Global Warming alarmists' scam continues to come undone.

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I can see the logic but it's hard to argue for equality when so many in these nations don't enjoy such elementals such as electricity and running water and are relative newcomers to the emissions table.
But what should we do? Give India and China exemptions as was done by Kyoto?

If man's existence is at stake then the developing world is going to have to share in the hardships.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Not offended Gj, just disappointed that missed forecasts are so often misinterpreted by the public as:

* inherent "unpredictability" of weather
* meteorology is a psuedo-science
* incompetence on the part of forecasters

when the usual culprits are actually:

* difficulty in achieving pinpoint forecast accuracy at every spot, every time despite a good overall sucess rate, at least on the broad scale.
* poor understanding of the variability of weather effects over different temporal and geographic scales.
* failure to account for terrain influences on broad and local scale weather patterns.
* poor understanding of weather terminology by the public
* poor communication techniques or sensationalist reporting by media.
* failure to impart a valuable "confidence factor" that should accompany forecast, particularly during high impact events.
* and, yes, failure of the forecaster to just look out the window once in a while.:smile:

All of those items often combine, in some proportion or another, to leave a viewer of a typical media weathercast wondering why the weather occurring outside is not what was expected.
Speedo,
I agree with this completely. Weather forecasting has improved in its accuracy tremendously in my lifetime. Those factors you mention above give people a different impression, though. One factor you forgot to mention is the tendency for people to remember only salient things rather than routine things. For example, people won't remember all the times you got the weather exactly right, but they will remember the few times you got it wrong. People are horrible "natural statisticians" in that regard.

Also, the GIGO principle still applies (Garbage In, Garbage Out) when it comes to hurricane prediction, for example. From what I understand, the hurricane models are pretty good, but they are accuracy limited by the paucity of measurement data that can be had over the affected area. Do I have that right?

As for weather prediction and climatology, I believe those two things are very different animals, although based on the same principles. As an analogy, climatology is to weather prediction as sociology is to psychology. So a climatologist will suck at predicting the weather, and the weatherman will not be a very good climatologist just by virtue of their professions.

In fact, (and forgive me for making a hasty generalization) it seems that weathermen are among the most vocal skeptics on the subject of GW. Do you know that to be true, or am I just imagining things?
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
For example, people won't remember all the times you got the weather exactly right, but they will remember the few times you got it wrong. People are horrible "natural statisticians" in that regard.

Spot on. I completely forget about selective memory. <--- itself selective memory lol

Another good example of selective interpretation occurs when I teach basic weather classes at the local community college. At lunch break I bring the students outside into the parking lot and have them estimate the speed of the wind they feel on their hands/faces. After collecting and recording their estimates, I objectively measure the wind speed with a hand held anemometer and almost always the human estimates are double and triple the objective measurement of wind speed.

To wit: What we think is happening is often different from what is actually happening.

Also, the GIGO principle still applies (Garbage In, Garbage Out) when it comes to hurricane prediction, for example. From what I understand, the hurricane models are pretty good, but they are accuracy limited by the paucity of measurement data that can be had over the affected area. Do I have that right?

Yes. The numerical models that simulate and forecast the real atmosphere (such as hurricane-specific models) are strongly dependent upon the quantity and quality of the weather observations used for initialization. Small errors that creep into any model's initialization can seriously degrade the quality of the objective numerical forecast after only a few iterations of the forecast equations.

To try to get around that, modelers are now running what are called "ensemble" numerical forecasts. Small errors are deliberately entered into the model initialization and the model is run a number of times to see if the effect of the errors compounds or decays. Several model runs are then plotted against each other which indicates the degree of reliability of the model's solutions. Sometimes the run solutions are closely grouped, despite the deliberate introduction of errors, and sometimes they are not closely grouped. Closely grouped model solutions are likely to be more reliable and are given more weight in the forecast process. That's what I meant about the "confidence factor"

Example of ensemble 500 millibar geopotential height forecasts:

Animation using Javascript Animation Player


In fact, (and forgive me for making a hasty generalization) it seems that weathermen are among the most vocal skeptics on the subject of GW. Do you know that to be true, or am I just imagining things?

Climate science and day-to-day weather forecasting are quite different sciences from each other. Even some experienced meteorologists lose sight of that.

I suspect your observation about weather forecaster skepticism may be true. Here's why: Meteorologists work daily with the numerical models I described above and they soon become suspicious of the models' ability to objectively forecast weather more than 4-5 days in advance. And for good reason. The problem is that those same meteorologists tend to then project their model skepticism onto climate forecast models, even though climate forecast models are vastly different than day-to-day numerical simulations of the weather used for forecasting. Their reasoning is: If operational numerical models have trouble forecasting weather more than 5 days in advance, how can anyone hope to forecast conditions decades in advance? The error is, of course, that climate forecast models use vastly different physics packages than daily forecast models.

Hope that makes sense.