|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 12, 2011 3:56:36 GMT
There is no confusion between El Nino and La Nina. I forecasted both for the years 2009-2011, so I fail to see how I can be confused about them since I forecasted both well in advance.Many of us who read this blog know what you forecasted, astromet. Even as the last El Nino was fading and La Nina was developing you predicted that the El Nino go on for several months longer. Don't bother saying otherwise. Too many posters have pointed out your failed forecast. Please. Let's not sound foolish. In 2006, I forecasted El Nino to be followed by La Nina. And, there were those who said that it would not occur - yet El Nino did arrive and was followed by La Nina. I beat out 22 international climate centers in forecasting both major climate events. Climate scientists write to me all the time asking how I forecasted El Nino and La Nina and I respond the same way I always do - by astronomic means. One of the major problems you have is that you are not able to understand long-range forecasting. This is a common problem, especially for those who depend on ideology - yet are unable to forecast their own seasonal weather. If you would like an example glc, go and produce a seasonal forecast for this year for your own locale and I will do the same so we can see who walks the walk and who just talks the talk. We've come to the point where we've had enough of the warmists claiming humanity is the cause of climate change. I've challenged you many times (as others have done) to prove this and you have never done so. Not a single time. Forecasting is not a game, nor is it for opinions and theoretical debates. It is very serious business. The more we concentrate on what works and what does not work, then climate science will make much more progress than it has over the last 30 years. In conventional climate science, anything which resembles decadal prediction is still very much young, as evidenced by the failure to forecast seasonal weather accurately and consistently. Astrometeorology practiced skillfully has no such problem as medium and long-range forecasting can only be accomplished by astronomic means. The future of space weather, indeed, for climate science itself, rests with astronomic forecasting. Those who continue to pretend that humanity has been the cause of climate change have not proved this in the least, nor have they shown (and this includes you as well glc) they are able to forecast the weather in the real world. Climate science and all that it entails, in the final analysis, must be useful in the real world and that all comes down to forecasting. Like I've said before, discussion is fine and debate is okay, but never can ideology presume to have anything to do with science at all. People who are ideological do not forecast and the reason is because they cannot forecast. Therefore, what ideologues say is invalid. |
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Apr 12, 2011 6:24:59 GMT
Thank you for your response regarding your forthcoming forecast, Astromet
There does seem to be some dispute about your previous El Nino forecast
I await with interest your forecast for the next 5/10 years
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 12, 2011 8:25:52 GMT
Please. Let's not sound foolish. In 2006, I forecasted El Nino to be followed by La Nina. And, there were those who said that it would not occur - yet El Nino did arrive and was followed by La Nina.
That's not a forecast. That's simply an observation. El Nino is often followed by La Nina. You predicted that the El Nino would last 18 months. It didn't. You continued to make this prediction even as La Nina was developing. A number of posters pointed this out to you at the time.
We've come to the point where we've had enough of the warmists claiming humanity is the cause of climate change. I've challenged you many times (as others have done) to prove this and you have never done so. Not a single time.
You've proven nothing. You've simply regurgitated the same old tired arguments. I recall you provided a link to something which supposedly showed that GHG warming was impossible. It was a blog post by some total ignoramus which I'd already seen several years earlier.
You have basic flaws in your understanding of mathematics and physics so it's virtually impossible to engage with you in a debate.
Many years ago I was highly sceptical of AGW so I read all the literature that supported the anti-AGW case. Gradually, though, I realised much of it was rubbish. I still have strong doubts that AGW will be a serious problem, but the basic physics behind the theory is sound. The crucial issue is feedback. This is where the main (only) uncertainty lies.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 12, 2011 12:14:43 GMT
Many years ago I was highly sceptical of AGW so I read all the literature that supported the anti-AGW case. Gradually, though, I realised much of it was rubbish. I still have strong doubts that AGW will be a serious problem, but the basic physics behind the theory is sound. The crucial issue is feedback. This is where the main (only) uncertainty lies. It is hard to accept that climate science is in its infancy. There is far more that we don't know than what we do know. This will remain true for some time to come. Or, another possibility: The mystery will always remain. |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Apr 12, 2011 18:09:39 GMT
Many years ago I was highly sceptical of AGW so I read all the literature that supported the anti-AGW case. Gradually, though, I realised much of it was rubbish. I still have strong doubts that AGW will be a serious problem, but the basic physics behind the theory is sound. The crucial issue is feedback. This is where the main (only) uncertainty lies. It is hard to accept that climate science is in its infancy. There is far more that we don't know than what we do know. This will remain true for some time to come. Or, another possibility: The mystery will always remain. Glc, Yes, I would agree that much of the research done on the subject is rubbish, and yes I understand that the basic physics on CO2 as a greenhouse gas is sound. In isolation. But it is a very small part of the big picture. But it looks to me like the jury is IN on the whole warming feedback theory. The theory goes that the small amount of warming caused by increasing levels of atmospheric cO2 will be focused primarily in the troposphere. This mid-tropospheric warming will allow ever increasing amounts of water vapor to stack up in the atmosphere. The mid-tropospheric warming is NOT occurring. Period. There is no data or scientist anywhere to supporting evidence any mid-tropospheric warming. Without this, there is no possibility of a water vapor feedback loop. The water vapor feedback loop depends on mid-tropospheric warming. No feedback loop no hockey stick. At least outside of Mannian Math, Steigian Smearing, Briffian Cherry picking, Jonesian Deleting, Schmidt Propaganda and Hansens adjustments. Talk about rubbish. If the science was really sound, and not gravy train riding don't you think the scientists in question would be willing to show their work instead of hiding it? |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 12, 2011 18:41:39 GMT
Please. Let's not sound foolish. In 2006, I forecasted El Nino to be followed by La Nina. And, there were those who said that it would not occur - yet El Nino did arrive and was followed by La Nina.That's not a forecast. That's simply an observation. El Nino is often followed by La Nina. You predicted that the El Nino would last 18 months. It didn't. You continued to make this prediction even as La Nina was developing. A number of posters pointed this out to you at the time. We've come to the point where we've had enough of the warmists claiming humanity is the cause of climate change. I've challenged you many times (as others have done) to prove this and you have never done so. Not a single time.You've proven nothing. You've simply regurgitated the same old tired arguments. I recall you provided a link to something which supposedly showed that GHG warming was impossible. It was a blog post by some total ignoramus which I'd already seen several years earlier. You have basic flaws in your understanding of mathematics and physics so it's virtually impossible to engage with you in a debate. Many years ago I was highly sceptical of AGW so I read all the literature that supported the anti-AGW case. Gradually, though, I realised much of it was rubbish. I still have strong doubts that AGW will be a serious problem, but the basic physics behind the theory is sound. The crucial issue is feedback. This is where the main (only) uncertainty lies. Regarding My ENSO forecast - How can I observe a major climate event years in advance which has not yet appeared in the physical climate to be measured as ENSO? And to do this nearly four years before the climate event? When I forecasted El Nino to be followed by La Nina, I clearly remember how many poo poohers were telling me I was wrong - before waiting to see if ENSO would arrive on time. It did, as forecasted. Also, no glc - an La Nina event does not always follow El Nino. Regarding AGW - I strongly doubt you have "read all the literature that supported the anti-AGW case," as these represent literally tens of thousands of scientific papers, some of which have already proven that it is mathematically impossible for AGW to occur on Earth - that is, unless it is playing as a Al Gore movie on someone's predictive computer model. It is thermodynamically impossible for anthropogenic global warming to occur on Earth. What is so hard for you to get about that? Why do you deny anything which goes against what you want to believe, as if it is tagged 'untrue' simply because you don't want to accept the laws of physics? You've been defending AGW for how many years now? It will be a day of great celebration when the last of the ideologues who pushed the lie of AGW on the world finally are set out to pasture - forever. I still cannot find one - not a single climate scientist or promoter of AGW - who can forecast their own seasonal weather in advance. Yet how is it possible for them to state categorically - theory or not - that the Earth will continue to warm decades into the future and that humanity is the cause? You are dealing with an individual here who, if I were the last person left on Earth to battle the 'warmists,' he would continue to fight to the death the rampant stupidity which has had careerist pseudo-scientists and their promoters blaming humanity for something they cannot do: and that is to warm the planetary climate. Check my math? Check my physics? You must be kidding. Try checking out your own. Forecasting is by no means an exact science. However, we have the capacity to be consistent to 85%+ accuracy by means of astronomic forecasting. This is the future of climate science and meteorology. What is not needed is ideology, opinion, bad manners, rudeness, careerism, and pseudoscientists playing with multi-million dollar computer models who cannot forecast seasonal weather, much less the weather outside of two weeks. Confidence is a must for forecasters, or you might as well give up while you are ahead. We've just emerged from the 'age of dummies,' where anyone - politicians, clueless AGW promoters, critics, and careerist scientists can claim the world will warm forever because of humans, but who again, cannot forecast a month in advance. I, for one, have had enough. How many more years do you all want to waste before global cooling sets in officially - and with most of the world unprepared because of many years of AGW ideology? Those AGW pie-in-the-sky computer-generated feedback loop theories will be a very hard memory to swallow because it will not keep anyone "warm" from the powerful climate age of global cooling - and that climate is surely on its way. Keep arguing and pushing the AGW ideology though. Go right ahead. See for yourself what is about to go down. But do not say I did not do my part in warning about what is to come. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 12, 2011 20:22:42 GMT
It is thermodynamically impossible for anthropogenic global warming to occur on Earth.
What is so hard for you to get about that?
It's not true. Even sceptical scientists (reputable ones anyway) accept that "greenhouse gases" make the earth warmer than it would otherwise be. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will result in further warming. The only question is how much warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 13, 2011 0:39:25 GMT
It is thermodynamically impossible for anthropogenic global warming to occur on Earth.
What is so hard for you to get about that? It's not true. Even sceptical scientists (reputable ones anyway) accept that "greenhouse gases" make the earth warmer than it would otherwise be. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will result in further warming. The only question is how much warming. How many times do we have to go over the same facts - the laws of physics - that rule over the Earth's climate? Glc, who cares about reputable scientists? That word has been touted by some of the worst instigators of Climategate, as if their "reputation" somehow then alters the very laws of physics? Even Newton and Einstein would never subscribe to that bullshit. That's the height of arrogance and is certainly not science. We've been through this time and again but the physics do not change. What you and AGW proponents ('reputable' or not) are basically saying is that the greenhouse theory - which says the Earth's atmosphere warms the surface of our planet to temperatures warmer than it would be without any atmosphere - is through this process you love to throw around called 'back-scattered infrared radiative transfer.' Anyone who knows forecasting and climate science and how the Earth's climate works in reality knows that what is being touted is the silly fantasy that greenhouse gases, emitted by humanity, fully blankets the Earth to trap infrared radiation. So, you're saying that radiation causes the climate to become warmer than it would be. Thus, a man-made greenhouse. That is an impossibility which cannot occur on the Earth. Why? Because of the laws of physics. That's why. In the final analysis: heat in the Earth's sphere always naturally flows from hot to cold - be it through conduction, convection or radiation. This fact is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics - core to physics and how the Earth's climate operates in the real world - not in some computer-model generated fantasy. The most important thing of all is to know this fact - it cannot raise its own temperature even if its own radiation was to flow back into itself. You're saying that it is not true that it is "thermodynamically impossible for anthropogenic global warming to occur on Earth?" So, you are saying your opinion (and that of 'reputable' scientists playing with their climate fantasy models) alters the laws of thermodynamics and physics? How is that even possible? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 13, 2011 2:59:18 GMT
Many years ago I was highly sceptical of AGW so I read all the literature that supported the anti-AGW case. Gradually, though, I realised much of it was rubbish. I still have strong doubts that AGW will be a serious problem, but the basic physics behind the theory is sound. The crucial issue is feedback. This is where the main (only) uncertainty lies. It is hard to accept that climate science is in its infancy. There is far more that we don't know than what we do know. This will remain true for some time to come. Or, another possibility: The mystery will always remain. Woodstove, Your comment here clearly stands out becuase of it's general truth. "There is far more that we don't know than what we do know. This will remain true for some time to come." This is the fundamental nature of Science. This will always be the case. Scientific understanding is always tentative and incomplete. That is not to say that scientific understanding is not important and useful (look at the past 150 years, for example.) |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 13, 2011 9:19:26 GMT
astromet
It is perhaps better to say that the addition of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reduces the rate of cooling of the earth. This reduction in the rate of radiative cooling has been measured by satellites (eg. "Brindley, H. E., J. E. Harries, 2003: Observations of the Infrared Outgoing Spectrum of the Earth from Space: The Effects of Temporal and Spatial Sampling. J. Climate, 16, 3820–3833")
If the earth's surface receives a roughly constant amount of solar radiation, reducing the rate of cooling causes energy to build up in the earth which must mean some part of the earth warms.
The same logic (though not the same physical processes) applies to putting an extra blanket on your bed or putting double-glazed windows on a house. The additional layer of CO2/blanket/glass-air reduces the rate of loss of heat from a consistent heating source (the sun/your body/your heating system).
When the earth/your bed/your house has warmed by a bit, the heat differential increases which increases the amount of convection, conduction and/or radiation and no more warming occurs.
