What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Weather Patterns - A Discussion

OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
I am in several forums Three of them full of leftists who can't utter a coherent argument in favor of AGW claims anymore as they have realized their case it too weak and have vanished, all we get now are the bottom CO2 sniffing feeders left who are like children posting a lot of fallacies and lies.

I bet Joylessbeard has no idea what the TWO parts of the AGW is about.
I agree..

I was just discussing the trough formations with a colleague from the Boulder Co Atmospherics lab. The size and duration are consistent with the 1st half of the 20th century. This is when we had major snow accumulations during winter time. Were looking at this closely for the winter prediction phase of discussions. They formed last winter but were small. the increase this year in size may be a game changer for this winters predictions.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
You mean you haven't refuted that your claim of a being whatever type of physicist du jour is nothing other than total horseshit. There's no empirical data to back that up.
Feel free to address the empirical evidence, observations, and my assessments. I refuse to play your semantics game. I don't get into pressure gradients and upper-level flows with idiots. These are what drive GCM (global climate modeling). I do not expect you to understand anything beyond very basic items.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
84
Reaction score
11
Points
21
Feel free to address the empirical evidence, observations, and my assessments. I refuse to play your semantics game. I don't get into pressure gradients and upper-level flows with idiots. These are what drive GCM (global climate modeling). I do not expect you to understand anything beyond very basic items.

Impossible to address the empirical evidence of your being a physicist when there is none, nor has never been nor will ever be.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Impossible to address the empirical evidence of your being a physicist when there is none, nor has never been nor will ever be.
You sir, are a troll... All you want to do is find some way not to not discuss the facts and assessments.

Dont feed the troll.JPG


You need to grow up. IF that ever happens, I would love to debate the topic. I am not the topic..
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
84
Reaction score
11
Points
21
You sir, are a troll... All you want to do is find some way not to not discuss the facts and assessments.

View attachment 660298


You need to grow up. IF that ever happens, I would love to debate the topic. I am not the topic..

You're also not an atmospheric physicist. You can post whatever you like, call it whatever you want, just drop the pretense of being a professional physicist.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Moving on from the troll....

Back to topic...

Why can we not model weather accurately?

GCM's (Global Climate Model) are complex computations of multiple pressure gradients. These models are actually models within a larger model. Each model is 100kl x 100kl x 10kl deep. These are called grid squares and the distances change with latitude.

1655781554632.png


source

These grid squares are stacked as we enter different sections of the atmosphere.

The problem is thunderstorms and other micro circulations, which occur in 1-3 kl regions. You can have changes within each grid square, that change the calculations of the whole, which you cannot generate. We simply do not have the temporal or spatial resolution to model even one square correctly.

At best, you might get 3-5 days close but long term, the model will fail with 100% certainty. Most meteorologists will not trust any model beyond 24 hours. They are simply that inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
84
Reaction score
11
Points
21
Moving on from the troll....

Back to topic...

Why can we not model weather accurately?

GCM's (Global Climate Model) are complex computations of multiple pressure gradients. These models are actually models within a larger model. Each model is 100kl x 100kl x 10kl deep. These are called grid squares and the distances change with latitude.

View attachment 660304

source

These grid squares are stacked as we enter different sections of the atmosphere.

The problem is thunderstorms and other micro circulations, which occur in 1-3 kl regions. You can have changes within each grid square, that change the calculations of the whole, which you cannot generate. We simply do not have the temporal or spatial resolution to model even one square correctly.

At best, you might get 3-5 days close but long term, the model will fail with 100% certainty. Most meteorologists will not trust any model beyond 24 hours. They are simply that inaccurate.

You cannot even provide a source correctly. Holy shit.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Below is a demonstration of the top 73 GCM's and how they stack up with Empirically Observed data. This was compiled by Dr Roy Spencer of the University at Huntsville (UAH). The green circles are Empirically observed data. The green circles are weather balloon data sets, which is what we use to verify our satellite measurements with at differing altitudes.

cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11 Dr Roy Spencer.png



As you can see, the GCM's fail very quickly. Anyone who touts these as proof of AGW is deceiving you. They overestimate warming by a factor of 10. When you multiply that data point failure by the length of the record each data point becomes 10 times worse than the last data point. This means 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 etc. The original factor error is multiplied over and over again. This is how they claimed "runaway" temperatures. when they cannot exist and why GCM's fail with 100% certainty.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
I have shown why modeling is not reliable.

We still use it however, to get a feel for where we are going. It is usable in short term for weather prediction, but as I pointed out it is insufficient to predict small areas. A common example is Hurricane tracks and why we use multiple models to assess the potential path.

