Global Weather Oscillations

[laserguy]

The real question in all of this is why have world governments, with the help of academia and the media, worked so hard to convince people that warming is bad and that they, the people, are personally response for it? If you want to make a difference in this world focus on and address this last great question!

Within the hallowed pages of NW,I've tried Chassisbot,God I've tried! Excellent albeit short post btw,wish I'd written it! Forget for a moment that anthro CO2 does not,has not nor ever will affect temps and imagine instead that it did. We'd have a world of plenty for all the souls roaming it,not the glum,sparsly populated misery hole that the warmers crave for themselves. If I thought for one moment that our CO2 could raise temps I'd be burning all the old tyres (joke,but you'll get the sentiment) I could lay me hands on,just doin' me bit y'know. Of course there's big,big reasons to control CO2. Those that haven't 'got it' by now never will,I fear. Mind you,most of the blighters are in on the act,if you see what I mean.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I mentioned the natural cycles and production of oxygen, which is reduced during the earth's colder period. My intention was to bring up the subject of geo-engeering the climate, which would reduce carbon dioxed during a period when the earth should have more carbon dioxide and a natural replenishing of oxygen.

Best Regards

David

Ah I see now- from that perspective your arguments (and by extension those of North Sea Snow Convection) make a lot more sense. There was a time when I was strongly in favour of geo-engineering the climate, but, thanks largely to points people have noted here on this forum, I am only in favour of it as a last resort for if AGW turns out to be very strong and very bad.

I'm afraid Laserguy's stance on AGW is consistent in one sense (and only one sense)- that of burying one's head in the sand. Either AGW doesn't exist, or it exists but we can't do anything about it, or it exists and it's good. All of those positions are united by one thing: the conclusion "let's keep things as they are; what will be will be and whatever happens it will be good". It is a common approach to problems in general, an unhealthy way of keeping individuals happy in the short-term that often backfires long-term.

There is indeed an argument that a modest amount of warming, say 1-2C, could be good for the globe as a whole (though it won't be popular with many snow lovers, or people living in marginal climates in the developing world, for some of whom a bit more warming would be catastrophic). However, there is a real possibility of warming in the 3 to 6C range- or even a tipping point being hit that plunges us into rapid cooling. There is also the problem that even a modest amount of warming can lead to changes in atmospheric circulation promoting more severe depressions. There is also the problem that sea-level rises caused by melting of land-based ice could inundate coastal areas and require billions to be spent on relocation and/or sea defences.

We do not know the real extent of the anthropogenic forcing and therein lies the problem. It could be small, in which case it might well be beneficial, but if it's large, it almost certainly won't be beneficial!

[laserguy]

I'm afraid Laserguy's stance on AGW is consistent in one sense (and only one sense)- that of burying one's head in the sand. Either AGW doesn't exist, or it exists but we can't do anything about it, or it exists and it's good. All of those positions are united by one thing: the conclusion "let's keep things as they are; what will be will be and whatever happens it will be good". It is a common approach to problems in general, an unhealthy way of keeping individuals happy in the short-term that often backfires long-term.

Clarification. AGW as currently recognised - anthro CO2 emissions - does not exist. You can only guess,wrongly,at the huge problems I have faced and dealt with successfully in my life. The implication being that I'm some type of slob with a "who gives a ****" attitude. Again,as far from reality as you can get. There is no AGW problem - why expend any time/energy/money etc etc,then. There are so,so many real problems,not imagined or fabricated ones which are screaming for attention. And I've never,ever said let's keep things as they are - only let's leave ridiculous notions of changing/steering the climate out of things. Alright?

[Cycles]

However, there is a real possibility of warming in the 3 to 6C range- or even a tipping point being hit that plunges us into rapid cooling. There is also the problem that even a modest amount of warming can lead to changes in atmospheric circulation promoting more severe depressions. There is also the problem that sea-level rises caused by melting of land-based ice could inundate coastal areas and require billions to be spent on relocation and/or sea defences.

I am sure we have all read articles concerning "the tipping point". As global cooling takes hold for the next 180 years (for some variations in years which will be warm of course), I wonder if the IPCC will say the "tipping point" was actually met and this caused the cooling?

