Rick Monteverde wrote:
>> If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work.
You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only work
for a very brief time before their results degrade to useless noise, so they
are only good before they reach that point . . .
Local weather forecasts degrade because they are detailed. Nowadays
they can make a weather forecast months or even years ahead for large
areas such as the entire Pacific Ocean, or the trends for the whole
of Japan for several months, which is now predicted with astonishing
accuracy on NHK.
My point is that if experts did not understand the detailed physics
of the atmosphere, they could not make detailed weather forecasts at
all. That was the case until the 1960s. Even after satellite photos
became available weather forecasts were not reliable until the
physics and computational models were improved.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that the global warming
experts predictions have come true in the world is indisputably
growing hotter rapidly, as Ed pointed out. You do not need a computer
to see that. Just look at melting ice, the level of the Inland Sea,
or the average temperature of the Pacific ocean water and atmosphere
surrounding Japan. Local temperatures vary of course but over large
landmasses and extended periods they have been going up. To deny such
first-principal observations is to go traipsing off into the
cloud-cuckoo land of the cold fusion deniers who do not believe that
thermocouples and thermometers work.
- Jed
