Remember me
▼ Content

Meteorologists are getting better at forecasting "extreme weather events"



Page 1 of 212>
Meteorologists are getting better at forecasting "extreme weather events"29-09-2014 15:14
James_S
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
In October 1987, UK weather forecaster Michael Fish famously dismissed fears that a hurricane was on the way, only to be proved disastrously wrong just hours later.

While technically not a hurricane, the storm that battered southern England was the worst for nearly 300 years, causing 18 deaths and £2bn worth of damage.

But such forecasting catastrophes are now a thing of the past, meteorologists would have us believe.

The UK's Met Office says its four-day forecast is now as accurate as its one-day forecast was 30 years ago.

And Louis Uccellini, director of the National Weather Service, part of the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "We can now predict extreme weather events five to seven days in advance.

"Twenty years ago we would only have been able to look one day ahead."

These improvements have only come about after investing billions in better satellites, weather stations and supercomputers.

But with more than a third of the world's total economic output affected by weather, according to US data specialists Weather Analytics, such investment was essential.

Read more:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29256322
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ca-Ch/Carbon-Dioxide.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/natural-disasters
30-09-2014 19:55
HappySikalengo
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Hi James, found this very interesting.
03-12-2019 21:28
Ewynne
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Hi James,
I am currently studying extreme weather due to climate change and would like to know if you could direct me to a good website on the topic.
03-12-2019 23:03
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
James_S wrote:
In October 1987, UK weather forecaster Michael Fish famously dismissed fears that a hurricane was on the way, only to be proved disastrously wrong just hours later.

While technically not a hurricane, the storm that battered southern England was the worst for nearly 300 years, causing 18 deaths and £2bn worth of damage.

But such forecasting catastrophes are now a thing of the past, meteorologists would have us believe.

The UK's Met Office says its four-day forecast is now as accurate as its one-day forecast was 30 years ago.

And Louis Uccellini, director of the National Weather Service, part of the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "We can now predict extreme weather events five to seven days in advance.

"Twenty years ago we would only have been able to look one day ahead."

These improvements have only come about after investing billions in better satellites, weather stations and supercomputers.

But with more than a third of the world's total economic output affected by weather, according to US data specialists Weather Analytics, such investment was essential.

Read more:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29256322
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ca-Ch/Carbon-Dioxide.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/natural-disasters



One subject I plan on researching is short term (3 - 5 year) weather patterns. From France to Norway I think I've observed a possible trend and it's cause.
04-12-2019 23:11
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Wow, wish they would send some of the advance equipment to Florida. Two days, with fair confidence around here. Three days and more is wishful thinking. They predict severe thunder storms, and we get a light rain. Of course, during the rainy season, it can go either way. During hurricane season, they can track a storm, and predict a path, but you still have to watch constantly, landfall can still change by the hour, even turn and ride the coast a while longer. We can't predict whether a storm is going to form or not, until it does. We had 18 named storms, but only 6 hurricanes, 3 major.
05-12-2019 02:42
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wow, wish they would send some of the advance equipment to Florida. Two days, with fair confidence around here. Three days and more is wishful thinking. They predict severe thunder storms, and we get a light rain. Of course, during the rainy season, it can go either way. During hurricane season, they can track a storm, and predict a path, but you still have to watch constantly, landfall can still change by the hour, even turn and ride the coast a while longer. We can't predict whether a storm is going to form or not, until it does. We had 18 named storms, but only 6 hurricanes, 3 major.



What I plan on researching could actually have an effect on this. I guess with having lived in both Norway and Florida, I am aware of what affects their weather.
And as it happens, that also affects Europe's weather.

edited to add: it will rain in Seattle tomorrow. And in Olympia, it will be foggy.
Of course it always rains in Seattle and is always foggy in Olympia. Predicting the weather there is like getting up in the morning. Did you set your alarm clock?
Edited on 05-12-2019 03:01
05-12-2019 18:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wow, wish they would send some of the advance equipment to Florida. Two days, with fair confidence around here. Three days and more is wishful thinking. They predict severe thunder storms, and we get a light rain. Of course, during the rainy season, it can go either way. During hurricane season, they can track a storm, and predict a path, but you still have to watch constantly, landfall can still change by the hour, even turn and ride the coast a while longer. We can't predict whether a storm is going to form or not, until it does. We had 18 named storms, but only 6 hurricanes, 3 major.



