MIT scientists: Monster storms will triple in California by 2100



They can’t accurately predict the weather next week and they claim to be able to predict storms in the distant future? What are they smoking? There must be grant money involved or they wouldn’t say anything so daft.


Are these the same folks who predicted back in the '60’s that we’d all be in a new “ice age” by now?


We don’t need to concern ourselves with it because Stephen Hawking says we’re probably going to be invaded by hostile aliens anyway because our radio transmissions for 'way back have reached them by now, and they know we’re here.




If there’s anything to be excited about regarding forecasting weather patterns it may be the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOES-R) that was recently launched. It will offer data to aid in more accurate projections of storm conditions, strengths and paths. The improvement in more accurate weather reporting will save lives and money. That’s worth the space in a newspaper…


Weather forecasts aren’t that unreliable and they are only getting better. Sure going 5 days out you lose some accuracy but in their defense, there are thousands of variables and we can’t possible know each and every one. If we were somehow able to discover each and every variable we would be able to forecast the weather 100% correctly forward and backwards in time. The weather is deterministic, there’s nothing magical going on. We just can’t see everything.

Five myths about weather forecasting

  1. Weather forecasters are usually wrong.

“I’m just telling you — if I did my job the way they do theirs, I’d be here about a week,” New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick said in October. “Based on the forecasts we’ve gotten so far this year, none of them have been close to what game conditions were. There was 100 percent chance of rain last week, and the only water I saw was on the Gatorade table. . . . They’re almost always wrong.”

Belichick’s comments were typical of the criticisms and jokes we hear about forecast accuracy. But while every meteorologist occasionally makes an errant forecast, weather predictions are generally quite good. In his 2012 essay “The Weatherman Is Not a Moron,” statistician Nate Silver pointed to weather forecasting as “the one area in which our predictions are making extraordinary progress.” A one-day temperature forecast is now typically accurate within about two to 2.5 degrees, according to National Weather Service data. In other words, when you see a forecast high of 82, most of the time the actual high will be between 80 and 85.

Forecasting rain is harder. And predicting the location and intensity of thunderstorms is like peering into a pot of boiling water and trying to figure out where a bubble will pop and how big it will be. Still, the most accurate forecasts — by the likes of AccuWeather, the National Weather Service and the Weather Channel — correctly predicted if there would be precipitation the next day 82 percent of the time in 2013, according to weather watchdog Forecast Advisor.


As we will soon find out, aliens, zombies, the apocalypse, and climate change will be the least of our problems. The themes are discussed in detail on other threads.

Relating to the storms, we’ve heard this same song and dance before. Even a weatherman with an undergraduate degree will tell you that forecasting beyond four days is like rolling the magic 8 ball.


And anyone who took a middle school earth sciences class knows weather isn’t climate.


Not to mention that they are predicting the conditions for these storms & the likely outcome IF more GHGs continue to be emitted at high levels.

Anyone with a grade school education knows that warmer climates cause more evaporation, which then leads to greater precipitation.

It has been known for decades that global warming will lead to net greater precipitation – less in the lower latitudes & a lot more in the higher latitudes (which also include greater snowstorms during winter).

The importance of this study is the better regional predictions, also that earlier predictions had Calif with less precip (& more in the latitudes north of Calif, esp north of the US lower 48).


I remember several years ago they predicted severe hurricane seasons due to GW…



Storms are weather.


Maybe you haven’t been following the exceedingly severe cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons) in the western Pacific that have killed 1000s in the Philippines & other countries there, and in the Bay of Bengal, like Cyclone Vardah, a monster storm that hit Chennai less than a month ago on Dec 12th.

See “Warmer oceans bringing more severe tropical cyclones to land: Human-caused climate change has made certain typhoons more frequent and severe.”

Extremely destructive Cyclones hitting the Phillipines since 2010:
Rammasun (Glenda), 2014
Haiyan (Yolanda), 2013
Bopha (Pablo), 2012
Nesat (Pedring), 2011
Megi (Juan), 2010

from wiki: “Typhoon Haiyan, known as Super Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines, was one of the most intense tropical cyclones on record, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines, on November 8, 2013.[1] It is the deadliest Philippine typhoon on record,[2] killing at least 6,300 people in that country alone.[3] Haiyan is also the strongest storm recorded at landfall. In January 2014, bodies were still being found.[4]” at

And Tropical Cyclone Pam in 2015 – the most intense tropical cyclone of the south Pacific Ocean in terms of sustained winds and regarded as one of the worst natural disasters in the history of Vanuatu (and island there).

We need to keep our eyes on the poor countries of the world; as Pope Francis has pointed out, they are and will be suffering the most from CC.


The aggregate of weather is climate.

And what we know is that warmth causes more evaporation & precipitation; that heat energy can turn into the kinetic energy of high winds & windy storms; and warmer sea-surface temps make cyclones more probable.

We’re in for a roller coaster of likely weather-related destruction – maybe not we in our climate-controlled bunkers, but future generations.


A storm on a particular day in a particular place - that falls under weather.
The frequency of storms over time and over a region - that falls under climate.


Which is why I am skeptical of global warming alarmist claims and oppose things like cap and trade or taxing carbon. Could those things work? Maybe, maybe not. Will things like energy get more expensive? They ABSOLUTELY will.


I doubt it would be very effective. Most people (rightly so) are not willing to surrender their First World standard of living at the point of a gun based on theories that are peer-reviewed by the same personnel who financially benefit from such findings.

It’s also worth noting that even NY and CA have made exceptions to environmental rules and taxes to allow businesses and infrastructure development to occur.

So basically it would just punish those who seek to follow the rules properly without big-league connections.

Like most any other government program.


What on earth are you talking about?


That is one difference bwt weather & climate. Climate only has a few variables & we can predict it fairly well.

We have this old atlas, 1972, with climate maps. Guess what, these are still useful bec the climates around the world have not changed much, despite climate change. Slight shifting of climate boundaries to the north for northern latitudes.

Another example of differences acc to stat orders of magnitude from sociology is individual suicides (which are very difficult to predict, with many variables) v. suicide rates (which are fairly constant with few variables, perhaps going slightly up or down year-to-year due to changes in those variables). You can read Durkheim’s Suicide, if climate science books are a little technical & difficult to understand, just to get an idea of the difference in this stats order of magnitude difference.


I don’t think cap&trade will work either. Fee&Dividend may work – put a fee on every barrel of oil & ton of coal that come out of the ground or into the port, then divvy up all that money & give it to everyone who has a SS card by monthly direct deposit into their bank or by check, the way Bush gave us back some of our taxes.

Then there is FIT – feed in tariffs – that have worked fairly well in some European countries to encourage alt energy.

But bottom line, reducing our GHG emissions can save us a lot of money without all these aids, at least to a 50 to 75% reduction, without lowering living standards or industrial productivity. We just need to get serious about doing it.

I’ve been inspired by the Rocky Mt Institute ( ) & a book by its founder - Natural Capitalism – see .

And there are lots of other info on how to mitigate CC in good ways. One can surf the net to find them.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit