Software

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Weather forcasters, are they true or false?

0 helpful
23 replies

by peconet tietokoneet 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Climate Warming anyone?
I had enough of this untruth about the weather. Have you?
I have just had a look at http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact3&fsize=0
and have found out he/they use a different kind of collection process for the weather that they use and to me it looks very good. Take a look and make up you own mind. One day we/us might have our own weather stations and not rely on the BBC's own corrupted weather predictions.

23 replies

by ic-it

on one site that obviously has an oppossing view to Global warming?

A lot of skeptics admit there is Global Warming, but doubt man's influence on it.

There are many sites for each viewpoint.

by jdclyde

Only a fool would say there is no such thing as Global warming. Since we have gone in and out of ice ages, history has proven the world naturally warms and cools.

The thing that has NEVER been proven was our impact on such natural cycles. The recent outing of the intentional hiding and distorting of relevant information puts even the unproven theories of Man made global warming into question (at best) to anyone honestly looking at the data instead of the social agenda.

by tony hopkinson

Collecting better data obviously has value, but forecasting is all about interpretation. The number of factors even using linear reductionist techniques involved in weather is huge. Given weather is non linear, holistic and chaotic, an inaccurate forecast should be an obvious result.

Predicting or positing climate change is not weather forecasting. It's either a philsophical position, a pragmatic one, for eco-political advantage, or simply a realisation that we know so little, that it can't be discounted, and that the only way to address it, is to treat it as real.

by deadly ernest

change is real. Also that humans do have an effect on the climate, the same as animals and plants and the sun and the world have an effect on the climate.

The problem is with identification of how much effect humans have on it and will the political grand standing at Kyoto and Copenhagen have any effect on it at all. We all know it will make some politicians get more votes and fill the pockets of many others with tax money.

What I do find interesting is the way those promoting climate change as being a purely recent human cause, go to great lengths to ignore any data that doesn't support their point of view. This is especially funny when there's tonnes of data showing the cyclic warming and cooling of the world over millions of years, as against the few hundred they prattle on about.

Anyway, I think this has all been thrashed out on previous threads and doubt few want to go through all that again.

by tony hopkinson

Anyone who argues that, has an IQ of 2 or less.

There is no way to establish the case either way using science. The study of chaos helps, but that definitively proves that even if we could empirically measure human effects, one missing minute factor could change the entire picture.

The people doing this 'science' for either side are still thinking linear systems. The mere fact that they isolate a small number of factors and then extrapolate from that proves this. Never mind the fact that they have no control to validate any experiment they make, to even begin to say that any conclusion drawn from it is viable.

Either you believe or you don't, you preach or you don't, or you pretend for economic, political reasons, even sexual ones if teh wee blonde is amenable to hugging more than trees.

Faith, not science.

by santeewelding

The very way you open -- truth or falsity -- may contribute to your dissatisfaction.

In addition, you assign at the outset "true" or "false" to the forecasters; not the forecast.

These are matters of epistemology, as well as politics, theology, economics, et al. The others here are all over these matters. Perhaps you need to be, too, before you speak so resolutely.

by peconet tietokoneet

Although the weather is not controlled by man (thank God), it is still one of the big things in life of which we all (politicians included) are trying hard to get correct due to our ever changing way of life. Whether you use big names for your reason behind it or not, it still does not come down to "why or how". Why does the weather change or how? Going back just two hundred years with the weather is like yesterday to the whole world. You will need to go back to square one to the beginning when the world was hot, just born sort of. Then find out why it cooled and then what happened. Since we can NOT do that, it will still be an open question, no matter how or what you name it.
The post link in question that i had added for all to see is (in my mind) to be at least more correct than the others, but that is for you to decide, hence "true" or "false".

by mjd420nova

The advancement of technology is the cause of any predictions for changes, good or bad. With increased accuracy of data collection and comparison to past recorded data has led the gullible to jump to conclusions that are based on faulty and inaccurate data. This planet goes through many changes and will continue to astound us with its propensity for changes we can not predict. Mother Nature is pretty powerful and will clean up any messes we make given enough time. To get antsy about what effects we may causing and attempting to eliminate our perceived causes is exemplary but ineffective.

by nicknielsen

[i]Mother Nature is pretty powerful and will clean up any messes we make given enough time. [/i]

Including us.

I've been getting a kick watching "Life After People" on the History Channel. Most of what we've created in the modern era will be gone within a few hundred years after we disappear.

by deadly ernest

angle is they blame it ALL on the actions of humans since the industrial revolution. Now, I'm not saying the industrial revolution hasn't had an effect, but it isn't the main factor. The problem is they're using the records of the last 200 years or so because that's all we've got really good records of done on a daily basis. What they miss is the fact is not so much a new change, but the establishment of a system to record the change, and that's all.

We have lots of records and evidence that goes back much further. The average temperature during the time of Julius Caesar was higher than it is now, there are records to prove that. Heck, there's archaeological evidence that what we call the sahara was once a huge tropical forest, yet it's been desert for all of human recorded time, many thousands of years. All of human endeavour has been part of a warming from an ice age, that started before we humans could do more than grunt. Yet all this evidence is ignored by those who can see an opportunity to use global warming to draw attention from their political stuff ups, and they're aided by those who see it as a chance to jump on a gravy boat.

Human Global Warming is only faith for a few who are being taxed on this, those doing the pushing and taxing are in it for personal aggrandisement and money.

by tony hopkinson

No such thing as a main factor.

Evidence of temperature for instance in Caesar's even if you accept it's accuracy, and feel it's comprehensive enough misses a huge number of other relevant factors that would impact weather. Geological/ archeo-geological data is even more dubious.

If you loom at a range of models you could create that would produce equivalent measurements the range would be huge.

Like I said linear, thinking reductionist.

by santeewelding

Be extraordinarily sure of your linguistic acumen and logical gymnastics.

The shes are liable to chew off your ass.

by nicknielsen

saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

Direct quote. Ecclesiastes 1, verse 2 (KJV)

by charliespencer

They aren't the same thing. Weather forecasting is short term (under a week) for a limited area. Global warming (one topic of climate change) is about long-term changes over continental / global regions.

I submit your post is mis-titled. Since I don't participate in the 'global warming' debate here, I'm gone, disillusioned by the bait-and-switch.

by tonythetiger

it's "Climate Change". They've renamed it so that no matter what happens, it's YOUR (or George Bush's) FAULT!

This discussion is closed to new replies.