[TheForge] OT weather v. climate

[Kathy]

To Bob,

You wrote:
"Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time, generally  
around 30 years. This averaging over time removes the random and  
unpredictable behavior of weather. This by no means says that it is  
necessarily easy to predict climate changes, but clearly siezing on the  
weather man's one week failure to cast doubt on a climate model's 100  
year projection is an argument of ignorance."

Far be it from me to ask embarrassing questions, but doesn't the record keeping
of the British over the last three centuries prove very nicely that your "thirty
years" comment, when taken in perspective, was closer to weather than climate?
Than of course, we can't forget the inconveniently historic example of the
centuries long cold snap called the middle ages.

I'm not to be found in the denial camp, nor in the global warming is the great
buggy-man of our age camp. What I do believe is that global warming is primarily
a political discussion, and in this light, "scientific" claims should be viewed
with even more suspicion than statements of denial. Both camps are filled with
private agendas and fearful people; neither of which is good for finding the
truth. That one side is getting the funding and media attention to attract more
"expert" yes-men is no valid reason for my personal acceptance; I was never very
fond of Chicken Little.
Mikey

-----Original Message-----
From: theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of schade at acegroup.cc
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 6:39 AM
To: Sponsored by ABANA
Subject: Re: [TheForge] OT weather v. climate


On Mar 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Jerry Frost wrote:

> Question two, unintentional or not. I think it's simply a matter a way  
> to make money for folk who are otherwise unemployable. The best  
> computer models on the planet running on the fastest computers on the  
> planet can't reliably predict the weather more than a couple days in  
> advance. Why in the world anyone would believe someone who try tellng  
> us what it's going to do a century from now amazes me.
>
____________________________________

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/we-cant-even-predict-weather- 
next-week.html

We Can't Even Predict the Weather Next Week
(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide)

Objection:
Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so why should we  
believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now.

This is a very common line and might even be sincere if presented from  
someone completely ignorant of the difference between climate and  
weather. Usually it is more of a childish taunt, only one step above  
name calling. Just remember that the only chance the denialists have is  
if they can bring you down to a very low level of debate.

Answer:
Climate and weather are really very different things and the level of  
predictability is comparably different. Think of it as the difference  
between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now that  
will come splashing up the beach versus predicting the height of  
tomorrow's high tide.

Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time, generally  
around 30 years. This averaging over time removes the random and  
unpredictable behaviour of weather. This by no means says that it is  
necessarily easy to predict climate changes, but clearly siezing on the  
weather man's one week failure to cast doubt on a climate model's 100  
year projection is an argument of ignorance.

clipped by Bob

_______________________________________________
Manage membership or unsubscribe at:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
theforge mail list group photo site is
http://www.photoaccess.com
Login:  blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
password:  anvil
___________