Human activity has a bigger impact than the Sun? Are you serious? Don't you think you'd notice if the Sun was gone? Would that have any impact on the Earth? I think you might want to check out the real world because if the Sun is gone ~ there wouldn't be one.

Here ~ take a look at the size of the Earth compared to that of the Sun. Can you say that the Sun's impact is minor to that of humans? ~ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

Oh Dear... THEODORE is not actually reading your posts is he?




I am unable to find where you have mentioned that that the Sun has no effect... he appears now to be rantimg at a tangent. In fact no-ome in this thread has ever said that the Sun does not have an impact on the climate, but he is constantly saying "dont you think we'd notice if the sun was gone?"



I dont remember you saying that "Humans create the weather" either. He also seems to have made that giant leap from Astrometeorology (which IS a figure of fun pseudoscience) to Meteorology which is a REAL science. Astrometeorology is not a synonym for Meteorology.
The very good points that you have made seem unworthy of comment by him, because he cannot refute them

How do you know? I reported on the event. Lose the hype Keithco, and chill out.

"Reporting" on an event is NOT the same as "Being there"
The attendee lists are in the public domain, IPCC IS transparent.

Definition of Hype: "Extreme promotion of a person, idea, or product"

Quotes from THEODORE: "I am an expert", "I am an expert and a pro... dont even go there", "Only the sun", "Only the sun", "I am an expert".... enough said I think.

I do you the honour of spelling your pseudonym correctly, kindly do the same

Please put me back on your "ignore" list

Already beat you to it. Cheers!

[quote name='keithisco' post='1762411' date='Jul 7 2007, 08:15 AM']Thanks for that ESSAN. I have looked carefully at the site... it would appear that you have to pay for any forecasts. Also he has NEVER published his methods so no scientific scrutiny is possible. I see he is one of the "Money - Grabbers" as well.... sorry, a btit of sarcasm crept in there.Here is some information dispelling some myths propounded by THEODORE. It isn't very long but is very well informed. By Prof. John Mitchell OBE FRS Chief Scientist at the Met. Office UK.
[quote]


Mitchell doesn't "dispel" anything, Keithco, considering the fact that the UK Met office is unable to forecast weather in advance of 10-14 days, much less a month, a year, or several years to "forecast" future climate conditions. Just how is Mitchell able to dispel the facts of Earth's solar-forced climate if his entire office and their own weather models can't forecast regional weather a month in advance? How is that possible? Moreover, his office is connected to te IPCC, the same organization whose mandate set on blaming humans for global warming ~ something that is not true, and has never been proven.

See his last paragraph ~ that tells you everything you need to know about the careerists whose "careers" depend on blaming humanity for global warming ~ hence, his "climate change myths" constructed to support this false premise to keep the funding flowing to those "150 world renowed climate experts" who can forecast Earth's climate conditions far into the future, but cannot forecast their own local weather a month in advance ~

Met Office work on climate change: The Met Office Hadley Centre was opened in the early 1990s and is a world-leading climate centre. It has over 150 world-renowned climate experts who draw from the expertise of the supercomputer modellers at the Met Office.It is the UK’s official centre for climate change research — partly funded by Defra (the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) and MOD — which provides in-depth information and advice to the Government on climate change issues.It undertakes studies of the global climate using similar, though more extensive, models of the atmosphere used for the prediction of weather conditions. It informs the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and was the leading UK contributor to the Fourth Assessment Review published in February 2007. It assembled much of the scientific basis of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (pub. October 2006). Its research also informs the UK Climate Impacts Programme on how climate change will impact at regional and national levels in the UK.It advises businesses and governments on the science of climate change and strategies for mitigation and adaptation.

A newly published paper titled, Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts by J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C. Green highlights just how the myth of man-made global warming and the scientists whom push this myth onto the public via the IPCC have not proven human-induced climate change.

Armstrong and Green state ~ "Much research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful. Rather, policies should be based on forecasts from scientific forecasting methods. We assessed the extent to which long-term forecasts of global average temperatures have been derived using evidence-based forecasting methods. We asked scientists and others involved in forecasting climate change to tell us which scientific articles presented the most credible forecasts. Most of the responses we received (30 out of 51) listed the IPCC Report as the best source. Given that the Report was commissioned at an enormous cost in order to provide policy recommendations to governments, the response should be reassuring. It is not. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures."

They continue ~

"Gaining acceptance of scientific findings History is filled with the poor treatment of those who attempt to introduce science into arenas where emotions are high and vested interests are threatened. Galileo springs to mind. Scientists in the West at least no longer face death when presenting their findings. Nevertheless, the scientific review system currently acts to prevent the publication of research findings that conflict with commonly held beliefs (for a review of research on this matter, see Armstrong 1997).

