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:
|
|
“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.“
30 Responses to “Long range forecasting is accurate and CO2 does cause global warming”
Oxford Kevin
Could you also answer the questions relating to the royal society?
Oxford Kevin
I did a physic degree, including radiation transfer, one of the fundamental subjects for climatologists doing atmospheric modelling. Of my fellow students who were good enough to get into research fields in the first place the ones who went into climatology and astrophysics I wouldn’t have felt were better or worse than the ones who went into solid state physics or theoretical physics.
Oxford Kevin
I’m just saying that we have no or so little evidence to justify the case either way that the discussion is almost pointless. The reason I started to refer to societies that you mentioned was that competent people who have managed to become fellows of those societies seem to be more than comfortable with the results of the research done by the climatologists to back the research fully.
hmmm
I don’t understand the source of confusion. Let me try again.
I believe climate change is a severe threat to our way of life. Our earth is warming; there is overwhelming evidence that the cause is man-made. I have my doubts, personally, as to the extent, and this is where I am most sceptical of the historical approach to modelling.
I fully support the Royal Society trying to dispel climate change myths and am always glad to support scientists in the promulgation of science.
That said, I still know of no out and out geniuses currently working in the field of climate science – people whose sheer perspicacity will be remembered in spellbound awe in 200 years time. I know of people in other fields of science who fit that description. You are very welcome to disprove my hypothesis by naming a counterexample, of course.
Oxford Kevin
Thanks for being clear.
I completed my Physics degree 20 years ago. At that time climatology was an area where there was fierce competition to get into. Perhaps it was for me and some of my classmates that Hansen had just released his famous paper on climate change that provided the interest in climatology as a career choice.
And there you have someone who I think will be remembered. His later career like most who work in fields of research that rely on highly complex maths was not up to his early work, and it is clear also that his late career motivation was to get something done about climate change, moving away from purely scientific activities. But his early work modelling of aerosols and then working on some of the earliest global climate models and his publication record I would have thought proved him to be a scientist of global standing.