Posted on 02/04/2007 10:00:41 AM PST by BillM
I pay a lot of attention to weather, as I'm out on the water quite a bit. I've been listening carefully to National Weather Service forecasts for over 25 years.
I don't want to say for sure, but I'm starting to get the impression that while their understanding of weather science may be getting more sophisticated, they are also prone to making more blunders. For instance, during a careful watch of National Weather Service forecasts on Florida's west coast a couple weeks ago, I noticed that they didn't come close to predicting conditions correctly over a 5 day period. Whatever they said the weather was going to be, it was something else, with their predicted wind directions being off by up to 180 degrees at times and never off by less than 45 degrees, except for one period of about 10 hours when they got it right. What's worse than that is that I personally, using no weather instruments at all, not even a barometer, predicted the weather mostly correctly, primarily by noting nothing other than current wind direction and knowing what it meant. This is not to brag, because weather follows specific patterns, most people who have been out on the water have observed these patterns over the years and know the sequences. Not a big deal, and I'm sure the meteorologists at the NWS know the sequences too.
I have the feeling that these guys at the Weather Service have gone over to relying on their computers now, and aren't paying enough attention any more to their own personal knowledge. For whatever reasons, probably improper programming, the computers are sometimes leading them astray.
My point being, of course, that the global warming theorists are also using computer programs to make predictions.
I grew up in a rural area. The temperture "in town" was always a couple degrees warmer than out in the country where we lived.
Which ones are you referring to?
Every time Hillary opens her big mouth a huge chunk of ice breaks off the polar cap and begins to melt . Now I ask YOU , what is the cure ???
You can add to that the fact that weather stations were moved to big airports as modern ones were built. In the 60's Houston's reporting station moved from a couple of miles off Galveston bay to 50 miles inland at what is now George Bush International. Warmer summers, though the weather never changed.
b
Which would strongly point to external sources because the northern and southern hemispheres do not have the same CO2 levels and patterns. Because of the Coriolis effect CO2, pollution, and climate cannot easily cross the equator. The south has much less population and modern conveniences in use. It is actually the Green utopia the socialists want to reestablish in the north, yet there is no evidence that it would effectively influence climate change.
I'm curious if we could use man-made "cosmic" rays and maybe lasers to control the climate on a local level. Lasers can be used to induce cloud formation. There are so many technological solutions to climate management why aren't we developing them? Since most technology is born by national defense spending and that weather can be used as a weapon, maybe the solutions to climate management will ultimately come from military research. The solutions certainly won't come from the socialist politicians.
In short, if they can't get it right for next week, what leads them to believe they have it right for the next 100 years?
I've heard it argued that long term climate forecasting is easier than short term weather forecasting. Of course, that has yet to be demonstrated.
Exactly! :)
I'm referring to those on both sides who look only at the evidence congenial to their political preference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.