I have an opinion on global warming!

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"

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 wrote in news:fmvie4-c811.ln1
@news.infowest.com:
Jay Honeck wrote:
I agree. As we sit here, shivering in record cold temperatures (wind
chills near zero tonight), the thought that global warming might be a
complete crock of sh*t never once entered my mind -- nor would I
*ever* consider sharing any such silly thoughts with any of you.

Here I sit in the southwest; it's already 90 deg. outside. The globe
must be warming faster than they say. Your statement and mine equally
meaningless and narrow.

Maybe it's not "Global Warming". Maybe it's just "Southwest Warming".

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 Apr 6, 8:13 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
We're told that the unusally cold temps lately are a result of global
warming (ice caps melting).

This morning on NPR my son and I both noticed a subtle-but-important
shift in the nomenclature the "Global Warming" advocates are now
using. The argument is now being framed in terms of "Global Climate
Change", rather than "Global Warming" -- at least on NPR.

I guess the advocates of this pseudo-science got tired of being
ridiculed by folks who have been shivering through some of the coldest
weather on record. Now they can just sit back and say "What, it's
record-setting COLD? Hey, that's 'Global Climate Change' at work."

Did you see the picture of Pelosi on Drudge a few weeks ago? There was
a picture of her standing there talking about global warming next to a
picture (taken the same day) of orange crops that had frozen in
unseasonably cold weather.
-Robert

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 6, 6:18 pm, wrote:

Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
is increasing. One effect of that is expected to be
increases in the energy of weather systems.
No one is suggesting that it is going to be hotter
everywhere all of the time.

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.

Probably believe the earth is flat too.

Did you see the picture of Pelosi on Drudge a few weeks ago? There was
a picture of her standing there talking about global warming next to a
picture (taken the same day) of orange crops that had frozen in
unseasonably cold weather.

Ha! Nope, I missed that one.

Pelosi is an interesting case. Talk about delusions of grandeur -- a
mere Congressional representative with the arrogance to meet with the
Syrians about peace with Israel!

I'll bet they're still laughing...
--
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.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.


Dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and


Bertie

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.