The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[BigBoxaJunk]

You missed that point by a VERY wide margin.

Maybe. I was mainly just making sure that you did realize that the people who provide you with your week-end forecast are not the same people who develop detailed global weather models.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Maybe. I was mainly just making sure that you did realize that the people who provide you with your week-end forecast are not the same people who develop detailed global weather models.

Well, they did go to school for weather and use models too.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Well, they did go to school for weather and use models too.

Maybe they all do go to the same kind of weather school, and they just pick out the most attractive and/or appealing individuals to be on TV.

 

[cobber]

Why is it assumed that the temperature today (we've only been keeping track since the mid 1800's) is "normal" and exactly the temperature it is supposed to be??
So what was the temperature 1 million years ago? Hotter or cooler? Take a guess, because that's all you have.

There's probably some way to tell, but the supposition that the present climate is the 'right' climate for the Earth is simply unscientific anthrocentrism. Which seems to be the premise behind the global warming hysteria.

 

[jamil]

You know that you understand how something works when you can build a computer model of it, feed relevant parameters into it, and have it correctly predict some outcome.

So, I'm going to defend the local weather prognosticators a bit here. The short term weather models aren't perfect, but they're good enough to predict general localized weather events several days in advance. I do think the local TV weather personalities get their divining rods out and embellish their forecasts into more detail than they can accurately predict, because they all compete for your viewership. The down side of that is that we prepare for some huge snow storm, and then get rain instead. But usually someone got the snow. That they can even predict what they do get right tells me they know a good bit about what they're modeling.

Long term models are a different story. They don't try to predict specific weather in a specific local areas. They try to predict global weather patterns and climate changes. These models haven't had much better track record for predicting long term global stuff than if they'd have guessed. That clearly demonstrates they don't know enough about what they're modeling. They shouldn't get to influence political policies until they can tell us with acceptable accuracy, what the earth's temperature will be next year, next decade, etc., and what the impact of that will be.

Since they can't do that now, they should STFU about it until they can. But they won't because politics are entwined with the science of global weather in a way much more perverse than local weather people trying to give you a reason to watch them.

 

[churchmouse]

You know that you understand how something works when you can build a computer model of it, feed relevant parameters into it, and have it correctly predict some outcome.

So, I'm going to defend the local weather prognosticators a bit here. The short term weather models aren't perfect, but they're good enough to predict general localized weather events several days in advance. I do think the local TV weather personalities get their divining rods out and embellish their forecasts into more detail than they can accurately predict, because they all compete for your viewership. The down side of that is that we prepare for some huge snow storm, and then get rain instead. But usually someone got the snow. That they can even predict what they do get right tells me they know a good bit about what they're modeling.

Long term models are a different story. They don't try to predict specific weather in a specific local areas. They try to predict global weather patterns and climate changes. These models haven't had much better track record for predicting long term global stuff than if they'd have guessed. That clearly demonstrates they don't know enough about what they're modeling. They shouldn't get to influence political policies until they can tell us with acceptable accuracy, what the earth's temperature will be next year, next decade, etc., and what the impact of that will be.

Since they can't do that now, they should STFU about it until they can. But they won't because politics are entwined with the science of global weather in a way much more perverse than local weather people trying to give you a reason to watch them.

It is the embellishment of the weather and the Oh Boy tactics that upset me and so many others. The "Weather Team's" are a revenue stream and are treated as such.
I look at the national weatehr and have friends at the tower......I get what the pilots get.....

 

[jamil]

There's probably some way to tell, but the supposition that the present climate is the 'right' climate for the Earth is simply unscientific anthrocentrism. Which seems to be the premise behind the global warming hysteria.

It's a good point. WTF is "right" climate? Relative to what?

 

[printcraft]

It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change - NationalJournal.com

If we really want to cut down on global greenhouse emissions, we're going to have to do something about cow farts.

 

[jamil]

It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change - NationalJournal.com

If we really want to cut down on global greenhouse emissions, we're going to have to do something about cow farts.

Why do they think cows fart so much? They eat veggies! Er, well, plants, anyway.

Here's a little known fact about vegetarians. They are generally more flatulent than meat eaters. So, go ahead. Take the cows away. You'll just fart more.

 

[Manatee]

Want to keep the carbon footprint from growing? Have fewer kids. Your gas guzzling 66 Pontiac is nowhere near as damaging to the planet as one rugrat.

 

[Smokepole]

Maybe. I was mainly just making sure that you did realize that the people who provide you with your week-end forecast are not the same people who develop detailed global weather models.

So basically you continue to exercise your nitpicking technique. I used one wrong word that admittedly changes the meaning of the sentence. The whole of the post lent itself to my meaning.

 

[Smokepole]

It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change - NationalJournal.com

Why do they think cows fart so much? They eat veggies! Er, well, plants, anyway.

Here's a little known fact about vegetarians. They are generally more flatulent than meat eaters. So, go ahead. Take the cows away. You'll just fart more.

Ooohh Crap!

 

[Smokepole]

Want to keep the carbon footprint from growing? Have fewer kids. Your gas guzzling 66 Pontiac is nowhere near as damaging to the planet as one rugrat.

But then we won't be able to sustain the population. Oh wait . . . win/win.

 

[printcraft]

Ooohh Crap!

I had a couple of late night Rubens with extra kraut last night.

I need to purchase some carbon credits STAT.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Warm again today

 

[KG1]

Warm again today

It was those late night Rubens with extra kraut printcraft had last night.

 

[printcraft]

It was those late night Rubens with extra kraut printcraft had last night.

Oppenheimer ain't got on me.

 

[smokingman]

Good article about one of the IPCC contributors/reviewers of the current vomit.
Green 'smear campaign' against professor who dared to disown 'sexed up' UN climate dossier | Mail Online

 

[Bunnykid68]

Chilly out this mornin

 

[actaeon277]

Oppenheimer ain't got on me.

For I have become Death, The Destroyer of Worlds.