Well spring is here so for the next few months I'm going to be fairly busy farming.
---Ayiekie---
/Quote/
Because it's not the same damn science. Accurately predicting local weather two weeks from now and predicting large scale climatalogical change over years is apples and oranges, and anybody who knows diddle-squat about either subject could tell you that.
/End Quote?
I disagree with you Ayiekie yes it is the same science.
Weather within limits is a fractal the models used are very closely related for any scale.
Any weather model even the large scale models are very sensitive to initial conditions the further you go from those initial conditions the less accuracy you have and the more unknowns come into play.
The futher you project these models into the future the more likely the magnified errors will produce extremes that won't match actual conditions.
If these weather models are so accurate at 30 years for the entire planet then at 1 year they should be very accurate for the 48 states. This Model should have enough accuracy at 1 year for it to predict state scale weather conditions or failing that be accurate enough for a fuel oil company to make large profits predicting the 48 states agregate winter heating fuel needs. These models can't do that so I personally will not trust any result they produce 30 years out from the initial conditions.
/Quote/
To put it bluntly, when you can find a major, reputable, non-obviously-biased group of scientists who work in the field they're talking about that oppose global warming, I will give it due attention. But you are a Guy On The Internet, which gives you as much credibility on the topic as it does on the subject of how to build a functional moon rocket. Who would listen to you if you started saying you knew better on how to fly to the moon than NASA scientists?
Real scientists can do real research to show flaws in prevailing orthodoxy, which is the difference between the scientific method and you saying that because we can't be sure if it'll rain next week, we also can't be sure if man is causing global climate change.
/QUOTE/
I've never claimed any credibility or to be more than just a man on the internet pointing out what I see as problems in the theory that the Keyoto accords will significantly improve the weather.
By your definition the Write Brothers were not real scientist they fought a consensus so strong it took over 5 years of them and others literally flying in the faces of a large group of "non-biased" scientist before these scientist and the peer review science journals stopped publishing the consensus opinion that heavier than air flight was impossible.
I want to be like the Wright Brothers not these real scientist you describe.
---Epsilon---
/QUOTE/
Things I can't predict with any level of accuracy:
Wether or not a given particle of uranium will decay into lead and when. However I can predict, with near absolute certainty, when about half of a certain mass of uranium will decay into lead.
/END QUOTE/
Radioactive decay isn't like weather models the decay is a change effect not altered by external variables. In addition there is no magnification of inaccuracies in the model or initial measurements.
Weather is very dependant on external variables and any inaccuracies in your model or the initial measurements are quickly magnified causing the model to deviate from the actual values.
Assume a gram error is made in the initial weight of your uranium sample thisr erro only produces a gram error in your calculations at 1 year, at 10 years or at 100,000 years.
The equivalent of a gram error in your initial values for a weather model will produces predicton errors that grow at very large rates often exponentially. Say for example at 1 year you might have the equivalent of a 10 unit error, but at 10 years you could have a error a 1000 times higher or even 10,000 times higher and it gets worse the further you get from the initial conditions.
/QUOTE/
In other words: sceince is hard. You do not understand it. The current evidence towards the global climate crisis is based on models that were developed thirty years ago. Models that have turned out to be disturbingly accurate in every prediction they made. In fact, models that turned out to (in some cases) be too conservative.
/ENDQUOTE/
I think I do understand it, I might not, but I think I do.
I understand that Weather conditions are critical to all sorts of industries and a reliable accurate winter weather prediction even when averaged and made for an area as large as the 48 states would be an economic gold mine.
Insurance companies, Power companies, oil companies, Sand/Salt mining companies, interstate highway departments and countless others companies would be willing to pay large amounts of money to have access to such a weather model in making thier future investments and plans.
Is there a weather model that is being used by the weather scientist to make investments?
Ayiekie and Epsilon if you think the weather models are accurate and man is causing Global warming and the Kyoto accords will solve it that's fine
Currently I cannot support that conclusion.
Yes I agree the earth is probably currently warming up, but I think the models being used to predict a runaway greenhouse are flawed on several levels and even more importantly I don't think the Kyoto accords would make a significant change if those models do prove correct.
howard melton
---Ayiekie---
/Quote/
Because it's not the same damn science. Accurately predicting local weather two weeks from now and predicting large scale climatalogical change over years is apples and oranges, and anybody who knows diddle-squat about either subject could tell you that.
/End Quote?
I disagree with you Ayiekie yes it is the same science.
Weather within limits is a fractal the models used are very closely related for any scale.
Any weather model even the large scale models are very sensitive to initial conditions the further you go from those initial conditions the less accuracy you have and the more unknowns come into play.
The futher you project these models into the future the more likely the magnified errors will produce extremes that won't match actual conditions.
If these weather models are so accurate at 30 years for the entire planet then at 1 year they should be very accurate for the 48 states. This Model should have enough accuracy at 1 year for it to predict state scale weather conditions or failing that be accurate enough for a fuel oil company to make large profits predicting the 48 states agregate winter heating fuel needs. These models can't do that so I personally will not trust any result they produce 30 years out from the initial conditions.
/Quote/
To put it bluntly, when you can find a major, reputable, non-obviously-biased group of scientists who work in the field they're talking about that oppose global warming, I will give it due attention. But you are a Guy On The Internet, which gives you as much credibility on the topic as it does on the subject of how to build a functional moon rocket. Who would listen to you if you started saying you knew better on how to fly to the moon than NASA scientists?
Real scientists can do real research to show flaws in prevailing orthodoxy, which is the difference between the scientific method and you saying that because we can't be sure if it'll rain next week, we also can't be sure if man is causing global climate change.
/QUOTE/
I've never claimed any credibility or to be more than just a man on the internet pointing out what I see as problems in the theory that the Keyoto accords will significantly improve the weather.
By your definition the Write Brothers were not real scientist they fought a consensus so strong it took over 5 years of them and others literally flying in the faces of a large group of "non-biased" scientist before these scientist and the peer review science journals stopped publishing the consensus opinion that heavier than air flight was impossible.
I want to be like the Wright Brothers not these real scientist you describe.
---Epsilon---
/QUOTE/
Things I can't predict with any level of accuracy:
Wether or not a given particle of uranium will decay into lead and when. However I can predict, with near absolute certainty, when about half of a certain mass of uranium will decay into lead.
/END QUOTE/
Radioactive decay isn't like weather models the decay is a change effect not altered by external variables. In addition there is no magnification of inaccuracies in the model or initial measurements.
Weather is very dependant on external variables and any inaccuracies in your model or the initial measurements are quickly magnified causing the model to deviate from the actual values.
Assume a gram error is made in the initial weight of your uranium sample thisr erro only produces a gram error in your calculations at 1 year, at 10 years or at 100,000 years.
The equivalent of a gram error in your initial values for a weather model will produces predicton errors that grow at very large rates often exponentially. Say for example at 1 year you might have the equivalent of a 10 unit error, but at 10 years you could have a error a 1000 times higher or even 10,000 times higher and it gets worse the further you get from the initial conditions.
/QUOTE/
In other words: sceince is hard. You do not understand it. The current evidence towards the global climate crisis is based on models that were developed thirty years ago. Models that have turned out to be disturbingly accurate in every prediction they made. In fact, models that turned out to (in some cases) be too conservative.
/ENDQUOTE/
I think I do understand it, I might not, but I think I do.
I understand that Weather conditions are critical to all sorts of industries and a reliable accurate winter weather prediction even when averaged and made for an area as large as the 48 states would be an economic gold mine.
Insurance companies, Power companies, oil companies, Sand/Salt mining companies, interstate highway departments and countless others companies would be willing to pay large amounts of money to have access to such a weather model in making thier future investments and plans.
Is there a weather model that is being used by the weather scientist to make investments?
Ayiekie and Epsilon if you think the weather models are accurate and man is causing Global warming and the Kyoto accords will solve it that's fine
Currently I cannot support that conclusion.
Yes I agree the earth is probably currently warming up, but I think the models being used to predict a runaway greenhouse are flawed on several levels and even more importantly I don't think the Kyoto accords would make a significant change if those models do prove correct.
howard melton