Predictions for a long time period can be more
reliable than predictions for the immediate future because the longer the forecast horizon, the greater the opportunity for the prediction to occur.
Not exact matches
According to this researcher, the models developed by his group are more
reliable than other ones already existing for
predictions for the next three to sixteen hours.
I don't know the Australian data very well, but multidecadal climate
predictions are less
reliable on a regional basis
than globally.
We reason that if all tissues predict consistently very similar PMIs, the
prediction of the PMI for the individual is more
reliable than if the tissue PMI
predictions are very variable across tissues.
Because the alleged IPCC «consensus» is so widely trusted, many climate scientists who haven't studied man - made global warming theory or the
predictions of the computer models assume that they must be
reliable merely «because the IPCC says so», rather
than checking for themselves.
The weather
prediction model used in this research is advantageous because it assesses details about future climate at a smaller geographic scale
than global models, providing
reliable simulations not only on the amounts of summer precipitation, but also on its frequency and timing.
Now seriously, other
than chaotic nature of the equations, which Robert explains nicely, there are also problems with a grid size which is too coarse for
reliable predictions, and problems with approximations used.
I can try to formalize the idea that model consensus is generally more
reliable than individual
predictions.
On the other hand, since our analysis reveals that the MMEs are
reliable when compared to the subset of observational fields examined, or their spread tends to be «over-dispersed» rather
than «under - dispersed», it may be useful to apply unequal weights to generate improved simulations of future
predictions (e.g., Collins et al. 2012).
And I don't see why your
predictions would be any more
reliable than those of the IEA.