"chemist" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 1, 5:01 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:10 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:



In article .com,
says...

"Unfortunately,
small changes in the models can lead to a broad range of outcomes,
inviting debate over the actual causes of climate change."

So Models are Useless when it comes to forecasting future
climate .

The"statistical approach seeing it as puzzle" is my approach
and I have come to a very different conclusion than the
Professor. I have looked many more variables than he and my knowledge
of Astronomy and History has led me me to the conclusion that
the greenhouse effect is a myth.

Please provide a calculation of the Earth's temperature without the
Greenhouse Effect. Don't forget that convection, which operates in
parallel with the IR losses from the surface, cools further.
Then compare that with the actual measured value.

To do that calculation, Eric,
Tom would need to have . . .

(drum roll)

. . . a model.

Roger
I could show you and the rest that the science
of AGW rest on very shaky unprovable principles.
I could demonstrate that the "warming" effect of CO2
is reducing as its concentration increases.
That your assertion that Southern Ocean does not
affect the global temperature continuously is false.
That correcting the temperature for such effects
would destroy the relationship between CO2 and
temperature.
These facts indicate that CO2 is increased by the
rising temperature
That the reduction in the amount of Solar energy
reflected from the Earth accounts for the warming
of the 1990s .
That the Global temperatures have been contaminated
by UHI and that they have been manipulated by scientists
in order to support AGW (actually it took only 2 or 3
scientists to do that)
No doubt you and your ilk would deny that such facts
endanger your theory but the do.
It is not skeptics such as myself that are in denial
it is you and the scientists behind the IPCC
You and they are in denial of the developing science that offers
other explanations of the warming.
You probably have more facilities wealth and information
than myself and you could discover most of the above facts
for yourself but you will only look at your side of the argument
and call all your opponents liars.
In the past you have accused me of being a pervert,of being obsessed
and in need of medical attention.You call all your opponents Fossil
Fools and pretend that you are a scientist.
I can assure you that you are not.

Bravo!
Hey Poppycock open your mind and you MIGHT see something!

Regards

Bonzo

"The IPCC is, in fact, trying to predict the state of a very complex physical
system a full century out when, on the panel's own admission, scientists know
nothing about most of the variables in the model (page 16 of the physical
science summary of the IPCC's fourth assessment report)" Mark Lawson

On Aug 1, 11:38 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
How can anyone who claims to be a Christian be a
serial liar, Steve?

Roger's replies typically look stronger when he snips away that to
which he's replying, like here. I respectfuly ask any readers to
ponder why in this case he is silent on the prior-post-highlighted
fact that he posted (with title full of praise, I might add) a thread-
starting excerpt which matter-of-factly mentions the "subjective flaws
of climate models". If someone who disagreed with Roger had posted
such a comment about "subjective flaws of climate models", is there
much doubt that Roger's rapid response ritual, if he did deign to
comment, would be full of the dismissive, insulting clatter that seems
like his default mode around here.

Come on Roger. Are you healthy enough these days to put your mind to
talking science instead of talking trash?

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

On Aug 1, 10:08 pm, Phil Hays wrote:
SteveSchulin wrote:
Phil Hays wrote:
SteveSchulin wrote:
Piers Corbyn's 'Solar Weather Technique'

About 0 for 5, isn't it? Maybe this one will be correct. Even a stopped
clock is right once a day.

Oh, how did the last one do?

The last astrology prediction for the UK.

(Nov 11 2006)
Piers Corbyn, managing director of long-term forecasters Weather Action,
predicted Arctic air blasting across the whole country towards the close
of the month.

He said temperatures will sink as low as -14 C in exposed Highland
locations, with the rest of the country experiencing hard frosts and
heavy snow showers.

Mr Corbyn said: "There will be some notably cold and snowy parts. Coming
after such a mild October these conditions will feel especially cold."

The notion that Nov 28
is adequate sample for "towards the end of November" as you put it, even
if everything else you say is accurate, seems silly on its face.

Really. How nice.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/.../november.html

"20th to 30th: Low pressure dominated the weather and there were frequent
spells of heavy rain or showers accompanied by strong to gale-force winds.
There were brighter interludes on the 24th and 26th, while on the 25th, a
tornado was reported in Hampshire."

