Joe B update, winter is not over...
TT
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Natsman
> http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accu...
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
He seems to make a lot more sense than those who are determined that
we're all going to fry or drown next week/year/century...
CK
Dawlish
This should make anyone think twice before praising Joe’s LRFs in the
future.
I researched his USA forecasts for 4 years, looked at the actual
outcomes, using the NOAA data and then compared the two in a
commentary. His 4 forecasts were next to useless. It’s a long read,
but I'd love to hear comments about this man's LRF prowess following
this analysis. If you don't believe me: look at the forecasts and the
outcomes yourself. If anyone lionises Joe's LRF ability after this,
they are a bigger charlatan than he is.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2008&month=2&submitted=Get+Report
Joe Bastardi USA Forecasting record. 2005/6-2008/9
2005/6. Forecast for the Eastern USA.
A teeth-chattering, cold and snowy winter is predicted for the Eastern
U.S. starting in December. And more snow and cold are on tap for the
start of 2006, forecasters say.
AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi said the winter forecast calls
for colder than normal temperatures and above normal snowfall for the
eastern Great Lakes regions.
Bastardi bases his prediction on, among other factors, an active
hurricane season. Based on the 2005 hurricane season, and other
similar "hyper-hurricane" seasons in 1933, 1969 and 1995, Bastardi
concluded that the winters that followed each of those seasons were
typically cold and snowy in the Northeast.
Actual Outcome (NOAA)
December-February temperatures were much above average for the nation,
with most states, especially those in the central U.S., averaging
warmer than the long-term mean.
However, Accuweather, on its site, chose to concentrate on the last 2
weeks of the winter, when reporting to its clients;
Spin from Accuweather.
Beginning February, 4, 2005, Joe Bastardi consistently predicted a
dramatic change to colder weather for the Midwest and Northeast, to
begin about February 18. Meanwhile, the National Weather Service
predicted normal temperatures for that period. The price of April
natural gas bottomed out at $5.987 on February 18, but then the
weather turned colder as Joe had predicted. By March 9 the price had
risen to $6.880 due to increased demand. Joe's clients had two weeks
of advance warning of this opportunity.
Commentary.
The winter was the opposite of what Bastardi had predicted. It was a
warm winter. The Accuweather spin is very typical of what these people
do to gain business.
2006/7
Forecast:
Bastardi sums up his expectations for the upcoming December-to-
February period this way: "The eastern U.S. will experience a colder-
than-normal winter overall. The area from the eastern and central
Great Lakes to the south-central and south-western U.S. will
experience near-normal winter temperatures. The region that stretches
from the western Great Lakes to the Pacific Northwest will likely see
above-normal temperatures."
Actual Outcome (NOAA):
Winter:
December-February temperatures were near much above average for the
nation ranking 5th warmest on record. A record warm January dominated
the winter average. For information on temperature records during the
season, please go to NCDC's Extremes page.
Commentary.
The winter was the opposite of the cold winter that Bastardi had
predicted. The USA winter was warmer than average.
2007/8
Forecast:
JOE BASTARDI’S ACCUWEATHER.COM WINTER FORECAST
The extended winter forecast for the months of November through March
calls for a cooler than normal start and end but the traditional
winter months, December through February, may be one of the top 10
warmest winters ever for the south-eastern United States. The heat
will be centered over the Tennessee Valley and the Carolinas. For the
nation as a whole, this winter will be warmer than last winter;
especially in the second half of January and February when last winter
season was at its coldest. When looking at the past three winters, we
find that population weighted, this may be as warm as the 1998-99
winter and the 2001-02 winters. Unlike the winter of 2005-06 and last
winter, where significant shots of cold and snow showed up in major
areas during 35-50% of the winter months, this winter may have over
75% of the days above normal in most of the nation southeast of line
from the Great Lakes to the Southwest. The only signal for below
normal is over the Pacific Northwest.
Outcome:
November
14th warmest November on record (1895-2006).
Fourth warmest November for the Northeast region.
Four states (Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Rhode Island)
were record warmest during November.
January
49th warmest January on record (1895-2007).
Two states (Delaware and Maryland) were tied for 11th warmest January
on record. Nine states were cooler than average, including Colorado
and Texas.
