The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Flawed forecasting > Comments

Flawed forecasting : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 11/6/2009

Climate models have yet to demonstrate any real success in modelling known climate changes outside the past 100 years or so.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Good article, no panic, no frightening of the simple minded, no end of the world rants no flaming of anyone with a different opinion - this hardly belongs in the "AGW debate" does it.

Nice piece of misidrection happening in other posts, something about a glass of water. now that person should write an article, but I note other panic struck AGW believers have latched onto this, any port in a storm I guess.

I think the big problem for the AGW believers is that the world is not warming as predicted, is not behaving and subsequently the audience is dropping off. What they need is some HUGE climate event that can be catagorically linked to AGW, a "sign" that AGW is on track, that we are doomed and its all someone else's fault and we should give money to people to take away our guilt, "hey Al how much are those indulgences?".
Posted by odo, Thursday, 11 June 2009 3:38:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy - thankyou I now get the original point about latent heat and can see that it isn't relevent. The bit about the level of water in the glass not changing is only relevent to the artic which is an overgrown icecube. It doesn't apply to Greenland and the Anatartic which are (mostly) ice on land, so if there was any mass melting we would expect to see something happening right now in sea level changes. Nope, no changes of note since satellite measurements began - still the same, stodgy 3.1mm a year (0.3 metres over a century).
The temperature business is also beside the point. Granted heat going into a block of ice will not change its temperature, just melt it, but we are not talking about the ice in isolation are we? If there was heat going into the system (or being kept from radiating away) we should see the higher temperatures elsewhere and never mind what the ice is doing. Again, sorry, it now seems to be coming off a peak. Best to find some new crisis.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 11 June 2009 6:23:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don’t wish to be adversarial here Mark, but the fact that you had to have a simple high-school science experiment explained to you doesn’t fill me with a lot of confidence that you have the ability to assess what is and is not relevant in this particular field of study.

I also have my doubts about odo's ability to assess anonymous posters emotional states.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 11 June 2009 8:46:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can hardly stop giggling:-

"Warming" is not necessarily temperature related..."

Your little ice cube Curiosity Show experiment is all very nice, but latent heat etc is NOT what we have been reading about for years. You're just moving the goal posts again, changing the terms. Nothing scientific in that. Atmospheric temperature rises not happening as forecast - wasn't this what the article was about.

You guys really are starting to sound desperate.
Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:34:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy - If you have to resort to abuse that means your case is weak. The reason for the original confusion is that the water-ice thing bore no relevence to the earlier posts or the article, as I pointed out. On reflection Ozandy is implying that the ice sheets are somehow a complete heat sink for the earth - so you can explain away falling temperatures by the ice sheets soaking up all the excess heat, and in the process forgetting or ignoring the fact that the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are on land, and not an oversized ice cube like the artic. Oh wow! That's a new one. Is anyone else arguing that one? Are there any references you can point to? For that matter, can you or Ozandy think of any reason why the carefully explained ice-water experiment is relevent? Interested.
Posted by curmudgeonathome, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:44:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To digress from climate change for a moment but to go back to Mark's article...

I may be wrong here but the fact that forecasts of rising crime rates in the US were wrong may and, I would think, probably had to do with successful post forecast action being taken to address the issue.

Perhaps we could prove the scientist's forecasts on climate change wrong by doing the same thing - address the issue.

If we could do that then everyone would be happy, even the deniers.

Q&A and Ozandy, I am pleased to see that you are always on hand armed with your own scientific expertise to contest these not so subtle efforts to to undermine the scientific consensus and promote the unworkable status quo. Don't let up please.
Posted by kulu, Friday, 12 June 2009 1:15:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy