Stating the obvious concerning global warming projections

[Rasputin_Vol]

:crazy:

MaineToday.com | News Update: Brrr! Farmers' Almanac says cold winter ahead

The almanac's winter forecast is at odds with that of the National Weather Service, whose trends-based outlook calls for warmer than normal temperatures over much of the country, including Alaska, said Ed O'Lenic, chief of the operations branch at NOAA's Climate Prediction Center.

While he wouldn't comment specifically on the almanac's ability to forecast the weather two years from now, O'Lenic said it's generally impossible to come up with accurate forecasts more than a week in advance.

So, why are all of these climate change models given so much validity? :unsure:

 

[kptvol]

Because relying on questionable information is only bad when Bush does it. When Al Gore does it he wins a Nobel Prize.

 

[TennTradition]

:crazy:

MaineToday.com | News Update: Brrr! Farmers' Almanac says cold winter ahead



So, why are all of these climate change models given so much validity? :unsure:

I think that it is because of the basic differences between forecasting weather events or daily temperatures and forecasting climatic averages that are globally averaged. For example, it might be very difficult to predict where the hot spots will be, it is generally easier to predict that the global average will be higher. This is why the precipitation and soil moisture models that are used to predict where drought may occur under the forcing of global warming are generally regarded as quite unreliably.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I think that it is because of the basic differences between forecasting weather events or daily temperatures and forecasting climatic averages that are globally averaged. For example, it might be very difficult to predict where the hot spots will be, it is generally easier to predict that the global average will be higher. This is why the precipitation and soil moisture models that are used to predict where drought may occur under the forcing of global warming are generally regarded as quite unreliably.

Oh, here we go with the weather vs. climate arguement that most of the GW supporters try to split hairs with...

 

[joevol320]

trying to predict global warming is like trying to predict the weather.

 

[TennTradition]

Oh, here we go with the weather vs. climate arguement that most of the GW supporters try to split hairs with...

There is a difference between making important distinctions and splitting hairs. Science isn't a subject of broad generalizations, I think you would agree. While I am not suggesting that predicting global mean temperatures is easy - it is not as difficult as predicting the high/low temperatures for a specific area one or two months into the future.

It is the difference between the prediction that the sprang (nod to BMFPV) will be warmer on the whole than the winter. While it is entirely possible (and quite impossible to predict) that the high temperature on one given day in the spring will be colder than one given winter day. On the other hand, it is very possible (and quite possible to predict, especially when averaged over a few years) that the average high temperature in the spring will be higher than the average high temperature in the winter.

Of course, it is easier to make the prediction that spring temperatures will be warmer than winter temperatures because over the time scale of a few months, the only thing that is changing greatly is the average solar flux to a specific area of the world (the ocean isn't going to turn over appreciably, large world-wide thawing beyond that which is understood well (from yearly observations) isn't going to occur, the atmospheric composition isn't going to change greatly, etc.). These unknowns produce uncertainty in the global warming predictions that aren't necessarily there in my previous example. However, these uncertainties are of a completely different nature that the stochastic or chaotic nature of weather pattern prediction.

 

[TennTradition]

Alright all....I'm coming back home to Tennessee for a little weekend visit, so I may be in here some today - but not much. Happy debating...

 

[Vol Mania 21]

global warming does not exist....climate change yes, it's always happen and will always happen. al gore is an idiot, most people know it. it's not really been all that hot of a summer down here in bama. don't get me wrong it's hot, but its nothing like last year

 

[KB5252]

global warming does not exist....climate change yes, it's always happen and will always happen. al gore is an idiot, most people know it. it's not really been all that hot of a summer down here in bama. don't get me wrong it's hot, but its nothing like last year

I don't believe in man made global warming or climate change. I find it impossible for scientist and researchers to explain the percentage of man made causes versus natural causes.

 

[joevol320]

last year was a very hot year with no rain and no hurricanes. this year, we've had a good amount of rain. what can you blame and not blame on global warming? any disaster is blamed on global warming. but why can't a nice breezy day with low humidity be blamed on global warming. it is such a joke.

 

[iceman9]

An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that in about ten years the Earth will enter a "little ice age" which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity.

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the UNAM, as argued earlier during a conference that teaches at the Centre for Applied Sciences and Technological Development. . . .

The models and forecasts of the IPCC "is incorrect because they are based solely on mathematical models and presented results from scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity," said [Herrera].

At present, the world is undoubtedly going through a transition phase where solar activity diminishes considerably, "so that in two years or so, there will be a little ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years," and the immediate consequence of this, he added, will be drought.

The term used by the researcher has been used previously to indicate periods of cooling. In particular there is the so-called "Little Ice Age", which refers to a cold period that lasted since the beginning of the fourteenth century until the mid-nineteenth century. TennTrad, you've got get these guys on the same page...

 

[hndog609]

global warming does not exist....climate change yes, it's always happen and will always happen. al gore is an idiot, most people know it. it's not really been all that hot of a summer down here in bama. don't get me wrong it's hot, but its nothing like last year

I have a hard time calling someone who can help spawn a world hysteria that shoves money into his pockets and gets himself showered with accolades an "idiot". He doesn't even have to lift a finger to adapt his own lifestyle to the cause, the sycophants don't care.

That's darn close to genius in my book.

 

[VolByBirth]

global warming does not exist....climate change yes, it's always happen and will always happen. al gore is an idiot, most people know it. it's not really been all that hot of a summer down here in bama. don't get me wrong it's hot, but its nothing like last year

And that disproves Global Warming? Fascinating. I didn't realize Alabama was the epicenter of Global Warming study.

As for Global Warming -- it is simple for scientists to validate or invalidate the models used. I guarantee most of the models will be flawed in many ways. However, I think believing people can't impact the climate is naive (ozone layer).