We recommend the use of objective evidence-based (scientific) procedures to assess the validity of global warming forecasts. Our belief is that science will win out in the long run. The problem is that we may waste enormous resources over a short-run that might last for the next few decades. Prior to conducting an audit, one might ask policy makers to say what information would be sufficient to change their opinions. People who are able to specify such evidence are often able to change their opinions. When we have used this question among academic researchers and students, we find that many of them are willing to specify such information. Disturbingly, however, many others are unable to even imagine that any information could possibly change their minds."

For more, see ~

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com

'Nuff said.

You really are full of S*** sorry that should be MISINFORMATION.
From the MET office:
Please see earlier post for the link.
Longer range is available to business', bit like your "forecasts" actually. However your forecasts were proven as inaccurate on the Meteorology forum.

The MET office is, and always has been, extremely profitable for the UK... they do not rely on any external funding to maintain their own 150 experts. Because of their world leading expertise im Meteorology then of course, they will also contribute to the good, solid, science at the IPCC.


I have read all 19 pages of the source you quote:Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecastsby J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C. Green. Just a couple of points...
They sent a questionnaire to 240 Climate scientists, 51 supplied "useful" responses (we do not know what criteria they adopted to determine just what made them useful - so worthless statement from them), of those 42 provided their sources, and 8 gave the IPCC as the most credible source.
Lets look closer at their study... it was based on a google search, without reference to Professional Publications, serious error.... they then go on to say that chapter 8 contained 788 sources sounds like a LOT of quoted sources to me, but then complained that there were too many sources , again showing their ignorance of Scientific publication... they then say that it did not meet Plain English requirements - no surprise there because it was a scientific treatise.
Finally, they do not state who the 51 credible replies were from, so no further investigation into their particular areas of expertise are verifiable.

J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C. Green are not physical scientist, they forecast in such areas as economic and conflict resolution studies. They also spend a great deal of time in this article, forwarding their OWN publications, and their own websites. They keep saying that forecating (not Meteorological or scientific forecasting into physical causality) should meet their OWN basis for acceptance. They complain that too much mathematics is used to extrapolate accuracy... Darned right it is - this is science, NOT economics or conflict resolution.

Now, THEODORE, will you PLEASE put me back om your "ignore" list, I am tired of repudiating your silly claims, and showing your sources for the foolish writings of non-expert witnesses in support of your non - expert claims

I really don't have the patience to have another of these debates, as I have them enough with colleagues. I think many people arguing about drastic climate change and global warming have little to no understanding of climate or its complexity, but appear to be more of the bandwagoneers of modern environmentalism.
Anyway Here are some insightful links and or scientific journals that should maybe slow down the chicken little factor. Make of them what you, be sure to at read the first one with the link.
Center for Science and Policy, Corrections to IPCC assessments.


On CO2 not directly forcing climate



Petit, J.R., et al, 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.




Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.



Yokoyama, Y., Lambeck, K., Deckker, P.D., Johnston, P. and Fifield, L.K. 2000. Timing of the Last Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima. Nature 406: 713-716.

"Clean" energy sources.


Hoffert and a panel of 17 scientists and engineers from around the world, Im talking distinguished physicists, thermodynamic experts and energy experts concluded there is no known energy technology capable of reducing carbon emissions or even holding them to levels many times higher than today. They say that a totally new and undiscovered technology will be needed to replace fossil fuels.



Hoffert, et al., "Advanced Technology paths to global climate stability: Energy for a greenhouse planet." Science 298 (Nov. 1, 2002): 981-87.


The IPCC on climate change



IPCC. Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge UK press 2001. p. 744




On Antarctic cooling


Doran, P.T., et al., 2002 "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response," Nature 415:517-20


Comiso, J.C., et al., 2000, "Variability and trends in Antarctica surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements,"Journal of climate 13:1674-96


Joughin, I., et al., 2002 "Positive mass balance of the Ross ice streams, West Antarctica." Science 295:476-80


Petit, J.R., et al., 1999 "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the vostok ice core, Antarctica." Nature 399:429-36



Vyas, N.K., et al., 2003 "Secular trends in sea ice extent over the antarctic region base on OCEANSAT-1 MSMR observations," International journal of remote sensing 24: 2277-87.

