• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stadiumwave

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
  • Location:
    Murray, Kentucky

Recent Profile Visitors

1,451 profile views
  1. FWIW...something else to look at. Josh Herman initialized his RRWT model yesterday, which is based on reoccurring rosby wave train. It did well early last year until SSW shakeup, struggled after that. 30 days NOV 24-DEC24 90 days NOV 24-FEB22 You East Coast folks will like the look 9f last week of DEC & beginning of JAN DEC 25-29 DEC 30-JAN 3
  2. I do not have a dog in this fight. Firm believer in AGW...however, the history of Arctic temps is a moving target.
  3. Dr. Judith Curry retweeted this yesterday This kind making the point I've been pointing out in this thread: distrust is growing in science community
  4. He is in the same mold as Dr. Curry. Again, just because facts show that one aspect of Climate Change is not playing out as the narrative says does not equal denial. That's the point of what myself, Dr. Curry, & many others are blowing the whistle about. It's not science. For instance, look at the trend of strong to violent tornado trend since 1954 per NOAA records & its obvious there are issues about AGW we do not understand. The trend does not line up with the predictions. The AMS: (NOAA's data below) Why can't we just be humble & say "there is much we do not understand yet"? Instead we'd rather say "we know", "we know", "we know". Just like this whole attribution joke about a heatwave that just occurred within a few weeks ago. And beyond comprehension blazes through Peer Its bullcrap & you know it. You think that'll stop the alarmist from shouting AGW as the cause of the next EF-5? Heck no! And many of those who no better will say nothing. And the ones who do say something will be labeled as deniers of AGW although that is not true at all.
  5. is another example of why there is distrust in the science community. Trust me there is...Dr. Curry has written much about it:
  6. If the Euro Weeklies are correct a new minimum is inevitable. Big signal for dipole pattern continuing throughout August This is day 8-13, 5 day average. That's a strong signal for 8-13 day, 5-day average
  7. Not much acceleration since around 1970. You had the big acceleration from 1940-late 1960's then not much acceleration since, but no big decelerations either like previous years. The steep increase from around 1920 is still curious. Again, AGW effect is there the last 50 years but back in 1920's-30's C02 PPM was not high enough to attribute to AGW & for anyone that argues it was then we have to admit % had to have been a minuscule.
  8. It's the crap like this pointed out today by Dr. Judith Curry. Using info for convenience is just bologna. BTW, while we're on the 1930's...the new bullcrap of trying to say it was only regional warming is not impressive when plain evidence is there it was least in the N. Hemisphere. Also the trying to minimize the 1930's with crappy educated explanations are not impressive either. Those heatwaves were certainly not C02 & the land argument is laughable. With all of that said...I'm not saying AGW is not a fact, it obviously is. And yes I believe its AGW, not just GW. But honest objective discussions & not history revision is needed. And certainly we need responsible realistic action. I'm all for that to. My posts are not about any of that. My posts are about the exaggeration, fearmongering, lack of objectivity, flat out lying about history to cause action really is & will hurt science in the long run. It does not take a very smart objective person to admit there is some truth to what I'm saying. EDIT: And I'm certainly not saying any of this about Don. He is one of the best, respected posters on the forum.
  9. Yea...the "serious scientists" are those who stay true to the narrative never questioning our understanding of anything, which is what a "serious scientist" should do. And scientist that does not stay 100% true to the consensus narrative is labeled a "fruit cake" paid for by big oil companies. You do not have to be a denier to humbly admit lots of real, objective research needs to continue. But some of these "real scientists" as you call them, seek to burn at the stake any scientist who applies critical objective thinking & research. Amazing, some of these "fruit cake", paid for by big oil companies scientists, are not even deniers. They merely make humble statements of questioning our understanding of the processes & future implications, while all the while affirming AGW as a fact. But because they do NOT stick to the "damnation" narrative they are sought to be burned at the stake. Yes...there are the few real "deniers" that most folks ignore & rightfully so. But we should not ignore other scientists that are objective enough & brave enough to say while we can affirm an overarching fact, our total understanding of the processes underneath that fact still needs MUCH progress. And the progress of understanding the processes better may impact our understanding of the future.
  10. has always made new discoveries that changes the way we understand things. So...not understanding all forcing mechanisms totally for sure affects the "real outcome". Cranky is correct in saying we're in infancy & any Climatologist worth their salt will agree with such. That's science! It's ok to admit that. Good grief...I know why less in the science community like to admit that because we want our confidence in our understanding of AGW to be with zero unknowns, but that's not the case & saying so is a flat out lie. It's 100% fact that percentages of attribution are not really known. We "think" this & "think" that for what appears to be solid reasons, but there is an element of uncertainty which should keep us humble & diligently researching for the truth. We should avoid bogus studies that seek to only validate the narrative. And yes there are those. And those doing that really believe they're justified in doing so for a good cause. The peer review process is usually, painfully slow. To conclude research of a recent heat wave & submit those findings for peer review & the peer review process finished (all of this in just a couple of weeks, including the heatwave) should make any objective scientist question why. You know as well as I do that's NOT how this normally works. Can there be good points from a paper? Sure! But to say we understand "attribution" of this heatwave just a few weeks ago is laughable.