Poirot. The reason I and others like me become sceptical when long term climate (lots and lots of little 'weather' predictions) forecast are made by highly trained and professional meteorologists, is that those same meteorologists freely admit that predictions/projections further than 3 or 4 days become the equivalent of reading tea leaves.

I do not confuse weather with climate, merely consider that scientists that do make these projections are dealing with a chaotic system about which many theories/hypothesise are employed and, as Don says, models are not evidence.

Show me just one professional meteorologist who will make a prediction beyond 4 days, other than predicting the coming of spring/summer etc.

Don. Stirred up a fascinating hornets nest here. Without the ad hominims it is a worthy level of debate and passion that reflects the importance of the subject.

cohenite
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/presentation2.jpg
You refer to a diagram here which basically shows that relative humidity has remained nearly constant at the surface. This in fact confirms my point. The warmest part of the atmosphere is at the surface and therefore holds the most water vapour. The amount of water vapour in the air at 33,000ft (300Mb) is miniscule, due to the extremely low temperatures at that height, so even if there has been a small drop in relative humidity at that height, it proves nothing.

Relative humidity is defined as the ratio of the partial pressure of water vapour in an air-water mixture to the saturated vapour pressure of water at a prescribed temperature.

Put simply it compares the proportion water vapour in parcel of air against the maximum amount possible at that temperature and pressure. So if relative humidity remains constant as temperature increases then atmospheric water vapour levels have increased in line with the Clausius-Clapeyron formula. This result is I understand confirmed by satelite data.

FYI
Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1671.html

Poirot,

You start off by asking all of us about “evidence”. Then you jump to “delivering predictions and projections” which are not evidence.

You are absolutely correct to suggest that our meteorologists use their very best skills, training and science to “predict” the weather but as we all know, not very successfully.

This has absolutely nothing to do with extending these predictions to include a huge range of alarmist assertions, which now extend to 2100. Because it’s the SAME science,these long term projections cannot possibly be more accurate than short term predictions can they?

It doesn’t matter if these projections are right or wrong because we ALL know that they are just projections. So unless the long term predictions eventuate and they have not, then the science is discredited.

If science cannot project the local weather with much degree of certainty, why do we expect them to project beyond seasonable variations? The UN has opened a money pit to re-distribute our hard earned dollars, that’s what makes it politics and not science.

I don’t think anyone is accusing the scientists themselves of perpetrating a scam. What many are saying is, that the UN FCCC and their IPCC are a political entity and not scientific. The IPCC does not do scientific research and it has no scientists, (unless you count a railway engineer as a scientist). What it does do, is assess the research that suits its own political (Agenda 21) goals to the exclusion of those that do not. That is why many see it as a political scam.

Poirot, the projections thrust upon politicians have failed to eventuate. Therefore the politicians have bailed out.

The science you offer is that which the IPCC used in their reports up to and including their AR4. The AR5 now tells us that whilst their previous alarmism is still “possible”, it now has “very low probability”. Therefore all your science prior to the AR5 is now invalid, so sayeth the IPCC. If they cannot produce the evidence, you can’t.

Get over it and move on, you’ve been had.

Poirot, as Prompete notes meteorologists will not guarantee their predictions/forecasts more than 3-4 days into the future.

Climate scientists are not meteorologists; Anthony Watts is a meteorologist.

Most meteorologists share Watt’s opinion bout AGW:

http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/26408.pdf

Nearly 75% of AMS members agree AGW is the “greatest scam in history”; and only 24% agree with the IPCC.

Even with the 3-4 day qualification short-term weather predictions are notorious for their failures:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=931

As well the Bureau of Meteorology did not predict the 09 heatwave associated with the Black Saturday bushfires or the storm associated with the Wivenhoe disaster.

The MET is infamous for its predictions in the short-term: basically the MET has been predicting warm winters right through the 1990’s and they have all been colder than usual except for 2005 which was warmer, but for 2005 the MET had predicted a cold winter:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/warm-bias-how-the-met-office-mislead-the-british-public/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/the-met-office-did-warn-of-a-bitter-cold-winter-in-2005/

You couldn’t make this stuff up and I could go on for pages about the short term predictive failures of the major climate institutions, but the point is if the meteorologists, the real weather men, can’t get it right over a few days, weeks and months then how can the clowns who call themselves climate scientists expect us to believe them when they say what the climate is going to like in a century.

You seem like a smart girl Poirot; it is disturbing that you believe this tripe.

warmair; RH may be flat at the surface [but declining at all other atmospheric levels] BUT SH is also flat and not increasing either:

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Clouds%20and%20atmospheric%20water%20vapour

More particularly SH is declining at the upper levels of the atmosphere; this decline is much more significant than a flat surface RH and SH, because upper level water vapor condenses into high cloud which blocks OLR and allows shortwave raditaion in [ISR]; low humidity condesnse into low cloud which may block OLR but blocks more ISR from reaching the surface; read Soloman:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

Robert LePage: "FYI. Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth ...".

What point are you trying to make?

Are you suggesting that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a causal link?