If mankind cannot accurately predict weather, how could they possibly predict major climate changes?

We can't, that is why it is climate change theory, global warming theory.

No one knows what will happen.

You can easily notice that all of the warmer answers are BS crap that they think they can fool everyone with. They act as if it is easier to predict the climate 100 years from now, than the weather 24 hours from now. Clearly this is stupidity in action. The overall climate is affected by many things that we have no current way of measuring, including changes to the ocean currents.

Now their thought is that they can use a physical model instead of a statistical model. Their logic for this, is that if the amount of energy going in and going out of the system is known, then the overall effect to the temps will also be known. I actually agree with this point, but disagree that they are known. they are currently missing 30% of the heat. They don't know where it went! This is why a statistical model is appropriate. There is a large amount of uncertainty, and statistical models quantify uncertainty. The reason they do not like statistical models is that they are well aware that if they look at the problem using a statistical model, that the uncertainty is high enough that warming may not even be shown. They do not know the effects of clouds, (even whether or not they are negative or positive feedbacks. They do not know the effect of the oceans. They are simply guessing at the temperature sensitivity to CO2, based upon paleoclimate data, that

1.) Assumes all correlation is causation

2.) Does not even match with current temp records

The only reason that the scientists are claiming the certainty that they are claiming is that they KNOW that no one wants to pay a scientist to say "I don't know". They are in a tough position, in which the world is asking them for answers and they are giving their best guesses. THey do not want to look stupid by admitting that it is their best guess. While this works for most people, SOme people who know what is going on, think it is absolutely foolish to pretend as if your guesses are actually reality.

I,

What are your qualifications? Clearly the poster never said anything about denying AGW, and most of your answer clearly does not address the question. So perhaps one of the things you might want to add to your qualifications to respond would be at least a second grade level of reading comprehension, cause you are certainly not demonstrating this.

Forget about predicting tomorrow's weather, the UK Met cannot even predict seasonal trends. They said this past winter would be "mild and damp, and between one degree and one and a half degrees warmer than average." And we all know how it turned for the Brits. To make matters worse, they predicted warmer than average conditions the previous winter as well.

A guy named Piers Corbyn got it right though. With only a laptop and public data, his success rate is around 85% for predicting seasonal trends. Now who are you going to believe when it comes to longer range trends? At the very least, this shows major climate research institutes don't have a clue about climate dynamics.

Accurate prediction of weather involves specific predictions for a particular day, and place.

Accurate prediction of climate involves general predictions of trends.

The difference should be apparent.

If not, consider this:

Few people would claim to be able to predict the weather for May 6 in Atlanta a month in advance.

But a climatologist can give you a good prediction of the average high temperature for the State of Georgia during the month of May two years from now.

And by the way, weather predictions are pretty good these days if you are talking about the next 24 hours. Not perfect, but quite good.

Whether there's going to be rain or not in Cass County is difficult to predict. A major change, such as what a global temperature increase of 3 degrees would do is easy to predict when you know what the difference of hot and cold can di to our ecosystem. The same with predicting hurricanes. It's much easier to see the huge hurricane heading for the coast than the rainstorm in the middle of the clouds.

By your insight, since nobody can predict which buildings in the world will catch on fire in the next week, the fire insurance industry has no ability to predict the fire risk of the buildings it insures. The whole industry must be a socialist alarmist hoax. Quick, before your discovery gets out: buy put options on Allstate, Hanover, and Hartford. You're going be worth millions, dudester, get off this silly website ASAP.

Weather is a lot more variable than climate and is harder to predict. The climate of a particular region remains relatively static if all things remain equal. As you increase one aspect of one of those variables in that region the climate changes slowly and uniformly whereas weather is different from day to day and from period to period in a given area.

There are known laws of physics, and there are variables.

If you throw a ball in the air, you cannot predict exactly where it will land -- there are too many variables. But you can accurately predict that the ball will return to the ground -- you understand that gravity is a law of physics.

Likewise, while meteorologists actually do a great job of predicting weather there are too many variables controlling whether a particular storm actually moves over your town. But climatologists (these are different people, a different science btw) work with the known laws of physics. One of these knowns is that adding CO2 to air causes the air to retain more infrared energy. You can see it in the well-executed science project by a 4th grader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4

Giant machine thingamajig

They can't.