|
Assuming this post is not tongue-in-cheek:
Firstly, Toko Black is dead right: weather forecasting is much more difficult than climate modelling.
But onto the science bit. What do you think "... drawing and publishing conclusions on climate change based on the statistical information gathered" is, if it's not applied science, and pretty sophisticated science at that? Where did you think the basis for drawing the conclusions comes from if not scientific research?
However, that being said, climate modelling is a statistical process at its heart. That doesn't mean it can't be very accurate and rigorous, although in this case there are still quite a few uncertainties. The only thing we can be sure of at present is that man-made CO2 is warming the Earth more than it would otherwise be and that the extra energy is impacting weather patterns whilst the climate undergoes a period of adjustment. We can model reasonably well a stable Earth within a range of a few degrees of temperature; what is difficult is modelling the transitional periods (because they are more weather- than climate-driven, and as we've said, weather is more difficult to model) |
|