My approach is this: I wouldn't stick my mouth on an exhaust pipe or a smoke stack and breathe. The more populated we become and with a continued dependence on oil I think the pollution can have a real impact -- and a negative one. So all the Global Warming chatter -- yes, it may prove to be mostly wrong, but what they are striving for isn't all bad.

 

[TennTradition]

My approach is this: I wouldn't stick my mouth on an exhaust pipe or a smoke stack and breathe. The more populated we become and with a continued dependence on oil I think the pollution can have a real impact -- and a negative one. So all the Global Warming chatter -- yes, it may prove to be mostly wrong, but what they are striving for isn't all bad.

While I generally fall into the crowd that believes in some degree of anthropogenic global warming, I also kind of disagree with this last sentence. From my perspective, just because it (in general) makes sense not to pollute if you can help it - this is not why we need to pursue carbon emission reductions and raise concerns about climate change. I think that the science must speak for itself and the uncertainty must be reduced to a level such that acceptable risk/reward analysis and decision-making can be carried out in a policy context. Doing this because it is "in general" the right thing will not be enough. We need to feel confident (to a level of acceptable uncertainty based on the risk) that the science is right.

 

[IPorange]

Oh, here we go with the weather vs. climate arguement that most of the GW supporters try to split hairs with...

If you think that is splitting hairs, so is distinguishing one football play to entire football season.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

If you think that is splitting hairs, so is distinguishing one football play to entire football season.

If a baseball player is batting .375 at the end of April, can you predict what their batting average will be at the end of the season?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Brrrr... this :censored: global warming.

 

[gsvol]

Brrrr... this :censored: global warming.

I have two to three inches of global warming accumulated on my lawn today, the state troopers reported the number of accidents on the interstate passing through this county were too numerous to count.

Since the NOAA was wrong and the Farmers Almanac was right, why don't we close down the NOAA and call Charlie at State Farm if we need to know anything about the weather??

That would kill two birds with one stone, we could cut the deficit and have more accurate predictions as well.

 

[gsvol]

If a baseball player is batting .375 at the end of April, can you predict what their batting average will be at the end of the season?

New OBAMA Federal Government Golf Rules



The President has recently appointed a Golf Czar and major rule changes in the game of golf became effective in November 2010. This is only a preview as the complete rule book (expect 2000+ pages) is being rewritten as we speak. Here are a few of the changes.


Golfers with handicaps:


- below 10 will have their green fees increased by 35%.

- between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees.

- above 18 will get a $20 check each time they play.


The term "gimme" will be changed to "entitlement" and will be used as follows:


- handicaps below 10, no entitlements.

- handicaps from 11 to 17, entitlements for putter- length putts.

- handicaps above 18, if your ball is on green, no need to putt, just pick it up.


These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most importantly, equality in scoring. In addition, a player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or six pars in any given 18-hole round. Any excess must be given to those fellow players who have not yet scored a birdie or par.


Only after all players have received a birdie or par from the player actually making the birdie or par, can that player begin to count his pars and birdies again. The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes, but the term 'net score' will be available only for scoring those players with handicaps of 18 and above.


This is intended to 'redistribute' the success of winning by making sure that in every competition, the above 18 handicap players will post only 'net score' against every other player's gross score. These new rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf.

Golf must be about fairness. It should have nothing to do with ability, hard work, practice, and responsibility. This is the "right thing to do."

 

[Ed12111]

:crazy:

MaineToday.com | News Update: Brrr! Farmers' Almanac says cold winter ahead



So, why are all of these climate change models given so much validity? :unsure:

You can't be serious.

 

[IPorange]

Oh, he's serious. It's sad. You can't reason with some people. They're too sure they know more than experts.

 

[VOLatile]

Oh, he's serious. It's sad. You can't reason with some people. They're too sure they know more than experts.

This sub-forum is full of "experts." The only thing they're experts of is pressing ctrl+v.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

Oh, he's serious. It's sad. You can't reason with some people. They're too sure they know more than experts.

And your consensus of experts is only a bunch of moonbat wonks paid by the UN to parrot their far fetched theory.

EVERY long range prediction the global warming experts have made have been WRONG.

When it comes to expert computer weather modeling one of the world's foremost climatologists (MIT) says their models overstate the value of CO2 by six times it's real affect.

And the only thing you can come up with to refute his science his age. (now that is sad.)

Not only those things but no computer weather modeling has even a clue what solar and other cosmic activity may do and those factors overrule CO2 levels so much as to make the whole theory laughable.

You are right about one thing, it is impossible to reason with some people, and you are one of them.

 

[TennTradition]

When it comes to expert computer weather modeling one of the world's foremost climatologists (MIT) says their models overstate the value of CO2 by six times it's real affect.

And, he has a department full of colleagues, who are also among the foremost meteorologists, that disagree with him that reasonably significant warming is not expected. Lindzen offers a reasonable voice on questioning the input to the models. We should be. I, however, also think that he plays some games as well...such as when he says, with a smirk, that historically CO2 lags temperature, not the other way around. He knows he is right about that, but he also knows that its a moot point when you have unnatural CO2 sources.

Not only those things but no computer weather modeling has even a clue what solar and other cosmic activity may do and those factors overrule CO2 levels so much as to make the whole theory laughable.

I completely disagree about that making the theory laughable. The theory is what it is. At a given solar radiance, a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature. Whether the solar radiance goes up or down doesn't impact the validity of the theory. I think the more appropriate argument along that line of thought is that if we don't know what is going to happen to solar radiance, then how much should we care about the effect of CO2?

 

[TSwafford]

global warming is bullcrap.. i would make up something like that too if i could make billions of $ from green products of it