Replies

Just as soon as a climatologist, or any other scientist, can create a computer model that can accurately, reliably, repeatedly predict the average temperature of just my state one month in advance, then they will begin to have some credibility.

If you want to try something interesting, go to CLIMVIS and plot temperatures for any given month using airport weather data. Try plotting data for April in a mid-latitude state, like Pennsylvania or Kentucky, over a lot of years. Comparing the graphs will show that there is usually a fairly strong transition from cold to warm in April, but the timing of this transition is considerably different year-to-year. March would work too; remember the "in like a lamb, out like a lion" (or vice versa) adage? The average temperature for a transitional month is going to be based on a combination of the cold part of the month and the warm part of the month. So while there's going to be considerable variability -- due to weather -- the average temperature is still going to be about (tossing out a number not based on anything) 52 degrees.

If you want to know the average annual temperature of a given area, find a cave in the area. The constant temperature of the cave is the average temperature of the area. This is also why borehole temperature logs, properly analyzed, can provide information about recent past climate-based temperature trends.

TChris, that's still essentially a weather prediction, not a climate prediction. Take a look at the link I posted in #27. Given a liberal margin-of-error, I could easily predict the average temperature for any state one month in advance; I just look at what the average temperature IS for that state and that month. (That, in essence, is climate. Climate = average weather.)

First off, I agree that weather and climate are different, but the article (which I did read) misses the point about global warming.

Yes, repeatable trends, like the difference in temperatures between winter and summer, are predictable at least as an average. But the global warming advocates are 'predicting' a change to the previously repeatable situation.

And yes, one can 'predict' based on an assessment of the trends, but that does not make the predictions accurate.

Here are two issues that need to be addressed:

1) What is the uncertainty associated with the prediction? How does that uncertainty compare to the effect being predicted? If our scientifically justifiable accuracy is no better than the effect being predicted (+/- 5 degrees of uncertainty on a prediction of +3 degrees) then we hardly have a basis for embarking on policies that guarantee near-term economic disruption.

2) What is the demonstrated validity of the models used to make the prediction? Even if we have analyzed our uncertainty and feel there is a real trend, we still may not be making accurate predictions. There is a simple test for this, and all current global-warming predictions fail. Apply the model to the conditions of 1900, and predict the conditions of 2000, using the sampled proxy evidence and assumptions for the future that the models employ. Not a single one of them correctly predicts the year 2000. An example of this is that a few years ago the same sorts of models (less sophisticated in a computer complexity sense, but still based on the same underlying assumptions) predicted an ice age by now.

Bottom line: Using a demonstrably repetitive cycle, like the winter-summer temperature variation, to justify an open-loop extrapolation of a change to that very cycle is hardly convincing. It does show that there is a difference between climate and weather, but it tells us little about whether climatologists have any basis for alarm over global warming.

If you want to try something interesting, go to CLIMVIS and plot temperatures for any given month using airport weather data.

That is part of the problem.
For instance, here in Raleigh the airport moved some years ago (70s I think).

The new airport was in the boondocks when it was built, now it's surrounded with industry, housing developments. Many other airports are the same, such as Miami.
These data are now in heat islands. Yes, they are schmoozed to account for that, but let's face it, they are SWAG ed the way the climatologists want the data.

The asinine statements coming out of the 'global warming' crowd has left them with zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Every possible weather phenomenon that occurs is caused by 'global warming'.

Reminds me of the second hand smoke crowd, which causes everything from cancer to ingrown toenails according to them.