no scientific basis for forecasting climate

Flutter Girl

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.

Flutter Girl

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

DriftingByTheStorm

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

Royals32

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.

Commy

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.

NoK

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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

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.

norm

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

Flutter Girl

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.

Flutter Girl

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.

NoK

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?

Songburst

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.

Flutter Girl

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.

NoK

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?

bernmodi

RM291946 wrote:

... then get crackin on finding real ways to help the environment.

Do you have any suggestions?

Flutter Girl

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..

NoK

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?

Flutter Girl

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.

NoK

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.

evenflow

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."

NoK

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.

evenflow

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.