|
Post by cuttydyer on Sept 13, 2013 10:55:12 GMT
NOTE - I've removed my Global Cooling climate post due to extreme troll behavior. I'm sorry if I missed any of your comments and apologize for any inconvenienceA sad day for the world's climate science. Will you kindly stop wielding your handbag around this forum, either the bags contents will fall out, or you're going to chip a finger nail... Here's an idea, how about posting something of substance rather than your usual snidey one liners?
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 13, 2013 11:01:25 GMT
NOTE - I've removed my Global Cooling climate post due to extreme troll behavior. I'm sorry if I missed any of your comments and apologize for any inconvenienceA sad day for the world's climate science. Will you kindly stop wielding your handbag around this forum, either the bags contents will fall out, or you're going to chip a finger nail... Here's an idea, how about posting something of substance rather than your usual snidey one liners? I thought you were already preparing that manuscript on solar cycles and the UK weather, using all those famous well-stocked UK archives?
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 13, 2013 17:43:01 GMT
NOTE - I've removed my Global Cooling climate post due to extreme troll behavior. I'm sorry if I missed any of your comments and apologize for any inconvenienceA sad day for the world's climate science. Will you kindly stop wielding your handbag around this forum, either the bags contents will fall out, or you're going to chip a finger nail... Here's an idea, how about posting something of substance rather than your usual snidey one liners? Thanks Cuttydyer, Appreciate that. Sorry for having to take down my earlier post on global cooling, but the constant flaming from Glennkoks and Numerouno ruined the thread and members complained. Admin has been notified of the flaming/trolling violations. I will repost my Global Cooling post and get back to answering the questions I missed from you and others when I can. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 13, 2013 21:25:44 GMT
Again, you're still not reading what I wrote. And if it is not a 'benefit' then go right ahead and do better yourself. I would like to see you actually do that. If you don't like what you read, then don't read it troll. Theodore, I have never made any claims that I can correctly "forecast" the weather. Nor do I take peoples money for doing so. The only reason why I don't completely ignore you is there may be someone who's livelihood is at stake and may buy into your snake oil. Farmer's have a tough enough time trying to scrape out a living without some charlatan trying to milk them out of their hard earned money. I have no problem with someone putting out a forecast based on anything from wooly worms, spider webs or a magic eight ball. I do have a problem with someone trying to sell that forecast as accurate for a profit. Go play with your astrolabe. Thats pretty ignorant Glennkoks! We all know weather forecasts for tomorrow are far less than perfect but that does not stop me from consulting them and properly utilizing them with open eyes, literally. There is no question in my mind that astrometeorological information is helpful. One can see it clearly for as long as we have been watching the sun and the climate. Of course that doesn't prevent anybody from doing stupid stuff with the information. Have you been doing stupid stuff? What exactly is your beef beyond it not being perfect?
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 13, 2013 22:56:56 GMT
icefisher,
No one is perfect and I have an entire dirty laundry list of stupid mistakes. What I do have a problem with is someone that is charging money for a forecast and claiming an accuracy rate that is much higher than it really is. If anyone is going to put forth a forecast have the fortitude to admit you were wrong without attacking those pointing out mistakes. I also have no doubt that celestial events have a profound impact on our climate. My only doubt is in Mr. White's ability to accurately interpret these events and their effects on specific regions here on earth.
Personally I don't read these boards because I want my opinions, thoughts or viewpoints reaffirmed. I read these boards to give me food for thought and alternative viewpoints. I have spent hours upon hours researching links, thoughts or reading scientific papers posted by many of the regulars and I am better for it. I have said it before and I will repeat it again, Theodore is a very hard worker and seems to be very well read. These boards are better with his posts on it.
However, that does not make his forecasts valid or accurate nor should anyone be called an idiot for pointing out the busts. If anyone is bold enough to make claims they can "accurately" predict the weather here on earth they should have the fortitude to face their errors without attacking those who have pointed them out.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 14, 2013 2:11:06 GMT
Will you kindly stop wielding your handbag around this forum, either the bags contents will fall out, or you're going to chip a finger nail... Here's an idea, how about posting something of substance rather than your usual snidey one liners? Thanks Cuttydyer, Appreciate that. Sorry for having to take down my earlier post on global cooling, but the constant flaming from Glennkoks and Numerouno ruined the thread and members complained. Admin has been notified of the flaming/trolling violations. I will repost my Global Cooling post and get back to answering the questions I missed from you and others when I can. Thanks again. Theodore: Your track record is better than NOAA or IRCC as far as US forecasts go. At this point, I am most interested in what the SH spring/summer will bring. The drought conditions in the Western Corn Belt and upper Mid-West have led to a poor soybean crop. The corn crop will be nothing to write home about, but the world has filled the pipeline, so not as large a concern. The US and Brazil/Arg are the main players in oilseeds. This is where it might get exciting if Brazil/Arg have weather problems.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 14, 2013 5:58:37 GMT
icefisher, No one is perfect and I have an entire dirty laundry list of stupid mistakes. What I do have a problem with is someone that is charging money for a forecast and claiming an accuracy rate that is much higher than it really is. Well, I think we will have to accept a trade where people want to be fooled and give money to someone who thinks he or she can predict the future. People can do what they want with their money. However, I'm not inclined to promote such activities in any way. Specifically the situation where the "forecast" is coming only from below the hairline of the forecaster, who then says there is some "science" or "astrophysics" involved gets none of my symphathy.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 14, 2013 8:06:48 GMT
icefisher, No one is perfect and I have an entire dirty laundry list of stupid mistakes. What I do have a problem with is someone that is charging money for a forecast and claiming an accuracy rate that is much higher than it really is. Well, I think we will have to accept a trade where people want to be fooled and give money to someone who thinks he or she can predict the future. People can do what they want with their money. However, I'm not inclined to promote such activities in any way. Specifically the situation where the "forecast" is coming only from below the hairline of the forecaster, who then says there is some "science" or "astrophysics" involved gets none of my symphathy. Actually the idea that astrometeorology is not science is pretty old and the idea did not just include astrometeorology it really included all claimed science based upon assumed physical processes and validated by statistics and inductive logic. Computers and mathematics allowed a lot of advances in the field of statistics, but statistics and computers are both very vulnerable to garbage in garbage out. To elevate them to the level of science a 100 years ago they need careful and complete validation of the basic physical processes to support the math. Astrometeorology lacks this, but so obviously do the climate models. We have merely been deceived by listening to folks with no accountability and titles sell the concept that such care is not lacking. But I have been here for 6 years asking for some evidence of that care and its still absent. CAGW science is actually less like science than astrometeorology. The reason is it doesn't replicate the past. . . .but despite that shortcoming its used to predict the future. Since climate models are not experimentally validated they can only be validated in the short term by being able to accurately represent the past. And even if they did the likes of Lord Kelvin would still look down his nose at that brand of science. Astrometeorology as I understand it goes to great lengths to replicate the past. Something the CO2 folks simply can not do because CO2 obviously did not regulate the climate in the past. The hockey stick stability of the past was pure fabrication in an effort to claim CO2 as the only climate regulator.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 30, 2013 20:03:34 GMT
An interesting response to the IPCC reports by Piers Corbyn - who uses what he calls a 'Solar-Lunar-Action-Technique' for his forecasting and he does appear to have a lot more success than the Met Office. ““A cowardly cover-up and a disgrace to Science” ….. • THEIR “ADMISSION” of a ‘a pause in warming’ over the last 15 years is itself a cover-up for the fact that ONLY THEIR FRAUDULENT DATA shows any ‘warming’ at all in the period – page 5 • THEIR CLAIM that this pause was “something (CO2 warmists) expected” is a brazen lie. They expected ‘runaway warming’……..
The developments we, WeatherAction, warned about: equator-ward shifts and wild swings of the Jet streams, an increase in very extreme weather events and general cooling as the world moves further into the early stages of a Mini- Ice-Age have already been well confirmed
Our Solar-Lunar-Action-Technique of long range forecasting is now able on a regular basis to Long-Range predict Solar Coronal/Active region events and associated detailed weather in Britain+Ireland, Europe, and USA, Atlantic, Jet stream shifts, extreme storms, formations of tropical cyclones and aspects of Earthquake risk (Trials)Weather Action An interesting read -- and it reinforces some of what Theo is saying from a similar point of view.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Oct 1, 2013 8:02:32 GMT
This from Weather Action I like best:
4. KEEP honest green policies to reduce smoke & chemical pollution and defend biodiversity.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Oct 4, 2013 20:14:35 GMT
Theo, I am interested too. I am staying with my daughter for Christmas and return home to the UK in January We only travel by train and ship. Am I going to be faced with 10 inches of snow I have to travel from Boston to New York on January 4th. Then home across the Atlantic
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 5, 2013 4:45:10 GMT
NOTE - I've removed my Global Cooling climate post due to extreme troll behavior. I'm sorry if I missed any of your comments and apologize for any inconvenience. Theodore White: You have company in your concern about cooling. I have roughly some 158 citations tagged "cooling", some of which are historical, some contemporary. As for the trolls: The trolls are just following Alinsky's playbook. Denigration of various forms and names are among the rules. Alinsky, Saul David. Rules for Radicals: a Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1989 Summary list: www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals
|
|
ray
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by ray on Oct 8, 2013 15:56:01 GMT
Hey Theo where have you been? Come back to the board. Forget about those simple-minded trolls....just ignore them and don't even respond to them. I found a good article. It seems others are confirming your global cooling forecast. All the best, Ray
Climate guru puts 'global warming' on ice
Written by WND RADIO, October 07 2013.
Far from being the final word on climate change, last week’s United Nations report suggesting near certainty that human activity is causing a rise in Earth’s temperatures is actually further proof that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong and the Earth is cooling right on schedule, according to one of the leading scientists who is skeptical of the climate-change premise. Last week, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported it was 95 percent certain that climate change was the result of human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels that emit “greenhouse gases.” “That’s the result that they get when you premeditate your science,” said Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. “When you set out to establish a certain scientific outcome and you program your computers to do that, you shouldn’t be surprised if that’s the result you get. The problem is what they’re getting out of their computers is not fitting with what’s actually happening. Of course, that’s been the problem with the IPCC all along.”
Ball told WND the deception of the IPCC and its allies can be seen in how the reports are released, with the policy statement drawing headlines while the scientific information comes later and is largely ignored. “(The summary for policymakers) is a document written to scare to public and scare the politicians into providing more funding for their own research and their own political agenda,” he said. “The actual science report, which it supposedly is based on isn’t going to be released right away. They’ve always done it his way because the summary for policymakers completely disagrees with what the science report is saying. They know that the media and the public are not going to read the science report. And they also know that if any of them get into it, they won’t understand it anyway.” The latest data actually show temperatures have dropped in recent years. The IPCC and other scientists have branded this as a “pause” in climate change. Ball said that characterization implies that temperatures are temporarily holding steady and will inevitably rise again soon. He said that conclusion is dead wrong. “The temperature is going down and has for 17 years while carbon dioxide increases,” Ball said. “According to their hypothesis and model, that’s simply not supposed to happen. Rather than doing what they should do and coming out and saying, ‘Our science is wrong, our models are wrong and we apologize for all the inconvenience we’ve caused you,’ they’re just plowing ahead.” The long-held contention of those who warn of climate catastrophe is that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere lead to higher temperatures. So if that belief is incorrect, why are temperatures getting cooler? “The sun is causing the cooling that’s going on. The sun reached a peak of activity around 2000 and has been declining ever since,” said Ball, who noted that the cooling trend will continue for years to come. “We’re heading toward what occurred around the year 1800. It was called the Dalton Minimum of low sunspot activities,” he explained. “We certainly are down to that in number of sunspots this year. That means the cooling will continue at least until 2030 and yet the government is preparing for warming, which is outrageous. Some people think that this cycle of sunspot activity and global cooling will take us down to as cold as it was around 1680, which was the nadir of the Little Ice Age.” More evidence backing up Ball’s position comes from the polar regions. New reports from the National Snow and Ice Data Center suggest Antarctic ice levels are at record highs. Ball said the southern hemisphere has been cooling for some time. He believes the clinching evidence comes from the Arctic Circle. “This was the year that even one scientist at NASA predicted that the Arctic ice in the summer would be gone completely,” he said. “Well, there’s 60 percent more ice this year than last year and the reason is because of the cooling sun and the cooling temperatures.” Ball also rejects the contention that climate change brings on more extreme weather events, not just higher temperatures. He said hurricane season was very quiet this year and tornadoes were down as well. He chalked up record high and low temperatures to the jet stream shifting from a west-east flow to more of a north-south line. The “premeditated” science is a major culprit for the climate-change concerns, according to Ball. But he also blames the media. “The main reason they were able to get away with what they’ve gotten away with is that a majority of the mainstream media were complicit in what (the IPCC and other scientists) were doing,” Ball said. “This is where the Founding Fathers have been corrupted because they believed the media would be the watchdogs, the gatekeepers. The mainstream media have failed completely.”
