no scientific basis for forecasting climate

Flutter GirlFlutter Girl Posts: 548
edited February 2009 in A Moving Train
It has been an interesting couple of days. Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”, but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.” This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice. The story below originally appeared in the blog of Australian Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. It is reprinted below, with with some pictures and links added for WUWT readers.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/

I notice Gore's latest desperate plea for changing laws now! We've got a planet to save from warming!! I guess I don't have to fear losing my freedoms to nazi "environmentalists" after all. Gore's grasping at straws hoping he can pass laws before he completely runs out of political steam.

BTW..I have one very important fact to point out. If our warming was caused by us, or we had any effect at all, for that matter...What was causing Venus and Mars' climates to change in sync with ours? Maybe there are vast alien cities under the surface producing CO2 just like us..sorry, couldn't resist.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Have a look at this beauty..Our star is looking just gorgeous..absolutely pristine, not a storm in sight.

    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html
  • RM291946 wrote:
    but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.”


    classic.
    this is just about as bad as the HIV tests that say right on the box "not intended to diagnose HIV".

    GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.

    HIV 1
    HIV 2

    :D:D:D
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Royals32Royals32 Posts: 160
    RM291946 wrote:
    Have a look at this beauty..Our star is looking just gorgeous..absolutely pristine, not a storm in sight.

    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html


    Wow. If that really is a picture of the sun and not a nerf ball, that is a cool.
    #==(o )

    You are not your job.
    You are not how much money you have in the bank.
    You are not the car you drive.
    You are not the contents of your wallet.
    You are not your fucking khakis.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    more people ignoring actions that could possibly lead to the extinction of the human race. I still haven't figured out why you spend so much time trying to disprove the human race's impact on our environment.
  • NoKNoK Posts: 824
    RM291946 wrote:
    but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.”


    classic.
    this is just about as bad as the HIV tests that say right on the box "not intended to diagnose HIV".

    GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.

    HIV 1
    HIV 2

    :D:D:D

    A little off topic..
    The first picture says "not intended to diagnose AIDS" not HIV. Afterall, HIV is only a virus and AIDS is the disease resulting from the virus so I do not understand the problem with it. The second picture mentions that there is no STANDARD for detection which is correct. Detection of HIV is very hard and requires several confirmatory tests so there is no established level of viral antibody that once you exceed such level it means you are infected.
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    Commy wrote:
    more people ignoring actions that could possibly lead to the extinction of the human race. I still haven't figured out why you spend so much time trying to disprove the human race's impact on our environment.


    this fascinates me too...it's like they want to disprove climate change so they can continue to drive their hummers and throw their trash out the window of said piece of shit vehicle
  • why do all GW believers automatically accuse any dissenter of being someone who just wants to continue destroying the earth? It's a lame and false accusation.

    Read the data. You tell me to listen to experts, well the overwhelming majority of experts are saying we have no effect. You are the ones who need to start listening to the experts. Once you do, we can damn Gore, Mann, and most of all Hansen, then get crackin on finding real ways to help the environment.
  • Royals32 wrote:
    RM291946 wrote:
    Have a look at this beauty..Our star is looking just gorgeous..absolutely pristine, not a storm in sight.

    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html


    Wow. If that really is a picture of the sun and not a nerf ball, that is a cool.

    LoL..yea, that's her in all her glory..in realtime.
  • NoKNoK Posts: 824
    RM291946 wrote:
    then get crackin on finding real ways to help the environment.

    Why do we need to help the environment if we aren't affecting it?
  • SongburstSongburst Posts: 1,195
    Commy wrote:
    more people ignoring actions that could possibly lead to the extinction of the human race. I still haven't figured out why you spend so much time trying to disprove the human race's impact on our environment.
    I don't think that anybody disputes the fact that we pollute and pillage our environment like no other species can. I will dispute the impact of our polluting on the climate though. The Global Warming BS that is fed to us is nothing more than a trendy poitical agenda (that has been around for 25 years). The "scientific" data presented to support the greenhouse effect is suspect at best.
    1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
  • NoK wrote:
    RM291946 wrote:
    then get crackin on finding real ways to help the environment.

    Why do we need to help the environment if we aren't affecting it?

    I never said we aren't..I said the opposite. We have an impact on local climate. However, our local climates do not affect arctic, or antarctic glaciers, and therefore cannot cause global warming, or cooling.
  • NoKNoK Posts: 824
    RM291946 wrote:
    I never said we aren't..I said the opposite. We have an impact on local climate. However, our local climates do not affect arctic, or antarctic glaciers, and therefore cannot cause global warming, or cooling.

    So you're saying only the parts inhabited by humans are affected?
  • bernmodibernmodi Posts: 631
    RM291946 wrote:
    ... then get crackin on finding real ways to help the environment.
    Do you have any suggestions?
  • NoK wrote:
    RM291946 wrote:
    I never said we aren't..I said the opposite. We have an impact on local climate. However, our local climates do not affect arctic, or antarctic glaciers, and therefore cannot cause global warming, or cooling.

    So you're saying only the parts inhabited by humans are affected?

    Precisely. I never once said we don't pollute or harm the environment. I said we aren't causing the global warming/global climate change, whatever you want to call it..


    bernmodi- Yea a few..I've been wanting to get the book called Hard Green to learn of some more, but till then I do have a few..For starters, I've already said numerous times that all biofuel needs to be taken off the market. It is more damaging, is a waste of soil (there is a global soil shortage), and it is driving up the cost of all food and milk, and cotton. Once we realise that carbon dioxide is not harming the earth, we can get laws easily passed requiring all engine-run machines to have a catalytic converter using platinum catalysis. It turns part of the fuel into harmless CO2, the part of it into water vapor. Meaning it would make all fuel engines run almost entirely clean. They can only be run on unleaded gasoline, making it so we are no longer using fuel with lead in it.

    We can of course make use of the 2 fuel options I've mentioned a few times before, nuclear, and recycling garbage (including toxic waste) into fuel. The only digging required for that is digging up landfills. If I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong, that also means we can get rid of pipelines eliminating the massive hazards they pose. For instance, it has just been found that a pipeline runs right over a major faultline. Imagine the destruction if there is an earthquake there.

    We need to ditch flourescent lights, which would include those new lightbulbs, because of the mercury in them.

    We need to stop using bamboo imported from south America. They are cutting down rainforest to grow it. Instead we need to give lumberjacks their jobs back and use trees from the tree farms right here at home..In fact we need to realise that richer is cleaner. Wealthier countries produce less pollutants because of new technology aimed at doing just that.

    We need to ditch using black tar, or gravel, or whatever it is for resurfacing the roads. It looks nice, but absorbs more heat, making for a far hotter local climate, or what is called Urban Island Heating. We also need to start using "grean roofs." It started in Germany in a town full of smog the same as Jersey used to be. It's the only thing they did towards fixing the problem. They have no smog anymore, with that one simple solution. You plant grass, or a garden, on your roof with a trellis structure that prevents the greenery from growing roots into the roof, and allowing for moisture to escape instead of sit and build up mold and rot thru your roof.

    We need to put an end to the Endangered species Act. They are only causing harm to both animals and the environment. The animals they claim to have saved were actually saved by private efforts. I can prove they are lying about what they have "saved". They claim they saved Kangaroo's. They have no jurisdiction in Australia. I'm curious how they figure they can make such a claim. One instance to show how they harm the environment and animals- there used to be kangaroo rats in an area of California. so they made the area protected land, prohibiting landowners there from doing anything to their properties. There was one family that had farmed their land for more than 100 years, but were no longer allowed to under the new restrictions. On top of losing money, the land became hugely overgrown. Then there was a fire. The homeowners were not allowed to disk trenches to prevent the fires from reaching their homes cos it would disturb the land, never mind how disking could have easily contained the fire to a much smaller area, preventing the loss of a lot more greenery to the fire..One homeowner didn't give a sht about the restrictions and jumped the fence and used his neighbors tractor (his neighbors were the ones with the farm land) and the disking prevented his home from burning down like most of the rest of them. He was charged, and framed. It was later found that the rats had left the area some time before the fire because everything had become so overgrown that the environment was no longer ideal for them. so they effectively hurt more land than necessary, drove away the rats they were supposedly "protecting" and ruined people's lives. This kind of "protection" has been found to be causing a lot of damage thru the whole country.