When you read the "chance of precipitation" number from your local weather office, what you are getting is a 100% chance of precipitation over a 100kl x 100kl square area. At 20%, only 20% of that area will receive rain. Altitude changes this number rapidly.

Weather is local. We are making changes to some models, to be more accurate, in local areas using topographical mapping and wind direction. Up slope storms will always produce more precipitation than down slope storms.

I hope that many who read this are gaining how difficult a job a meteorologist's job is. The variables are many and if you miss just one, the whole prediction phase is wrong.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
One item I forgot. The slope I marked below is a dead giveaway of the multiplication error. A simple math problem can determine the multiplication failure and what it is.

1655830782144.png
 
Last edited:
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
June 22... Sumer solstice. The longest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere. Much of the US is seeing Mid-September temperatures.

1655902937562.png
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
There is great misunderstanding about the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'. One is short term weather flows, and one is long term weather patterns.

I created this thread to help sort out and discuss short term patterns. (Less than 250 years in length). Climate defined is: the culmination of repetitive weather patterns over long periods of time. Weather defined is; cyclical patterns and flows over short periods of time.

Everything we see today is in to short of a time span to be called climate. The use of the term "Climate Change" is deceptive and devoid of science.

Here I want to discuss the flow changes we see today, our current weather cycles. In my next post I will lay out why our wide swings in the polar jet are causing areas of high temp and then followed by areas of low temperature.
Where did you get "250 years in length" and what is the definition of the phrases "long periods of time" and "short periods of time" in what you claim to be definitions?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
From NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?

What Weather Means
Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

What Climate Means
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.

For example, after looking at rain gauge data, lake and reservoir levels, and satellite data, scientists can tell if during a summer, an area was drier than average. If it continues to be drier than normal over the course of many summers, than it would likely indicate a change in the climate.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Where did you get "250 years in length" and what is the definition of the phrases "long periods of time" and "short periods of time" in what you claim to be definitions?
It is customary to define terms when doing any presentation. "Long term" is a subjective term and must be defined for discussion purposes. Without a proper and common frame of reference, it is impossible to discuss things rationally. It also stops the moving of the goal posts when dealing with alarmists. They like to change names and meanings mid discussion to confuse the subject.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
From NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?

What Weather Means
Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

What Climate Means
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.

For example, after looking at rain gauge data, lake and reservoir levels, and satellite data, scientists can tell if during a summer, an area was drier than average. If it continues to be drier than normal over the course of many summers, than it would likely indicate a change in the climate.
LOL.. and there it is.. Climate is much longer spans than 30 years. This is why I define what I am talking about. 30 years is what we use to determine the recent average of weather. This is where I vehemently disagree with my colleagues. They use a time span way to short to make any determinations as to long term climate.

You must use a time span that includes 2 full oscillations of solar variance >360 years or you will miss the influence of the sun. 30 years is barely long enough to begin to see a trend in climate. The Greenland ice cores are a perfect example of why it is too short of a snippet in time.

greenlan ice core- interglacial.PNG

You can see the oscillations in the peaks. Even 360 years is too short a span in allowing the real trends to be seen.

1655923132990.png


The overall long term trend is cooling. Our warming spike is ending right on cue with the cycle. how low will we go is anyone's guess at this point but it is going to cool.
 
Last edited:
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
IF you look at the upside and then the cooling side of each long-term spike, the drop is about 1.5 deg C after about a 0.5 deg C rise. That would be just a guess, but given the empirical evidence, probably a close idea of what the next decrease is going to be globally. Will we have a second step up or will it cool? Again, given the suns drop in output, in specific bands, that affect our oceans, it is anybody's guess.
1655935101677.png


Time to get back to topic.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,988
Reaction score
15,866
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
IF you look at the upside and then the cooling side of each long-term spike, the drop is about 1.5 deg C after about a 0.5 deg C rise. That would be just a guess, but given the empirical evidence, probably a close idea of what the next decrease is going to be globally. Will we have a second step up or will it cool? Again, given the suns drop in output, in specific bands, that affect our oceans, it is anybody's guess.
View attachment 661015

Time to get back to topic.
Another thought just hit me. What causes these rapid decreases in temp? It cannot be the orbital cycle as these happen within it. They do not appear to be periodical (set length of time). They are fairly regular, however. This leads me to believe they may be caused by our sun and changes in the fission reaction. When you look at the slight change in the fission reaction and the suns "dimming" we have just witnessed, which still continues today and the cooling affect it is currently having on our oceans, it is highly probable that this is what can cause these rapid cooling drops. Something to explore further in another thread.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$225.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top