[Speed Gibson,
Sunday February 25, 2007 at 11:21pm]
The Uncertainty Principle: Weather Forecasting
Score one for the weathermen: the predicted snowfall arrived this time, even if the Friday installment fell short. It's great fun, ridiculing weathermen, and they don't help their cause by tending to assume the worst. You're more likely to tune in that way.
A common argument against "Global Warming" goes like this: "If weather forecasts can't reliably tell you what will happen tomorrow, how can they possibly predict climate changes decades from now?
It sounds like a reasonable rebuttal, based on our long experiences, especially with the likes of a Paul Douglas. But it's no good. The truth is, we can predict long term weather better than short term.
For example, we can predict that July daily high temperatures will average about 75-80 degrees. But day to day variations can be 30-40 degrees. It's the law of averages, actually a well known statistical concept that larger samples are more predictable.
At its extreme is quantum mechanics, which says we really can't tell what any one electron is doing in a given atom. And yet, the overall effects such as chemical reactions and electric currents can be predicted with certainty.
The same is true with atmospheric phenomena. The more precise in time or space, the less certain reliable the prediction. The Friday night storm went east of us; who knew?
So let's take "Global Warming" on directly for what it is: junk science. That doesn't mean the Earth isn't warming. It may be. That doesn't mean mankind isn't responsible to some degree. We might be. But we know little more than this, certainly well short of the certainty to justify the Draconian rationing and other severe policy changes being proposed.
A common argument against "Global Warming" goes like this: "If weather forecasts can't reliably tell you what will happen tomorrow, how can they possibly predict climate changes decades from now?
It sounds like a reasonable rebuttal, based on our long experiences, especially with the likes of a Paul Douglas. But it's no good. The truth is, we can predict long term weather better than short term.
For example, we can predict that July daily high temperatures will average about 75-80 degrees. But day to day variations can be 30-40 degrees. It's the law of averages, actually a well known statistical concept that larger samples are more predictable.
At its extreme is quantum mechanics, which says we really can't tell what any one electron is doing in a given atom. And yet, the overall effects such as chemical reactions and electric currents can be predicted with certainty.
The same is true with atmospheric phenomena. The more precise in time or space, the less certain reliable the prediction. The Friday night storm went east of us; who knew?
So let's take "Global Warming" on directly for what it is: junk science. That doesn't mean the Earth isn't warming. It may be. That doesn't mean mankind isn't responsible to some degree. We might be. But we know little more than this, certainly well short of the certainty to justify the Draconian rationing and other severe policy changes being proposed.
I think Bud Kraehling did just as well, if not better.