March
For the contiguous United States, March 2007 was the second warmest
such month on record (based on preliminary data), 5.6°F (3.1°C) warmer
than the 20th century mean of 42.5°F (5.8°C). Only March 1910 was
warmer in the 113-year national record.
Commentary:
Completely the opposite of what Bastardi predicted. The warmth was at
the start and end of the winter and the cold was in the middle!
2008/9
Forecast.
Last week, AccuWeather's Chief Long-Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi
issued his 2008-2009 winter outlook. The outlook calls for an "overall
colder and snowier" winter compared to the last "several" winters for
the East Coast. About the winter Bastardi says:
"It may be a shock to some when compared with the above-average
temperatures of last year in the East. It will put some 'brrrrrr' in
the saddle of folks who have not had to deal with such things for a
while."
Keep reading for more on Bastardi's outlook. For the weather through
the week, see our full forecast.
Bastardi expects winter to assert itself in two blasts -- at the
beginning and at the end -- with a pronounced January thaw in the
middle.
Outcome.
For the contiguous United States, the average temperature for December
was 32.5°F (0.3°C), which was 0.9°F (0.5°C) below the 20th century
mean and ranked as the 35th coolest December on record, based on
preliminary data.
For the contiguous United States, the average temperature for January
was 30.5°F (-0.8°C), which was 0.3°F (0.2°C) below the 20th century
mean and ranked as the 49th coolest January on record, based on
preliminary data.
For the contiguous United States, the average temperature for February
was 34.9°F (1.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century
mean and ranked as the 52nd warmest February on record, based on
preliminary data.
Commentary:
Although the winter overall had very slightly below average
temperatures, as Joe had forecast, the pattern was slightly colder at
the start, no mild January and above average at the end. Nothing like
what he’d forecast.
4 years, 4 poor forecasts for the USA. And he has the gall to
criticise the Met Office's forecasts for the UK.
*>))
Read it this time Natsman and stop telling us how one good forecast
makes a good forecaster.
Scott W
> On Feb 4, 8:17 am, Natsman <correz...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3 Feb, 23:38, TT <asfafagg...@f.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accu...
>
> > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
>
> > He seems to make a lot more sense than those who are determined that
> > we're all going to fry or drown next week/year/century...
>
> > CK
>
> This should make anyone think twice before praising Joe’s LRFs in the
> future.
>
> I researched his USA forecasts for 4 years, looked at the actual
> outcomes, using the NOAA data and then compared the two in a
> commentary. His 4 forecasts were next to useless. It’s a long read,
> but I'd love to hear comments about this man's LRF prowess following
> this analysis. If you don't believe me: look at the forecasts and the
> outcomes yourself. If anyone lionises Joe's LRF ability after this,
> they are a bigger charlatan than he is.
>
Interesting - but why have you posted this again - you could have
referred Natsman to your earlier post instead of cluttering up the
forum
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
True, Scott. I did consider that, but this particular poster has
obviously forgotten, or he wouldn't keep ploughing this very dead
furrow. I was working on the principle that if I post this enough,
Natsman and a very small number of others may realise their mistake,
take off their blinkers about Bastardi, separate his views on GW,
religion and this forecast and discuss them in context, realising that
one forecast never makes a forecaster. Whatever the outcome of this
forecast, it also doesn't mean that he talks sense about anything
else. Your observation is reasonable though. *>))
The stats on his USA winter forecasting hamstring his LRF credentials,
but some will always blind themselves to this and to annoyionmg things
like facts and track records. I'd rather talk about his winter
forecast at outcome and this winter's forecast is going well so far.
However, his mixing of religious fervour, politics, climatology and
meteorology is nonsensical and leads me to think that the meteorology
and climatology behind this forecast is far less of a factor in its
publication than his, or his employer's, desire for public attention.
Natsman
> On Feb 4, 8:17 am, Natsman <correz...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3 Feb, 23:38, TT <asfafagg...@f.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accu...
>
> > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
>
> > He seems to make a lot more sense than those who are determined that
> > we're all going to fry or drown next week/year/century...
>
> > CK
>
> This should make anyone think twice before praising Joe’s LRFs in the
> future.
