I have an opinion on global warming!

Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

I've seen quite a few and they are better all the time. This winter the
weather folks twice predicted major winter storms more than 48 hours in
advance and were nearly dead-on both times. I was impressed.

Matt

Matt Whiting writes:

I've seen quite a few and they are better all the time.

I still have not seen forecasts that can predict the temperature tommorrow
with consistent accuracy. I still have not seen forecasts that can accurately
predict rain, even only a few hours before the target time of the forecast.

This winter the
weather folks twice predicted major winter storms more than 48 hours in
advance and were nearly dead-on both times. I was impressed.

Some things are obvious from something as simple as a satellite photo, but
unfortunately other types of forecasts are far more difficult.

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

I've seen quite a few and they are better all the time. This winter the
weather folks twice predicted major winter storms more than 48 hours in
advance and were nearly dead-on both times. I was impressed.

Meteorologists (thanks to satellite technology) have become much
better at predicting storm tracks. This is quite different than
weather forecasting, as in the prediction of where and when a storm
will develop.

All of this isn't to say that methods and results haven't improved --
they have. But we're talking about an improvement from "laughable" to
only "bad" -- which is NOT something I'd hang my hat on in any
discussion of "global climate change."

I think we have to be very careful about the facts in this
discussion. The data (or "Back-casting", as we used to call it) shows
that temperatures worldwide have climbed incrementally in the last
hundred years. The data does NOT show why this is happening, and
everyone is misconstruing "educated guesses" as "facts".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've seen quite a few and they are better all the time. This winter the
weather folks twice predicted major winter storms more than 48 hours in
advance and were nearly dead-on both times. I was impressed.

Meteorologists (thanks to satellite technology) have become much
better at predicting storm tracks. This is quite different than
weather forecasting, as in the prediction of where and when a storm
will develop.

All of this isn't to say that methods and results haven't improved --
they have. But we're talking about an improvement from "laughable" to
only "bad" -- which is NOT something I'd hang my hat on in any
discussion of "global climate change."

I think we have to be very careful about the facts in this
discussion. The data (or "Back-casting", as we used to call it) shows
that temperatures worldwide have climbed incrementally in the last
hundred years. The data does NOT show why this is happening, and
everyone is misconstruing "educated guesses" as "facts".

With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years
and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming
prognosis.

What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers
available to model various scenarios.

Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but over long
periods of time.

Let the scientists do their job, and you do yours.

You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn
keeper.

Borat writes:

With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years
and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming
prognosis.

Nothing makes people who have been studying something for years honest or
objective (even with themselves).

Scientists have to eat, and they soon learn that one good way to eat is to do
studies that reach acceptable and desirable conclusions. Doing studies that
reach unpopular conclusions leads to ridicule and a loss of income.

Right now, global warming is where the money and glory are. So scientists
study global warming, and they make sure that they reach the right
conclusions.

What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers
available to model various scenarios.

Computer power is not the problem. Accurate models are the problem. Nobody
knows how to create an accurate model of global climate. Nobody even has a
clue, in fact. There are too many variables and the climate is too complex.
Nobody knows which factors are important; indeed, nobody knows all the factors
to begin with. There is no way today to predict the climate 100 years from
now, or even a year from now, no matter how powerful the computers.

Scientists can't even predict local weather 24 hours from now.

Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but over long
periods of time.

And that's why we really know nothing about it. We can only watch and
observe.

You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn
keeper.

Most people get upset whenever anyone questions their competence. That
doesn't mean that competence should not be questioned.

Thirty years ago, scientists were predicting a new ice age. Where's the ice?

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Borat writes:

With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this
for years and overall there are more scientists supporting the global
warming prognosis.

Nothing makes people who have been studying something for years honest
or objective (even with themselves).

Scientists have to eat, and they soon learn that one good way to eat
is to do studies that reach acceptable and desirable conclusions.
Doing studies that reach unpopular conclusions leads to ridicule and a
loss of income.

Right now, global warming is where the money and glory are. So
scientists study global warming, and they make sure that they reach
the right conclusions.

What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers
available to model various scenarios.

Computer power is not the problem. Accurate models are the problem.
Nobody knows how to create an accurate model of global climate.
Nobody even has a clue, in fact. There are too many variables and the
climate is too complex. Nobody knows which factors are important;
indeed, nobody knows all the factors to begin with. There is no way
today to predict the climate 100 years from now, or even a year from
now, no matter how powerful the computers.

Scientists can't even predict local weather 24 hours from now.

Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but
over long periods of time.

And that's why we really know nothing about it. We can only watch and
observe.

You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn
keeper.

Most people get upset whenever anyone questions their competence.
That doesn't mean that competence should not be questioned.

Thirty years ago, scientists were predicting a new ice age. Where's
the ice?


In your brain and nuts?

Bertie

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:28:47 +0100, "Borat" wrote:

I think we have to be very careful about the facts in this
discussion. The data (or "Back-casting", as we used to call it) shows
that temperatures worldwide have climbed incrementally in the last
hundred years. The data does NOT show why this is happening, and
everyone is misconstruing "educated guesses" as "facts".