On increasing sever weather

NOA's National Hurricane Center
Computer modeling shows no increase in storm inensity
And found it again

Just a few, you can find many many more though.
Anyway use/read them in whatever way you wish.
I would love to use these in a more subtle way to support a side in a debate, but at this point I am pretty tired of it. As with other apopoliptic predictions people will realize the foolish over exaggeration long past chances for the circumstance to occur. I only hope this wild goose chase does not cost us our gross national product and fun chance to become a province of china.

Fun fact: There are over 160,000 glaciers in the world, only a small portion have been cataloged with any accuracy, and an even smaller portion have been studied with any care.


Ill end with a nice quote from Dr. Crichton

There is nothing wrong with environmental "bandwagoneers". In fact, we should all be concerned what industry is doing to the environment. Our children's *healthy* future is at risk...

<major snip>



Have you read anywhere that anyone says controlling the climate is the issue? Not in this thread...
It seems to me some defenders of "we're too insignificant" are putting words into print that are fallacious... Why would that be?
That said - there are a few governments which have ?investigated? controlling weather. But, that's not the issue, is it...?

I for one am for environmental protection and regulation. The problem is we need to decided between fanciful exaggerations and whats real. Climate prediction is not there yet, It is asinine to believe that current computer models can predict the climate in 20, 50, 100 or even 1000 years from now, when they fail at predicting the past. Yes there is something wrong with bandwagoneers. They generally tend to make things worse than they would have been and interfere with objective scientific study. Bias is a major problem in science. Some examples of bandwagoneers interfering with scientific research? Global Cooling, Y2k, Eugenics, High tension power lines, to name a few.




That is not my quote, Is a quote from a fictional character in a book. I rather like the quote, because it draws on people the amount of fluctuation in our climate history and in our weather. I have not heard the argument actually raised about controlling the weather in any sophisticated debates. I am not a defender of industry, nor do I think we're too insignificant to effect our planet. My own doubts fall to the severity of it. I think it is grossly over-exaggerated and used by politicians as way to implement control and cause to their campaigns. It is sad that in these scientifically enlightened times, it is wrong to not just lump yourself in with the "consensus" as a scientist, by the way if it had always been that way we would undoubtedly still believe the earth was the center of the universe.

I consider it unethical to yell to people the "dire and desperate" circumstances of 7 meter rising sea level, but happen to leave off the part that this might occur over the next millennium. I find it unethical to tell people, that we know for fact that Carbon Dioxide levels are the culprit of global warming, when in fact from 1940-1970 the global temperature decreased while CO2 levels continued to increase exponentially. I believe its unethical to claim CO2 levels directly force temperature when every in depth study ever done of CO2 correlation to temperature shows very drastic lag times. I think wrong its to tell people that rates of extinction will increase because of global warming, when the actual rate of extinction is not even remotely known, total species estimates range from 1 million to half a billion, how can you know if you have been robbed if you never knew how much money was in your wallet?

I think its wrong, to say rate of emerging diseases are increasing simply because new ones now get more air time. I find it wrong to say that this year record temperatures are being set, They have been ever year by the thousands for different places on earth. I think its not good to tell people, more deserts will be popping up when the largest in the world is shrinking. I find it unethical to tell people all glaciers are melting, when A. most people have no concept of how many glaciers there are in the world B. The two largest reservoirs of ice Antarctica and Greenland have actually net been gaining ice mass, and they constitute over 95% of the worlds ice.

Anyway I dont think its in science's best interest to be bias toward a subject because a few unethical, unscientifically minded politicians (Al Gore?) decide to support the idea. Again if that were the case America should have joined Nazi Germany during WWII in support of Eugenics, because the politicians supported that as well.

Some day you and I should sit down and have a talk, about who "messes" up our environment.

Stellar, camlax.
Stellar....!

From the Petit paper:



The Hoffert et al. paper accepts the premise that there is a very real anthropogenic contribution to climate change and works from there. Is that unethical of them? Is it unethical to approach a policy initiative from a worst-case scenario perspective? Is climatology science? Yes. Does it have political and policy ramifications? Yes. There's no getting around that. You ask "how can you know if you have been robbed if you never knew how much money was in your wallet?" and yet seem to take the view that precautionary measures to protect your wallet are only necessary after you've counted your money. I'd prefer not to open my wallet one day to find it empty simply because I desired that degree of certainty.

Actually, Climatology can get a lot tougher on science and throw out the politics. Its not hard, people just fear grant dry up, Politicians lose a campaign funder and eco-terrorists may have to think and back up the babel they spew out.

Lets see, How about, Government sponsored studies, fund 3 groups from 3 separate institutions who have no affiliation? Why would that be hard, its done in medicine. We live in the information age, FTP, CDs, DVD, database archives, I can not conceive why some climate researchers (as is in the case of Mann's "hockey stick graph") they can easily make their data readily available to other researchers. Mann took almost 10 years to have his work looked over, and it was sloppy to all hell. If Global warming is so dire, wouldn't you expect that access to information to make correct policy would be a good way to go about fixing the problem?