    I'm sure I got more, I just am too distracted to think of them at the moment..
  • NoKNoK Posts: 824
    RM291946 wrote:
    Precisely. I never once said we don't pollute or harm the environment. I said we aren't causing the global warming/global climate change, whatever you want to call it..

    .. so humans across the globe are drastically affecting their various local climates yet there is no global climate change occurring?
  • NoK wrote:
    RM291946 wrote:
    Precisely. I never once said we don't pollute or harm the environment. I said we aren't causing the global warming/global climate change, whatever you want to call it..

    .. so humans across the globe are drastically affecting their various local climates yet there is no global climate change occurring?

    Right. We don't inhabit very much land. It may seem like it, but we don't. It goes back to what I was saying about how we all fit into Texas with roughly 1100 sq feet of space for each of us. And the vast majority of us squish ourselves into close quarters (cities)..so those local climates are few and far between. Not enough to effect the overall global climate. Plus, you need to take into account that the regions where ice is varying between melting and building up, are only inhabited by a handful of environmentally-aware scientists. It would be ridiculous to think they could be causing significant changes to those climates.
  • NoKNoK Posts: 824
    Regardless of where we can fit as a species, we are currently spread out all across the globe so these calculations are useless (also, you are forgetting the water bodies in Texas so you need to adjust your calculations). Its been documented that pollution from one local climate can affect another local climate (E.g. China and Australia) so even if humans are not inhabiting one place they may have an effect on its local climate. With the number of different local climates being affected its safe say this is a GLOBAL issue. You may disagree with the Al Gorean definition of global climate change (i.e global warming, global cooling, global whateverthefucktheycomeupwith) but the literal definition of it stands.
  • evenflowevenflow Posts: 401
    norm wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    more people ignoring actions that could possibly lead to the extinction of the human race. I still haven't figured out why you spend so much time trying to disprove the human race's impact on our environment.


    this fascinates me too...it's like they want to disprove climate change so they can continue to drive their hummers and throw their trash out the window of said piece of shit vehicle

    Or maybe we're just tired of slick politicians trying to shove their crap down our throat and play with our emotions just so they can make some more money on top of their millions they've already scammed while slowly but surly trampling on our constitutional rights.

    And for the record, I hate Hummers. I think they're ugly and most people that own them have no business driving something that big. I' more of a new Camaro, big cubic inch motor in a smaller vehicle kind of guy. My motto: "Who cares that it only gets 6 miles per gallon, it's got 800 hp and runs the quarter in 10 seconds."
    It's all about the music...

    http://www.myspace.com/christianjame (Music Page)

    Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/19598996 (Personal Page)
  • NoKNoK Posts: 824
    evenflow wrote:
    Or maybe we're just tired of slick politicians trying to shove their crap down our throat and play with our emotions just so they can make some more money on top of their millions they've already scammed while slowly but surly trampling on our constitutional rights.

    And for the record, I hate Hummers. I think they're ugly and most people that own them have no business driving something that big. I' more of a new Camaro, big cubic inch motor in a smaller vehicle kind of guy. My motto: "Who cares that it only gets 6 miles per gallon, it's got 800 hp and runs the quarter in 10 seconds."

    As long as you're tired of ALL the lies these slick politicians have been force feeding you (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, South America, and so on) and not only the ones that inconvenience you, then you wouldn't be a hypocrite.

    P.S. Camaros suck. A bike can give you double the speed with a third of the gas.
  • evenflowevenflow Posts: 401
    I am tired of all the BS that politicians are spreading including those that you mentioned as well as the stimulus packages, bailout plans, economic justice, and illegal immigration, but that's not what this thread was about. I didn't realize that you needed me to name everything that I disagree with in the world of politics in order to reply to the original post. I'll do better next time.

