Washington Post Reporter Admits number of Skeptics ‘Expanding’ – CNN Meteorologist Slams Gore! – Newsweek says Skeptics = Moon Landing Deniers? – More studies Debunk fears
Round Up – October 4, 2007
Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin Admits Obvious: Climate Skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking” (Eilperin wrote her article for October issue of Outside Magazine)
Excerpt: In recent months, [MIT’s Richard] Lindzen’s circle of allies has appeared to be expanding rather than shrinking. In late May, Michael Griffin, administrator of NASA, which conducts considerable amounts of climate research, told National Public Radio that he was not sure climate change was “a problem we must wrestle with” and that it was “rather arrogant” to suggest that the climate we have now represents the best possible set of conditions. Alexander Cockburn, a maverick journalist who leans left on most topics, lambasted the global-warming consensus last spring on the political Web site CounterPunch.org, arguing that there’s no evidence yet that humans are causing the rise in global temperature. Other skeptics include Czech Republic president Václav Klaus; Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; and Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
[Note: There are oh so many more skeptics joining the ranks as new science continues to debunk fears. For sampling of former believers in man-made climate fears who converted to skeptics, see here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12 — For latest studies that are dismantling climate fears see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8 ]
CNN Meteorologist: ‘Definitely Some Inaccuracies’ in Gore Film
Excerpt: CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, “Finally,” in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” from UK schools because, according to “American Morning,” “it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies.” “There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano added. “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.” Marciano went on to explain that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.”
MIT scientist predicts global warming skeptics will be vindicated in 20 years (Richard Lindzen)
Excerpt: “My best guess is, 20 years from now it will be accepted that global warming is not an issue, and everybody will claim they knew it all along,” he says, adding that he’s not holding out hope of being recognized for his work by future generations. “Chances are, 20 years from now I’ll be dead,” he jokes, “and someone else will want to take credit.”
Climatologist Timothy Ball: Gore wrong on warming
Excerpt: Re: “The planet has a fever,” Sept. 30. < > I’ve spent my career educating people that climate changes all the time and current changes are well within natural variability. The article correctly reports I “branded Gore’s 100-minute documentary an error-filled propaganda piece.” I’m not alone. James Hansen, Gore’s own science adviser and political supporter conceded, with huge understatement, the movie has imperfections and technical flaws. The flaws are large enough to fail a term paper from any student in attendance. There’s no evidence humans are affecting the global climate. Despite this, Gore’s ignorance pushes policies harmful to the planet and humanity. The world has cooled slightly since 1998 and experts expect continued cooling to 2030. Gore and others have stampeded world leaders into preparing for warming. Signed Dr. Tim Ball,
Newsweek Reporter Begley compares climate skeptics to Moon-landing Deniers
Excerpt: Begley, a senior editor for the magazine, recently defended its August 13 issue that focused on the climate change “denial machine.” On the new The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media Web site, Begley compared global-warming skepticism to moon-landing denial. When asked if journalists should be more interpretive or analytical in their climate change reporting Begley said, “It depends …When you cover the history of the space program, you don’t quote the percentage of Americans who think the moon landings took place on a stage in Arizona.” < > Begley reiterated her blatant bias in an online chat hosted by Newsweek. She dismissed skepticism in a question that asked how “responsible media [can] best meet their ‘fairness/accuracy/’balance’ responsibilities in dealing with climate change deniers.” “[M]e, I don’t do he said/she said, but delve into the arguments and see which has empirical merit,” Begley wrote. “It’s not that hard.” The idea of using outlandish analogies to defend biased global-warming reporting is not an original concept. CBS’s Scott Pelley compared global-warming skepticism to Holocaust denial on March 23 when he posed the question: “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”
[Note: Sharon Begley’s reporting on global warming is literally the model of how NOT to report on climate issues. Her Newsweek cover report was so bad, a Newsweek contributing editor debunked the article in the very next issue. See Newsweek Editor Calls Mag’s Global Warming ‘Deniers’ Article ‘Highly Contrived’ ] Also, Begley’s dismissal and name calling of skeptics (comparing them to those who question the moon landing) is perfectly in line with other proponents of climate fears. See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic They have nothing left but name-calling and ignoring the latest peer-reviewed science which is destroying climate fears. Begley’s climate reporting would be fine if she were writing newsletters for NRDC, Greenpeace or Union of Concerned Scientists, but her reporting is currently not fit for a news organization.]
