[WeatherOp]

I haven't had the chance to look thru them yet, but it looks interesting. They interview Wx experts like Dr. Gray and Max Mayfield on subjects like Global Warming, the 2005 Hurricane season and thoughts on the 2006 Hurricane season.

http://www.bahamaswxconference.com./

[Kosh]

I thought the weather was a subject you brought up when you had nothing else to talk about.......

[Rictor]

I have to say, that website is done very well. It actually makes weather look somewhat interesting and dynamic. Now all that's missing is a Flash tornado simulator.

"The 2006 Weather Conference doesn't like black people."

[Sandwich]

Global Warming.... heh... heheh... I just finished reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and now the term "global warming" makes me laugh. Granted, I'm not one of those activists pushing for things in either direction, so if the book altered my preconcieved notions it won't really have much of an effect on the world through me, but still.... *giggles*

[aldo_14]

Global Warming.... heh... heheh... I just finished reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and now the term "global warming" makes me laugh. Granted, I'm not one of those activists pushing for things in either direction, so if the book altered my preconcieved notions it won't really have much of an effect on the world through me, but still.... *giggles*

Please tell me you're not actually regarding anything Crichton rights as based on fact?!

[Sandwich]

From the book:

[q]This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions, and organizations in this novel are the product of the author's imagination, or, if real, are used fictitiously without any intent to describe their actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real.[/q]

[karajorma]

The footnotes are a bunch of bollocks too actually. Crichton has been raked over the coals numerous times for the stupid mistakes he made in that book.

If you want to read about what a real scientist who actually helped Crichton with his research thinks of it you might want to click here.

for a quick soundbite though.

Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th Century eugenics movement. He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related. Presumably, the author doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and mis-guided, but that is an impression that is left.

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

In other words He ignored the science and concentrated on the words of those opposed to Global Warming in order to sell his sack of ****e book.

[WeatherOp]

If you really want a real opinion based on fact, you need to listen to John Christy of UAH in this video. This is what most Metoerologists not Climotolgists think, and study backs it up. Probley the best piece on GW I've heard in a while.

http://beta.abc3340.com/static/weather/video/sa2006.wmv

Go to the 24 minute mark in your player, or listen to all of it.

[aldo_14]

The footnotes are a bunch of bollocks too actually. Crichton has been raked over the coals numerous times for the stupid mistakes he made in that book.

If you want to read about what a real scientist who actually helped Crichton with his research thinks of it you might want to click here.

for a quick soundbite though.

Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th Century eugenics movement. He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related. Presumably, the author doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and mis-guided, but that is an impression that is left.

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

In other words He ignored the science and concentrated on the words of those opposed to Global Warming in order to sell his sack of ****e book.

Just linked off that page is http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/, which notes a few of the scientists misquoted and/or mischaracterised, too.

[Wild Fragaria]

 I just don't understand how some people would prefer 'tales' to real fact 

[aldo_14]

I just don't understand how some people would prefer 'tales' to real fact 

Easier to swallow.  I fell for it (with earlier books), I have to admit, because I read quite a lot of Crichtons' stuff when I was younger and going on holidays and stuff.  But when he actually wrote something related (even tangentially) to something I'd studied, I realised he was full of pish.  Crichton, of course, always uses the same basic template; man discovers something with science, mans arrogance in belief of science leads to tragedy, man rues his use of science.  Man in the generic 'human' sense, of course, although I don't think he's keen on female protagonists (sidekicks, maybe, but the protagonist is usually the doubting male, thrust into accounting for those less humble etc etc).

It's a shame, really, because it's something we see more and more and which feeds into politics more and more.  Even with this specific example, I believe a US Congress comission on climate change actually recommended this - a fictional novel - as reading to panel members and invited Crichton to speak.  And we seem to be getting to the stage - in the US more than most IMO - where not only is scientific consensus being disregarded, it's being degraded because it is a consensus.  And science (even including stuff like medicine) just becomes sidelined in a manner more befitting pre-renaissance than modern day.

[WeatherOp]

I just don't understand how some people would prefer 'tales' to real fact 

Because people like a varied plate of veggies, some like the doomsday scenario, others like the "it's not there" scenario, very few people care about the real truth, because frankly it isn't good for politics.

If you can't bash your opponet for not doing something or doing too much of something, no one is gonna ellect you into office. The sad fact is that the public as a whole is more stupid then cattle.

[karajorma]

This is what most Metoerologists not Climotolgists think, and study backs it up. Probley the best piece on GW I've heard in a while.

Let me get this straight. He claims that the weather in Alabama is getting colder and wetter. He then goes on to explain how Alabama's weather is very changable from year to year and then returns to the fact that this (according to him) incredibly changeable weather should be taken as an indication that global warming isn't true because of 3 outlying data points?

What a ****ing joke. This is not science. Anyone who presented data like that in a scientific conference would be laughed out of the room. You can not refute or display a trend based on three data points in a sample of several hundred. To claim you can is idiotic and unscientific. It could be that he was simplifying his results for the average american audience to understand but he's simplified it beyond the point where it has any worth and overstated the pieces of information that had no relevence (Why the **** would it matter how many weather monitoring stations there are!).

 If you can find some real data on Alabama's climate that might be worth listening to but even that is debatable. We're dealing with global warming not Alabama warming here.

Furthermore some of the flim-flam in that report does not contradict global warming at any level other than a very simplistic interpretation of the facts. For instance the claim that Antarctic ice sheets are growing in size is actually predicted by climate models because of increased snowfall caused by warmer air currents.

Because people like a varied plate of veggies, some like the doomsday scenario, others like the "it's not there" scenario, very few people care about the real truth, because frankly it isn't good for politics.

How you can dare to say that when you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence in favour of global warming is beyond me. The best evidence you can give against it is a ****ing news report? One which is actually very light on actual science of any kind? And then you dare to claim that there are people who don't like to listen to the truth?

You are one of them. If global warming is wrong prove it. Scientifically. Not with the crap opponents to global warming come out with. Until you can do that don't attempt to claim that others don't want to hear the truth unless you are capitalising the T.

[WeatherOp]

This is what most Metoerologists not Climotolgists think, and study backs it up. Probley the best piece on GW I've heard in a while.

Let me get this straight. He claims that the weather in Alabama is getting colder and wetter. He then goes on to explain how Alabama's weather is very changable from year to year and then returns to the fact that this (according to him) incredibly changeable weather should be taken as an indication that global warming isn't true because of 3 outlying data points?

What a ****ing joke. This is not science. Anyone who presented data like that in a scientific conference would be laughed out of the room. You can not refute or display a trend based on three data points in a sample of several hundred. To claim you can is idiotic and unscientific. It could be that he was simplifying his results for the average american audience to understand but he's simplified it beyond the point where it has any worth and overstated the pieces of information that had no relevence (Why the **** would it matter how many weather monitoring stations there are!).

 If you can find some real data on Alabama's climate that might be worth listening to but even that is debatable. We're dealing with global warming not Alabama warming here.

Furthermore some of the flim-flam in that report does not contradict global warming at any level other than a very simplistic interpretation of the facts. For instance the claim that Antarctic ice sheets are growing in size is actually predicted by climate models because of increased snowfall caused by warmer air currents.

Because people like a varied plate of veggies, some like the doomsday scenario, others like the "it's not there" scenario, very few people care about the real truth, because frankly it isn't good for politics.

How you can dare to say that when you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence in favour of global warming is beyond me. The best evidence you can give against it is a ****ing news report? One which is actually very light on actual science of any kind? And then you dare to claim that there are people who don't like to listen to the truth?

You are one of them. If global warming is wrong prove it. Scientifically. Not with the crap opponents to global warming come out with. Until you can do that don't attempt to claim that others don't want to hear the truth unless you are capitalising the T.

Dude did you not listen to one word he said??? I really can't believe it, for the first time in recorded history, you laugh in the face of scienctific evidence. You do know that Dr. John Christy is a very respected Climotolgist/Metoerologist, yet that isn't enough. Seams like you listened to what you wanted to hear.

Dude, here is the thing, if you bring up climate models to a bunch of Mets they will laugh you out of the room. Why?? because we can't predict three days with a 75% effectiveness, but you want to believe we can predict 50 years or up too 100 years. Ohh brother, thats really funny.

I really think you need to do some observation yourself instead of listening to reports, I myself as well as every other non-pro to pro mets will agree that Alabama has cooled down over the past years.

But, dang, sorry that whole post was laughable. Cause it sounds like someone has been watching too much of the Weather Channel.

[aldo_14]

According to wikipedia (and you can search for independent verification, I don't have the time)

Christy became famous as early as 1993 for claiming the global temperature was actually decreasing based on the "more accurate" satellite data. But others over the years have shown errors in his interpretation of the data which has slowly and consistently increased his results. This is in addition to the improving accuracy of the short data set [4] (it begins in December 1978). In 1997 his testimony to the Committee on Environment and Public Works pointed out that his (and Dr. Roy Spencer's) data indicated a decrease in global temperature. Before the same committe in 2001, he stated it was at an increase that was "a rate less than a third that observed at the surface" at 0.045 C/decade and it showed "remarkable consistency between independent measurements [by radiosonde] of these upper air temperatures". In 2003 before the U.S. House Committee on Resources he stated his data was "less than half of the warming observed at the surface." In 2004 his published results showed a 0.08 C/decade increase. A new error in his interpretation of the data found in 2005 has now increased his results by 60% in only a year to 0.13 C/decade but he still claims "all radiosonde comparisons have been rerun and the agreement is still exceptionally good" [5] as was claimed in 2001 when his results were 1/3 as high as now.