>
> I researched his USA forecasts for 4 years, looked at the actual
> outcomes, using the NOAA data and then compared the two in a
> commentary. His 4 forecasts were next to useless. It’s a long read,
> but I'd love to hear comments about this man's LRF prowess following
> this analysis. If you don't believe me: look at the forecasts and the
> outcomes yourself. If anyone lionises Joe's LRF ability after this,
> they are a bigger charlatan than he is.
>
Don't need to. The debate is all about NOW. The public are concerned
about NOW in relation to all the AGW rubbish that's being spouted. JB
has a good blog, his forecasts NOW appear to fit in with the public
experience, and he doesn't accept AGW as "settled science" and thus he
is popular. The AGW alarmism and doomsday forecasts which appear to
the public not to be coming to anywhere near fruition, and which are
consistently being shot down in flames on a daily basis merely serve
to discredit those ideological organisations responsible for the
scaremongering. Those same organisations (and their members) are
consistently scoring a series of own goals, chiefly because they are
now under well deserved global scrutiny. The public, therefore have no
faith in them, and less so with each day that passes, which is
excellent, and long overdue. Joe Bastardi is a beacon of good, old
fashioned common sense, which sits well with the perception of the
public. So you can post all you like, the perception of AGW is slowly
becoming what it should have been recognised as being long ago - a
discredited, and expensive fraud.
CK
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your response is a rant, again. A politically inspired rant. You
present not a shred of evidence, as always, to back your position.
The only thing that counts are outcomes in terms of temperatures. The
last decade was significantly warmer than any previous decade and the
decade previous to that was easily warmer than any of the 11 decades
before (GISS). It is over 30 years since a month fell below average
temps in the surface records and 56/60 months over the last 5 years
have not just been above average, but have fallen into the top 10
warmest months ever in the 130-year GISS series (my analysis). The
last 6 months have seen the warmest 6 months period in 130 years
(GISS). You could use any of the 3 long-term surface records and you'd
get very similar figures and they are backed by the 2, 30-year,
satellite records.
Faced with that, how could you, or anyone else, believe that the world
is not warming and is not likely to continue warming? Where's the
evidence for your beliefs, Natsman??
Natsman
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.
And for good measure, I note with interest (and, I confess, a degree
of satisfaction that India are pulling out of the IPCC. Thin end of
the wedge, maybe? Who knows...
CK
Natsman
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.
And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? Who knows...
CK
Dawlish
> Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.
>
> And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
> degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. Could
> this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? Who knows...
>
> CK
Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then, rather
than ranting. Then someone who counts might believe you and yours. You
can refer to whatever politically inspired thing that you wish, but
until temperatures begin to decrease, very few scientists will believe
as you do - about Joe Bastardi's forecasting prowess, or GW.
Just present some evidence of global cooling having started next time
you post, or research Joe B's track record yourself and show us that
his past forecasting success demonstrates that really is a LRF guru.
If you believe in what you do so strongly that you feel the need to
constantly tell us your views are correct, that's *all* you have to do
to convince. That's surely very easy?
Natsman
Look, I am not a scientist - never pretended to be, nor have a said
that the planet hasn't warmed - of course it has, we're only just
exiting the last glaciation. What I AM saying, is that any warming
has not been due to man's influence, particularly in relation to the
demon carbon dioxide. I believe that other chaotic factors are at
work driving the climate, not least the effect of the sun. I also
believe that the current lack of solar activity may well prove to be
the commencement of another minimum, which will result in planetary
cooling, and this process has probably already started. I don't need
to provide evidence, because it's all around. I'm old enough to
appreciate subtle changes, and I can glean all I need to know from the
internet, as can you, and the message which comes stridently across to
me is that almost everything so far published by those organs and
"authorities" who would have us believe otherwise, is corrupted with
fake data, extracts from magazines and dodgy modeling, to serve some
other purpose than pure science. I find the independently published
science that I'VE seen far more convincing than anything to the
contrary, and judging by the increasingly adverse publicity, and the
attempts to defend themselves, the IPCC and others are merely serving
to compound their felonies. Even the Guardian is wavering!