Yet Another New Study Finds Mankind’s emissions are not harming atmosphere
“Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” by Dr. Art Robinson, Noah Robinson, & Dr. Willie Soon – Published in journal of American physicians and surgeons
Excerpt: A review of the re search literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that in creases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly in creased plant growth. < > There are no experimental data to sup port the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.
Click to access robinson600.pdf
Study Finds some scientists who promote climate fears “Ignoring a Natural Event to Blame Humans’
Excerpt: By ignoring a natural event scientists blame climate changes on human activity – It is shown here that there is good evidence the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1976 changed the upwelling of cold water and moved the Pacific Ocean into a warmer state, which means towards El Niño conditions. If we draw a trend line through the Southern Oscillation Index over a long term we find a trend towards El Niño conditions. It is a trend that’s largely due to the 1976 shift because since then the Southern Oscillation has continued to fluctuate as it has always done, but now it does so about a lower mid-point. < > All three papers suggest that either the authors have an appalling lack of knowledge about one of the most important climate shifts in the twentieth century or that this event was deliberately ignored in order to falsely support the claim of man-made warming. There are no other options. I’d like to think it was the former, but there’s plenty of reasons to consider it may have been the latter.
Click to access Walker_Circ_2.pdf
Celebrities Say They’re ‘Hotter than They Should Be’
Excerpt: What do Scarlett Johansson, Orlando Bloom and Rachael Ray have in common? They have joined together with 13 other hot celebrities to support an online auction for World Wildlife Fund. Each has signed a WWF “Hotter than I Should Be” t-shirt to be auctioned off on eBay starting today with funds going to support WWF’s global climate change and other conservation initiatives. T-shirts have been signed by Kevin Bacon, Candice Bergen, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Gisele BÃ¼ndchen, Cindy Crawford, Harrison Ford, Scarlett Johansson, Tobey Maguire, Paul Newman, Rachael Ray, Susan Sarandon, Charlie Sheen, Martin Short, Oliver Stone and Betty White. These graphic t-shirts are creating a buzz, both in the media and in Hollywood, as a unique way to spread the message that the earth is warming and encourage individuals to take action.
EPA predicts global warming will raise sewer bills
Excerpt: Global warming, already on the hook for declining polar bear populations, disappearing glaciers and rising sea levels, may also increase your sewer bill. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency climate change expert says warming temperatures over the next several decades will be accompanied by an increase in the number and severity of storms. The combination will reduce the effectiveness of scores of federally mandated sewer improvements and water treatment upgrades designed to stop almost all of the sewage pollution flowing into rivers and creeks when it rains.
Danish Study Finds: ‘Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change’
Excerpt: Despite the claim of a heavily publicized recent study, the sun still appears to be the main agent in global climate change, according to new research by Danish scientists. The study by the Danish National Space Center rebuts a July study by UK scientists who allege there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years. The Danish researchers, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, contend the UK study erroneously relies on surface air temperature, which, they say, “does not respond to the solar cycle.” Over the past 20 years, however, the Danes argue, the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean sub-surface water temperature. “When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record,” Svensmark and Friis-Christensen say. The surface air temperature, they argue, is “a poor guide to sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system.” The researchers explained it’s “customary to attribute to greenhouse gases any increase in global temperatures not due to solar changes.” “While that is reasonable,” they say, “one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases.”
UK SCHOOLS MUST WARN OF GORE CLIMATE FILM BIAS
Excerpt: Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has been called unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and ‘sentimental mush’.
Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore’s controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday. The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of ‘brainwashing’ children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom. Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and ‘sentimental mush’.
He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February. Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore’s Oscar-winning film does promote ‘partisan political views’. This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film. He said: ‘The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown.’
