In message
"Adam Lea" wrote:


"Paul Hyett" wrote in message
...
In uk.sci.weather on Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Paul C wrote :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...weather.uknews

The Grauniad - must be definitive then...

The forecast marks a shift in thinking by climate change researchers.
Instead of using their models to look many decades ahead, they will

Roll dice?

There is no consistency in climate prediction models, so why should we
take any projections seriously?
--

There is from the fact that they allpredict a warming trend over the long
term. It is merely the magnitude of this trenf that is in doubt, and that is
why forecasts tend to have a "most likely" range as well as an actual
forecast value.

To try and imply they are useless is just wrong and very disrespectful to
climate scientists.


Before such forecasts can be useful enough for people to effectively
place bets on, they need to have a history of successful prediction.
At present there is no such history, but if they don't try there never
will be. This is a start and should be welcomed. But as with all
long range forecasts, they perhaps ought to indicate a confidence
level.





--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/