Weather guys wrong again

[MNgopher]

Storms right around the freezing point, where it can vary the snowfall and rainfall amounts dramatically are notoriously hard to predict. Miss by a few tenths of a degree, and the result is completely different.

I tend to ignore most commercial weather sources, and rely more on the National Weather Service (who don't get me wrong is not perfect either). I also actually read their forecast discussion - that's where they lay out how they got to the forecast and often describe how much uncertainty there is in it - and there are times where their different models all say different things, and they have to pick one... There are a lot of times that the forecast is their best guess - but they are uncertain and can lay out what may happen if their wrong.

 

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Storms right around the freezing point, where it can vary the snowfall and rainfall amounts dramatically are notoriously hard to predict. Miss by a few tenths of a degree, and the result is completely different.

I tend to ignore most commercial weather sources, and rely more on the National Weather Service (who don't get me wrong is not perfect either). I also actually read their forecast discussion - that's where they lay out how they got to the forecast and often describe how much uncertainty there is in it - and there are times where their different models all say different things, and they have to pick one... There are a lot of times that the forecast is their best guess - but they are uncertain and can lay out what may happen if their wrong.


Totally agree. The TV weather guys are more concerned about their ratings than the weather. The NWS generally seems to be reliable the majority of the time, and the forecast discussions contain much more information than anyone else puts out there.

 

[Trav]

You couldn't explain that with a explaining machine, i could understand it perfectly if it was real. Phil Jones and others fudged the data and its proven not some conspiracy theory.
The facts are simple and real, there is no man made climate change, its nothing more than a cash grab!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...generation.html

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014...-the-year-2000/

Read the emails, they are disturbing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250-plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/

http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/03/05/climategate-reloaded-scientists-plan-their-counter-attack/

What about algores "in 10 years the planet is going to burn up", hint, the clock ran out last month and it hasn't.

http://www.ff.org/3-days-to-al-gores-10-...gency-deadline/
These buffoons, idiots and outright frauds have been making billions on this garbage for far too long, hopefully this will come to a screeching halt this Nov.

 

[Shannow]

Trav,
do you at least cede that we have materially altered the composition of the atmosphere since we started playing ?

 

[Trav]

Sure but so has nature itself. Every volcanic eruption puts more Co2 in the air than man made.
Nature also the ability to clean itself, look when they set the oil field on fire in the first Iraq war.
The loonies claimed it would be the equivalent of an environmental nuclear winter if they torched them, they did and then it rained and laid that theory to waste.

http://www1.american.edu/ted/kuwait.htm

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/jskiles/flie..._pilewskie.html

Of course there is climate change and global warming, there always has been. There had to be one heck of a lot of global warming to get past the ice age. The problem is nothing man can do can alter nature even a little bit, no now or in a million years.

 

[cjcride]

^Well put Trav^

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Sure but so has nature itself. Every volcanic eruption puts more Co2 in the air than man made.


Nature has never had Man doing what Man is currently doing so we are clearly in uncharted territory.

Really, a single volcano does more than man has released ?

That sounds like a Faux news soundbite rather than a fact...the incresing presence of CO2 in the atmosphere must therefore be caused by an ever increasing number of volcanos occurring about the same time as the industrial revolution.

Oh, wait, there's numbers available...

www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

Quote:
Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.



https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Quote:
While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. This is probably because the amounts of carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanism have not been of sufficient magnitude to produce detectable global warming. For example, all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities.

 

[Trav]

I don't know over what period of time they were talking about but it doesn't matter anyway Co2 is harmless. In fact the more Co2 the more plant life thrives on it producing more oxygen.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics

Believe whatever you want, I don't believe the hype of lunatics with an social agenda and for profit scare tactics.
IMO the sooner these frauds like Jones and co are held accountable and charged for their ponzi scheme the better.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Trav
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics


per the link...

Quote:
Experts stressed that the volcano contributed just a tiny amount – less than a third of one percentage point – of global emissions of greenhouse gases.

 

[Trav]

Like I said it only matters if you choose to believe it is a so called greenhouse gas.
More likely the motivation is money..

Quote:
One extra volcano-related aside: with European carbon market prices fluctuating around the €14 per tonne mark at present, this would mean that Eyjafjallajokull would theoretically be liable to a maximum daily bill of €4.2m if it were a fully fledged, carbon-trading nation or corporation.


Interesting how so many climate policy makers and climate change advocators are on the cash cow.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/22/chicago...larry-bell.html

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, no minds will be changed.

 

[bdcardinal]

By us they have models do the weather-casting with an occasional real meteorologist anytime the forecast is outside of the 68-73 range. Very little complaints.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Trav
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, no minds will be changed.


Trav , I have views on the science, and the application of prudent precautions to minimise risk.

I am appalled at the social engineers, who are scaremongering the science to create their wealth redistribution plans... Ozs carbon tax was clearly stated by the instigators as an opportunity to redistribute wealth, not to protect anything.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Meteorologists here have invented an amazing scientific term to cover up their incompetence: Anytime Showers.

As in, "You can expect Anytime Showers today....."

They actually get on their air to tell us it might rain any time. Thanks so much for that educated contribution.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Trav
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, no minds will be changed.


Trav , I have views on the science, and the application of prudent precautions to minimise risk.

I am appalled at the social engineers, who are scaremongering the science to create their wealth redistribution plans... Ozs carbon tax was clearly stated by the instigators as an opportunity to redistribute wealth, not to protect anything.


I am all for clean air, water and a clean environment, I cant believe anyone wants dirty air, rivers filled with lead, smoke spewing factories but..
Some of these people will ruin the counties economy, manipulate data to manipulate social change and so on. Once any part of the data is corrupt it all becomes suspect IMO.

I feel the same as you do, its about every else but protecting the environment in any meaningful way. The Flint river lead catastrophe should never have happened, they are too busy making regulations and handing out fines and collecting fees for all sorts of meaningless things that this goes unnoticed?

 

[chiefsfan1]

The difference between climate and weather.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

Its TIME, both are studies of the atmosphere.

When Al Gore stops riding in SUV's and flying in private jets while spouting we the peasants stop using oil. Michael Manns fraud, etc.

Its all about money,power and control.

Can we do things better,of course.

Can we do things better , of course.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Like I said it only matters if you choose to believe it is a so called greenhouse gas.

Then you don't believe in science?
Polar gases like methane and CO2 allow UV Light (from the sun) to pass. This light has short wave lengths and passes through the atmosphere and the Polar gasses. Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules are not polar. They are Diatomic

Once the light hits the ground most of it is transformed into Infrared light. When it encounters a methane or CO2 molecule it is "scattered" which effectively means a certain portion of it may either go back down or drift around with the winds. So much of it never leaves the atmosphere and winds up heating the planet.

Also shiny surfaces like ice do not turn the Ultraviolet Light into Infrared and so it is reflected off the planet So as ice melts the planet warms. Ocean water turns UV light into infrared.

Curious:
You don't believe this science?
You don't want to believe it?
Can't understand the information?

I am not understanding why people choose not to "believe" a scientific fact, when they have no basis to reject it.

Quote:

More likely the motivation is money..

It is, but on the side you apparently "support"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/

This is Exxon-Mobils current stance on Global warming..from their website
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/12/02/exxonmobil-on-the-u-n-climate-talks/

"ExxonMobil believes that effective policies to address climate change will put a price on greenhouse gas emissions "

Unlike you..Exxon Mobil has the resources to understand the simple concept of greenhouses.