Al Gore Getting Rich Spreading Global Warming Hysteria With Media’s Help
Excerpt: ABC News.com estimated soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s net worth at $100 million, which isn’t bad considering that he was supposedly worth about $1 million when he watched George W. Bush get sworn in as president in January 2001. Talk about your get-rich-quick schemes, how’d you like to increase your net worth 10,000 percent in less than seven years? < > Some environmentalist groups disparage Gore and his investment banker friends. They say the Gore group caters to others who share their financial interest in the carbon-exchange concept. The bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement says that members of a United Nations-sponsored group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore’s carbon-trading enterprise. The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. In fact, the critics charge, the IPCC sanctions a mechanism that mainly promotes the sham concept of carbon exchange. The global non-profit organization Winrock International is an example of one IPCC panel member that seeks out groups and individuals with an interest in carbon trading. Arkansas-based Winrock provides worldwide “carbon-advisory services.”
Catholic Cardinal Debunks Climate Fears: ‘Increases in carbon dioxide are following the changes in temperature rather than causing it’
Excerpt: Excerpt: Australia’s Cardinal GEORGE PELL: I notice this is their latest change, I’ve studied this a little bit, and there’s a whole history of differing estimates, 30 or 40 years ago, actually, some of the same scientists were warning us about the dangers of an ice age, so I take all these things with a grain of salt, they are matters for science and, as a layman, I study the scientific evidence rather than the press releases. < > GEORGE PELL: There are many latest pieces of research; I myself think talking to a scientist just the other night, he says that the increases in carbon dioxide are following the changes in temperature rather than causing it. SIMON SANTOW: And in the lead up to the Federal Election, he’s prepared to challenge the opinion polling which puts climate change and the environment right up the top of the list of voter concerns. GEORGE PELL: It’s much less important than the faith of the five or ten or fifteen per cent of the poorest Australians; it’s much less important than the problem of marriage breakdown, it’s much less important than the problem of abortion.
HURRICANE/GLOBAL WARMING LINK FURTHER WEAKENED
Excerpt: “Given this state of affairs, projections of changes in [tropical cyclone] intensity due to future global warming must be approached cautiously.” This is the concluding sentence of a just-published article by University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Kyle Swanson in which he carefully examined the historical relationship between sea surface temperatures and tropical cyclone intensity in the Atlantic and western Pacific ocean. Swanson justified his research efforts, well summarizing the current state of things (including references):”Further, satellite reanalysis suggests no increase in the fraction of intense TCs outside the North Atlantic basin [Kossin et al., 2007]. Trends in TC intensity are difficult to discern, as statistics are inherently noisy due to fluctuating storm numbers and life spans. As the theory underlying TC intensities specifically predicts only the maximum potential intensity, it is necessary to control for these other factors if the response of the TC intensity to changes in SST is to be understood.” < > It certainly is beginning to seem that the more and more people look, the less and less they can find any clear relationship between rising SSTs and increased activity and intensity levels of tropical cyclones. Further, the lack of a clear understanding of the past and present relationships serves to cloud our ability to see into the future when many aspects of the tropical environment are projected to change, not simply sea surface temperatures (for more information about how these other projected changes may impede tropical cyclone development, see here).
UK climate skeptics warm to their theme
Excerpt: “You either believe it or you don’t,” Roger Helmer, the eurosceptic MEP, told them. “And in my case, I don’t!” Cheers. “This whole issue has got completely out of hand. It has become a new religion. You have to believe it. If you do not believe it, you are a heretic. They would like to burn us at the stake – using recycled faggots!” < > Helmer introduced Russell Lewis, the former director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs. That meant we could trust him, Mr Helmer explained. “My real reason for coming here tonight is to cheer you up,” Lewis told delegates. “I have two messages. First, I am sceptical about the whole official theory of global warming. Second, I think if it does happen it will do us a world of good.” One by one, he exposed the myths peddled by the environmental movement. The rise in temperature over recent years was “tiny – well within the range of natural variation”. Scientists were using thermometers on land rather than in the sea, and everyone knew that urban development raised temperatures. Antarctica and Greenland were only melting around the edges – in the middle, the ice was getting thicker. The population of polar bears was “exploding” and had risen by 25% in the past decade. As for penguins, they are “very adaptable creatures, and certain penguins are flourishing in the tropical Galapagos islands.” Global warming would not increase malaria: it used to be endemic in Westminster. “It is not the planet that is in danger. It is freedom… Don’t worry about global warming – it’s a myth,” he concluded. The audience roared.
Al Gore ‘Debates’ Global Warming for the First Time in YouTube Video
Excerpt: Since former Vice President and global warming activist Al Gore has so far refused to debate global warming skeptics, the debate has been brought to him. The public can now watch Al Gore make his case head-to-head against expert climatologists in the first episode of the new environmental education video series, “We Debate, You Decide,” launched by DemandDebate.com. The “Al Gore Debates Global Warming” video is posted on YouTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU).
“Al Gore has refused multiple invitations to debate in-person about global warming,” said Steve Milloy, executive director of DemandDebate.com. “So we’ve decided to let video of his previous remarks do the talking for him,” Milloy explained.
PETA protests Gore’s speech with cartoon of ‘beer-bellied Gore waving a chicken leg’
Excerpt: Animal-activist organization PETA hired a truck to circle the convention center during Gore’s speech that depicted a cartoon, beer-bellied Gore waving a chicken leg.
“Too chicken to go vegetarian?” It read. “Meat is the number one cause of global warming.”
Blind people say noiseless hybrid cars pose hazard
Excerpt: Gas-electric hybrid vehicles, the status symbol for the environmentally conscientious, are coming under attack from a constituency that doesn’t drive: the blind. Because hybrids make virtually no noise at slower speeds when they run solely on electric power, blind people say they pose a hazard to those who rely on their ears to determine whether it’s safe to cross the street or walk through a parking lot. “I’m used to being able to get sound cues from my environment and negotiate accordingly. I hadn’t imagined there was anything I really wouldn’t be able to hear,” said Deborah Kent Stein, chairwoman of the National Federation of the Blind’s Committee on Automotive and Pedestrian Safety. “We did a test, and I discovered, to my great dismay, that I couldn’t hear it.”
Quebec introduces carbon tax, Canada CEOs urge more
Excerpt: Quebec province slapped the country’s first carbon tax on energy firms on Monday, as Canadian business leaders urged “environmental taxation” to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions. The tax, proposed more than a year ago, is expected to raise C$200 million ($202
million) a year to fund the province’s plans to reduce emissions.
Cap-and-trade fraud: Proponents misunderstand the dynamic marketplace
Excerpt: Due to these constraints, limiting GHGs emissions in the short term can only be achieved by limiting the supply of energy produced. Disrupting the country’s energy supplies, whether by domestic regulation or foreign oil embargo, is an energy supply shock. It is not necessary to forecast impacts on the U.S. economy from a significant energy supply shock. Starting with the 1973 OPEC oil crisis, the U.S. economy has endured several supply-induced energy crises over the last 40 years. These real-world examples clearly illustrate the adverse economic impacts in the short run from supply-induced energy shocks. < > The bottom line: Due to the reduction in economic growth, by 2020 every man, woman, and child would be about $2,700 poorer than the baseline scenario — or about $10,800 for a family of four.
Student Debunks Climate Fears
Excerpt: The Russian Academy of Sciences showed in January that, as solar radiation warms Earth, CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the world’s oceans, not from SUVs and factories. Also, CO2 may not be as dangerous and threatening as we once thought. Surprisingly, in 2006, even the United Nations’ records show that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than CO2 from cars. Greenhouse gases, the lovechildren of increased CO2 levels, do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, contrary to popular opinion. At some point “the heat-trapping capacity of the gas and its effect get saturated, and you don’t have increased heating,” according to a report by Boston College geology and geophysics professor Amy Frappier.
Mr. Gore: Let my environment go
Excerpt: Mr. Gore’s global warming campaign has something of a religious feel to it. Don’t believe me? Mr. Gore said so himself in a New York Times op-ed earlier this year, calling the fight against global warming a chance “to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.” This could be a problem, because if there’s one thing religion doesn’t mix with, it’s science.
Australians’ see global warming equal to Terrorism as threat, new survey finds
Excerpt: AUSTRALIANS consider global warming to be at least as big a threat as Islamic fundamentalism, a new survey has found. < > The survey also found that 76 per cent of respondents thought global warming was a more serious problem than, or equally serious as, Islamic fundamentalism.
More good stuff above from Inhofe central command and control.
But what you don’t get to hear is the last two excellent RC posts (or did I mean roasts).
Utterly extraordinary that an Australian denialist could receive an analytical RC blog post on his work – a typical gold, gold, gold Aussie effort punching above our weight in the big US market –
Entitled: “My model, used for deception”. So this would have to be great news for David as his reputation spreads globally.
And a small lament on “Cosmic rays don’t die so easily”.
I’m sure you all know where it is.
Lindzen certainly is getting a growing band of non scientists backing him up. I hear the number of non scientists supporting homeopathy is growing too.
Yawn. It is the same old gaggle of denialists who pop up like weeds in a cow paddock. Take Lindzen for instance- he makes predictions and fails to back them up when offered a bet at reasonable odds.
Davey Gam Esq. says
Yawn. With Luke, SJT and melaleuca first out of the starting box, we have the same old gaggle of true believers popping up like weeds in a cow paddock.
I’m just going by the science. What do you base your yawn on?
Yes Davey but not “always”. And your response itself is now predictable too. r-squared of at least 0.63
It’s the “well I don’t want to look silly but sort of support them response”.
This will explain all
But la de dah lah de dah
But anyway what do reckon about Archibald eh eh eh eh ?
So why do we keep going? eggs.
The odd thing is that climate skeptics in general decry the term consensus and its implications for the case for global warming.
And yet here is a avowed climate change skeptic boasting that the band of followers of Lindzen’s is increasing implying that if more people are skeptical of global warming then it stands more change of being false – thereby validating the idea of consensus.
So which way is it? You cannot trumpet a ‘growing ‘ consensus of climate change skeptics without validating the idea of consensus that AGW skeptics have spent hours and hours attempting to discredit.
As with all science, it only takes one to overturn a theory. It is easier for you to deny that one, given the theory is unfalsifiable.
Any of you brave science starved AGW zealots want to bet on the most important of the above claims — the general decline of earth average (anomaly?) temps from 1998 to 2030? And I’ll even throw in Kyoto, Son of Kyoto, Daughter of Kyoto, and even Bastard of Kyoto won’t have a material affect on this downward trend! It’s one of the reasons you Gorealots demand action; without it you’ll have no claim on tomorrow’s sunri_ ‘er multi-decade downtrend in temps.
Paul Biggs says
It’s more a question of who is willing to speak out – relatively few climate scientists will give an opinion.
Aside from that, what is the consensus and how far does it go? e.g. most/all scientists agree the world is warming, most/all agree that there is a greenhouse effect, most/all agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should raise the global temperature, beyond that it becomes much less clear. There is still no verifiable demonstration or exposition of how doubling CO2 would raise global temperatures significantly.
If anyone wants to read RC’s one-sided posts from non-objective, pre-conceptual scientists, where climate has been reconstructed to fit the CO2 hypothesis using non-robust methodology, go visit RC and post your comments in the echo chamber. Bye.
P.S. I enjoyed the ‘moon-landing deniers’ phrase. What next I wonder?
Meanwhile in the Australian real world I was just thinking how the drought was going ….
Murray-Darling water report gives ‘bleak’ outlook
Posted 24 minutes ago
A new report by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission reveals that current water availability is the lowest it has been in 116 years of modelling.
The report shows low rainfall and high temperatures for August and September have caused water levels to drop by 150 gigalitres in one month.
The Bureau of Meteorology has reported this is the first time in their records that an El Nino drought in the basin has not been followed by above-average rainfall.
The Commission’s chief executive, Wendy Craik, says the report shows climate change is transforming the river system.