Peer review needs fixed. Often times in climatology the reviews know the submitters this is totally unacceptable. It happens in way too many scientific fields actually.

And no policy should not be made from a worst case scenario, it should be done cost-benefit wise, now before you crucify me for being concerned about money, I am not speaking in terms of monatary cost-benefit. For instance the benzene regulations of the 1980s cost 20 billion dollars per year of life saved, what a tremendous waste of money. 20 billion dollars is more than the combined gross national product of the 50 poorest countries combined And dont get me started on the shelving of DDT. How about an eco on eco one. By replanting old growth forests to save 1 bird you further endanger another bird who prefers new growth forests.

**Fun fact, 200 years ago there was less old growth forests then there is today.

As far as Petit paper goes, Yes they give lip service to global warming, though there data does not support that CO2 is the forcer of climate it is thought to be.



That was just an example, don't read too much into it. It pertained to people who attempt to claim that species extinction rates are increasing due to global warming. The fact is, that is simply unknown. Do you know how species extinction rate is calculated? Someone marks off a hectare of land and attempts to count all the plants, animals and insects in it. Then comes back in 5, 10, 15 years and counts again. Hardly accurate or scientific.

As far as environmental policy is concerned as a whole I would rather protect my wallet to begin with, but not if that means never leaving my house or putting an expensive zipper on my pocket. When managing environment people should say hmmm, do the benefits out way the cost, if this is so then be my guest on implementing new policy. But, if it should fail, or doesn't work out as planned we can be afraid to correct past mistakes. We have a horrible track record of making one blunder after another. See the history of yellow stone national park.

Furthermore people need to realize that nature and climate are nonlinear and chaotic. You can't predict how the system will react, you can only be prepared to react to the system and react to any changes you have made that don't go as planned.

Whats wrong with urging more unbiased, non-politically motivated research before we go on wild goose chases?

Dr. Hansen, arguably the founder of modern global warming predicted in 1990 that the earths surface temperature would rise by .35 degrees Celsius per year. He was off by 300%. Hardly scientific.


The funny thing is, If you look at it skeptically, you are called a disinter, a dis-informer for industry, a conspirator and many other names. Yet there is very popular websites like this one http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm that claim CO2 is the main driver of climate and do so by citing papers from the 1800's. People actually get information from this and walk away going "I need to tell everyone that CO2 is the main climate forcer". All those studies I posted to you about CO2 are much new, Much more accurate and posses a much greater knowledge of climate, yet no one pays them any attention because they shed doubt onto the "consensus".

Sad if you ask me

One more point, Its funny to me that no one comments on the most significant piece of Antarctic data. The Southern Ice cap is actually growing, but what is really significant is the fact that its reversing a melting trend of the last 6 thousand years.

What remains melting is the Ross ice shelf, roughly 2% of Antarctic ice. So when people say "Antarctica is melting" I ask are you aware it has been melting for the last 6,000 years?

Yes, it has, moreover, the Earth's temperature, and climate fluxes all the time, and global warming and global cooling has been going on naturally for many centuries, all forced by the Sun.

No-one can forecast weather in advance of 10-14 days.

Forecasting future climate conditions is much easier because no specifics are involved.



Terrible isn't it. Apparently they don't even know whether it'll rain on the 24th August at 2.00pm in Doncaster....... And yet they dare suggest that on average, between 2020 and 2030, there will be less rainfall during August across Southern England than occurred on average during the period 1971-2000. How can they do it?

Oh, of course, they looked in their dictionary and discovered that weather and climate are not the same thing

The average annual temperature at the South Pole is -50 degrees C and generally ranges between -21 degrees C in the summer and -78 degrees C in the winter. The colder the air, the less moisture it can hold. Since the air is warming, it can hold more moisture which means more snow and the illusion that it is getting colder. In reality it isn't reversing anything, it is actually a clear indicator of warming.

Well, you'd be incorrect. Astrometeologists of ages forecasted advance weather well past 10-14 days. Johannes Kepler did it all the time. So did Benjamin Franklin, among many others who practiced astronomic weather forecasting.

I forecast weather and climate conditions in advance of 10-14 days all the time, for months in advance. Forecasting future conditions is not "much easier because no specifics are involved" as you say. What does that mean? Have you ever done this yourself to be able to state that this is so? There are plenty of specifics, related to astronomic transits, which are always in motion, like the weather here on Earth.