EDIt; I find it interesting that the main opposition to climatological monitoring seems to come from a) scientific rivallry and b) short term inaccuracy.  It seems evident to me that b) is kind of irrelevant as you want to predict and model trends, not specific instances. 

It's like the difference between saying XX's stock will rise by about $1 in the next 3 years due to the ongoing trend of investment versus XXs' stock will go up by 2 cents tomorrow, drop 1 the next day, and go back up by 3 the day after.  I wouldn't expect the former to be made nor, if made, accurate.  But long term is entirely different, even if generalised.

That's aside from the scientific issues and difficulties of climate prediction, of course, but if your arguement against climate trend prediction is based on a lack of short-term precise prediction, I think it's bollocks.  Frankly.

[WeatherOp]

According to wikipedia (and you can search for independent verification, I don't have the time)

Christy became famous as early as 1993 for claiming the global temperature was actually decreasing based on the "more accurate" satellite data. But others over the years have shown errors in his interpretation of the data which has slowly and consistently increased his results. This is in addition to the improving accuracy of the short data set [4] (it begins in December 1978). In 1997 his testimony to the Committee on Environment and Public Works pointed out that his (and Dr. Roy Spencer's) data indicated a decrease in global temperature. Before the same committe in 2001, he stated it was at an increase that was "a rate less than a third that observed at the surface" at 0.045 C/decade and it showed "remarkable consistency between independent measurements [by radiosonde] of these upper air temperatures". In 2003 before the U.S. House Committee on Resources he stated his data was "less than half of the warming observed at the surface." In 2004 his published results showed a 0.08 C/decade increase. A new error in his interpretation of the data found in 2005 has now increased his results by 60% in only a year to 0.13 C/decade but he still claims "all radiosonde comparisons have been rerun and the agreement is still exceptionally good" [5] as was claimed in 2001 when his results were 1/3 as high as now.

 And that is called errors wow.

That's aside from the scientific issues and difficulties of climate prediction, of course, but if your arguement against climate trend prediction is based on a lack of short-term precise prediction, I think it's bollocks.  Frankly.

You don't get it, if we can't predict 3 days in advance, there is no way we predict that far. Cause if we can't predict how the Jet Stream is gonna act, upper air throughs and ridges,  EPO, NAO, AO, and many more. All can change the climate in an instant.

If you predict above avg temps for the south for a month, and a AO and NAO sets up you can kiss that forecast goodbye for the most part. If you predict a ridge of High pressure over the south, but the Jet Stream is stronger then first thought, and it swings a very powerful cold front thru, crushes that ridge, and that could mess up the entire forecast.

Trends can show up in model runs 7 days out, stays into 2 days out and the system you think is gonna happen, crashes and burns. I've seen that happen .

[karajorma]

Dude did you not listen to one word he said??? I really can't believe it, for the first time in recorded history, you laugh in the face of scienctific evidence. You do know that Dr. John Christy is a very respected Climotolgist/Metoerologist, yet that isn't enough. Seams like you listened to what you wanted to hear.

I don't care if he's Albert Einstien or Issac Newton or any other scientist you could care to name. Eminence and respectability are no replacement for cold hard facts. The report you liked to had none. If you need an explaination for why this is true let me point out that Einstien spent his last 20 years trying to disprove quantum theory. If I use your criterion for judgement of scientific material I would take the fact that he was a respected scientist and probably one of the smartest men who ever lived and instantly ignore quantum theory even though every other scientist on the planet was telling him that he was wrong.
 
His status means nothing beyond establishing a yardstick for how much you can trust his data. That the only thing that matters.

Dude, here is the thing, if you bring up climate models to a bunch of Mets they will laugh you out of the room. Why?? because we can't predict three days with a 75% effectiveness, but you want to believe we can predict 50 years or up too 100 years. Ohh brother, thats really funny.

Sorry but that is a rather pointless way of reasoning. An inability to predict short term patterns does not correspond to an ability to predict long term patterns. Otherwise you might as well claim you can never know where anyone will be at any given time because you can't predict the position of the electrons that make up their atoms.

I really think you need to do some observation yourself instead of listening to reports, I myself as well as every other non-pro to pro mets will agree that Alabama has cooled down over the past years.

