"Coby Beck" wrote:

"Fran Manns" wrote in message
. ..

When the 5 day forecast is flawed, how can one trust the 100 year
forecast.

Weather and climate are not the same thing, this is a very basic fact.

An easy way to understand the difference: one can never predict with
certainty that it will rain or shine tomorrow. However, even a child can
predict that summer folows spring follows winter. I can tell you with
certainty that it will always be around 30oC in Managua, Nicaragua, dry half
the year, wet the other half. I can tell you with certainty that winter in
Vancouver will be very overcast and rainy but summer will be substantially
warmer and sunnier.

The reason is the difference between long term patterns and short term
chaotic fluctuations. Another good analogy: you can not predict how far up
the beach the next 10 waves will come, but you can prdect the level of the
next 10 tides.

Ahem.. .. subject to the caveats re pressure and wind I mentioned a
few days ago. :-) In a little more detail:

Published tidal predicition assume a standard barometric pressure of
1017 millibars and are issued on the basis of no particular local
weather patterns. A "high" of 34 millibars over the standard will
depress both High and Low water by 1 foot. If the pressure drops the
same amount below standard, High and Low water will be raised by 1
foot - and pro rata for pressures beyond these, or between them.

Wind's not so easy to calculate!

So, strictly speaking, you can only predict the tidal height if you
know what the weather conditions are going to be in advance. So, 10
tides, approx 5 days, is pushing it a bit! :-)

In short: no inference whatsoever can by drawn about the accuracy climate
models from the accuracy of weather prediction.

But I take your point.

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
(remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there..

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

Jeff York wrote:
"Coby Beck" wrote:


The reason is the difference between long term patterns and short
term
chaotic fluctuations. Another good analogy: you can not predict how
far up
the beach the next 10 waves will come, but you can prdect the level
of the
next 10 tides.

Ahem.. .. subject to the caveats re pressure and wind I mentioned a
few days ago. :-) In a little more detail:

Published tidal predicition assume a standard barometric pressure of
1017 millibars and are issued on the basis of no particular local
weather patterns. A "high" of 34 millibars over the standard will
depress both High and Low water by 1 foot. If the pressure drops the
same amount below standard, High and Low water will be raised by 1
foot - and pro rata for pressures beyond these, or between them.

Wind's not so easy to calculate!

So, strictly speaking, you can only predict the tidal height if you
know what the weather conditions are going to be in advance. So, 10
tides, approx 5 days, is pushing it a bit! :-)

In short: no inference whatsoever can by drawn about the accuracy
climate
models from the accuracy of weather prediction.

But I take your point.

By definition the tide is the response to gravitational effects, and it
is highly predictable. The surge (due to pressure and winds) is
additional (um..it might subtract too).

Anyway, I'm not sure it's really such a great analogy. Summer v winter
is more directly applicable, cos they really are the average of lots of
chaotic weather under slowly changing patterns of radiative forcings.
Models tend to do them pretty well - certainly to within about 25% of
the seasonal cycle at the local scale, probably better.

James

Roger Coppock wrote:
[snip]

Pet scientists for the fossil fuel lobby often claim that an
increased brightness of the Sun is responsible for the observed
rise in the global mean temperature.


I just within the past week read, IIRC, something that
said solar output *is* increasing again after decreasing
during much of the late 1900s. The decrease was in the
1960-1990 timeframe, and the increase was in the 1990s.

At least I think I read that somewhere. Did anyone
else see this?

scott

There is a vast difference between a mere conjecture
unsupported by any facts like yours above, and a
theory supported by facts like that at the top of this
thread. Two questions will illustrate this point:

--- Do you have wide area long time time series numbers
on cloud cover and humidity?

--- What correlation do these data have with surface
temperature in the same area and period?

"James Annan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jeff York wrote:
"Coby Beck" wrote:
The reason is the difference between long term patterns and short
term
chaotic fluctuations. Another good analogy: you can not predict how
far up
the beach the next 10 waves will come, but you can prdect the level
of the
next 10 tides.

Ahem.. .. subject to the caveats re pressure and wind I mentioned a
few days ago. :-) In a little more detail:

Alright already!! Next time I use this, I will include the necessary
qulifications.

In short: no inference whatsoever can by drawn about the accuracy
climate
models from the accuracy of weather prediction.

But I take your point.

By definition the tide is the response to gravitational effects, and it
is highly predictable. The surge (due to pressure and winds) is
additional (um..it might subtract too).

Anyway, I'm not sure it's really such a great analogy. Summer v winter
is more directly applicable, cos they really are the average of lots of
chaotic weather under slowly changing patterns of radiative forcings.

Two problems for me with using summer and winter to make the general point
about short term chaotic behaviour and long term patterns. First, it is not
really an analogy about climate and weather, it is the very issue at hand.
Analogies work by putting an aspect of the unfamiliar into a familiar
context. Second, the cycle of summer-winter can be thought of as a steady
state, cettainly it is not a pattern that will be affected by global warming
(at least not in a broad sense). I think it does not successfully isolate
the easiest way to debunk the classic "you don't know if it will rain
tomorrow, how can you tell it will be warmer in 100 yrs".

Any other problems with it waves on the shore?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:03:34 GMT, "Coby Beck"
"James Annan" wrote in message
Anyway, I'm not sure it's really such a great analogy. Summer v winter
is more directly applicable, cos they really are the average of lots of
chaotic weather under slowly changing patterns of radiative forcings.

Two problems for me with using summer and winter to make the general point
about short term chaotic behaviour and long term patterns. First, it is not
really an analogy about climate and weather, it is the very issue at hand.
Analogies work by putting an aspect of the unfamiliar into a familiar
context. Second, the cycle of summer-winter can be thought of as a steady
state, cettainly it is not a pattern that will be affected by global warming
(at least not in a broad sense). I think it does not successfully isolate
the easiest way to debunk the classic "you don't know if it will rain
tomorrow, how can you tell it will be warmer in 100 yrs".

Climate is per definition average weather, so there are two operators
in that classic, one, how can you predict average weather, when you
cannot predict isolated instances of weather, and two, how can you
predict the average result of some forcing which influences the
weather, when you cannot predict what will result from that forcing
on any particular day. I'd say the cyclical annual change in
insolation over the seasons should demonstrate quite well, that one
can indeed predict the former rather more reliably than the latter.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:03:34 GMT, "Coby Beck"
"James Annan" wrote in message
Anyway, I'm not sure it's really such a great analogy. Summer v winter
is more directly applicable, cos they really are the average of lots of
chaotic weather under slowly changing patterns of radiative forcings.

Two problems for me with using summer and winter to make the general point
about short term chaotic behaviour and long term patterns. First, it is
not
really an analogy about climate and weather, it is the very issue at hand.
Analogies work by putting an aspect of the unfamiliar into a familiar
context. Second, the cycle of summer-winter can be thought of as a steady
state, cettainly it is not a pattern that will be affected by global
warming
(at least not in a broad sense). I think it does not successfully isolate
the easiest way to debunk the classic "you don't know if it will rain
tomorrow, how can you tell it will be warmer in 100 yrs".

Climate is per definition average weather, so there are two operators
in that classic, one, how can you predict average weather, when you
cannot predict isolated instances of weather, and two, how can you
predict the average result of some forcing which influences the
weather, when you cannot predict what will result from that forcing
on any particular day. I'd say the cyclical annual change in
insolation over the seasons should demonstrate quite well, that one
can indeed predict the former rather more reliably than the latter.

Yes, this all make perfect sense. I guess the deeper philisophical question
here is how to provide a serious and thoughtful rebuttal to a shallow and
ridiculous claim.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

There is a vast difference between a mere conjecture
unsupported by any facts like yours above, and a
theory supported by facts like that at the top of this thread.

This is what science is all about Roger. I don't see how the facts
support your theory and I was merely pointing out an alternative
hypothesis. I don't have access to this kind of data, but maybe someone
else reading this thread does. Science is about adjusting your
hypothesis to fit the facts, not selectively using the facts to support
your hypothesis. That's called pseudoscience. Do you have anything to
support your hypothesis that CO2 traps heat more effectively during the
night than during the day?

You don't have access to this kind of data yet,
you manage to post to this newsgroup?!??
We have yet another fossil fool with a reading
comprehension problem. These data are
publically available. See the list of URLs at
the bottom of my post.

"These data were found at:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ush...doe_max_data.Z
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ush...doe_min_data.Z
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ush...on.inventory.Z
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/README.TXT
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/...hcn/ushcn.html
The valid, or non "-99.99," yearly average fields from the time
of observation corrected daily high and nighttime low," or "1+"
and "2+," records in years later than, or equal to, 1800 are
used."

You would be wise learn to read and use the
Internet before you go lecturing people on
what is, and is not, science. Please don't waste
bandwith with your silly conjecture until
you've done some work and got hard numbers.

We have yet another fossil fool with a reading
comprehension problem.

Roger I support neither the fossil fuel lobby nor the green fool lobby.
I just asked a simple question which you seem unable or unwilling to
answer. Not everyone in the world is out to get you. I was simply
suggesting that there may be alternative explanations to fit the data
you have posted. You are coming across more as a religious zealot than
as a reasonable scientist. I think I have enough years experience in
science to understand what is good and bad science. If my question was
naive then surely you as the 'expert' can set me straight in an
intelligent manner.