    And you're right, a bike would beat the new Camaro, but I'm willing to bet money (and have on numerous occasions) that 9 out of 10 bikes on the street won't beat my Trans Am (see my avatar pic). As far as comparing the bike to the Camaro though, yeah the bike will be faster, but let's see you walk away from a 20mph wreck on that bike like you would in the Chevy.
    It's all about the music...

    http://www.myspace.com/christianjame (Music Page)

    Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/19598996 (Personal Page)
  • RM291946 wrote:

    ...We also need to start using "grean roofs." It started in Germany in a town full of smog the same as Jersey used to be. It's the only thing they did towards fixing the problem. They have no smog anymore, with that one simple solution. You plant grass, or a garden, on your roof with a trellis structure that prevents the greenery from growing roots into the roof, and allowing for moisture to escape instead of sit and build up mold and rot thru your roof...

    Or instead of the crappily styled cardboard cutout devoloper homes that seem to have been the hot item relatively recently we could start by building houses like this:

    http://www.earthshelteredtech.com/

    http://www.mwnews.net/html/earth_sheltered_homes.html

    Probably more expensive up front though, it sounds like the energy savings are quite good. A coworker of mine has one of these and he says that his house maintains a steady 55 degree temp on its own in the dead heat of the summer and the frigid cold of the winter.
  • RM291946 wrote:

    ...We also need to start using "grean roofs." It started in Germany in a town full of smog the same as Jersey used to be. It's the only thing they did towards fixing the problem. They have no smog anymore, with that one simple solution. You plant grass, or a garden, on your roof with a trellis structure that prevents the greenery from growing roots into the roof, and allowing for moisture to escape instead of sit and build up mold and rot thru your roof...

    Or instead of the crappily styled cardboard cutout devoloper homes that seem to have been the hot item relatively recently we could start by building houses like this:

    http://www.earthshelteredtech.com/

    http://www.mwnews.net/html/earth_sheltered_homes.html

    Probably more expensive up front though, it sounds like the energy savings are quite good. A coworker of mine has one of these and he says that his house maintains a steady 55 degree temp on its own in the dead heat of the summer and the frigid cold of the winter.

    ALL "earth sheltered" homes use a LOT of concrete.
    The ones you linked are NOT "superadobe" (which uses extreme amounts of concrete), but nevertheless they use quite large quantities of poured concrete, which is a VERY energy intensive product, heavily reliant on petrol. I'm not discounting earth shelters outright, i'm just stating one of the major drawbacks. As someone who has been looking in to every possible alternative for home construction, I just thought i'd mention that to anyone considering "earthshelter", "earthship", "superadobe", or other concrete intensive technologies. All building methods have trade offs, so do your homework. :D:D:D
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • RM291946 wrote:

    ...We also need to start using "grean roofs." It started in Germany in a town full of smog the same as Jersey used to be. It's the only thing they did towards fixing the problem. They have no smog anymore, with that one simple solution. You plant grass, or a garden, on your roof with a trellis structure that prevents the greenery from growing roots into the roof, and allowing for moisture to escape instead of sit and build up mold and rot thru your roof...

    Or instead of the crappily styled cardboard cutout devoloper homes that seem to have been the hot item relatively recently we could start by building houses like this:

    http://www.earthshelteredtech.com/

    http://www.mwnews.net/html/earth_sheltered_homes.html

    Probably more expensive up front though, it sounds like the energy savings are quite good. A coworker of mine has one of these and he says that his house maintains a steady 55 degree temp on its own in the dead heat of the summer and the frigid cold of the winter.

    ALL "earth sheltered" homes use a LOT of concrete.
    The ones you linked are NOT "superadobe" (which uses extreme amounts of concrete), but nevertheless they use quite large quantities of poured concrete, which is a VERY energy intensive product, heavily reliant on petrol. I'm not discounting earth shelters outright, i'm just stating one of the major drawbacks. As someone who has been looking in to every possible alternative for home construction, I just thought i'd mention that to anyone considering "earthshelter", "earthship", "superadobe", or other concrete intensive technologies. All building methods have trade offs, so do your homework. :D:D:D

    Yeah, I know they use alot of concrete, but I think that disadvantage is offset by the fact that they are supposed to last a very long time. Way longer than traditional houses.
  • AusticmanAusticman Posts: 1,327
    In australia at the moment the Southern and South eastern states are experiencing temperatures of over 110F for the last week and bit while in North Queenland there has seen flooding that has cover an area one and half times the sizt of Texas. These extremes combined is something I've never even heard of before now.