The inside of your bed does not raise its own temperature, it warms because less of your body heat is getting through the blankets. The room does not raise its own temperature, it warms because less of its heat is being radiated/conducted through the window. The earth does not raise its own temperature, it warms because less of the sun's heat is "escaping" to space.
None of these examples counter the laws of thermodynamics.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 13, 2011 17:08:46 GMT
astromet It is perhaps better to say that the addition of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reduces the rate of cooling of the earth. This reduction in the rate of radiative cooling has been measured by satellites (eg. "Brindley, H. E., J. E. Harries, 2003: Observations of the Infrared Outgoing Spectrum of the Earth from Space: The Effects of Temporal and Spatial Sampling. J. Climate, 16, 3820–3833") If the earth's surface receives a roughly constant amount of solar radiation, reducing the rate of cooling causes energy to build up in the earth which must mean some part of the earth warms. The same logic (though not the same physical processes) applies to putting an extra blanket on your bed or putting double-glazed windows on a house. The additional layer of CO2/blanket/glass-air reduces the rate of loss of heat from a consistent heating source (the sun/your body/your heating system). When the earth/your bed/your house has warmed by a bit, the heat differential increases which increases the amount of convection, conduction and/or radiation and no more warming occurs. The inside of your bed does not raise its own temperature, it warms because less of your body heat is getting through the blankets. The room does not raise its own temperature, it warms because less of its heat is being radiated/conducted through the window. The earth does not raise its own temperature, it warms because less of the sun's heat is "escaping" to space. None of these examples counter the laws of thermodynamics. Oh yes, the "glass greenhouse" analogy without calling it that. Please explain why the lower and mid troposphere is not warming as the "well known physics" incorporated into climate models dictate. All of what you've been presenting are hypotheses, and publishing a paper may give comfort to vote counters, but doesn't give them credence. Only observations do, and thus far AGW "theory" is failing on all fronts. No doubt you've read this: www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/wind-water [T]hese results are consistent with recent theory on submesoscale processes and thus encourage incorporation of this theory into boundary layer models. Such physics is not accounted for in present-day climate models. Fronts associated with the Kuroshio, Gulf Stream, and Antarctic Circumpolar Current are key players in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. Inaccurate representation of the boundary layer and flow energetics in frontal regions could thus significantly affect the predictive skill of climate models. I've said it before; the atmosphere plays second fiddle to the oceans. At some point, and even Gavin Schmidt has acknowledged this, the whole AGW theory will need reviewing if the Big Warm doesn't begin soon. As it stands now, the metrics are not looking favorable. Now the last refuge for AGW is the Arctic, but that too will bring disappointment as the AMO transfers to the cold phase. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 13, 2011 17:18:05 GMT
magellan,
It doesn't surprise me that you have failed to comprehend that I am not making an analogy with the greenhouse effect as most of the time your arguments are based on disquotations and disunderstandings [sic].
The comparisons are to demonstrate why the "Second Law" argument is fallacious. If the Second Law argument is valid for the "greenhouse effect" then a blanket will not keep you warm you and double-glazing will not keep your house warm.
|
|
|
|
Post by w7psk on Apr 13, 2011 17:18:06 GMT
First Trick of a parlor trick artist
Claim all their methods is secret (that way they never have to show anything)
Claim your stupid (always put it back to the person, never ever show your hand)
claim they cannot show you and you must show him (to which he will say your not correct and that he is without ever showing)
A true "SCIENTIST" submits his work for review to the Scientific community
A parlor trick artist keeps making predictions, never mentioning the 100s of misses but crow about the 1 he accidentally got right.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 13, 2011 17:31:04 GMT
magellan, It doesn't surprise me that you have failed to comprehend that I am not making an analogy with the greenhouse effect as most of the time your arguments are based on disquotations and disunderstandings [sic]. The comparisons are to demonstrate why the "Second Law" argument is fallacious. If the Second Law argument is valid for the "greenhouse effect" then a blanket will not keep you warm you and double-glazing will not keep your house warm. It doesn't surprise me that you have failed to comprehend that I am not making an analogy with the greenhouse effect as most of the time your arguments are based on disquotations and disunderstandings This is going to be fun when I link to all the "disquotations" from mainstream climate scientists and institutions using the real glass greenhouse analogy as their teaching aid. After painting your home's windows, how much more effective will a 2nd, 3rd and 4th coat block out the light? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 13, 2011 17:33:09 GMT
Depends on the quality of the brush strokes magellan. Those streaks can let a few rays in, but most people seem to prefer to live in the dark now days.
|
|
