I have an opinion on global warming!

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!!!)

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

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.

Gene Seibel writes:

That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
bells go off.

Of all the data we have, that which appears to show a warming trend is the
most reliable and plentiful. It is true that we cannot prove that a definite
trend is in progress, nor can we know whether it will continue. But the
observation of a warming trend is far more reliable than the rampant
speculation on the possible causes of that warming. The notion that burning
fossil fuels is somehow causing global warming is pure speculation.

I think the real factors at work here are a human tendency to egotistically
believe that people can have any real influence on the planet, and a human
tendency to extreme and hysterical behavior. Both of these combine to induce
many human beings to see patterns where none may exist, and then to attribute
those patterns to human activity. In reality, we have no idea.

I think it's a good idea to reduce the use of fossil fuels simply because we
don't really know how much fuel remains. Reducing greenhouse gases is
secondary, because we don't really know what effect, if any, these gases might
have on the weather over the long term.

--
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.

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.

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.

Robert M. Gary writes:

We're told that the unusally cold temps lately are a result of global
warming (ice caps melting).

Thirty years ago, we were entering an ice age, according to some.

I'm still waiting to find out how we also caused global warming on Mars.

We can't, but an increase in solar output can do this, on both planets.

Pretty cool how the weather man on TV can't guess the temp tomorrow
but the global warming people can predict temps in 20 years. Maybe we
need to get those guys to come up with our forecasts.

They should go to Las Vegas and fund their studies with their gambling
winnings, since, if they can predict the weather 20 years in advance, winning
100% at gambling should be child's play for them.

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

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.