So I don't need to justify either myself, or my beliefs - suffice it
to say, the pendulum is swinging, and you and your ilk will eventually
become the minority shouting in the wilderness. You only have to look
at how things have shifted over less than twelve months to realise
that opinion is fast reversing. If you consider that a rant, well,
sorry, but accusations appear to be your only remaining defence. I
can take it, it's like water off a duck's back to me, but it'll take
more than you to shake my long-held beliefs - maybe it is you that
needs to provide evidence, because so far most of the warmist's
arguments are dissolving like ice in a kiln.
CK
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, it's another rant, with no evidence for cooling whatsoever.
That's all you and yours have to do Natsman; show us it's cooling, or
not surprisingly the sensible and overwhelming scientific majority
won't think it is. I don't think I could provide you with more
evidence of continued warming and the lack of cooling. Read what I
posted. You, on the other hand, as always, have provided precisely no
facts whatsoever.
I've shown you clear evidence of continued warming and if it's not
cooling now during an extended solar minimum and a negative PDO (and
it didn't even cool when these two were combined with a La Nina a year
ago)........what's the likely cause of the warmth? Most scientists
think the most likely cause is CO2, because they look at all this
evidence, weigh it up and come to their own conclusions. You and a few
others come to different conclusions, but goodness knows how in the
face of all this.
Brian Wakem
> On Feb 4, 4:49�pm, Natsman <correz...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.
>>
>> And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
>> degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. �Could
>> this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? �Who knows...
>>
>> CK
>
> Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then
The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.
I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?
There's too many �trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...
--
Brian Wakem
Will Hand
"Brian Wakem" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:7t0h8j...@mid.individual.net...
> Dawlish wrote:
>
>> On Feb 4, 4:49 pm, Natsman <correz...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.
>>>
>>> And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
>>> degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. Could
>>> this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? Who knows...
>>>
>>> CK
>>
>> Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then
>
>
> The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
> decreasing since the 60s. Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
> the decline'.
>
No it shows that tree growth has slowed down. That can be due to colder
temperatures, but also drier weather or an increase in pests or something
else.
> I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in
> the
> 60s but how do we know which figures to believe? Which ones are real and
> which are being massaged?
>
Yes that is a problem.
> There's too many �trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
> figures will show it happening regardless...
>
It's so sad that money is involved in the science with people even betting
on outcomes :-(
Will
--
Dawlish
If Hadley have "hidden the decline" Brian, then so have GISS, NASA,
RSS and UAH, as all these series corroborate the fact that
temperatures have risen - and the latter global temperature data
source is run by a GW sceptic, Roy Spencer. Would he really have
become embroiled in this enormous conspiracy? As a result, the only
conclusion that can be drawn is that the 5 temperature series *are* to
be believed - or one high profile sceptic must have been lying along
with all the other scientists involved in the compilation of the
global temperature series. The conspiracy theory that the temperature
series have been massaged just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Dawlish
I think you are repeating climate Audit percieved wisdom with the tree
ring data Brian and it's important to challenge misconceptions like
this. It is Briffa's research for the CRU that I think you are
referring to (2008). This was Briffa's own response to the
misrepresentation of his data, written in September of last year:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/
Please note, especially, the last sentence, in which Briffa clearly
says that the conclusions from his research most certainly was not
what you posted ("The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have
shows temperatures decreasing since the 60s"). :
"We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre's
analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal
but we have done considerably more analyses exploring chronology
production and temperature calibration that have relevance to this
issue but they are not yet published. I do not believe that McIntyre's
preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of
unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th
century."
K.R. Briffa
30 Sept 2009
i.e. the tree ring data that Hadley's CRU have shows nothing else but
that temperatures have *risen*. not fallen, in the last decades of the
20th century.
Natsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dawlish, old son, you're on to a loser, I'm afraid. I would just sit
tight for a while, and see what happens, if I were you.
The whole damned lot of them are corrupt, and only interested in their
own dogma. We all know it's a scam, we all know we're not going to
hell on a handcart, and we all know that a cooling world is less
preferable to a warming one, and if the powers that be take the wrong
course (which they apparently are), the resulting economic disaster
which results from trying to fix things wot aint broke, will be solely
down to them (and you).