So? Did I deny that? When did Alabama become the whole world? As I explained before we are talking about global warming. It appears that it is you who is in fact reading only that which they wish to read since you appear to have completely ignored that comment in order to make some frivolous point about Alabama's temperature ignoring the fact that I never disputed what the temperature in Alabama was.

You yourself claim that you can't determine long term trends yet you're now claiming that Alabama has cooled as if this means that Alabama won't be scorching hot this year. (And if that isn't what you're claiming I'd love to know what the hell your point was for bringing this up).

And that is called errors wow.

So you refute scientific evidence claiming that it is error based on what data? The fact that the man espouses your particular world view and therefore must be right? Provide scientific proof that it's an error or quit misrepresenting yourself as a scientist.

[WeatherOp]

Sorry but that is a rather pointless way of reasoning. An inability to predict short term patterns does not correspond to an ability to predict long term patterns. Otherwise you might as well claim you can never know where anyone will be at any given time because you can't predict the position of the electrons that make up their atoms.

Read what I posted above, if we lived in a world that

1. warmed evenly
2. had no jet stream
3. had no ocean currents
4. didn't spin
5. didn't have seasons

Then those models might have merit, but we don't.

Now I'll agree, short term weather systems are different from long term climate, but a bunch of short term weather systems can effect long term climate. And if we cannot predict them, we cannot predict the changes they will make to the climate. And therefore cannot make long range predictions with much effectiveness.

The thing is I fully expect it to get out in the next few years. And that is why I want to dis-courage these long range doomsday senarios. Cause once it does, the public and goverment are gonna look at Meoteorologist and Climotolgists and say, you said this was gonna happen, and we put all this money into fixing it. And then think what is gonna happen to the enviroment then?

Lets get down the short term climate down first like El' nino, El' Nina, the EPO and NAO, and the "Smoking Gun" itself, then go after the long range stuff. Cause otherwise it's like trying to drive a car without the front half.

Also I'm working on a theory, a theory that if is true would be devestating to the world as we know it, far more then the "dooms day" hold that GW has got on the public. I'll share it if anybody wants me too.

[Flipside]

I live in the UK, you just need to remember the phrase 'Scattered Showers, with possible warm spots in the South and that [pick direction]erly breeze bringing in some more overcast weather for the weekend'.

There you go, instant BBC Weather Reporter

[karajorma]

Read what I posted above

You didn't write that above. You can't make stuff up and then claim you wrote it above to justify that your earlier posts were devoid of facts. You didn't write anything remotely similar to what you wrote below.

if we lived in a world that

1. warmed evenly
2. had no jet stream
3. had no ocean currents
4. didn't spin
5. didn't have seasons

Then those models might have merit, but we don't.

Prove it. You're the one claiming the scientists are wrong. Prove it. All I'm hearing from you are half baked assertions. Prove them.

Now I'll agree, short term weather systems are different from long term climate, but a bunch of short term weather systems can effect long term climate. And if we cannot predict them, we cannot predict the changes they will make to the climate. And therefore cannot make long range predictions with much effectiveness.

Nonsense. Patent nonsense. Prove that short term weather patterns can have a long term effect on the planet. All the ones you mention have a big effect but it's always short term. Again your claim is nothing more than an assertion with no proof to back it up whatsoever.

The thing is I fully expect it to get out in the next few years. And that is why I want to dis-courage these long range doomsday senarios. Cause once it does, the public and goverment are gonna look at Meoteorologist and Climotolgists and say, you said this was gonna happen, and we put all this money into fixing it. And then think what is gonna happen to the enviroment then?

I'm supposed to take your belief that proof will come out in the next few years as meaning anything other than the fact that you have no proof now? Sorry but that's not good enough. I refuse to believe that the global warming is a big conspiracy because if it was how come there isn't evidence to counter it? Or are you going to start wheeling in the Roswell aliens and Xenu as proof of how it's all a sham?
 Science works on a basis of scientific proof. Not claims from prophets who believe it will all be explained in the next few years but can't even find preliminary evidence.

Lets get down the short term climate down first like El' nino, El' Nina, the EPO and NAO, and the "Smoking Gun" itself, then go after the long range stuff. Cause otherwise it's like trying to drive a car without the front half.

What you suggest is like trying to treat the external scrapes on an accident victim and claiming that the internal organ failure can be dealt with later. You have no proof whatsoever that these short term weather patterns even relate to long term effects. So why would learning about them have any validity?

Also I'm working on a theory, a theory that if is true would be devestating to the world as we know it, far more then the "dooms day" hold that GW has got on the public. I'll share it if anybody wants me too.

Feel free to spout some more baseless theories. It will only go further towards proving my point that you aren't basing any of this on anything other than gut instinct and psuedo-science.