What I plan on researching could actually have an effect on this. I guess with having lived in both Norway and Florida, I am aware of what affects their weather.
And as it happens, that also affects Europe's weather.

edited to add: it will rain in Seattle tomorrow. And in Olympia, it will be foggy.

Your forecast is wrong. It is foggy in Seattle today while Olympia is reporting overcast at 1800ft and light rain.
James___ wrote:
Of course it always rains in Seattle and is always foggy in Olympia.

Not today!
James___ wrote:
Predicting the weather there is like getting up in the morning.
Did you set your alarm clock?

You missed. Must've slept through your alarm.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-12-2019 19:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12556)
James___ wrote: One subject I plan on researching is short term (3 - 5 year) weather patterns. From France to Norway I think I've observed a possible trend and it's cause.


James__, you know that I don't want to be a wet blanket. You know that I would never tell you to not research and to not learn.

Please pursue your passions. When this particular research project of yours fails miserably, as is inevitable, and you are scratching your head as to why, the answer is in your above statement.

There is no such thing as a weather "pattern" or "trend." As such, you might as well research weather "gremlins" or "leprechauns." There can be no success at the end of that road. Otherwise, good luck and I hope your endeavors generate interesting offshoots that prove worthwhile.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-12-2019 01:58
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"


Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

IBdaMann, could we get a link to the Manual please?
Edited on 06-12-2019 02:01
06-12-2019 02:20
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"


Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

IBdaMann, could we get a link to the Manual please?



In the northern hemisphere it is well known that the jet stream influences weather patterns. It also can direct warm air from the Gulf Stream to England.
It is interesting because if the jet stream follows the Gulf Stream north then the likelihood of an extreme weather event in England increases.

https://www.livescience.com/50998-jet-stream-controls-atlantic-climate-cycles.html
06-12-2019 04:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12556)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"


Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

IBdaMann, could we get a link to the Manual please?


Ask and ye shall receive.

From The MANUAL:

Weather Trend: noun
The belief among Climate Scientists that since Climate has assumed the role of Chief Central Administrator for all weather on earth that weather is somehow no longer a random event and can therefore have trends. This leaves weather open to "correlation analysis" and the discovery of teleconnections. Otherwise there can be no trends in weather because weather is a series of random events, which precludes any causal relationships and thus cannot have trends. This belief falls under Settled Science.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-12-2019 05:06
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"


Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

IBdaMann, could we get a link to the Manual please?


Ask and ye shall receive.

Thank you sir! AAHHH, ain't she a beauty?


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Attached image:

06-12-2019 15:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12556)
James___ wrote: In the northern hemisphere it is well known that the jet stream influences weather patterns. It also can direct warm air from the Gulf Stream to England.

Sure. All roads lead to Rome but all Climate leads to England. I hope you weren't expecting Climate to somehow wander into Scotland to cause haggis forcings and bagpipe feedbacks.

James___ wrote: It is interesting because if the jet stream follows the Gulf Stream north then the likelihood of an extreme weather event in England increases.

The article you cited doesn't mention "extreme weather." I was hoping the article would have defined that.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-12-2019 17:33
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: In the northern hemisphere it is well known that the jet stream influences weather patterns. It also can direct warm air from the Gulf Stream to England.

Sure. All roads lead to Rome but all Climate leads to England. I hope you weren't expecting Climate to somehow wander into Scotland to cause haggis forcings and bagpipe feedbacks.

James___ wrote: It is interesting because if the jet stream follows the Gulf Stream north then the likelihood of an extreme weather event in England increases.

The article you cited doesn't mention "extreme weather." I was hoping the article would have defined that.

.



Your post demonstrates the need for you to draw attention to yourself. If you would've said "fake news" then you'd be showing yourself for being a true Republican. Party before country, right?
11-08-2022 16:27
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
James_S wrote:
In October 1987, UK weather forecaster Michael Fish famously dismissed fears that a hurricane was on the way, only to be proved disastrously wrong just hours later.

While technically not a hurricane, the storm that battered southern England was the worst for nearly 300 years, causing 18 deaths and £2bn worth of damage.


Michael Fish was correct, hurricanes cannot hit the UK... The issue, unfortunately, is stupidity trumps science ... Data and facts are far too confusing for a population.

"Hurricanes are tropical features and require sea temperatures much higher than those around the UK, even in the summer. Hence, hurricanes cannot form at our latitudes. However, we are sometimes affected by deep depressions that were originally hurricanes which have moved to higher latitudes, such as ex-Hurricane Ophelia in 2017. Such depressions are classified as 'ex-hurricanes' or 'extra-tropical cyclones' since they have changed their prime energy source from the warm ocean surface to the clash of warm tropical and cold polar air - a process known as extratropical transition. An ex-hurricane can sometimes still have hurricane strength winds (greater than 73 m.p.h.) even though it is no longer classified as a hurricane. Also, hurricanes have their strongest winds close to their centre whilst the strongest near surface winds in ex-hurricanes can often be far removed from the centre of the depression."

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/weather/tropical-cyclones/hurricane

People decide their own definitions of science away from facts which can vary from location to location and then bring that personal definition out when it suits.
11-08-2022 19:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"


Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

It already is and has been for some time, ever since the Church of Global Warming started using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' as their favorite buzzword.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-08-2022 22:25
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"


Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

It already is and has been for some time, ever since the Church of Global Warming started using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' as their favorite buzzword.


GW still exists in text but for the general population that are unable to grasp it will still snow if a temperature average increased from -10 to -8; then CC was needed to assist the education gap.

If you believe GW has been replaced, then this is an oversight on your part or is not inkeeping with your long term goal of never moving from a set position regardless.
11-08-2022 23:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12556)
Roj475 wrote:If you believe GW has been replaced, then this is an oversight on your part or is not inkeeping with your long term goal of never moving from a set position regardless.

I am so glad you are here to clarify the matter and to shed light.

What is the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that does not defy physics on its face?

Does Global Warming involve an increase in the average planetary temperature?


I'm here to learn from experts like you. I come to this website with no credentials and bearing only math and science. I seek your wisdom and your genius.

.

.
11-08-2022 23:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"


Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

It already is and has been for some time, ever since the Church of Global Warming started using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' as their favorite buzzword.


GW still exists in text but for the general population that are unable to grasp it will still snow if a temperature average increased from -10 to -8; then CC was needed to assist the education gap.

Define 'education gap'. This is a meaningless buzzword. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are still denying and discarding the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Roj475 wrote:
If you believe GW has been replaced,

The Church of Global Warming hasn't been replaced. There are many religions like it, however, all stemming from the Church of Karl Marx.

These include the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Covid, and the Church of Hoplophobia.
Roj475 wrote:
then this is an oversight on your part or is not inkeeping with your long term goal of never moving from a set position regardless.

I see no reason to abandon science, mathematics, or logic.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 11-08-2022 23:12
12-08-2022 08:47
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"


Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

It already is and has been for some time, ever since the Church of Global Warming started using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' as their favorite buzzword.


GW still exists in text but for the general population that are unable to grasp it will still snow if a temperature average increased from -10 to -8; then CC was needed to assist the education gap.

If you believe GW has been replaced, then this is an oversight on your part or is not inkeeping with your long term goal of never moving from a set position regardless.


Global Warming was losing traction, as the weather wasn't cooperating, even trending toward cooling in key areas. They just re-branded, and expanded to all extreme weather events. Somewhere on the planet, there is always going to be some catastrophic event, that can be used for political purposes. Looks like another disappointment in the hurricane scare season. Only three named storms, and a few weeks before the peak of the season. Mid 90s in Florida, isn't unusual this time of year, kind of mild actually. Not much going on in tornado-alley this year either. Usually almost weekly destruction.
12-08-2022 09:50
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
IBdaMann wrote:
What is the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that does not defy physics on its face?

Does Global Warming involve an increase in the average planetary temperature?


I'm here to learn from experts like you. I come to this website with no credentials and bearing only math and science. I seek your wisdom and your genius.
.


You claimed they changed their 'buzzword' from Global Warming...

I am merely informing you that both are used.

Whether I believe in this, or do not believe in this is irrelevant for this point.

Just clarifying that there is no replacement of Global Warming.

Appreciate the wisdom and genius references but cant take credit, it was a simple search engine check but, this may be considered wisdom and genius by some I guess.
12-08-2022 09:54
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'education gap'. This is a meaningless buzzword. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are still denying and discarding the 1st law of thermodynamics.


How can I deny something I have made no reference too?

Global warming is still an active term although we hear Climate Change more.
12-08-2022 10:04
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Global Warming was losing traction, as the weather wasn't cooperating, even trending toward cooling in key areas. They just re-branded, and expanded to all extreme weather events.


GW is still an active term but if your agenda is to argue about a different subject to justify an alternative subject doesn;t exist, that is up to you.
I can say the Republic party doesn;t exist as we only see change by the Democratic party... We see the problems in the background by the Republic tenure, but they are not to be considered about based on your argument... Probably a good thing to be honest!
12-08-2022 10:04
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Global Warming was losing traction, as the weather wasn't cooperating, even trending toward cooling in key areas. They just re-branded, and expanded to all extreme weather events.


GW is still an active term but if your agenda is to argue about a different subject to justify an alternative subject doesn;t exist, that is up to you.
I can say the Republic party doesn;t exist as we only see change by the Democratic party... We see the problems in the background by the Republic tenure, but they are not to be considered about based on your argument... Probably a good thing to be honest!
12-08-2022 10:29
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
One of the issues I have with global warming is when did it start! 1970 or 1850.I hear tales of .25.C a decade which takes us back to 1982.There is masses of land area in Australia Africa and Mongolia that have no land thermometers.Satellites can read light emitted and only when in position and no clouds.Makes it all a bit sketchy.Can you still have human induced C/C without the warming?
12-08-2022 12:34
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
duncan61 wrote:
One of the issues I have with global warming is when did it start! 1970 or 1850.I hear tales of .25.C a decade which takes us back to 1982.There is masses of land area in Australia Africa and Mongolia that have no land thermometers.Satellites can read light emitted and only when in position and no clouds.Makes it all a bit sketchy.Can you still have human induced C/C without the warming?


Is pinpointing the start of an event a priority?

Using 0.25C/ decade is a poor measure. According to a search engine a F1 car is estimated at 3.1s for 0-100km/h speed.
Would this car cover the same distance from 0s to 0.1s as it did 3s to 3.1s?

Assuming you are/ were in Perth Australia, on a personal level did you enjoy the climate late January 2022? Was this time more enjoyable for the population and yourself? Why oh why didn;t Perth apply the correct methodology to prevent the outages?
12-08-2022 17:42
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Yes I did and what outages do you speak of.The power at my house has not gone out ever to my knowledge.It matters hugely when claims of warming are made from when to when.Even the wildest warmazombie claims are only giving it 1.C which is nothing.Its all about the future so yes timing is important.You are being lied to as there is a lot of government grant money out there if you say the right things.It is the last month of winter here and the last few days have been clear and sunny.
13-08-2022 03:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
duncan61 wrote:
One of the issues I have with global warming is when did it start! 1970 or 1850.I hear tales of .25.C a decade which takes us back to 1982.There is masses of land area in Australia Africa and Mongolia that have no land thermometers.Satellites can read light emitted and only when in position and no clouds.Makes it all a bit sketchy.Can you still have human induced C/C without the warming?

Satellites are incapable of reading temperature at all.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-08-2022 11:38
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
One of the issues I have with global warming is when did it start! 1970 or 1850.I hear tales of .25.C a decade which takes us back to 1982.There is masses of land area in Australia Africa and Mongolia that have no land thermometers.Satellites can read light emitted and only when in position and no clouds.Makes it all a bit sketchy.Can you still have human induced C/C without the warming?

Satellites are incapable of reading temperature at all.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.