Moreover, seasonal forecasts (common in astrometeorology) are not written in the manner as they are in short-range forecasts. They are written as medium to long-range forecasts, and some are even detailed enough to cite the amount of rains, etc., depending on regions with analog data, which relates to astronomic conditions, most notably that of the Sun, Moon, and planets positions relative to the Earth.

All long-range weather can be forecasted astronomically because we already know where the astronomic positions will be according to astrophysical laws of motion. Analog data from the past is used to also forecast in advance for the future ~ well in advance of conventional means, which is limited to 10-14 days maximum.

Theodore - I respect the fact that you believe your methods work. I don't believe in them. If we're talking long range forecasts then many people issue them - to varying degrees of success. Much depends on how they are worded. I've never seen one of your forecasts, and I guess you don't issue them for the UK anyway? The nearest I've seen is those issued by Piers Corbyn, which do not in my experience show a great deal of success, although sometimes he does get general trends right.

I'd be interested to know how your methods work Presumably, like Mr Corbyn, not only do you need to be able to predict with a good degree of accuracy solar activity (how many sunspots will there be in December) but also how this will impact on the weather across the planet. I am aware that some believe increased solar activity results in a more active Atlantic - meaning stormier weather for the UK. But there is no empirical evidence to support this notion. And given that only a slight variation in the progress of an Atlantic depression can make a huge different to the conditions in the UK, it sounds a highly complicated process. Possibly the weather patterns affecting N America are easier to predict on this basis?

However, does all this mean that you take no notice of the effects of the ENSO or PDO, for example, on weather patterns? Or do you take such oscillations into account alongside predicted solar activity?

And perhaps you'd like to make a prediction that we can all see and follow to determine how accurate you are?

That's ok, but it has nothing to do with "belief" ~ I practice it as a forecasting science, which it long as been. You can find my public astrometeorological forecasts for the U.S. online. One of things you have to remember is that believing in something usually is personal to whomever, but weather forecasting is a science, and long has been for many centuries. I remind you once again that meteorology is a basic branch of classical astrology, and weather forecasting was invented by astrologers.

As for how my methods work: they are based on astrometeorological principles, which state that all climate and weather conditions begin first in space. By tracking the angular positions of astronomic bodies (of which the earth is one) one can then forecast climate conditions and weather here on Earth. I forecast mainly for North America, but have also forecasted for other regions of the world, including the UK. I also utilize conventional means, but my primary focus is astrometeorological because ENSO, climate patterns, etc., are all caused by astronomic means.

It is time-comsuming work, as are all long-range seasonal forecasts, however, astrometeorology is quite accurate, and has a high rate of success. Just how do you think England became a world power on the high seas in centuries past? The English navy also required detailed weather forecasts. Just where do you think they got them?

Moreover, there is plenty of empirical evidence. You make these statements that there are none, and it cannot be done, as if what you say is true, but it is not. Weather patterns around the world can, and are forecasted astronomically. This is done all the time by those practicing astrometeorology. Just because you might not have heard of it, or have limited understanding of how it is done, or if you "believe" in them or not, does not mean that it is not so.

Also remember that some of the best world-class astrometeorologists, and classical astrologers were from England, which has a very long tradition of practice of the celestial arts.

For some basics of astrometeorology, see ~ http://www.geocities.com/jussaymoe/tides/tides.htm

I am just wondering- isn't this how the snow/ice increases, which is considered part of the current status quo climate regimen? By that, I mean that for the poles to recieve and convert the snow to ice, there must be minimal sunlight, yet a source of water vapor from either a great distance (flow from the tropics), or relatively nearby (polar regions).

Within a range of freezing and near freezing temperatures, the process repeats over time. This increases albedo, which adds to the process.

Without knowing, I couldn't comment about the overall climate down there. Although, NASA did report East Antarctica had stabilized or reversed the melting effects. Time will tell, though. I do hope the millenial projections are accurate.

As for the Arctic, they say it is thinning, because summers remove ice, and winters replace less. But, they also say Greenland is gaining mid-continent ice, while losing some around the perimeter. It's a tightrope act, but the consensus seems to be much less ice for the arctic. The question, as always, is our reaction, and nature's further actions.


There have been some interesting posts, lately. Some have certainly defended what they see as the high ground. What we have needed is data from a fleet of the best climate satellites, which we have probably underfunded these last two decades. That is not to detract, necessarily, from existing research.

also-

"The embattled director of the National Hurricane Center was removed from his job Monday afternoon, and his deputy placed in charge, following a review by NOAA of a growing controversy at the center that led to a staff revolt and questions about the ability of the center to concentrate on predicting hurricanes."