Best Regards

David

[Thundery wintry showers]

Clarification. AGW as currently recognised - anthro CO2 emissions - does not exist. You can only guess,wrongly,at the huge problems I have faced and dealt with successfully in my life. The implication being that I'm some type of slob with a "who gives a ****" attitude. Again,as far from reality as you can get. There is no AGW problem - why expend any time/energy/money etc etc,then. There are so,so many real problems,not imagined or fabricated ones which are screaming for attention. And I've never,ever said let's keep things as they are - only let's leave ridiculous notions of changing/steering the climate out of things. Alright?

Not alright, because your assertions are wrong. I make no apology for saying that they are wrong- anthro CO2 does exist, the question is over the extent of its impacts on the climate system. Some argue that its impacts may well be negligibly small- and they might be right. But to say it doesn't exist at all is just plain wrong- and is guilty of the very thing many of the sceptics have tried to defend the likes of you as not saying.

I've seen quite a few of your posts use a clause along the lines "AGW doesn't exist, but if it does exist, don't worry about it because it can't be helped and/or it's a good thing- just rest assured it'll be okay". Not those exact words, but the same general gist. If your position isn't "rest assured everything'll be fine" type burying head in the sand then I can only think you're on here- as Osmposm has referred to a few times- to wind up those who don't write off AGW.

[laserguy]

Not alright, because your assertions are wrong. I make no apology for saying that they are wrong- anthro CO2 does exist, the question is over the extent of its impacts on the climate system......I can only think you're on here- as Osmposm has referred to a few times- to wind up those who don't write off AGW.

My assertions are not wrong,they are 100% correct. I'm struggling to work out if the warmers are sincere in what they say,or just haven't got a clue,or are indeed part of the scam/hoax/fraud or whatever label one wants to use. The fact that countless billions are being spent to usher in what does indeed amount to a new world order,under the lunatic notion/guise of influencing global climate by tinkering around with a truly minute amount (the anthro contribution) of what is already a truly miniscule natural trace gas is,is,is well I can't find the words.

Actually no,I don't intentionally come on here to wind anyone up,though it does seem increasingly obvious that I've got a talent for hitting the soft white underbelly of the AGW congregation. I care passionately about what's going down under our noses and what's going to come of it - that's why I won't let go,though in my heart I know it's all for nothing;the die is cast and it's an utter tragedy which no words can begin to portray. Don't know about you,TWS,but I'm a parent and would happily die for my kid - whatever that's actually supposed to mean. I want him to see the world in which he grows up in become a proggressively better place,and the same is true for all it's inhabitants. This ridiculous climate change malarky will only have the exact opposite effect.

Oh look,right on cue:

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Ci...-global-warming

Anyway I must apologise to Mr Dilley (all power to you,sir!) as this thread is/has become something other than 'stated on the tin'. Carry on...

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't agree with the popular argument "the Hadley Centre scientists are more knowledgeable than you so they know better"- but one related point that does hold true is, since they're more knowledgeable than you, how can you be so sure that you are right and they are wrong?

You are also very intolerant of any views that vaguely differ from the ones you express on here- as shown by things like "lunatic" and "scam/hoax/fraud". This kind of attitude is why my blood boils when I get sceptics rallying to your defence and saying "Laserguy is entitled to his opinion and his opinion is equally as valid as yours". It goes back to a quote from Osmposm:

"Well, I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is: You have no right to your opinion." wink.gif

George Carlin (1937-2008)

...which, if accepted, produces a double standard- the intolerant are allowed to be as intolerant as they like because if you don't tolerate it you're being intolerant... I know fine well that if I displayed one-tenth of this arrogance from a pro-AGW position I'd be shot down. Instead the rules should be the same for everybody. Either I should be allowed to be as intolerant as others, or, more preferably, they should be required to be as tolerant as others require me to be.

As for "would happily die for one's kid"- I've always disliked that self-sacrifice thing, where you show dedication as measured by how much you would sacrifice for it. It encourages people to sacrifice more than they need to in order to achieve a goal- here, if a parent dies, the kid's life ends up unhappier because the parent is now missing. Funnily enough, we get that point crop up in climate change discussions re. points like "I'd be willing to sacrifice all modern technology for the sake of stopping AGW", to which the same kind of objection applies.

I can understand that you may well care about the future of the planet, but the truth is, we're not going to have a brighter future unless enough of us look at the hard facts instead of forming strong prejudices about issues like AGW and then fitting "evidence" around them.

[laserguy]

TWS,shouldn't you be off watching that environmentally-friendly motor-racing thingy? "We must act now,stop burying our heads in the sand blah blah". Only when it suits of course. Waiting for the howls of protest 'cos in a massive guilt relieving/placation of the Greenies excercise,F1 no doubt chucks pots of money at lord knows what types of 'worthy' and 'related' causes. There goes that carbon-trading again so it'll be alright. **Sigh**.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Ah I see now:

1. I don't dismiss AGW out of hand, so therefore I should be lumped together with those hypocritical extremists who preach that everyone should give up cars, yet a second later go off on large CO2-belching flights to the other end of the world.

2. I watch Formula One, and therefore from point 1 it follows that my lack of dismissal of AGW must be wrong, and therefore Laserguy must be right.

Honestly those arguments are laughable. I've stated many times that I hold a position that we need to strike a good balance between "cleaning up our act" and avoiding forcing more sacrifices than are necessary to achieve a certain amount of environmental gain (which is one thing that various draconian measures- including carbon trading and the like- risk doing). But it seemingly falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.

[Cycles]

At times we hear AGW people indicate that atmospheric carbon dioxide shows anthropogenic isotopes associated witht he burning of fossil fuels.

Question....Atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently near 387 PPM...does anyone know what percentage of the CO2 ppm show these isotops??

[johnholmes]

if only if only all of us could simply give our point of view and leave everyone to make their own mind up. Why oh why do we have to resort to ya boo discussions.

It makes the thread so tedious instead of interesting. All of us are entitled to our viewpoint-we should each respect that viewpoint.

end of another jh rant.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I would be prepared to go along with that if the rules were the same for everybody, but they are not.

The problem is along the lines "I'm entitled to my opinion. My opinion is that I am right, everyone else is wrong and no-one else has a right to their opinion. My opinion is equally as valid as your opinion that I should be less dismissive of other people's views. Therefore you have to let me be as intolerant as I like". That creates a double standard- how far are we expected to tolerate the intolerant?

Not to mention "AGW is a myth because pigs fly. I can't be wrong, because it's my opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion".

End of rant.

As for the % of CO2 that is anthropogenic it is still pretty small. The argument, rightly or wrongly, is that even a small increase can influence climate.

[Iceberg]

I also agree John upto a point.

GWO are turning climate change on it's head, with what at best is pseudo science and at worse a delibrate attempt to mislead.

None of it make any sense, the predictions have been laughably wrong.

I fully support that people are entitled to views and opinions, but when something pretends to be something it's not i.e written theories etc pretending to be sound unbias peer reviewed science when it's nothing of the kind this needs to be commented on.

BTW the peer down to have peer reviewed this are all very biased and of dubious credentials.

[Cycles]

I also agree John upto a point.

GWO are turning climate change on it's head, with what at best is pseudo science and at worse a delibrate attempt to mislead.

None of it make any sense, the predictions have been laughably wrong.

I certainly would not say that the ENSO forecasts by world agencies have been on the button, most have been calling for a La Nina into the summer but it has already become neutral conditions and the temperatures in all regions of Nino 1 thru 4 are above mean values.

"Does this make their forecasts laughably wrong"?

[Iceberg]

Again GWO you are far far from the truth.

Here's the prediction made by ECM (one of the worlds top 3 ENSO predictors) back in December.

Funnily enough it's very very accurate and does not in your words predict a La nina into the summer.

Your ability to misrepresent what has happened does not bode well for those wishing to think much of your thoeries.

[MR EXTREMES]

i thought a el nino was due this summer not la nina.

[Cycles]

Again GWO you are far far from the truth.

Here's the prediction made by ECM (one of the worlds top 3 ENSO predictors) back in December.

Funnily enough it's very very accurate and does not in your words predict a La nina into the summer.

Your ability to misrepresent what has happened does not bode well for those wishing to think much of your thoeries.

Thank you for pointing out the ECM forecast, look's like ECM had a better forecast than other agencies I saw (NOAA and Scripps for instance). Congrats to ECM.

I changed my forecast a few months ago, pushing the timing of the warming of the sea surface temps to the tail end of the PFM cycle, and it looks like ECM and I are in good agreement, unlike some agencies or universities. This certainly does not make my forecast "laughable" as you suggest, and this type of remark is rather rude.

The SST warming is occuring on the PFM cycle as I had indicated, just at the very tail end of the cycle. Yes my forecast was a little early, but the one I issued last year is still correct for the ENSO influence on the upcoming hurricane season, and hurricane forecast agencies did realize this influence until this month (a year later than my forecast).

