>says it's gonna rain >it doesn't rain Why does

>>9100489
>says the double pendulum will flip
>it doesn't flip
Why does physics get any funding?

And yet we think we can predict the climate in a 100 years. Bitch please.

>>9100525
>he thinks he can predict the average result of a coin over many flips
What a dumbass. LOL.

OJ for President 2018

>>9100525
Good b8.

>>9100538
Weather is as predictable as flipping a coin...

>>9100547
Not b8. Tell me why I'm wrong.

>>9100550
>Tell me why I'm wrong.
Trends are predictable, specific detailed states at any given time are not

Exactly the same way you can predict the decay rate of a radioactive element but never be able to accurately predict how many undecayed atoms will exist at any given time

Meteorology is based primarily on historical data and then statistical inference on the chance similar weather patterns will occur again.

>>9100558
>
Exactly the same way you can predict the decay rate of a radioactive element but never be able to accurately predict how many undecayed atoms will exist at any given time

Then how are you predicting the decay rate if you can't even predict how many undecayed atoms will exist at any given time?

>>9100550
I was genuinely complimenting you on your b8, but now I know you're a retard. You shouldn't have responded.

>>9100565
How's that any different to climatology?

>>9100571
But you need to argue why I am a retard.

>>9100569
>Then how are you predicting the decay rate if you can't even predict how many undecayed atoms will exist at any given time?

You can say that after x period of time roughly y atoms will have decayed and get very accurate results. You cannot say that after x period of time exactly y atoms will have decayed, nor can you say how long it will take before any specific atom decays

>>9100576
Who the fuck argues with retards?

>>9100550
>Weather is as predictable as flipping a coin...
Uh.. Yes essentially it is. Both are hard since the result is determined by subtle differences in initial conditions which are unknown. These chaotic systems are therefore effectively random. However, averaging these results over time/space reduces much of the variability in the system. So while you can't accurately predict the weather tomorrow knowing as much as possible about the initial conditions via radar, air pressure, etc., you can quite easily predict the climate 100 years from given relevant conditions, just as you can predict that a coin will land on heads about half the time over many flips. The only big source of unpredictability is predicting global human behavior in emitting greenhouse gasses, not how those emissions will affect the climate in the long term. Over 100 years the climate will warm at about the sane rate it is now since greenhouse gases are the primary driver in that time frame.

>>9100577
Then you are not measuring decay rate, you're just measuring time and pretending you're measuring decay rate.

>>9100583
>predict the climate 100 years from given relevant conditions

And what conditions are those?

>>9100586
No that is literally what decay rate is defined as you obtuse moron. You sound like someone who had a hole drilled in their head.

>>9100591
Greenhouse gases, ozone, stratospheric water vapor, surface albedo, cloud albedo, solar irradiance, mostly.

>>9100592
Why call it decay rate when you don't actually know what the decay rate is?

>>9100599
Why ask a question based on a faulty premise?

>>9100598
And all of that will stay the same? We know "greenhouse" gasses are increasing, but what about the rest, and what affect do they have on temperature?

>>9100601

If you know what the decay rate is, you should be able to tell me the amount of decayed atoms at any given moment.

>>9100573

In a general sense it's not, if you want to be technical metrology is primarily focused on weather behavior on the local level and present day while climatology is focused on weather and atmosphere behavior on a global level and past/present/future. The difference is mostly within scope.

>>9100606
>And all of that will stay the same?
No you fucking moron. Did you even read >>910058 or did you just not understand it?

The difference between a very chaotic system like weather and a less chaotic system like climate is that the unpredictability of the former comes from the necessity of knowing the initial conditions to an impractical degree, while unpredictability in the latter comes simply from not knowing relevant conditions to any degree. In other words I can't tell you that if it rains today it will rain tomorrow but I can tell you that if GHGs are emitted the climate will warm. The conditions which determine whether are indescribably minute. The conditions which determine climate are not.

>but what about the rest, and what affect do they have on temperature?
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mindex.shtml

Most meteorologists determine the percent chance of rain by by using the equation
>(%rain coverage over area)*(%certainty)

So if 20% of the area will be rained on, but there is only a 50% certainty that this is true, then the chance of rain will be 10%.

Yes, its shitty, but its better than us just standing around, looking at clouds saying, "that looks threatening."

>>9100608

So climate science claims to be able to predict weather at the global level when we can't even predict it at the local level? Can you give a weather forecast for the whole world in 2027?

>>9100607
>If you know a coin is fair, the number of heads should always equal the number of tails
Wow, you sure are dumb.

>>9100613
>the climate will warm.

It will warm where?

>>9100618
>So climate science claims to be able to predict weather at the global level when we can't even predict it at the local level?
I suggest you read the thread since the difference between weather and climate and why climate is less chaotic was already explained to you.

>>9100620
Globally.

>>9100623

Weather and climate are not different things.

>>9100629
They are clearly different things. They have different definitions and are studied by two different fields of science.

>>9100629
Weather = the state of the atmosphere at a time and place

Climate = the state of the atmosphere over time and space

>>9100627
Every single part of earth?

>>9100631
Give me one physical difference between the two.

>>9100634
>place
>space

Those are not different.

>>9100618

>So climate science claims to be able to predict weather at the global level when we can't even predict it at the local level?

We can easily predict at both the local and global level, the problem lies within how accurate the prediction is.

>Can you give a weather forecast for the whole world in 2027?

For the specific year? No, but there are plenty of models that attempt to predict for the particular decade that year resides in. Most models usually focus on predicting dry/wet conditions.

>>9100635
>Every single part of earth?
Obtuse nonresponse.

>Give me one physical difference between the two.
Already defined them and explained in detail how they are different.

>>9100636
>place
>space
>Those are not different.
Obtuse nonresponse.

Since you have no substantive responses, you lose. Don't bother posting again, it will be ignored.

>>9100489
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwyHVrSdIOk

>responding to /pol/tards
When will you people learn?

>>9100489
>say global warming is real
>cant predict next weeks temperature accurately
really hangs my niggers

>>9100586
stop, you know fuck all about radioactive decay or the electro-weak theory in general go read a book brainlet

File: 1488360386615.png (195KB, 1650x1050px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1650x1050px

>>9100655
>not intellectually curbstomping the /pol/ack

>>9100613

It not even a question of whether it will warm, it already has. The last 5 years were consecutively the hottest on record globally and the trend will continue.