Essan do you really think this?

Its nice of you to explain it that way, except the mechanism is debated by many prominent scientist in the field. Just like does global warming mean more or less clouds? No one knows, and whats worse clouds play an important part of climate on our earth. In 99% of computer models, cloud data is left out.

The north pole was as much as 1 degree warmer in the 1930s than it was is today.

Well, it does depend what level of detail we're talking about I know from experience how difficult it can sometimes be to accurately forecast the weather a few days ahead. On the other hand, climate forecasting is, at it's simplest, just a case of determining whether trends are for warmer/colder or drier/wetter conditions to occur on average during a given season. Of course, accuracy does depend on whether you take into account all the relevant variables. But getting one variable wrong will not necessarily invalidate a forecast of average trends over a 30 year period. It may not be quite as warm or quite as dry as maybe you thought it would, but overall the trend is still correct. However, if the rain you forecast to arrive Friday afternoon doesn't turn up till after dusk .....

None of which is to say that, for example, I entirely agree with certain climate model forecasts for the next 100 years under various GW scenarios


Theodore: could you post up a link for your summer 2007 forecast please?

Ditto.



I've absolutely no faith in weatherpeople. If the weatherperson says it's going to be a wet, gray day - I count on sunshine... The weekend forecast said it was to rain all weekend - it was in the high 80's...not a hint of rain anywhere.



I'm not a scientific person - and don't rely on science to forge what I think.



Yes. I left the Dr.'s name in what I had quoted. The quote seemed a monkey wrench to me...

<major snip>


Sometimes common sense rules the day. I'd rather listen to the elders of a remote, northern tribe than pick up a science magazine to tell me how the world is being impacted by our selfishness.... The elders have no agenda.
Science is as divided on this subject as many people are, which makes me see $ signs flying out the window for more research. Agenda's abound in that community.

Messes? More like poisons... : )

This is difficult to believe. If so - then why, in the past 5 years, have northern tribes seen melted water where only ice existed, for multi-generations and as long as they can remember, previously? Wouldn't the ice have melted in the 30's if it's melting today, due to it being warmer back then? It didn't. Why the discrepancy?

And that could not be farther from the truth. Climate prediction is so inaccurate its not even funny. I dont have much time, but tonight I can give hundreds examples of failed climate prediction over the short term, let alone 100 years from now. You can predict chaotic system.

For instance, Do you play the stock market at all? If so can you predict for me, in any way shape or form you want, What the trends will look like in 10 years? You cant, thats why your financial advisor will tell you to spread your money out, make lots of smaller investments and make sure you are checking on your investments every few years. You can only react to the system. You are gambling in sense, there are things you can do to minimize damages from your gambling, but gambling none the less.

Chylek, P., Box, J.E. and Lesins, G. 2004. Global warming and the Greenland ice sheet. Climatic Change 63: 201-221.

Thats not the only one. Gotta run though.




Which by the way was a shorter amount of time and higher degree of warming than over the last 50 years.
Also, polar bears flourished.

Which mechanism is being debated? You need to be more specific please.

BBC

The Sun Theory has now officially debunked...

LOL! By who, the IPCC? Yeah right. And pink elephants can fly. The Sun has been its most active than its been over the last 300 years, see ~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Can you prove the IPCC has done anything wrong? Didn't think so

You people always assume that there is always some huge conspiracy behind everything...

Evidently, the BBC story has delved into the cosmic ray theory of cloud forcing. What about the opposite- drought?
And, for the record, I am not a conspiracy fan. I try to look at all angles. But, thanks for the news alert, nonetheless.


A Case of Two Cycles For Periodic Drought

The IPCC has been criticized by climatoligists all over the world for their methods since their inception. This is rather common knowledge...

Excellent point Leadbelly. There are literally hundreds of interactions that emanate from the Sun to the Earth, and yet we continue to see these IPCC santioned "reports" picking them singly, then proclaiming "evidence" that the Sun has no effect on global warming. The BBC story posted on the cosmic ray theory of cloud forcing is just one example of this, but they fail then to note droughts, which are also regulated and forced by the Sun.

The constant splitting of hairs to continue to fund this myth of "man-made global warming" is the reason for this as the climate careerists whose reports to the IPCC, who want to keep the funding rolling in at high levels on this myth will do anything to attempt to refute the fact that the Sun is the cause of planetary climate change. Their blame games are all about the dollars.

I think there's a difference between predicting climatic trends and predicting actual conditions.
I would have to agree, as a pilot, that weather forecasting is at best an imprecise thing.

