climatologist admits truth about Global warming predictions.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Member of the U.N. Climate Team Says You Can't Accurately Predict Climate Change
Friday, June 29, 2007

By Brit Hume

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Computer Models

A noted climate scientist who is part of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, now says computer models cannot predict future climate — and he says the IPCC is not in the climate prediction business.

Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote on a nature magazine blog that the U.N.'s dire forecasts about the dangers of global warming are not climate predictions.

He says they are "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. And he admits the computer models don't even consider things such as the recovery of the ozone layer.

He writes — "The current projection method…can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle...The science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate."

[BTEXDAD]

So in other words, these scientists are making a very good living off grants from various governments and really can't provide any accurate information to justify the work they do??

[carter08]

I'm not going to read that. It's probably the same as the 30 other atricles you've posted about global warming.

I still have no idea what side you're on. Every article contradicts the others.

[Txbroadcaster]

So Carter it is bad if he is posting both sides of an issue?

[carter08]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
So Carter it is bad if he is posting both sides of an issue?

He doesn't give his own commentary on it. It makes it look like he supports every article he posts. And if he does, then he supports a wide array of views.

[BILLYFRED0000]

I support the views in this article as written. Computer models are not predicters of the future as they are limited to scenarios based on limited factors. Therefore anyone who predicts some strange end of the world future because of these models is a loon.

[Keith7]

oh no here we go again.. i'm not posting to this thread.. I wish these types of threads would be banned they have gotten really old.. maybe i'll reply to the next thread you guys post about global warming from some idiotic scientist with bad reasoning trying to make a name for himself

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
oh no here we go again.. i'm not posting to this thread.. I wish these types of threads would be banned they have gotten really old.. maybe i'll reply to the next thread you guys post about global warming from some idiotic scientist with bad reasoning trying to make a name for himself

So..if a scientist agrees with you, then they are smart and trying to do what is best for Earth

If one in on other side then they are and idiot and so-forth?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
oh no here we go again.. i'm not posting to this thread.. I wish these types of threads would be banned they have gotten really old.. maybe i'll reply to the next thread you guys post about global warming from some idiotic scientist with bad reasoning trying to make a name for himself

Yeah but Keith this guy is on the IPCC and says that they are not in the predicting business and gives his facts to prove it. It is not like he is some rad out there by himself. He is on the "home team" of the predictions and tells it like it is.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
So..if a scientist agrees with you, then they are smart and trying to do what is best for Earth

If one in on other side then they are and idiot and so-forth?

the scientist says that his company "isn't in the climate prediction business" so how does he have any credibility to say that other people's predictions are probably incorrect.. something doesn't add up

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
the scientist says that his company "isn't in the climate prediction business" so how does he have any credibility to say that other people's predictions are probably incorrect.. something doesn't add up

It is NOT a company..he is on the UN's research committee

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
It is NOT a company..he is on the UN's research committee


quote....

A noted climate scientist who is part of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, now says computer models cannot predict future climate — and he says the IPCC is not in the climate prediction business.

Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote on a nature magazine blog that the U.N.'s dire forecasts about the dangers of global warming are not climate predictions.

[JR2004]

Originally posted by Keith7
oh no here we go again.. i'm not posting to this thread..

So to clarify, you're posting on a thread to tell us you're NOT posting on a thread. There's a pretty funny contradiction!

Yeah the whole global warming thing is pretty much a joke. These things happen naturally and a human being doesn't have any control over it.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
oh no here we go again.. i'm not posting to this thread.. I wish these types of threads would be banned they have gotten really old.. maybe i'll reply to the next thread you guys post about global warming from some idiotic scientist with bad reasoning trying to make a name for himself

Well Keith7 herein lies the problem: the concept of "Global Warming" originally was a scientific hypothesis that was to be scutinized objectively and either stand or fall on the weight of the evidence. Sometime in the past year or so it was declared by certain important people like Al Gore and Cheryl Crow and a host of European, Canadian and Australian politicians that "the debate is over" and now we all must knuckle down and talk about how we are going to spend taxpayer money to save the planet. In short it is now no longer a science issue subject to modification as new data comes in or old data is found to be false. Remember Newtonian physics? Every scientist in the world accepted it as truth. Then along came Einstein and Quantum Theory and Relativity and bang went the whole world view on the physical universe, time and matter. Before him it was Semmelweis and bacterial contagion, earlier still it was Galileo and the Earth revolving around the Sun (which really ticked off his friend the Pope resulting in his confinement the remainder of his life).