I concur


duncan61
14-08-2022 14:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12556)
duncan61 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
One of the issues I have with global warming is when did it start! 1970 or 1850.I hear tales of .25.C a decade which takes us back to 1982.There is masses of land area in Australia Africa and Mongolia that have no land thermometers.Satellites can read light emitted and only when in position and no clouds.Makes it all a bit sketchy.Can you still have human induced C/C without the warming?

Satellites are incapable of reading temperature at all.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.


I concur

I never understood why someone would believe that a satellite would somehow be able to accurately take a temperature measurement from an orbit more than 2,000 Km up.

i.e. "duncan, I see you are trying to measure the temperature of a kitchen in a house in Perth. Wouldn't you have better results taking the measurement from Sydney?"

.
14-08-2022 18:20
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What is the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that does not defy physics on its face?

Does Global Warming involve an increase in the average planetary temperature?


I'm here to learn from experts like you. I come to this website with no credentials and bearing only math and science. I seek your wisdom and your genius.
.


You claimed they changed their 'buzzword' from Global Warming...

I am merely informing you that both are used.

Whether I believe in this, or do not believe in this is irrelevant for this point.

Just clarifying that there is no replacement of Global Warming.

Appreciate the wisdom and genius references but cant take credit, it was a simple search engine check but, this may be considered wisdom and genius by some I guess.


Global Warming wasn't replaced, the focus was broadened to Climate Change. Which includes Global Warming, and any other noteworthy extreme weather event, that gains attention and concern. People don't piss and moan about mild winters. Harsh winters kind of cancels the Global Warming hype and hysteria. The climate-terrorists needed to expand, so it was a concern all year long. Some where on the planet, there will be some sort of natural catastrophe, every month or so. Least something a little hype, and spin can be made scary. It's all about generating fear. We don't know the future. The magic-models, only show what they are programmed to show. You feed them garbage data, you get a garbage forecast. Climate Change data is mainly generated, not collected. Measurements haven't been around that long, and this is our first inter-glacial, where we measured, and record. There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.
15-08-2022 00:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What is the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that does not defy physics on its face?

Does Global Warming involve an increase in the average planetary temperature?


I'm here to learn from experts like you. I come to this website with no credentials and bearing only math and science. I seek your wisdom and your genius.
.


You claimed they changed their 'buzzword' from Global Warming...

I am merely informing you that both are used.

Whether I believe in this, or do not believe in this is irrelevant for this point.

Just clarifying that there is no replacement of Global Warming.

Appreciate the wisdom and genius references but cant take credit, it was a simple search engine check but, this may be considered wisdom and genius by some I guess.


Global Warming wasn't replaced, the focus was broadened to Climate Change. Which includes Global Warming, and any other noteworthy extreme weather event, that gains attention and concern. People don't piss and moan about mild winters. Harsh winters kind of cancels the Global Warming hype and hysteria. The climate-terrorists needed to expand, so it was a concern all year long. Some where on the planet, there will be some sort of natural catastrophe, every month or so. Least something a little hype, and spin can be made scary. It's all about generating fear. We don't know the future. The magic-models, only show what they are programmed to show. You feed them garbage data, you get a garbage forecast. Climate Change data is mainly generated, not collected. Measurements haven't been around that long, and this is our first inter-glacial, where we measured, and record. There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.


Not quite right.

Climate has no value associated with it. Climate is subjective. It cannot change.

Weather DOES have values associated with it, including temperature, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, precipitation, humidity, and sky condition (amount and heights of cloud layers). Weather varies. It isn't even the same in the different places as little as a few feet away at the same time. It also varies with time.

The Church of Global Warming uses the nonsense phrase 'climate change' to mean 'unusual weather' such as some newsworthy flood, dry spell, hot day, cold day, snowfall, most any tornado or hurricane (or monsoon).

As you know, floods, dry spells, hot and cold days, heavy snowfall, tornadoes and hurricanes, are all a normal variation of weather, and one of these is occurring somewhere often. Yet, this is when you see the Church of Global Warming point to some localized storm somewhere and yell 'global climate change'!.