With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years
and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming
prognosis.

But how would you know?

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers was written by bureaucrats with
political motives. It is supposed to be a summary of the Technical
Summary of Working Group 1 on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change.
The Technical Summary has not been released yet as it is being
rewritten TO CONFORM TO THE SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS. I'm not making
that up, the science will be rewritten to conform to the political
document before being released in May.

Fortunately, the final draft of the Technical Summary was leaked by
some of the participants who were upset by the politicization of the
study. It is available at www.junkscience.com among other places.

Read it and you will see the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not
reflect the Technical Summary (TS) in many places, particularly sea
level rise. The worst case sea level rise by 2100 in the TS is 17
inches, not 23 inches as in the SPM, much less the 20 to 200 ft thrown
around by Gore and the Associated Press.

The TS states that without melting the Greenland Ice Sheet and the
Antarctic Ice Sheets, the forever maximum rise is about a meter. The
SPM does not mention that limit and hints that the Greenland and
Antarctic Ice Sheets could melt though the TS flatly rejects that
possibility.

Many of the scientists in working group one resigned over the
politicization of the study, but the IPCC is still listing them as
authors. You can see them interviewed in the BBC Channel 4
documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which is available in
Google Videos and YouTube.

In short, what you seem to think scientists agree on is very different
from what they actually believe. You have to go past the popular media
and political statements from the UN and activists to learn what is
real and what is hype.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

"Don Tabor" wrote:

Many of the scientists in working group one resigned over the
politicization of the study, but the IPCC is still listing them as
authors. You can see them interviewed in the BBC Channel 4
documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those
same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their comments
were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. The producer, Martin
Durkin, has been caught pulling this trick before, and the tabloid UK Channel
4 (not BBC, which would have nothing to do with this bozo) has had to
apologize for the other program of his that it aired.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0...aganda_the.php

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

writes:

Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
is increasing.

That's not a proposal, it's an observation, and well established.

The only questions are the long-term changes that may occur as a result of
increased temperatures, and the causes of the increased temperatures. Nobody
has any idea of what the answers to either of these questions might be,
despite media claims to the contrary.

One outcome (and this is a big stretch I think) is
that the Gulf Stream could switch off in which case
the weather in the UK could become similar to the
present weather in Labrador.
If that turns out to be correct then global warming will
have caused a reduction in the winter temperature
in North Western Europe.

But that is complete speculation. Nobody really knows.

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

Since we do not have reliable weather forecasts, that gives you some idea of
how clueless we are with respect to long-term weather changes. It is not
currently possible to predict even so much as a thunderstorm with any
accuracy, up until a few minutes before it begins. We cannot predict the
development or path of tornadoes, even in the seconds before they appear. We
cannot predict the development of hurricanes or their path. We don't know
exactly when it will snow or rain. We cannot predict wind directions.

Furthermore, weather is chaotic, which means that a very small change in
initial conditions will produce huge swings in the weather later on. A
consequence of this is that the only way to accurately predict the weather
over the long term is to have 100% accurate data, and lots of it. This means,
for example, that we need temperature, pressure, and humidity data for every
cubic metre of the Earth's atmosphere at any given instant, and it must all be
perfectly accurate, otherwise we can never accurately predict the weather for
tomorrow or the day after ... much less for 100 years from now. We will never
have data this accurate, and so we will never be able to predict weather with
that degree of accuracy.

We actually have a better change of finding ways to alter than the weather
than of finding ways to predict it with accuracy. And that's saying a lot,
given that we have no real hope at this time of altering the weather.

Ignoring the atmospheric changes that the burning
of fossil fuels has caused (and this appears to me
to be indisputable - carbon was in ground, is now in
atmosphere) and assuming that it will not adversely
affect the climate is only an option for those that have
no interest in the continuation of the human civilisation.

This is a vast exaggeration. We really have no idea what the burning of
fossil fuels will do to the weather, if anything. We have no accurate models
for prediction of future weather, and we don't have the computing power to use
such models even if they existed. Additionally, for both short-term and
long-term weather predictions, we don't have all the data we need, and we
never will--not only because our means of gathering data are limited, but also
because some of the variables, such as solar output, cannot be known in
advance.

Many people _assume_ that the burning of fossil fuels is connected to global
warming, for various reasons that often have nothing to do with science. But
we really don't know. We only know that the temperature has increased
recently.

If I was an active private (or other) pilot I would be
concerned that my costs were going to rise
due to legislative and market changes triggered
by concern about global warming and of
course any 'leisure' activity involving the
use of fossil fuels is likely to be the subject of
unwelcome attention. However, there is a LONG
way to go in the improvement of the performance
of gerneral aviation engines and this is likely
to keep the baying mob happy for some
time.

General aviation makes absolutely no dent in the accumulation of greenhouse
gases, and therefore cannot possibly be making a dent in the weather. Anyone
complaining about GA is barking up the wrong tree. Of course, that won't stop
people from barking. Even commercial aviation really doesn't make any dent.

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