Quite frankly, the curent trrend of forecasting in advance beyond three days is comical to me. 5 day, and 10 day, and even "exclusive accu weather 14 day forecasts" are a joke.

I have a rule.
This is of course from an aviator's perspective.

There are forecasts published by the aviation weather centers around the country for different regions. These are real meteorological forecasts with specifics:

Prognstics are published in 12, 24, 36 and 48 hour forecasts (there are really no other forecasts of weather available in reality...2 days is it, and any real meteorologist will tell you that anything outside that boundary is laughable in most circumstances).

These forecasts change every six hours anyway.

12 hour forecast: maybe 75% accurate.
24 Hour forecast: maybe 60% accurate.
36 hour forecast: 50-50 is a decent bet.
48 hour forecasts: 30%...maybe another 10 depending on conditions.


No pilot implicitly trusts a weather forecast given to him at departure, for a destination 3 hours away, let alone for tomorrow! And many a time I've seen things go to hell swiftly. Leave for a destination and it's forecasted to be 10000 scattered an 10 miles visibility with light winds and you get in the vicinity and there's 3000 broken, visibility 2 miles in rain and winds from 270 at 15 knots gusting...


This is natural, and common, depending on the time of year, and it's because the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere don't really care what we think. Their going to do their dynamic, ever-changing thing despite our feeble attmepts to predict what they're actually going to do.


Tell me that Greenland's going to melt in 20 years, based upon some pseudo-scientific interpretations of data that is not understood, and I will laugh at you.
You can't even tell me what the temperature's going to be tomoorow (as has been proven by the NWS Philadelphia office over the past week or so, where their predictions of temperature have varied from the actual by an average of 8-10 degrees!)!

Greenlands ice caps are melting, Antarctica is melting, The Arctic is melting....The list goes on...

Based on what I have seen not only in data but with my own 2 eyes over the last 4 months travelling the globe.

releases in the press don't mean anything. press release /= scientific journal. Seems many a climatologist think the media is proper stomping ground for scientific releases.




The IPCC is clearly a politically motivated institution, not a scientific one. Top scientists have left the IPCC because they disagree with the political nature of it and over exaggerating problems.
For instance, here is the comments from a top reviewer for the 3rd assessment report Tom V. Segalstad



Does repeating something make it true? Clearly you are not informed, Greenland and Antarctica are gaining ice. Im not going to bother reposting the Antarctica data if you are too lazy to go back and look at my first post on page 37 or 38.

Heres Greenland Data, this is published in Science, which (minus nature and NEJM) is the mecca of scientific journals. BTW this was a colaborative study done with multiple satallites by multiple scientists from multiple countries.



Johannessen, Ola M., Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, and Leonid P. Bobylev. "Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland." Science. 310(2005): 1013- 1016.


Also maybe you missed where I posted Greenland being warming in the 30's and 40's then today, Now Im not that big on inferring things, but lets think for a moment shall we?. A warmer Greenland meant less sea ice, Less sea Ice means more water in the oceans, I dont recall any report of dangerously rising sea levels from that time.



Sorry your correct I was not very specific, Like the clouds increase snow fall is not necessarily an indicator of warming.
Snowfall, The theory would go, increases in sea temperatures would increase evaporation and increase precipitation around the world. 2 problems with that.

1. Sea temperatures are not increasing, specifically Greenland's. (which appears to be decreasing)
2. Global precipitation rates have increased in a tiny amount to no increase depending on the data set you read.



Layman, John M., Josh K. Willis, Gregory C. Johnson, and "Recent cooling of the upper ocean." Geophysical research letters. 33(20 September 2006):

So the problem lies in the fact that the amount of Ground surface warming seen (even though small) should show a more significant increase in Precipitation and Oceanic temperature increase. The fact that they do not directly correlate, only shows that the exact mechanism is ill-understood. As I said before, Its a complex and chaotic system, attempting to paint the picture "As global surface temperature increases so does Sea temperature and precipitation" is a very flawed view. Climate as it turns out, is drastically more complex than this simple feed back rationing.

edited for spelling, English is not my chosen profession

If these studies were not released to news agencies we would never hear about them...



Which ones?



If you are to lazy to repost it then I am to lazy to search for it...
As for the extremely small number of rogue scientists railing again'st global warming the people (oil/coal industries) who give them their substantial funding expect results. To be frank here i trust the majority of scientists when it comes to this issue as they have been researching this issue and producing data for years. As for the IPCC I see no reason why the studies and reports they release should not be trusted other then hear say.