    Besides that don't you want to rid of the smog that covers most cities these days. China during the Olympics was terrible! Plus the dependance on oil as a source of energy. Regardless of the reasons cleaner burning fuel makes sense to me.
    I can't go the library anymore, everyone STINKS!!
  • NoKNoK Posts: 824
    evenflow wrote:
    I am tired of all the BS that politicians are spreading including those that you mentioned as well as the stimulus packages, bailout plans, economic justice, and illegal immigration, but that's not what this thread was about. I didn't realize that you needed me to name everything that I disagree with in the world of politics in order to reply to the original post. I'll do better next time.

    And you're right, a bike would beat the new Camaro, but I'm willing to bet money (and have on numerous occasions) that 9 out of 10 bikes on the street won't beat my Trans Am (see my avatar pic). As far as comparing the bike to the Camaro though, yeah the bike will be faster, but let's see you walk away from a 20mph wreck on that bike like you would in the Chevy.

    Where did I say you had to mention these things? I just said as long as your sick of all the other things then fine. It's always good to do your best.

    Why would you need something so fast on the street in the first place? Also, depending on the type of wreck sometimes its safer to skid off your bike than absorb the impact while sitting in your car but yes I know bikes are generally more dangerous.
  • NoK wrote:
    Regardless of where we can fit as a species, we are currently spread out all across the globe so these calculations are useless (also, you are forgetting the water bodies in Texas so you need to adjust your calculations). Its been documented that pollution from one local climate can affect another local climate (E.g. China and Australia) so even if humans are not inhabiting one place they may have an effect on its local climate. With the number of different local climates being affected its safe say this is a GLOBAL issue. You may disagree with the Al Gorean definition of global climate change (i.e global warming, global cooling, global whateverthefucktheycomeupwith) but the literal definition of it stands.
    see that was what I was getting at with the global climate and how we aren't effecting it..The data coming back actually is showing that we are not having an effect globally. Meaning there is no butterfly effect. They are looking at data such as what they found in Antarctica, as well as cities and the rural areas directly around them. In Antarctica, until recently, the peninsula(sp? I live in one and can't spell it..oy) was melting, while the rest was going thru a massive freezing. same goes with cities..They get hot as hell and have pollution, but if you go even as near as the rural areas right outside the city, tempuratures are far lower, and the environent is not polluted (less cars and other machines, more trees). so to think that a city that does not effect the countryside directly next to them, but can effect someplace half way across the globe...well all the data coming back is showing it is simply not happening. Which means the calculations stand. Actually it goes further that that. The folk in the rural area contribute virtually no pollution. What they do emit, gets quickly and full absorbed by the greenery surrounding them. There is only one exception to that...massive farms with cows and the like (methane)..There are very few of these, however, and the greenery does absorb it in most cases..so really the local climates with pollution comes from cities. And because they are cities, they are not spread out..Meaning the pollution is confined to a very small region in each city. In otherwords our pollution is negligable. And there are simple measures that can be taken to make it non-existant. We'd still pollute some, but all of it would be absorbed.

    In re to texas..It was just to show that we can all fit into an area the size of texas.


    sludge- It does work. Here in south florida, by law, all homes must be build with cinderblock and cement (or steel..). It does keep the temps under better control. Plus it is becoming extremely popular to get metal roofs here. Particularly the cheapest of them, the plain silver. The roofers always suggest that one or the white one(even tho they get less for them) because they reflect the sun's rays, making for an even cooler home. I definately noticed a huge difference after we got ours..After every hurricane that damages more roofs, more and more people get the metal ones..not so much cos of the energy savings, but because they withstand hurricanes. They are costly, but in the long run, a one time cost, paid largely with hurricane insurance money, is far better than paying for repairs (or a new one altogether when a tree falls on it) over and over..savings in energy is a bonus. so we're "going green" without it even being our goal LoL
Sign In or Register to comment.