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 8, 2013 21:29:47 GMT
Maybe both are occurring? Both solar activity is low and AGW is real. If this scenario is true then in 30 plus years, when the Sun starts to shine again, temps will dramatically climb. Why? I find it hard to believe all those scientists are both dumb and evil. So you accept that there is a 'pause'/'hiatus'/'plateau' - a period where the change is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Now you say - what if the natural variability is there for a while but then in a decade or so when the variability changes it will be back to 'dangerous warming'? What you accept by that argument is that the global warming due to CO2 increasing at its varying rate - has been precisely balanced by natural variation to end up with a 15 year 'pause'/'hiatus'/'plateau' - that is one huge coincidence - that the natural forces precisely balance out the AGW. From a Bayesian believability approach to the chance of it happening I would say that it is so extremely unlikely that it cannot be true. But there is always that exceptionally unlikely possibility. So let us wait and see what happens next - we are in a different regime all of a sudden. Hurricane forecasts this year an abject failure watching potential hurricanes fail to meet their forecast strength one after the other. All the forecasts based on pattern matching wiggle watchers are failing. Interesting times.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Oct 10, 2013 8:37:43 GMT
He isn't willing to subscribe to pseudo science or whimsical notions of irrational probability like a massive conspiracy theory that hundreds of scientist around the world are colluding in a giant cover up. Personally, I find this man's logic rational: Professor Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Richard Lindzen has published his conclusions on the Fifth Assessment Report: In attempting to convince the public to accept the need to for the environmental movement’s agenda, continual reference is made to consensus. This is dishonest not because of the absence of a consensus, but because the consensus concerning such things as the existence of irregular (and small compared to normal regional variability) net warming since about 1850, the existence of climate change (which has occurred over the earths entire existence), the fact that added greenhouse gases should have some impact (though small unless the climate system acts so as to greatly amplify this effect)over the past 60 years with little impact before then, and the fact that greenhouse gases have increased over the past 200 years or so, and that their greenhouse impact is already about 80% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 are all perfectly consistent with there being no serious problem. Even the text of the IPCC Scientific Assessment agrees that catastrophic consequences are highly unlikely, and that connections of warming to extreme weather have not been found. The IPCC iconic statement that there is a high degree of certainty that most of the warming of the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions is, whether true or not, completely consistent with there being no problem. To say that most of a small change is due to man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes. ________________________________________________ Personally, I find this man's repeated doom laden predictions increasingly less than rational: James Edward Hansen is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. James Hansen 1986: Within 15 Years Temps Will be Hotter Than Past 100,000 Years. 25 metre rises in sea level, tropical temperatures in England, and widespread crop failures are only some of the predictions from Dr James Hansen. Here’s a selection of his predictions from the archives. This one from 1986 on temperature increase in America: Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020. The Press-Courier (Milwaukee) June 11 1986Staying in 1986 for the moment, we have this unequivocal prediction: “Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”. The News and Courier, June 17th 1986Going back to 1982, we find Hansen arguing that if fossil fuel use was restricted, England might be a tropical paradise by 2050. If we carried on as normal, the world would be back in the sort of heat last seen in the age of the dinosaurs. Hansen presented results of studies which indicated likely climate changes under different energy policies. If there were slow growth in the use of hydrocarbon fuels, the world in the middle of the next century would be as warm as it was 125,000 years ago, when lions, elephants and other tropical animals roamed a balmy southern England. Pursuing present plans for coal and oil, Hansen found, the climate in the middle of the 21st century “would approach the warmth of the age of the dinosaurs” The Leader-Post, January 9th, 1982.By 1989, far from toning it down, Hansen was starting to really turn up the heat, predicting totally unprecedented warming so far as mankind was concerned: “By the year 2050 we’re going to have tremendous climate changes, far outside what man has ever experienced” said James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Computer models by Hansen and others suggest that by the middle of the next century earth’s average temperature may rise 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly altering storm patterns, making crops fail, and raising sea levels to flood low-lying coastal areas. Observer-Reporter, December 7th, 1989And in 2006, he was still going strong. Unabashed by the failure of the world to warm significantly, Hansen was still predicting massive temperature increases. Remember that in the interview below, with a British newspaper, he is talking in degrees Celsius for temperature, and in metres (one metre = 3 feet) for sea level rise: “The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.” The Independent, 17th February, 2006That’s a 25 metre – 75 feet – rise in sea level by the end of the century. So far, it doesn’t look like this one will fare any better than the rest. James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong: Link: www.kaltesonne.de/?p=4006
|
|