they are to overall albedo. AFAIK cloud cover change can't realistically compete with the scale of ice cover change.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I was under the impression that they did.

Cloud formation is at a much smaller length scale than the resolution of the standard climate models. It's definitely a major issue.

[KrazyHorse]

how important they are to overall albedo

Reformulate as a question, then answer

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini


You know that comparing your ability to predict "weather" 2 weeks from now and your ablility to predict the average global temperatures for 2030-2040 is apples to oranges and is a complete misrepresentation of what snopy was saying, right? Just making sure before you trip and fall off that high horse.

Plus I don't buy the premise that he can predict 20 to 30 years from now as accurate as 2 weeks. The whole "global-warming the sky is falling" community has totally different predictions than the "this is a normal fluctuation" community. I've heard prediction ranging from "Ice Age/return of Glaciers" to "the entire earth turns into Venus"

Even if you could know which of those schools of thought is right, you have no way of predicting what mankind will do to change the model. We could over react to a global warming myth. We could have a nuclear war. We could not react at all to the realities of global warming. We could do something we can't even think of right now.

Nor do you have any idea what unforseen natural events could happen between now and 2040. What if sun activity changes? What if a currently untracked asteroid collides with the earth? What if a super volcano erupts? What if a blackhole appears out of nowhere. What if the Mayan calendar is correct and the world ends in 2012 .

Sorry, but I feel a lot more comfortable in our ability to predict next week's weather than the average weather 32 years from now.

[Naked Gents Rut]

That may be, but the real question is how important they are to overall albedo.

That seems to be the main point of contention between the different models. Some think the greenhouse properties of more water vapor in the atmosphere outweighs the contribution of cloud cover to albedo, while others disagree.

There's also the whole linkage between cosmic rays and cloud formation that's still being debated.

AFAIK cloud cover change can't realistically compete with the scale of ice cover change.

**** if I know, dude.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Plus I don't buy the premise that he can predict 20 to 30 years from now as accurate as 2 weeks. The whole "global-warming the sky is falling" community has totally different predictions than the "this is a normal fluctuation" community. I've heard prediction ranging from "Ice Age/return of Glaciers" to "the entire earth turns into Venus"

Even if you could know which of those schools of thought is right, you have no way of predicting what mankind will do to change the model. We could over react to a global warming myth. We could have a nuclear war. We could not react at all to the realities of global warming. We could do something we can't even think of right now.

Nor do you have any idea what unforseen natural events could happen between now and 2040. What if sun activity changes? What if a currently untracked asteroid collides with the earth? What if a super volcano erupts? What if a blackhole appears out of nowhere. What if the Mayan calendar is correct and the world ends in 2012 .

Sorry, but I feel a lot more comfortable in our ability to predict next week's weather than the average weather 32 years from now.

No one's trying to predict the weather 32 years from now. They're trying to predict the average of the weather over large length and time scales (aka the "climate").

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


That seems to be the main point of contention between the different models. Some think the greenhouse properties of more water vapor in the atmosphere outweighs the contribution of cloud cover to albedo, while others disagree.

Not very many of them.

[Naked Gents Rut]

It doesn't matter how many of them there are. What matters is if they're right or not.

[Ramo]

The academic community whose business it is to determine these things have come to the consensus that they're not.

[KrazyHorse]

Plus I don't buy the premise that he can predict 20 to 30 years from now as accurate as 2 weeks.

Law of large numbers.