CK
CK
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's quite a rant even for you. Now where's that evidence of cooling
that I'd asked you for? To his great credit, Brian at least tried to
provide some. You simply cannot. The *only* measure of global warming
are global temperatures. You'd like it to be measured in all sorts of
ways, mainly political and wholly unrelated to temperatures, but it
can't be. I'll repeat for you: global warming is measured by global
temperatures alone and by nothing else. Simple really.
So; all you have to do to convince is to provide evidence of JB's
forecasting prowess over time (the thread title), or evidence of
global cooling - or you could just go on ignoring the facts and
continue to rant about al the things that you don't like, but which
have nothing to do with GW, as GW is about temperatures; not politics.
I wonder which of those you will do?
TT
joe b = meteorologist
dawlish = armchair wannabe betting weather forecaster.
nuff said.
Graham P Davis
> Dawlish wrote:
>
>> On Feb 4, 4:49 pm, Natsman <correz...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.
>>>
>>> And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
>>> degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. Could
>>> this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? Who knows...
>>>
>>> CK
>>
>> Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then
>
>
> The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
> decreasing since the 60s. Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
> the decline'.
Tree ring data doesn't just depend on temperature, rainfall is also
important. I had a few doubts back in the 60s when I heard about tree-ring
width depended just on temperature but thought these guys must know more
than me. Seems now that someone reckons that if you get a really hot, dry
summer, the trees don't grow very much. Who'd 'a' tho't it?
>
> I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in
> the
> 60s but how do we know which figures to believe? Which ones are real and
> which are being massaged?
>
> There's too many ï¿œtrillions betting on run away global warming now so the
> figures will show it happening regardless...
>
>
So did someone from the Climate Centre go up to the Arctic with a large
blowtorch in 2007 and melt the ice? It's not only temperature records that
show the Earth has warmed.
--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."
Stewart Robert Hinsley
writes
>
>There's too many �trillions betting on run away global warming now so
>the figures will show it happening regardless...
>
betting in excess of trillions on global warming not continuing. (If the
predicted warming occurs it will impose huge economic costs.) We are
likely to lose that bet.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Tudor Hughes
>
> The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
> decreasing since the 60s. Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
> the decline'.
>
> I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in the
> 60s but how do we know which figures to believe? Which ones are real and
> which are being massaged?
>
> There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
> figures will show it happening regardless...
>
> --
> Brian Wakem
"The decline" you refer to is not a decline in temperature but a
decline in the correlation between tree-ring data and measured
temperature. You have misinterpreted it, either mistakenly or
deliberately, I wouldn't presume to know. You probably read it
somewhere, published by someone who has deliberately misinterpreted
it, and as it suits your point of view you have propagated it. But
it's not true, like most of the stuff put out by the denialists, who
are mostly not motivated by a desire to find out the truth but to
suppress it or distort it because they don't like it or it'll cost
them money. These people play dirty and degrade the debate whilst
adding essentially nothing.
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.
Meteorologist
> On 4 Feb, 18:05, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for your previous advice about how I
should deal with my usenet attackers.
-----
Moving on, in my opinion the correct way to deal
with Dawlish is first to back up and establish scientifically
what the accurate climate record is over the past 10
years as average global surface temperature.
I believe the record shows a slight rise; I believe
there is no cooling yet.
Howsoever, taking off my climate science hat for
just a moment (which is a data centered mentality),
I am philosophically, emotionally, and intellectually
attuned to your position on all levels.
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
Peter Thomas
<6eafa004-e3ad-4494...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Meteorologist <dchris...@gmail.com> writes
,,,,,,,,,,,,
>I am philosophically, emotionally, and intellectually
>attuned to your position on all levels.
>
Should bring mindfulness to the kill-file, then.
--
Peter Thomas
Meteorologist
<peterdoub...@doubledemon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> In message
> <6eafa004-e3ad-4494-ac31-be8f67929...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> Meteorologist <dchristain...@gmail.com> writes
>
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,
>
> >I am philosophically, emotionally, and intellectually
> >attuned to your position on all levels.
>
> Should bring mindfulness to the kill-file, then.