We posters are simply resisting this one sided view by putting forth additional data that should be considered. When you say this should be banned is it because these data make you uncomfortable with your beliefs? Global warming is not something you believe in like the Tooth Fairy Santa Claus or even religion, it is a scientific hypothesis and as such is fair game for any evidence which either supports or refutes it. I agree that matters of beliefs are sensitive and inappropriate for this forum. I do think in off season when most everything else gets discussed on here that to discuss such an important issue as "Global Warming" is a good thing. Your thoughtful replies are always welcomed.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Well Keith7 herein lies the problem: the concept of "Global Warming" originally was a scientific hypothesis that was to be scutinized objectively and either stand or fall on the weight of the evidence. Sometime in the past year or so it was declared by certain important people like Al Gore and Cheryl Crow and a host of European, Canadian and Australian politicians that "the debate is over" and now we all must knuckle down and talk about how we are going to spend taxpayer money to save the planet. In short it is now no longer a science issue subject to modification as new data comes in or old data is found to be false. Remember Newtonian physics? Every scientist in the world accepted it as truth. Then along came Einstein and Quantum Theory and Relativity and bang went the whole world view on the physical universe, time and matter. Before him it was Semmelweis and bacterial contagion, earlier still it was Galileo and the Earth revolving around the Sun (which really ticked off his friend the Pope resulting in his confinement the remainder of his life).

We posters are simply resisting this one sided view by putting forth additional data that should be considered. When you say this should be banned is it because these data make you uncomfortable with your beliefs? Global warming is not something you believe in like the Tooth Fairy Santa Claus or even religion, it is a scientific hypothesis and as such is fair game for any evidence which either supports or refutes it. I agree that matters of beliefs are sensitive and inappropriate for this forum. I do think in off season when most everything else gets discussed on here that to discuss such an important issue as "Global Warming" is a good thing. Your thoughtful replies are always welcomed.

Funny thing about this one tho was the fact that it was one of the scientists on the IPCC making this statement. Proving conclusively what I have said all along. The models are not capable of predicting the future. They are scenario generators which anyone knows means plug in variables out comes data. It is a calculator not prognosticator.

[Pudlugger]

Garbage in garbage out.

[carter08]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Funny thing about this one tho was the fact that it was one of the scientists on the IPCC making this statement. Proving conclusively what I have said all along. The models are not capable of predicting the future. They are scenario generators which anyone knows means plug in variables out comes data. It is a calculator not prognosticator.

How does one mans opinion conclusively prove anything?

Sure, he's on the IPCC. But what makes his opinion worth more than any other scientist?

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by carter08
How does one mans opinion conclusively prove anything?

Sure, he's on the IPCC. But what makes his opinion worth more than any other scientist?

Okay, the reason it matters is that it's the IPCC that has been making doomsday predictions that governmental and other agencies use as fodder to attempt to pass restrictive legislation. It's also the organization that has been quoted here as proof in favor of the theory. Now, an insider in that organization says that it's not even their job to make predictions? I'd say that brings much that's been said in recent years into question. Add to that the fact that there have been complaints from other scientists over the past few years that their work has been misrepresented by the IPCC in order to bolster the IPCC's predictions and it just smells bad all over.

[Pudlugger]

Well said Garageoffice!:clap:

[charlesrixey]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Okay, the reason it matters is that it's the IPCC that has been making doomsday predictions that governmental and other agencies use as fodder to attempt to pass restrictive legislation. It's also the organization that has been quoted here as proof in favor of the theory. Now, an insider in that organization says that it's not even their job to make predictions? I'd say that brings much that's been said in recent years into question. Add to that the fact that there have been complaints from other scientists over the past few years that their work has been misrepresented by the IPCC in order to bolster the IPCC's predictions and it just smells bad all over.


Amen

of bigger concern to me is what to use for energy when fossil fuels run out

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by charlesrixey
Amen

of bigger concern to me is what to use for energy when fossil fuels run out

It will be global warming's fault. The global warming melted them and the fuels evaporated due to heat.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by charlesrixey
Amen

of bigger concern to me is what to use for energy when fossil fuels run out

Easy! All we gotta do is figure out how to harness all the HOT AIR in Wahington D.C. and most of the state capitals.!;)

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by charlesrixey
Amen

of bigger concern to me is what to use for energy when fossil fuels run out

Well I read somewhere that all the oil pumped out of the ground since the beginning wouldn't fill a lake the size of Tahoe. In other words there is a lot of oil still in the ground and all we need to do is drill for it and refine it but nooooooo, the enviroweenies will get their panties in a wad if we do. Its for the children ya know. LOL:D

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by carter08
How does one mans opinion conclusively prove anything?

Sure, he's on the IPCC. But what makes his opinion worth more than any other scientist?


Every weather forecast is based upon complicated thermodynamic equations that take into account heat transfer, fluid mechanics, chemistry, water vapor, etc. These equations are highly non-linear, 2nd-order partial differential equations in both spatial and time dimensions. If you include effects of turbulent fluid flow rather than laminar fluid flow only they become even more erratic and are nearly impossible to solve with any better than 30% accuracy for very simplified scenarios. They are so non-linear, in fact, that varying the input specifications by a mere fraction of a percent can result in huge variations in the results. This is a phenomena sometimes referred to as bifurcation and is the essence of chaos theory and fuzzy logic. As an example, you could investigate the Lorenz attractor. It is a highly simplified meteorological model.

