Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate”

Oh Crap! · Feb 2, 2009

Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate”

Interesting little read.

Hey Al Gore, guess the debate isn't over.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/

Wade · Feb 2, 2009

Funny how they Global Warming freaks call their version of the future "Science", but science has little to do with it. More like opinion, or "Political Opinion".

Weather people seem to be particularly annoyed by global warming simulations. Probably because they realize they can't predict next weeks weather, but global warming scientist attest they can predict 100 years into the future.

What global warming attempts to do, is say, CO2 is increasing. And, it's a greenhouse gas. So, the Earth will warm up X degrees due to more greenhouse gas. It all makes sense from a macro scale. But, greenhouse gases are just a really small piece of the pie. Try to find a global warming freak, that can explain Ice Ages, without just guessing. They can't. They'll start trying to explain conveyor shutdowns, and blah blah blah, but they don't actually know.

pernikm · Feb 2, 2009

I can probably say the globe is warming...but it should be. We are still coming out of an ice age. There is also evidence that CO2 is not causing global warming, but infact it is a result of warming, because rising CO2 actually lags the temperature increase. This is caused when CO2 comes out of solution in a warming ocean. This is like a warm soda fizzing more. One more thing to add. I used to run computational fluid dynamic models. Unless you have very good knowlege of your boundary conditions, the models become very inaccurate very fast. This is probably why climate models, when run backwards can't even predict the ice age. Sound like there is not enough data to start worrying. It is also important to realize that it is very difficult to tie climate observations to any one cause since there are many overlapping natural climate cycles that obscure the data. It takes some very skilled mathematicians working with statics to separate the variables. Math that Al Gore, is quite frankly too stupid to know...sorry...but the math is hard...I know...I do hard math...and the statistics on this problem are probably not solvable.

When people talk about gobal warming I usually say, "you mean natural climate variation?"

Karl

Wade · Feb 3, 2009

pernikm said:
I can probably say the globe is warming...but it should be. We are still coming out of an ice age. There is also evidence that CO2 is not causing global warming, but infact it is a result of warming, because rising CO2 actually lags the temperature increase. This is caused when CO2 comes out of solution in a warming ocean. This is like a warm soda fizzing more. One more thing to add. I used to run computational fluid dynamic models. Unless you have very good knowlege of your boundary conditions, the models become very inaccurate very fast. This is probably why climate models, when run backwards can't even predict the ice age. Sound like there is not enough data to start worrying. It is also important to realize that it is very difficult to tie climate observations to any one cause since there are many overlapping natural climate cycles that obscure the data. It takes some very skilled mathematicians working with statics to separate the variables. Math that Al Gore, is quite frankly too stupid to know...sorry...but the math is hard...I know...I do hard math...and the statistics on this problem are probably not solvable.

When people talk about gobal warming I usually say, "you mean natural climate variation?"

Karl

My wife does process variation simulation work. She laughs at the models, just like you did. She says see I can make any simulation do anything you want. Without controlled correlation physical models, it's just a guess or opinion.

I've seen data that pretty much says, there's more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere all ready, to absorb all infra-red wavelengths, within the absorption spectra of CO2. Another words, you can double CO2 in the atmosphere, but only absorb a very very small amount of additional energy, cause there isn't anything left to absorb except at the edges. Basically, you end up absorbing the ground radiated infra-red, closer to the ground. Now CFC12, and many other non-ozone depleting gases, are a totally different problem.

Rock Star · Feb 3, 2009

Wade said:
My wife does process variation simulation work. She laughs at the models, just like you did. She says see I can make any simulation do anything you want. Without controlled correlation physical models, it's just a guess or opinion.

I've seen data that pretty much says, there's more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere all ready, to absorb all infra-red wavelengths, within the absorption spectra of CO2. Another words, you can double CO2 in the atmosphere, but only absorb a very very small amount of additional energy, cause there isn't anything left to absorb except at the edges. Basically, you end up absorbing the ground radiated infra-red, closer to the ground. Now CFC12, and many other non-ozone depleting gases, are a totally different problem.

exactly! I say ditto!!!! also, I am now totally

Wade · Feb 4, 2009

Rock Star said:
exactly! I say ditto!!!! also, I am now totally

Here, this might help, thread #35 I think.

http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126269

Let me know if you have any questions. I proof read it, and it makes sense to me. Maybe, just me though.

jim · Feb 5, 2009

More trees, like the rainforest, would reduce CO2. Ironically the greenies love coffee...which is grown on plantations that were created by plowing down the rainforest.

And, yes, our polar ice caps and glaciers are melting...they started to melt 10,000 years ago at the end of our ice age and will continue to do so.

Lastly, if we are warming, what is our concern? We'll have more water, more land to grow food on, more comfort and a better environment for life to thrive (how much life is on the polar ice caps?). Warming is good...if we had global cooling now that's when we should be concerned. Plus, as a added bonus, if we melt enough water maybe we can submerge San Fransisco and other low elevation coastal areas (greenies love the coast) and get rid of the root of the problem. Course they would just plow down habitat and trees to build more houses (read Montana, Jackson Hole, etc.).

FriscoProx · Feb 10, 2009

Here's a good link if you're into real science:

http://biocab.org/Emissivity_CO2.html

Wade · Feb 10, 2009

FriscoProx said:
Here's a good link if you're into real science:

http://biocab.org/Emissivity_CO2.html

So, what it's saying is, although increasing CO2 absorbs more heat, it also will re-radiate more heat. Which is all due to CO2's emissivity ( the ratio of energy absorbing versus energy radiating ).

It'd be interesting to see what the re-radiating IR frequencies are. Surly they don't emit at the same spectrum as they absorbed. That would through a kink in the theory about already having enough CO2 to absorb all IR within the absorption band.

And, now we know why this stuff in impossible to simulate. Heck, it's impossible to wrap your head around all the effects.

Search

Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate”

Oh Crap!

Free Member

Wade

Free Member

pernikm

Free Member

Wade

Free Member

Rock Star

Well-known member

Wade

Free Member

jim

Well-known member

FriscoProx

Well-known member

Wade

Free Member

Similar threads