It's often been said that climate models cannot predict specific weather events. And while that's still true, long-term trends (like droughts) can be predicted. Here's an example. Back in 2004, climatologists Jacob Sewall and Lisa Sloan wondered how the loss of Arctic sea ice would affect climate. So they used fully coupled climate model to simulate it. What they found was that loss of Arctic ice would lead to a persistent high pressure ridge over the northeast Pacific, which would change the course of the jet stream, blocking storms from reaching the US west coast. Thus droughts in the US west would become longer lasting and more severe. And that is exactly what's been happening: persistent high, jet stream change, California drought. Here's an article about it. Here's the research.
Even the sun shines on a dogs ass some days. Back in my teens I used to think that all the skeptics online are just oil company goons.
The sun shining on a dog's ass some days? I don't know, man. It's just a phrase I've come across and have ever since been dying to use it at the right moment. As far as these models go, they seem to not have such a great prediction record.
quite accurate actually...and they're not predictions they're projections, the difference is important...the public and media expect exact dates but that's a ludicrous expectation...
So, how many projections are thrown out there and how many of them are reasonably accurate? I could probably pull a bunch of projections out of back there and get some of them reasonably accurate.
BTW, the OP used prediction. So, it's a prediction when it happens to be accurate and a projection when it's not accurate?
projections allow for variation...when people hear "prediction" they tend to assume precise dates, times, amounts...projections will include a high and low range because there can be unforseen future variables which will effect the final outcome...
Well, that's very convenient. Call them all projections because of all the variables there may be, but if one happens to be accurate, claim that it was a prediction, even though it may be statistically likely that with all the projections around there just happens to be some coincidentally accurate rather than because the inputs were all accurate. Well, it just seems like a blatant win win situation, don't you think?
projections are never intended to be accurate they give a range of possibilities based on known data and variables but the variables can change...your taking the colloquial use of words and applying them to science, the colloquial use of the word theory has different connotations in science Regardless everything projected to happen with agw cc is occurring, arctic ice pack shrinking in volume, yes...oceans becoming warmer,yes...glaciers retreating, yes...average global temps rising, yes...longer summers, yes...increasing acidification of oceans, yes....everything that was expected to occur is occurring, you want a fixed date or amount because that meets your defintion of prediction well you're not going to get that because that's not how it works...