Now back to global cooling.....and the problem with the IPCC not recognizing the lnatural ong-term temperature and carbon dioxide cycles.

[Cycles]

Again GWO you are far far from the truth.

Here's the prediction made by ECM (one of the worlds top 3 ENSO predictors) back in December.

Funnily enough it's very very accurate and does not in your words predict a La nina into the summer.

Your ability to misrepresent what has happened does not bode well for those wishing to think much of your thoeries.

Iceberg....The ECM prediction you displayed was issued in December of 2008 and my forecast was issued in July of 2008 (5 months prior to the ECM displayed forecast).

Do you have a copy of the ECM forecast issued in either July or August of 2008??

Best Regards

David

[Iceberg]

Here's the ECM forecast from July 2008.

As you can see they were more accurate than yours. They Forecast a more postive ENSO than the GWO forecast, but there forecast was for neutral when it was neutral boardline la nina at the end, where as the GWO forecast was for the strongest El Nino for 10 years......Which to be fair couldn't have been further from the truth.

[Cycles]

Here's the ECM forecast from July 2008.

As you can see they were more accurate than yours. They Forecast a more postive ENSO than the GWO forecast, but there forecast was for neutral when it was neutral boardline la nina at the end, where as the GWO forecast was for the strongest El Nino for 10 years......Which to be fair couldn't have been further from the truth.

ECM did produce a very good forecast...again congrats. GWO's forecast was changed after January and in line with ECM's. However the other forecast agencies were all forecasting the warming in the fall of 2009. Thus ECM was the best, GWO second best and the remainder not so good. And right now it looks like ECM and GWO have the best forecast on what is likely to occur this summer.

Best Regards

David

[johnholmes]

I would be prepared to go along with that if the rules were the same for everybody, but they are not.

Ian you are a mod so surely the solution is in your hands, ensure that everyone DOES follow the rules that the mods work by.

[Iceberg]

ECM did produce a very good forecast...again congrats. GWO's forecast was changed after January and in line with ECM's. However the other forecast agencies were all forecasting the warming in the fall of 2009. Thus ECM was the best, GWO second best and the remainder not so good. And right now it looks like ECM and GWO have the best forecast on what is likely to occur this summer.

Best Regards

David

I have found a forecast compilation from July 08.

I am Sorry GWO but your forecast for the strongest El Nino of the last 10 years was further out(worse) than any of the forecasts here.

Feel free to point me to the change in forecast you made in January.?

[Cycles]

I have found a forecast compilation from July 08.

I am Sorry GWO but your forecast for the strongest El Nino of the last 10 years was further out(worse) than any of the forecasts here.

Feel free to point me to the change in forecast you made in January.?

Looks like the forecast you just posted indicated warmest in mid 2008 and then cooling, unless I am reading the graph incorrectly it does not show warming that is currently taking place.

ECM and GWO have been in agreement since my update a few months ago.

The GWO forecast is on my website GlobalWeatherOscillations.com

[Iceberg]

No it doesn't GWO but neither did YOUR July 08 Forecast which indicated the the very strong warming would occur by Dec.08. I don't believe your July 08 forecast mentioned what would happen in summer 2009.

The July 08 forecasts from the major players were more accurate for there predictions upto the end of 08 than yours and your re issued forecast in Jan still called for warming/switch to El Nino to occur imminently (this can clearly be seen in your posts on my review thread of your predictions as well).

You seem and always have shown a need to twist what has happened to fit your predictions and your theory. This is one of the main reasons I have major and severe doubts over your research.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

No it doesn't GWO but neither did YOUR July 08 Forecast which indicated the the very strong warming would occur by Dec.08. I don't believe your July 08 forecast mentioned what would happen in summer 2009.

The July 08 forecasts from the major players were more accurate for there predictions upto the end of 08 than yours and your re issued forecast in Jan still called for warming/switch to El Nino to occur imminently (this can clearly be seen in your posts on my review thread of your predictions as well).

You seem and always have shown a need to twist what has happened to fit your predictions and your theory. This is one of the main reasons I have major and severe doubts over your research.

Iceberg, you are rather aggressive and OTT...its only ENSO that has missed so far...David did have openness to change forecast. How is AGW coming on? Oh sorry failing miserably.

BFTP