Long range forecasting is accurate and CO2 does cause global warming

Green Politics

Scientists have been responding to claims that if they were unable to predict the bad weather how can they predict climate change over the next century?

Scientists have been responding to claims that if they were unable, a few weeks ago, to accurately predict the severe weather that has hit Britain over the past few days, how are they able to accurately predict climate change over the course of the next century?


Speaking on last night’s Newsnight, Dr Patrick McSharry, research scientist at the Smith School at Oxford University, explained that there is a “big difference” between short-term weather forecasts and long range climate forecasting.

He said:

“It is very much in the scientists’ position to actually show that there’s a big difference between forecasting weather and then forecasting climate change, totally different model, totally different timescales, totally different areas of the globe.

 

“If you look at the actual scientific details of what’s been attempted to be calculated there is a huge difference. Before someone generates a forecast they have to validate the model, they have to make sure it adds up to being able to predict the historical events that have gone beforehand and if it’s able to do that then you have some confidence that it will actually work into the future.”

Keith Groves, Director of Operations at the Met Office, added that global warming can only have come from carbon dioxide:

“We do validate our climate models. To actually reproduce the change in temperature that we’ve seen in the last 100 years, the only way you can do that is by adding carbon dioxide into the model, so we have real confidence in the skill of our climate model to replicate the global climate as we move forward.

“That’s completely different to trying to forecast the variability on one month or two month or a season ahead. It’s a completely different application of the science.“

No related posts.

30 Responses to “Long range forecasting is accurate and CO2 does cause global warming”

  1. Oxford Kevin

    hmmmm are you are talking about meteorologists who do weather measurements and weather forecasting or climatologists who study the climate?

  2. hmmm

    Shamik, what evidence do you have that they are extremely talented individuals?

    I just don’t believe it.

    Who is the Edward Witten of climate science?

    I just don’t see climate science as being more intellectually stimulating for the best minds in the world as other scientific vocations. Evidence, please.

  3. Oxford Kevin

    hmmm, since you made the claim, I believe the onus is on you to provide the evidence. So far it just seems to be your belief.

  4. hmmm

    Oxford Kevin,

    Firstly, the onus, speaking sociologically, isn’t on me – scientists have to prove their credentials all the time.

    Secondly, the onus, statistically, isn’t on me. I assume that you have taken statistics courses at A-Level or above. If so, you should have a basic understanding of how to choose H_0 – and if you think about it, you will see why you made the wrong choice.

    Secondly I can’t. My evidence is anecdotal, though I spent many years in a scientific role in academia, including at top universities, and I know who I rated amongst the faculty.

    I have no question that they are doing is reasonable science, but in general, it is fairly mediocre. That’s my opinion, not fact. It can’t be any other way.

    That’s not to say it shouldn’t be done, or funded. All I’m saying is that it isn’t the most intellectually demanding science (in my opinion) and therefore the best graduate students will go elsewhere, because above all, they crave intellectual stimulation.

  5. Oxford Kevin

    Thanks for clarifying that it is just your opinion.

Comments are closed.