“The suggestion by those who work on climate change is that we are seeing that this drought has the added imposition of climate change upon it,” she said.
“So we really are perhaps moving into something quite different.” feature continues…..
“It’s more a question of who is willing to speak out – relatively few climate scientists will give an opinion.”
Paul, they have already let us know their opinion, in many ways.
Those speaking out aren’t the scientists.
Paul Biggs says
Yes SJT, most of those who express a strong opinion aren’t working climate scientists.
Yes Luke, those in the real world dont need to be reminded of just how dry it is.
But Rog you promised rain as I remember and the Hunter isn’t the real world. Too nice.
I know a scientist who is working on global warming research with the CSIRO. For him it’s a pretty basic matter that it’s happening for the reasons specified. The few scientists like Lindzen and Christy are just contrarians. Non scientific opinions, or people who aren’t actually subject matter experts, are just speaking from ignorance and not to be considered at all. Novelists like Chrichton are just beneath contempt.
He doesn’t do the job for the money, he is smart enough to earn a lot more in private industry, he does the job because he loves it. Science and discovery fascinate him.
did Inhofe vote against the satellite that was to be launched that would measure the earth’s albedo? It was to be part of the research into establishing what was happening with the whole AGW topic, but was blocked for purely political reasons.
I didnt promise rain Luke, the BOM predicted it, remember?
“However, this La Niña has been late to develop by historical standards. In the past, most significant La Niña events were established by winter’s end, with widespread above-average rain falling over Australia’s eastern half. With a late-developing La Niña, this typical rainfall response is not as likely as in past episodes. Indeed it has been largely absent to date.”
and more from BOM
“All the dynamic computer models predict La Niña conditions for the rest of 2007 and early 2008, declining to neutral thereafter.”
Rog you enthusiastically embraced their forecast and now the national wheat crop has had it. It’s your fault isn’t it?
Of course it isn’t but perverse blog logic works that way.
The problem with any of these seasonal forecasts (assuming they do have skill) is that they are 70:30 type things. 7 out of 10 times it will go with the majority odds; BUT 3 out of 10 it won’t. They’re “probabilistic”. Success or failure on one event doesn’t show anything.
However unlike at the casino you have to wait another whole year to throw the dice again.
I know you’ll groan but the forecasters have been concerned that some of their forecast skill seems to be changing of late. Climate change? Or are they just wrong.
Again you falsely ascribe emotions to embellish statements, I have never “enthusiastically embraced their forecast”. I only repeated it.
The facts are that the BOM “dynamic computer models” have not been able to fully predict the weather.
Oh yes you did Rog – it’s all here in the archives. Any talk about ongoing drought and Rog flashed the La Nina forecast. Sorry – blog logic. You’re gone !
The fact is that that BoM have been using statistical models not dynamic computer models until recently. And you’re a silly – if you think anyone can ever “fully” predict the weather/seasonal climate you believe in pixies in the garden too. Read what I wrote AGAIN.
It’s all in the forecast “embrace” Rog. You can neither care nor uncare how it works out you see.
It’s the born loser 1967 come in spinner analogue.
You win this argument, it is a stupid one and you have better skills in that area.
Funny that you mention 1967 Luke…
I noticed in yesterday’s SMH this article:
A CSIRO scientist, Wenju Cai, told the Greenhouse 2007 conference in Sydney yesterday that Australia was experiencing an unusual combination of two events: a La Nina phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean in the east, and an Indian Ocean Dipole phenomenon in the west.
“The only time in [recorded] history we had this kind of combination was in 1967,” he said.
So what happened in 1968?
According to the BoM flood summary for the ’60s, nearly all Qld river systems experienced flooding with widespread flooding in the northern and inland parts of the state which continued in some inland areas right up unitl May/June.
Yep that’s why I mentioned it – it’s from the conference. You’ll also notice the combination of bits we’ve been discussing – El Nino/La Nina + SAM + Indian Ocean Dipole with a touch of greenhouse and a warming Tasman Sea. Wenju is also sugegsting that 1 in 1000 may not be too far off the mark and a greenhouse influence as well.