[NoahECampbell]

I mean as we're seeing right here, they are just as good in their testing stage while not taking several hours to run. They're more efficient to run and calculate since they don't need to go through a lengthy process to determine the weather, just take advantage of the cyclic nature of nature to do the work for us.

[crote]

The problem is that we are entering an era of rapid climate shift. Relying primarily on historical data doesn't work that well when you are trying to predict unprecedented weather events. The laws of physics, on the other hand, have not changed - so a simulation will still work just fine.

[NoahECampbell]

No we aren't actually. We are still well within historical data, since we use that still to calculate future weather patterns, and there hasn't been anything unprecedented that would trip up a model like this either.

[zerodensity]

So global warming is just a hoax? Or what are you saying?

[pixl97]

No, what they are saying is events are not so far out of bounds that the models fall apart. Either there have been no black swans spotted yet, or in conjunction with other numerical models the outliers are correctly predicted.

[troupo]

No. What they are saying is that:

- weather is not climate

- we are not in a situation where weather models don't work