Evidence of glacier recession can be seen
NASA
GLIMS



Sea temperatures are increasing and this has been documented. Infact the only area where a decrease was seen was in the North Atlantic.
NCAR/UCAR
Live Science

Yes, this is quite common in conventional forecasting. Because the Earth's atmosphere is highly fluid, and because many conventional model solutions are faulty, they often clash with one another, making even short-range forecasts tough to verify. The dynamics of climate and weather can only be forecasted astronomically to effectively know the general conditions over the regions where one wants to travel.

Aviators know full well that they must read several forecasts to even gain an inkling of what weather conditions they will encounter from start, during, and the finish of their destination. Pre-flight weather reports are standard, but pilots know that conditions can, and do change rapidly. Many pilots literally fly by the seat of their pants, and require on-the-spot continual weather reports in-flight, which is the wisest thing pilots can do to reach their destinations.

The IPCC has nothing whatsoever to do with this

The latest data does however seem to suggest that there may be a link between global warming and a decline in solar activity. Although as someone has also pointed out to me elsewhere, a connection between Global Warming and the Australian soap opera 'Neighbours' can also not be ruled out .......

One really would hope that this might be the end of the 'solar activity explains everything' theory and we could then get on with debunking the 'GHG emissions explains everything' theory. But I guess the fight for the truth goes on ......


btw Theodore: still waiting for a link to see your Summer 2007 forecast I don't do LRFs so can't reciprocate, although you can see my own dabble in UK weekend forecasts here: http://www.wiseweather.co.uk/id73.html

As any meteorologist worth his salt would tell you: yes they are!

These are just computer generated forecasts, usually based on the latest GFS model operational output with no human input at all and not even comparison with ensemble members for verification. They can change widely from day to day.

The best way to get a medium range forecast is to learn how to read the computer output and do it yourself! At least with time you should be able to predict with a degree of accuracy general trends etc.

There seems to be a major lack of ability today for people to distinguish between a press release and scientific journal. Those finding were not published they were told to a camera, that does not make it scientific.



Did you not read it?

That link is about Tom Segalstad, and his reasons for leaving the IPCC. Its really not hard to find more, Search a news search engine about scientists who have left the IPCC, Then if you doubt the credibility of the news site or paper, visit said scientists home page.



Extremely small number? Why is that people not in any scientific circles claim to know the minds of scientists. Here is an example of just how little of a consensus there is. The Oregon Institute for science and medicine organized a petition by scientists who disagree with the Koyto protocol on the basis of lack of evidence for man made global warming, 17,100 scientist signed the petition Oregon Institute for Medicine You can read the names there of all the scientists hold a Ph.D who signed it.

Here is the link to my original post, This is cited scientific data from major journals by major scientist about antarctic cooling and gaining ice.
My first post here



There are over 160,000 glaciers on earth. There are only serious mass balance studies extending for more than 5 years for 79 of them¹. A very tiny portion of them have been studied with any care, Not to mention the two areas on earth that comprise of the most fresh water (Antarctic and Greenland hold 95% of all fresh water) are gaining ice. And there are many like, Mount Shasta that have also been gaining ice.²Not to mention, that not all glaciers have been melting because of global warming, For instance Mt. Kilimanjaro, which has been receding since the 1800s has been doing so from deforestation. ³⁴ But hey, If you want believe all glaciers are melting or even the world is net losing ice be my guest, theres no arguing with faith.



Now this is funny, you claim that sea temperatures are rising (which the net oceanic temperature has remained relatively constant, data does not agree with you) yet you post links about Hurricanes. Lets look at that more. Increased severity of weather is not increasing.

This is from the National Hurricane Service a division of NOAA. NHS, please click on the link, the forum does not all formating for the table. What the data shows is hurricanes and their severity have remained constant over the 20th century, despite a small increase in warming. Besides your behind the times, The discovery channels "Climate in 2100" is behind as well, the majority of scientists who do believe that global warming is man made think there will be no increase in extreme weather severity nor frequency.

Heres the important concept from your second link

Computer models are not proof of anything. A prediction can never be proof, furthermore the computer models fail miserably at predicting past climate, why then would they excel at predicting future climate?







1. R.J. Braithwaite, "Glacier mass balance, the first 50 years of international monitoring," Progress in Physical Geography 26, no. 1 (2002): 76-95
2. Howat, Ian M., Slawek Tulaczyk, Philip Rhodes, and Kevin Israel. "A precipitation-dominated, mid-latitude glacier system:." Climate Dynamics. 28(18 August 2006): 85-98.
3. Betsy Mason, "African Ice Under Wraps," Nature, 24, November 2003.
4. Kaser, et al., "Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evicdence of climate change: Observations and Facts," International Journal of Climatology 24: (2004): 329-39.