>
> --
> Peter Thomas
It is ethically incorrect on usenet to name the person
you intend to killfile because such behavior is hurtful.
Did you not know this?
Dave Cornwell
"Tudor Hughes" <tudo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6c4e3aae-449c-4f9b...@z26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.
------------------
You are so right Tudor but it doesn't matter how much we bang on about it
these people don't understand that the science is about trying to accurately
interpret what is happening and nothing to do with winning or losing. Proper
scientists don't give a sh*t about that. They know that what they say today
will be improved upon tomorrow with better evidence, in either direction.
It's a matter of evolution. (Oh, sorry, that didn't happen either)
Dave
Meteorologist
<davemccignoret...@ignoreblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Tudor Hughes" <tudor...@aol.com> wrote in message
Well, at least Dawlish sticks to climate science in this
newsgroup although even Dawlish falls victim to the highly
polarized and policized environment of the climate science
debate.
Backing up, it is important to establish the accurate trend of
average global surface temperatures the past 10
years or even more. I believe it is a small rise.
Further, I predict cooling, starting in a few years
on the basis of the work of Latif and Svensmark
but not neglecting the recent work of Solomon
on water vapor. The warming will resume in 30 years.
Last, please see -
Giss versus UAH: 85,7% more warming after 30 years!
http://climatepatrol.net/tag/giss-nasa/
John Hall
Dave Cornwell <davemcci...@ignoreblueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>You are so right Tudor but it doesn't matter how much we bang on about it
>these people don't understand that the science is about trying to accurately
>interpret what is happening and nothing to do with winning or losing. Proper
>scientists don't give a sh*t about that. They know that what they say today
>will be improved upon tomorrow with better evidence, in either direction.
>It's a matter of evolution. (Oh, sorry, that didn't happen either)
There's a very good piece by Geoffrey Lean in today's Telegraph:
In the course of it he says:
'There are four sides to the debate. At one extreme are those convinced
that global warming is a massive hoax, got up by a worldwide conspiracy
of scientists and governments. Since nothing will convince them it is
real, they are often called deniers. They rightly object to the term,
because of its unacceptable connotations with Holocaust denial (though
they happily label their opponents “eco-Fascists” and “Nazis”).
Instead, why don’t we try calling them rejectionists?
'Second, there are many who are genuinely sceptical and questioning of
the scientific “consensus”, the only honest starting point for
anyone. Third, there are those, like me, who began from that position,
but have been convinced by the evidence that climate change really is
taking place (though they heartily wish – not least for their
children’s sake – that it were not). Lastly, there are
fundamentalist greens who gleefully welcome global warming as an overdue
judgment on capitalism and industrial society.'
I'm in the third group, but I think we have people from all four posting
in this newsgroup.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)
Will Hand
"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+TTo9SDv...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
I'm very sceptical about predictions of doom and gloom. But I accept the
evidence that the planet as a whole has got warmer in the past 30 years
after doing my own investigations with some raw data. We must also accept
the need to stop destruction of rainforests, for recycling, clean
alternative energy (including coal) etc etc - not because of potential
climate change, but because it simply makes good sense in our crowded planet
and we have nothing to lose by doing so and possibly something to gain - a
win win.
Will
--
Nick
> In article <Eg2bn.14624$EP5.8...@newsfe01.ams2>,
> Dave Cornwell <davemccignoret...@ignoreblueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
> >You are so right Tudor but it doesn't matter how much we bang on about it
> >these people don't understand that the science is about trying to accurately
> >interpret what is happening and nothing to do with winning or losing. Proper
> >scientists don't give a sh*t about that. They know that what they say today
> >will be improved upon tomorrow with better evidence, in either direction.
> >It's a matter of evolution. (Oh, sorry, that didn't happen either)
>
> There's a very good piece by Geoffrey Lean in today's Telegraph:
>
>
> In the course of it he says:
>
> 'There are four sides to the debate. At one extreme are those convinced
> that global warming is a massive hoax, got up by a worldwide conspiracy
> of scientists and governments. Since nothing will convince them it is
> real, they are often called deniers. They rightly object to the term,
> because of its unacceptable connotations with Holocaust denial (though
> they happily label their opponents “eco-Fascists” and “Nazis”).
