On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:15:54 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:00:00 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
om:

Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
useful projections of climate change


Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can
they
predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than
the
computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm
passes
directly over your position.

I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the
demolished
neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of
Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were
never
so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner!


Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a
trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than
next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week.


And you cannot accurately predict whether next summer will be warmer or
cooler than last summer; the most you can do is make a guess -- educated
or
not.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ho...ngJudgment.pdf

Fine but little dated now.


Six years "out of date" means that the arguments are no longer valid?

Some questions/anomalies have been resolved quite recently. This one
of the ways The Great Global Warming Swindle dishonestly distorted the
truth - by knowingly using outdated or discredited research, they
say..

For example:
"Myth 3 - There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the
surface which disproves human-induced warming
We expect greater warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface
in the tropics, but the reverse is true at high latitudes. This
expectation holds whether the cause of warming is due to greenhouse
gases or changes in the Sun’s output. Until recently, measurements of
the temperature changes in the tropics in recent decades did not
appear to show greater warming aloft than at the surface. It has now
been shown that allowing for uncertainties in the observations, the
theoretical and modelling results can be reconciled with the
observations."

I understand 'the cosmic ray thingy' was originally based upon flawed
data and is currently unproved.

Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.