Doesn't sound much like Arctic air, with hard frosts and heavy snow
showers.

That's a big improvement, Phil. Glad you got better so quickly. How
come your first try was that one-day methodology instead of this much
more reasonable approach to the matter?

By the way, I'm happy to stipulate that the late November 2006
forecast was, as Corbyn himself characterized it soon thereafter, a
"failure". He also stated that it was the first major error in 13
months. That sounds much different than your claims. If you can
provide a comparable forecast failure of his in the 13 months prior to
that one, I'd very much like to hear of it.

In that same Dec 3, 2006 news release that forthrightly note the
forecast failure, BTW, Corbyn claimed his long-term forecasting using
Solar Weather Technique as having an accuracy rating of 85%. He
contrasts that with UK Met Office's twenty-four-hour rain forecast
accuracy rating of 71%. His method version numbering was at SWT21 at
that time. August 2007 forecast indicates version SWT23A. The
forecasts for periods of heavy flooding Aug 5-9, 2007 and Aug 18-23,
2007 are shown as 90% confidence items, with +/- 1 day accuracy.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

On Aug 1, 7:35 pm, Steve Schulin wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:38 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

How can anyone who claims to be a Christian be a
serial liar, Steve?

[ . . . ]

Come on Roger. Are you healthy enough these days to put your mind to
talking science instead of talking trash?

Steve says God's plan is "talking trash!"
Has Steve turned away from God?

"Bonzo" wrote in message
...

"chemist" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 1, 5:01 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:10 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:



In article .com,
says...

"Unfortunately,
small changes in the models can lead to a broad range of outcomes,
inviting debate over the actual causes of climate change."

So Models are Useless when it comes to forecasting future
climate .

The"statistical approach seeing it as puzzle" is my approach
and I have come to a very different conclusion than the
Professor. I have looked many more variables than he and my
knowledge
of Astronomy and History has led me me to the conclusion that
the greenhouse effect is a myth.

Please provide a calculation of the Earth's temperature without the
Greenhouse Effect. Don't forget that convection, which operates in
parallel with the IR losses from the surface, cools further.
Then compare that with the actual measured value.

To do that calculation, Eric,
Tom would need to have . . .

(drum roll)

. . . a model.

Roger
I could show you and the rest that the science
of AGW rest on very shaky unprovable principles.
I could demonstrate that the "warming" effect of CO2
is reducing as its concentration increases.
That your assertion that Southern Ocean does not
affect the global temperature continuously is false.
That correcting the temperature for such effects
would destroy the relationship between CO2 and
temperature.
These facts indicate that CO2 is increased by the
rising temperature
That the reduction in the amount of Solar energy
reflected from the Earth accounts for the warming
of the 1990s .
That the Global temperatures have been contaminated
by UHI and that they have been manipulated by scientists
in order to support AGW (actually it took only 2 or 3
scientists to do that)
No doubt you and your ilk would deny that such facts
endanger your theory but the do.
It is not skeptics such as myself that are in denial
it is you and the scientists behind the IPCC
You and they are in denial of the developing science that offers
other explanations of the warming.
You probably have more facilities wealth and information
than myself and you could discover most of the above facts
for yourself but you will only look at your side of the argument
and call all your opponents liars.
In the past you have accused me of being a pervert,of being obsessed
and in need of medical attention.You call all your opponents Fossil
Fools and pretend that you are a scientist.
I can assure you that you are not.

Bravo!
Hey Poppycock open your mind and you MIGHT see something!

translation: droooool

"Bonzo" wrote in message
...

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 31, 8:10 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article .com,
says...

"Unfortunately,
small changes in the models can lead to a broad range of outcomes,
inviting debate over the actual causes of climate change."

So Models are Useless when it comes to forecasting future
climate .

The"statistical approach seeing it as puzzle" is my approach
and I have come to a very different conclusion than the
Professor. I have looked many more variables than he and my knowledge
of Astronomy and History has led me me to the conclusion that
the greenhouse effect is a myth.

Please provide a calculation of the Earth's temperature without the
Greenhouse Effect. Don't forget that convection, which operates in
parallel with the IR losses from the surface, cools further.
Then compare that with the actual measured value.

To do that calculation, Eric,
Tom would need to have . . .

(drum roll)

. . . a model.

Admit it Poppycock, you have absolutely no idea!

translation: droooool

On Aug 2, 2:16 pm, Steve Schulin wrote:
On Aug 1, 10:08 pm, Phil Hays wrote:

SteveSchulin wrote:
Phil Hays wrote:
SteveSchulin wrote:
Piers Corbyn's 'Solar Weather Technique'

The last astrology prediction for the UK.

(Nov 11 2006)
Piers Corbyn, managing director of long-term forecasters Weather Action,
predicted Arctic air blasting across the whole country towards the close
of the month.

He said temperatures will sink as low as -14 C in exposed Highland
locations, with the rest of the country experiencing hard frosts and
heavy snow showers.

Mr Corbyn said: "There will be some notably cold and snowy parts. Coming
after such a mild October these conditions will feel especially cold."

The notion that Nov 28
is adequate sample for "towards the end of November" as you put it, even
if everything else you say is accurate, seems silly on its face.

Really. How nice.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/.../november.html

"20th to 30th: Low pressure dominated the weather and there were frequent
spells of heavy rain or showers accompanied by strong to gale-force winds.
There were brighter interludes on the 24th and 26th, while on the 25th, a
tornado was reported in Hampshire."

Doesn't sound much like Arctic air, with hard frosts and heavy snow
showers.

That's a big improvement, Phil. Glad you got better so quickly. How
come your first try was that one-day methodology instead of this much
more reasonable approach to the matter?

We barely had a winter in the UK for 2006. Corbyn is a laughing stock
here.
He would do probably better using chicken entrails or sea weed.

By the way, I'm happy to stipulate that the late November 2006
forecast was, as Corbyn himself characterized it soon thereafter, a
"failure". He also stated that it was the first major error in 13
months. That sounds much different than your claims. If you can
provide a comparable forecast failure of his in the 13 months prior to
that one, I'd very much like to hear of it.

In that same Dec 3, 2006 news release that forthrightly note the
forecast failure, BTW, Corbyn claimed his long-term forecasting using
Solar Weather Technique as having an accuracy rating of 85%. He

And if you believe that you will believe anything!

Would you like to buy London Bridge?
Just send $10 million to PayPal account :
(shipping not included - buyer collects)

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Aug 2, 10:45 am, Martin Brown
wrote, in part:
On Aug 2, 2:16 pm, wrote:
...
We barely had a winter in the UK for 2006. Corbyn is a laughing stock
here.
He would do probably better using chicken entrails or sea weed.

And you barely had a summer so far this year. Is Met Office a laughing
stock too?

By the way, I'm happy to stipulate that the late November 2006
forecast was, as Corbyn himself characterized it soon thereafter, a
"failure". He also stated that it was the first major error in 13
months. That sounds much different than your claims. If you can
provide a comparable forecast failure of his in the 13 months prior to
that one, I'd very much like to hear of it.

In that same Dec 3, 2006 news release that forthrightly note the
forecast failure, BTW, Corbyn claimed his long-term forecasting using
Solar Weather Technique as having an accuracy rating of 85%. He

And if you believe that you will believe anything!

Would you like to buy London Bridge?
Just send $10 million to PayPal account :
(shipping not included - buyer collects)

Well, the only time I know of that Corbyn's results were subjected to
independent evaluation, the peer-reviewed journal article on long-term
forecasts of hail concluded that his Solar Weather Technique was
skillful enough to warrant further research. So far, in this thread at
least, the Corbyn-bashing seems pretty lacking in substance. I hope
you don't have more severe flooding as Corbyn forecasts for Aug 5-9
and Aug 18-23. If you do, I suspect that a lot more folks will be
interested in Solar Weather Technique.

Best wishes,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Steve, when will you tell us God's holy plan for
people who tell lies and sow falsehoods?

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:49:27 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

Steve, when will you tell us God's holy plan for people who tell lies and
sow falsehoods?

I think that depends on how many carbon credits you buy, Roger. You're
going to need a lot.