Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

Extreme weather could kill 150,000 per year

103 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

The computer models are corrupt.

The people that monkey around with them have an agenda.

Not corrupt.  But not being used correctly, either.  They are intended as research tools, not for predicting the future.

That being said, another decade should see them getting good enough to make usable predictions for specific locations, like a given city or watershed.  Until then, we do not have tools able to make predictions accurate enough and specific enough on which to base policy decisions.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

Not corrupt.  But not being used correctly, either.  They are intended as research tools, not for predicting the future.

That being said, another decade should see them getting good enough to make usable predictions for specific locations, like a given city or watershed.  Until then, we do not have tools able to make predictions accurate enough and specific enough on which to base policy decisions.

Doug

1 example: Many are predicting hurricanes hitting the USA.

They are guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

1 example: Many are predicting hurricanes hitting the USA.

They are guessing.

Yes.  And hurricanes have hit the U.S.  NOW, was it the same number and of the same intensity as predicted?

The idea is that the increasing amount of energy in the atmosphere has to be dissipated somehow.  And hurricanes are a way to do that.  But so are small-scale storms over land, and so are storms in the Arctic and Antarctic.

So why didn't we get those hurricanes?  The western Pacific was absorbing the surplus heat and taking it down into the depths where it couldn't generate storms on the surface.  So they were right:  the heat had to be dissipated.  It's just that there was a mechanism for this that nobody knew about.

And isn't it lucky we didn't base policy decisions on a tool that wasn't designed or intended for making policy decisions?

Doug

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.