You are correct that computer models are just random number generators. They generate random number of type randU (the so-called psuedo random number, thought up in someone's head, or an algorithm though up in someone's head (and not making use of randR sources). A common algorithm for randU numbers in a computer is based on a permutation of the Taylor series (normally used to calculate sin values). It's handy (since computer usually have a sin calculation in them somewhere), and reasonably useful. It does have the unfortunate side effect of repetition problems at fairly short intervals.

In the case of weather and 'climate' models, the model is constructed to achieve a preconceived 'correct' result. Thus they, in and of themselves, are nothing more than randU generators. Like a study of the effectiveness of a medicine with no control group used, the result is pretty useless.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-08-2022 09:50
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Double post.
Edited on 15-08-2022 09:51
15-08-2022 09:50
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
duncan61 wrote:
Yes I did and what outages do you speak of.


"Perth smashed its previous heatwave records last week, after sweltering through six days in a row over 40℃ – and 11 days over 40℃ this summer so far. On top of that, Perth has suffered widespread power outages and a bushfire in the city's north."

https://www.murdoch.edu.au/news/articles/what-drove-perth-s-record-smashing-heatwave-and-why-it-s-a-taste-of-things-to-come
15-08-2022 09:53
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.


It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.
15-08-2022 13:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12556)
Roj475 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.


It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.

Explain.
17-08-2022 17:44
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.


It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.

Explain.


Harvey does not believe there is past data to compare with.

Is it the movement Age in Genesis that believe the Earth to be 6000 years old.

There is data available for both these points, however the returning response would likely be the same.
18-08-2022 00:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.


It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.

Explain.


Harvey does not believe there is past data to compare with.

Void argument fallacy. What 'data' are you referring to?
Roj475 wrote:
Is it the movement Age in Genesis that believe the Earth to be 6000 years old.

Genesis makes no such statement.
Roj475 wrote:
There is data available for both these points, however the returning response would likely be the same.

There is no data for the age of the Earth. There is no data for the temperature of the Earth. There is no data for the global atmospheric content of CO2. There is no data for sea level. There is no data for the amount of snow on ice on Earth.

What 'data' are your referring to?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-08-2022 00:16
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Roj475 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.


It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.


More like boring a deep hole in the ice. And from the core, we get highly accurate annual global temperature measurements for the past 160,000 years... Which, we can adjust slightly, and integrate with the manual thermometer readings since 1896. And the satellite readings since the seventies. Oh, almost forgot the tree growth rings, so accurate. That's pretty much the conglomerate climate data, since the beginning of time. Well, a lot longer, since time is a man
made concept... The ice age, is mainly speculation, unless you have a time-machine. Much of our current inter-glacial, is similarly speculation, since no one had the capacity to measure or record for a few thousand years.
18-08-2022 07:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12556)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.


It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.


More like boring a deep hole in the ice. And from the core, we get highly accurate annual global temperature measurements for the past 160,000 years... Which, we can adjust slightly, and integrate with the manual thermometer readings since 1896. And the satellite readings since the seventies. Oh, almost forgot the tree growth rings, so accurate. That's pretty much the conglomerate climate data, since the beginning of time. Well, a lot longer, since time is a man
made concept... The ice age, is mainly speculation, unless you have a time-machine. Much of our current inter-glacial, is similarly speculation, since no one had the capacity to measure or record for a few thousand years.


Successful climate scientists have learned that it is best to just not specify, i.e. just refer to the "proxy data." Next, they avoid specifying anything about the measured raw data and just refer to "the data."

So the data, which includes the proxy data, which is then weighted and harmonized and synchronized and temporal-adjusted and smoothed and processed and cured, is not published but is instead merely referenced by internet articles that are thusly presented as science.

That's the way you do it. Money for nuth'n and chicks for free.

.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Meteorologists are getting better at forecasting "extreme weather events":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The 100 Year Weather Forecast1113-09-2022 16:19
The Weather, Climate Change Are Revealing The Truth Of This Corrupt Society System126-08-2022 17:11
weather4715-01-2022 07:24
Example of Florida weather723-12-2021 22:55
New York residents urged to take precautions to stay warm in the extreme cold1327-02-2021 02:42
Articles
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact