Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	SO THE PROs NEVER SAW IT COMING
Date:	2/20/2014 9:14:07 AM

“The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This Winter Coming.

“The cause of the tough winter, as is well known by now, is the polar vortex, a strong and persistent ridge of high pressure over the eastern Pacific and the west coast of the United States. First, it’s causing California’s drought. Second, polar winds are flowing northward around the high-pressure ridge and then plunging down along the ridge’s backside.

“What the Climate Prediction Center hasn’t been able to figure out is why that ridge has maintained its position so persistently. ‘Sometimes trying to figure out why something happened is as hard as making the forecast of what will happen.’” [Bloomberg Business Week, 18FEB14] 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-18/the-official-forecast-of-the-u-dot-s-dot-government-never-saw-this-winter-coming 

The reason they did not see this coming is because they kept their observations too narrow both historically and with respect to discipline.  They have not been listening to solar astronomers and paleo-climatologists/geophysicists.

For the past couple of years we have been (elsewhere) hearing of the paucity of sunspots. Whenever that has happened, the climate cools significantly in the years following.  The longer the lull in sunspots… the more protracted and severe is the cooling (Google: "Maunder Minimum").  Climatologists seem to be ignoring the climactic optimum (temperature maximum) which occurred about 8000 years ago in the current interglacial period (Google: "Holocene Temperature Variations").  In EVERY instance of the optimum, the temporally near side is gradually decreasing global temperatures… to some sort of limit… followed by a rapid temperature decline into the succeeding glacial period (Google: "Vostok Ice Core Data").

I am surprised by the parochial behavior of myopic meteorologists.  I am dismissive of ignorant and/or misleading journalistic coverage of this issue. A good scientist includes objective observations, respect for history (Google: "Theory of Uniformitarianism"),  and passive application of mathematically honest statistics.  A respectable journalist does not blindly represent conjecture as fact.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Meteorologists are pretty good on AGW
Date:	2/20/2014 9:25:50 AM

As a body, they are pretty good on AGW and based on the latest polls a majority do not believe in AGW.  Unlike the politicized so-called climate scientists, they understand how complex the climate is and how they can't predict the weather next week, let alone global climates 50 or 100 years from now.  My experience is that as a group they are pretty humble when it comes to the accuracy of their predictions.  Algore and his ilk.....not so much......despite being wrong once again.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Here's a good example
Date:	2/20/2014 10:46:32 AM

The attached documents have pathetic the climate models have been at predicting anything.  And this comes from meteorolgists. 

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Does all this mean ???
Date:	2/20/2014 8:19:59 PM

The sun has more effect on global climate change than my 10 year old, 4 wheel drive pickup??   Guess I need try harder.. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Yes it does.
Date:	2/21/2014 12:12:28 PM

I know it's hard to believe that a star shooting out huge amounts of energy toward the earth can have more impact on the climate than  your truck but it is sadly true. I am sorry to make you feel so insignificant but even all the trucks combined in all of the history of trucks are a mere blip when compared to the sun.  I used to think I had power to change the climate but no more......we are so tiny and insignificant.......

Name:	muddauber -	Reply
Subject:	Yes it does.
Date:	2/21/2014 12:31:52 PM

Just think of what one volcano eruption can do.  Yep, I'd agree we can and should be concerned with the results of our behavior, but we are nothing compared to "nature and natural events".

Water, that is another issue. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Yes it does.
Date:	2/21/2014 12:42:07 PM

Pinatubo out out more greenhouse gases when it erupted than man has emitted from the beginning of man.  But hey, why let a little common sense and logic get in the way of a socialist wet dream to redistribute wealth and punish successful countries.

Name:	muddauber -	Reply
Subject:	Yes it does.
Date:	2/24/2014 10:13:04 AM

One has to wonder. If the "Pros" did not see this weather pattern for this winter, why not?

Then I got to wondering if no one really conisdered the effect of millions of gallons of radioactive water/ debris dumped into the ocean.  If that debris field is getting close to the west coast, I assume the radioactive waste is also.  Surely that much had to be cooled as it disbursed, meaning that the waters had to have warmed. Just speculating as I have never seen any evidence to consider.