> Instead, why don’t we try calling them rejectionists?
>
> 'Second, there are many who are genuinely sceptical and questioning of
> the scientific “consensus”, the only honest starting point for
> anyone. Third, there are those, like me, who began from that position,
> but have been convinced by the evidence that climate change really is
> taking place (though they heartily wish – not least for their
> children’s sake – that it were not). Lastly, there are
> fundamentalist greens who gleefully welcome global warming as an overdue
> judgment on capitalism and industrial society.'
There is perhaps another view: those who are not experts in GW yet for
whom man-made GW fits in with their worldview, and who perceive the
current backlash not down to any new scientific evidence, but instead,
due to an all-too-disturbing attitude adopted by worryingly large
numbers of people: a dislike of any cause loosely affiliated to
liberalism, socialism, etc - which GW has ended up as being affiliated
to even though there is no real reason for it not to be. Indeed for
those in the wind-farm industry one could see it as affiliated to
capitalism. It's this rather basal attitude in growing numbers of
people that I personally, for the sake of people in the next
generation being born around now, find rather disturbing.
Nick
Nick
Sorry... "even though there is no real reason for it to be", I meant.
Nick
Dawlish
> In article <Eg2bn.14624$EP5.8...@newsfe01.ams2>,
>
> >You are so right Tudor but it doesn't matter how much we bang on about it
> >these people don't understand that the science is about trying to accurately
> >interpret what is happening and nothing to do with winning or losing. Proper
> >scientists don't give a sh*t about that. They know that what they say today
> >will be improved upon tomorrow with better evidence, in either direction.
> >It's a matter of evolution. (Oh, sorry, that didn't happen either)
>
> There's a very good piece by Geoffrey Lean in today's Telegraph:
>
>
> In the course of it he says:
>
> 'There are four sides to the debate. At one extreme are those convinced
> that global warming is a massive hoax, got up by a worldwide conspiracy
> of scientists and governments. Since nothing will convince them it is
> real, they are often called deniers. They rightly object to the term,
> because of its unacceptable connotations with Holocaust denial (though
> they happily label their opponents “eco-Fascists” and “Nazis”).
> Instead, why don’t we try calling them rejectionists?
>
> 'Second, there are many who are genuinely sceptical and questioning of
> the scientific “consensus”, the only honest starting point for
> anyone. Third, there are those, like me, who began from that position,
> but have been convinced by the evidence that climate change really is
> taking place (though they heartily wish – not least for their
> children’s sake – that it were not). Lastly, there are
> fundamentalist greens who gleefully welcome global warming as an overdue
> judgment on capitalism and industrial society.'
>
> I'm in the third group, but I think we have people from all four posting
> in this newsgroup.
> --
> John Hall
> "Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
> from coughing."
> Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)
3rd group for me too John. I think the Telegraph hack has missed a
group though. There are many actively working climate scientists who
are thoroughly convinced by the evidence and see global warming as
inevitable. Maybe it was a deliberate attempt by the hack to paint
anyone who is convinced by the science as "fundamentalist
greens" (which implies lefties and that tends to be what the Telegraph
readership are not. I think many working for NOAA, Hadley and all the
other climate research organisations would not recognise that term,
should it be applied to them. The rejectionists (I like that word)
will use every opportunity to paint such people as a part of the left.
That happens on here too and, quite frankly, it is plain silly.
However, I do go along with what Will's said about tackling
environmental issues with the same thinking as tackling GW and a "win-
win" future, if the right path is followed. The alternative of, "do
nothing, everything is OK and the present warming is obviously
natural", presents a future that I would not like to hand on to my
grandchildren, should the present huge majority of climate scientist
be correct.
John Hall
<47cac676-b5b8-42dc...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>group though. There are many actively working climate scientists who
>are thoroughly convinced by the evidence and see global warming as
>inevitable. Maybe it was a deliberate attempt by the hack to paint
>anyone who is convinced by the science as "fundamentalist
>greens" (which implies lefties and that tends to be what the Telegraph
>readership are not.
I don't see how you can draw that inference from what he's written. In
spite of writing for the Telegraph, based on the article as a whole and
on other pieces he's written, I'd characterise him as "pale green".
(Incidentally the Daily Telegraph is a far more reasonable publication
than its Sunday stable-mate.)
> I think many working for NOAA, Hadley and all the
>other climate research organisations would not recognise that term,
>should it be applied to them.
But he _hasn't_ applied it to them. From what he's written, I would
imagine that he would put them in his third group.
> The rejectionists (I like that word)
>will use every opportunity to paint such people as a part of the left.
>That happens on here too and, quite frankly, it is plain silly.
>However, I do go along with what Will's said about tackling
>environmental issues with the same thinking as tackling GW and a "win-
>win" future, if the right path is followed. The alternative of, "do
>nothing, everything is OK and the present warming is obviously
>natural", presents a future that I would not like to hand on to my
>grandchildren, should the present huge majority of climate scientist
>be correct.
Indeed.
Dave Cornwell
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47cac676-b5b8-42dc...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------
Yep, I'm a group three but also endorse what Nick says.
Dave
Dave Cornwell
past 30 years after doing my own investigations with some raw data.
-------------------------------------
Blimey Will, hope you didn't stay up late doing that ;-)
Dave
Meteorologist
> In article <Eg2bn.14624$EP5.8...@newsfe01.ams2>,
>
> >You are so right Tudor but it doesn't matter how much we bang on about it
> >these people don't understand that the science is about trying to accurately
> >interpret what is happening and nothing to do with winning or losing. Proper
> >scientists don't give a sh*t about that. They know that what they say today
> >will be improved upon tomorrow with better evidence, in either direction.
> >It's a matter of evolution. (Oh, sorry, that didn't happen either)
>
> There's a very good piece by Geoffrey Lean in today's Telegraph:
>
>
> In the course of it he says:
>
> 'There are four sides to the debate. At one extreme are those convinced
> that global warming is a massive hoax, got up by a worldwide conspiracy
> of scientists and governments. Since nothing will convince them it is
> real, they are often called deniers. They rightly object to the term,
> because of its unacceptable connotations with Holocaust denial (though
> they happily label their opponents “eco-Fascists” and “Nazis”).
> Instead, why don’t we try calling them rejectionists?
>
> 'Second, there are many who are genuinely sceptical and questioning of
> the scientific “consensus”, the only honest starting point for
> anyone. Third, there are those, like me, who began from that position,
> but have been convinced by the evidence that climate change really is
> taking place (though they heartily wish – not least for their
> children’s sake – that it were not). Lastly, there are
> fundamentalist greens who gleefully welcome global warming as an overdue
> judgment on capitalism and industrial society.'
>
> I'm in the third group, but I think we have people from all four posting
> in this newsgroup.
> --
> John Hall
> "Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
> from coughing."
> Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)
Thanks for the heads-up.
I read the Lean piece you gave, especially about the
4 groups.
Let me say - I myself fall in between group 2 and 3; I
am both a skeptic and climate change guy.
Yet, a quibble - the term here is climate change, not global
warming.
On second thought maybe I had better re-classify
myself. As a meteorologist I just want the accurate
data in timely fashion. IOW data bound. Of course,
I don't have the resources to acquire the data myself
by my own efforts. I have to rely on meteorological
"organizations", the five leading datasets. The proxies
are not in my purview here.
Yet, my science of meteorology is in the business of
making forecasts. Therefore, while "we" may agree
on the climate record in terms of surface or near-surface
temperature the past 10 years, the past 30 years etc.,
what temperature will do 5 years out, 20 years out,
30 years out, is a horse of a different color.
So, I propose that there has been a small temperature
rise the past 10 years globally. Does anybody disagree?
The next question is much, much harder. Do "we'
or climate scientists have sufficient knowledge of
the climate system and the interplay of major
factors to rule out a reversal of trend by 5 years
from now that Earth will cool?
Probing still further, can we specify all the major
factors and point out the dominant one(s) that
will probably lead to further warming or reversal to cooling?
So, uncertainty is what I struggle with as a meteorologist
with the physical world but even in the way I write to the
people world so that our conversations on usenet be
informative and polite. IOW nobody is perfect, we all
have human shortcomings but we are hopefully doing
the best we can.