While computer models can create a garbage-in/garbage-out scenario, they can contain an even more dangerous threat: scientists and engineers with political agendas can create models where the input is completely realistic and the results are what they want them to be, simply because of the massive calculability limitations inherent in the model. Millions of CRAY super-computers could not accurately predict the weather one year from now, much less decades from now.

For what it's worth, the U.N. guy does appear to be admitting to the public in terms it can understand what those of us that have studied fluid mechanics can tell you: these models are only reliable in short extrapolations. That's why the weathermen are usually only accurate for a few days. None of them could tell you the weather one week in advance consistently.

I don't think we ought to go about polluting everything, but I also don't think things are nearly as bad as Gore and other enviro-extremists would have you believe.

For what it's worth.....

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
Every weather forecast is based upon complicated thermodynamic equations that take into account heat transfer, fluid mechanics, chemistry, water vapor, etc. These equations are highly non-linear, 2nd-order partial differential equations in both spatial and time dimensions. If you include effects of turbulent fluid flow rather than laminar fluid flow only they become even more erratic and are nearly impossible to solve with any better than 30% accuracy for very simplified scenarios. They are so non-linear, in fact, that varying the input specifications by a mere fraction of a percent can result in huge variations in the results. This is a phenomena sometimes referred to as bifurcation and is the essence of chaos theory and fuzzy logic. As an example, you could investigate the Lorenz attractor. It is a highly simplified meteorological model.

While computer models can create a garbage-in/garbage-out scenario, they can contain an even more dangerous threat: scientists and engineers with political agendas can create models where the input is completely realistic and the results are what they want them to be, simply because of the massive calculability limitations inherent in the model. Millions of CRAY super-computers could not accurately predict the weather one year from now, much less decades from now.

For what it's worth, the U.N. guy does appear to be admitting to the public in terms it can understand what those of us that have studied fluid mechanics can tell you: these models are only reliable in short extrapolations. That's why the weathermen are usually only accurate for a few days. None of them could tell you the weather one week in advance consistently.

I don't think we ought to go about polluting everything, but I also don't think things are nearly as bad as Gore and other enviro-extremists would have you believe.

For what it's worth.....

Great insight in this post.

ps I too am an Eric Hofer fan. Great sig.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by JR2004

Yeah the whole global warming thing is pretty much a joke. These things happen naturally and a human being doesn't have any control over it.

While it appears there is much research to be done before any conclusions can be made, this attitude is not the correct one. I don't like these scientists cooking the books, but your attitude on the opposite side is just as harmful.

There is a consquence to our actions upon the environment.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
Every weather forecast is based upon complicated thermodynamic equations that take into account heat transfer, fluid mechanics, chemistry, water vapor, etc. These equations are highly non-linear, 2nd-order partial differential equations in both spatial and time dimensions. If you include effects of turbulent fluid flow rather than laminar fluid flow only they become even more erratic and are nearly impossible to solve with any better than 30% accuracy for very simplified scenarios. They are so non-linear, in fact, that varying the input specifications by a mere fraction of a percent can result in huge variations in the results. This is a phenomena sometimes referred to as bifurcation and is the essence of chaos theory and fuzzy logic. As an example, you could investigate the Lorenz attractor. It is a highly simplified meteorological model.

While computer models can create a garbage-in/garbage-out scenario, they can contain an even more dangerous threat: scientists and engineers with political agendas can create models where the input is completely realistic and the results are what they want them to be, simply because of the massive calculability limitations inherent in the model. Millions of CRAY super-computers could not accurately predict the weather one year from now, much less decades from now.

For what it's worth, the U.N. guy does appear to be admitting to the public in terms it can understand what those of us that have studied fluid mechanics can tell you: these models are only reliable in short extrapolations. That's why the weathermen are usually only accurate for a few days. None of them could tell you the weather one week in advance consistently.

I don't think we ought to go about polluting everything, but I also don't think things are nearly as bad as Gore and other enviro-extremists would have you believe.

For what it's worth.....

Well for what it's worth, I believe weather is a chaotic system in as much as our ability to calculate with current methods and technology. And it is possible to calculate but not until we get a super computer in the 10,000 terraflop range and then have a bunch of them in parallel running balls to the wall. For local shorterm forecasts what we got works. Out to about 5 days. But we simply do not have the data to do the equations even if we had the power to do so. Water Vapor data is for all practical purposes still in the dark ages. Currently I doubt we can even account for 5 percent of the water vapor activity in actual measured telemetry in the course of a single day. Tough sleddin to convince me you know what our climate will do in 50 years if you cannot even give me an average rainfall amount for the world in a single day.

[slpybear the bullfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
Easy! All we gotta do is figure out how to harness all the HOT AIR in Wahington D.C. and most of the state capitals.!;)

:clap: