Recoveryhill
Gold Member
Meteorology is an established and important science. Yes, they are guessing, but it is an educated guess. Major progress has been made in the prediction of weather events.
The assumption that I am defending weathermen, which I assume you associate with the talking face that appears on your local TV, says it all. Thanks for saying please but please isn't enough for me to drop my defense of important public science that supports oceanic, agricultural, forestry, water resource and recreational industries and serves them well even if it can't predict whether or not it might rain on your parade.
"With all of their sophisticated equipment they still manage to be correct on a five day forecast just a whisker over 50% of the time. Yet, they can guarantee, without any question, that the earth will be two degrees warmer 40 years from now. The climate predictors should share their much more advanced computer equipment with the National Weather Service. Then, we could get the five day forecast from that 50% accuracy up to 100%." (Do I detect sarcasm?)
It was this statement, not the OP, to whom my last response was directed. That poster decided I was entering into a debate over climate "conclusion". Nope, I just pointed out the difference between long term climate "study" and short term "forecasting".
I think that poster should be honest and say what's really stuck in his craw....he doesn't believe in Global Warming. That's ok, that's fine, just don't mix meteorology and climate study and ignore either at your own peril.
"Don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
How did this topic land in attachments? I'll answer my own question: Folks are attached to their own beliefs regardless of sound evidence to the contrary. Dang Science!
Cheers
The assumption that I am defending weathermen, which I assume you associate with the talking face that appears on your local TV, says it all. Thanks for saying please but please isn't enough for me to drop my defense of important public science that supports oceanic, agricultural, forestry, water resource and recreational industries and serves them well even if it can't predict whether or not it might rain on your parade.
"With all of their sophisticated equipment they still manage to be correct on a five day forecast just a whisker over 50% of the time. Yet, they can guarantee, without any question, that the earth will be two degrees warmer 40 years from now. The climate predictors should share their much more advanced computer equipment with the National Weather Service. Then, we could get the five day forecast from that 50% accuracy up to 100%." (Do I detect sarcasm?)
It was this statement, not the OP, to whom my last response was directed. That poster decided I was entering into a debate over climate "conclusion". Nope, I just pointed out the difference between long term climate "study" and short term "forecasting".
I think that poster should be honest and say what's really stuck in his craw....he doesn't believe in Global Warming. That's ok, that's fine, just don't mix meteorology and climate study and ignore either at your own peril.
"Don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
How did this topic land in attachments? I'll answer my own question: Folks are attached to their own beliefs regardless of sound evidence to the contrary. Dang Science!
Cheers
