I have an opinion on global warming!

These predictions are coming from the application
of the same tools and techniques that have made
reliable weather forecasts an everyday proposition.

I don't see a "smiley" here -- so I can only conclude that your're
serious?

"Reliable weather forecasts"?? Where have you EVER seen one of
those? I have been a student of meterology since taking several
courses in college, some 25 years ago, and am here to tell you that
there are NO accurate forecast models that function beyond 12 hours
out.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
I have been a student of meterology since taking several
courses in college, some 25 years ago

Let's see, several college courses 25 years ago. Nothing, of course, has
changed since then in terms of new scientific methods of studying
weather, no new accumulation of knowledge by those whose full-time
profession it is to study it. You shiver in an upper mid-west microcosm,
so the scientists are wrong. Well, I know I'm in the minority here, but
IMHO no one in this group so far has the credentials to mount a
counter argument to the global warming theorists. How it affects GA is
the least of my worries for my progeny.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:21:55 -0600, RomeoMike
wrote:



Jay Honeck wrote:
I have been a student of meterology since taking several
courses in college, some 25 years ago

Let's see, several college courses 25 years ago. Nothing, of course, has
changed since then in terms of new scientific methods of studying
weather, no new accumulation of knowledge by those whose full-time
profession it is to study it. You shiver in an upper mid-west microcosm,
so the scientists are wrong. Well, I know I'm in the minority here, but
IMHO no one in this group so far has the credentials to mount a
counter argument to the global warming theorists. How it affects GA is
the least of my worries for my progeny.

it is not about credentials.

it is about data and its interpretation. has anyone seen the data?
al gore presents a graph of co2 but never reveals the data behind the
graph. there is no opportunity to validate or refute the data. no
opportunity to get to any of the facts.

one aspect of the global warming nonsense is the omission of lapse
rates in the discussion. in the hottest days on the nullabor it gets
to 45 deg celcius but at 14,000ft it is still zero degrees.

the religion of global warming is clueless because it presents the
scenario that the entire world is heating up. errr have the lapse
rates ceased to function???

credentials! the pope has credentials ....but there is no god.

Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote:


it is not about credentials.

People with credentials are not always correct, but in my experience
they are correct more often than people without. Often people without
credentials focus on some small part of a problem, unaware of the full
scope.

it is about data and its interpretation. has anyone seen the data?
al gore presents a graph of co2 but never reveals the data behind the
graph. there is no opportunity to validate or refute the data. no
opportunity to get to any of the facts.

I hope people don't make it about Al Gore. I didn't vote for him either.

one aspect of the global warming nonsense is the omission of lapse
rates in the discussion. in the hottest days on the nullabor it gets
to 45 deg celcius but at 14,000ft it is still zero degrees.

Personally, I have no idea if this is a valid point. I'm not an expert
either.

RomeoMike writes:

People with credentials are not always correct, but in my experience
they are correct more often than people without. Often people without
credentials focus on some small part of a problem, unaware of the full
scope.

Often people with credentials adopt an opinion without a solid basis and then
attempt to impose it upon others by constantly referring to their credentials.
Their sycophants and others who agree with them will also attempt to impose
the opinion based on credentials.

Personally, I have no idea if this is a valid point. I'm not an expert
either.

I don't think it's a relevant point. The temperature drops with altitude up
to a certain point, then rises again, reaching several thousand degrees at
some altitudes. However, I don't see how this correlates at all with global
warming.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:32:05 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

RomeoMike writes:

People with credentials are not always correct, but in my experience
they are correct more often than people without. Often people without
credentials focus on some small part of a problem, unaware of the full
scope.

Often people with credentials adopt an opinion without a solid basis and then
attempt to impose it upon others by constantly referring to their credentials.
Their sycophants and others who agree with them will also attempt to impose
the opinion based on credentials.

Personally, I have no idea if this is a valid point. I'm not an expert
either.

I don't think it's a relevant point. The temperature drops with altitude up
to a certain point, then rises again, reaching several thousand degrees at
some altitudes. However, I don't see how this correlates at all with global
warming.

well if there is warming it is only surface warming not global
warming.
has the earth's weather ever been stable?

RomeoMike writes:

Let's see, several college courses 25 years ago. Nothing, of course, has
changed since then in terms of new scientific methods of studying
weather, no new accumulation of knowledge by those whose full-time
profession it is to study it.

It's not necessary. The impossibility of long-term forecasting is a
mathematical reality, and unavoidable. It doesn't matter what advances are
made. It cannot be done. I've already explained why.

Well, I know I'm in the minority here, but
IMHO no one in this group so far has the credentials to mount a
counter argument to the global warming theorists.

The global-warming theorists have no credentials, either. Nobody really knows
how the Earth's climate works on a global scale and over long periods. The
theorists are no more or less likely to be right than you or Jay are. In
fact, they are no more or less likely to be right than a toss of the dice.

How it affects GA is the least of my worries for my progeny.

The biggest danger for human beings over the long term is overpopulation.
That has always been true, and it always will be true, barring some natural
catastrophe on a global or galactic scale.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

"Reliable weather forecasts"?? Where have you EVER seen one of
those? I have been a student of meterology since taking several
courses in college, some 25 years ago, and am here to tell you that
there are NO accurate forecast models that function beyond 12 hours
out.

I've been flying since 1987. In that time I've been paying close attention
to weather forecast. For my area (the northeast) my undocumented
observations (no pun) of the weather forecasts accuracy a

1) 12 hours forecasts have improved. So much so that winds,
visibility, and cloud cover forecasts are close enough for me to make
go/no-go decisions MUCH more reliably now rather than 20 years ago.

2) In 1987, 3-5 day forecasts were a joke to the point where if
rain was forecast in 3 days I could start planning on maybe going
flying.

Weather forecasting isn't perfect, but it sure has improved for
me here in the northeast.

btw - back in 1984 I attended a computing symposium at Goddard
Space Flight Center (if that's now the official name, sorry, but it was
at Goddard). One talk of interest was the computing power needed
for weather forecasting. The supercomputers used for the models
in 1984 required 48 hours of wallclock time to render a 24 hour
forecast. That forecast was only a bit better than 50% (?) correct.
They were estimating the need for several orders of magnitude more
CPU power as well as more efficient models. Well, we certainly have
much more CPU power available now...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel writes:

btw - back in 1984 I attended a computing symposium at Goddard
Space Flight Center (if that's now the official name, sorry, but it was
at Goddard). One talk of interest was the computing power needed
for weather forecasting. The supercomputers used for the models
in 1984 required 48 hours of wallclock time to render a 24 hour
forecast. That forecast was only a bit better than 50% (?) correct.
They were estimating the need for several orders of magnitude more
CPU power as well as more efficient models. Well, we certainly have
much more CPU power available now...

But we also need much more accurate and extensive data, which we do not have.

The computing power and data increase more than exponentially with the length
of the forecast required, because of the chaotic nature of weather. That's
why weather forecasting has barely made any progress at all, even as computing
power has increased by many orders of magnitude.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jay Honeck writes:

"Reliable weather forecasts"?? Where have you EVER seen one of
those? I have been a student of meterology since taking several
courses in college, some 25 years ago, and am here to tell you that
there are NO accurate forecast models that function beyond 12 hours
out.

Exactly. So how much can you trust "forecasts" for 100 years from now?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.