If Global Warming Kills Us, Blame the Weatherman?

What’s the difference between weather and climate?
Weather forecasters get some forecasts right!

Chicago’s second best known meteorologist, Jerry Taft, is pictured. Though, no one can touch Tom Skilling(Jeff’s brother) at WGN.
REPLY: ah, the chipmunk. – A

The weather may not kill, but life expectancy riding in suicide clown cars can kill. Maybe that’s how they get the health care savings.
Our weather caster operates in ‘tourist beach mode’, so getting the forecasts right is strictly an accident. The EPA put out the first ever CO2 rules for cars and trucks, so you see where this is headed. No word on the output of CO2 for bicycle riders — The healthy in shape riders put out more CO2 than the doofus rider.

Weather Babes make no bad forecasts, just wrong ones sometimes. 😉
But seriously…
Andrew

Generally, meteorologists make very poor climatologists and visa versa…the first may be able to tell me about tomorrow, or possibly next week, but doesn’t know a thing about the next century, and the other will probably forget to carry their umbrella for the predicted rain tomorrow, but may very well know what the climate for N. Canada will be in 2150…

Van Denton who is on WGHP is by far the best in North Carolina.He explains the weather and thing to look for.He doesn’t just go on TV and tell you what NOAA is saying like some i’ve seen.

R. Gates (11:51:40) :
Generally, meteorologists make very poor climatologists and visa versa…the first may be able to tell me about tomorrow, or possibly next week, but doesn’t know a thing about the next century, and the other will probably forget to carry their umbrella for the predicted rain tomorrow, but may very well know what the climate for N. Canada will be in 2150…
—————————
Reply:
Or not. Trust your civilization to someone who “may very well know”… or to this same person who “may very well NOT know”.
Besides, having worked with intellectuals that couldn’t beat their way out of a paper bag, I’d trust the guy who remembered his umbrella when it rained, not the guy who didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t/whatever.

R. Gates (11:51:40) :
Can you name one climatologist who has a good record of prediction?

From Morrison’s article:
“The CJR’s writer, Charles Homans, came to the conclusion that many meteorologists have an earthy confidence in their own intuition. From near the end of his article:
The biggest difference I noticed between the meteorologists who rejected climate science and those who didn’t was not how much they knew about the subject, but how much they knew about how much they knew—how clearly they recognized the limits of their own training.
… when [Fox meteorologist Bob] Breck talked to local schools and Rotaries and Kiwanis clubs about climate change, he presented his own ideas: warming trends were far more dependent on the water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, he told them, and the appearance of an uptick in global temperatures was the result of the declining number of weather stations in cold rural areas. These theories were not only contradictory of each other, but had also been considered and rejected by climate researchers years ago. But Breck didn’t read much climate research… bold emphasis mine
That people like Charles Homans can get a pass on what is in bold and have it be taken seriously is a sorry state of affairs. It is obvious who doesn’t read much cliimate research.

This site shows how well forecasters are doing at different locations
http://www.forecastadvisor.com/

Steve Goddard said:
“R. Gates (11:51:40) :
Can you name one climatologist who has a good record of prediction?”
___________
We’ll have to wait another hundred years or so to find out 🙂

Everyone cares what the weatherman says, no one cares what the climatologist says. Everyone knows who the weathermen/women are no one know/cares who the climatologists are.
Climatologists (and their families) have a 99.999% probability of going to their supermarket (church, job, school, etc.) and not seeing anyone who gives them a lot of static.
Weathermen and women (and their families) have a 99.999% probability of going to the same supermarket (church, job, school, etc.) and seeing someone who gives them a lot of static.
*It probably only seems like 99.999%:-)

R. Gates (14:51:23) :
So you are suggesting that after 99 years, temperatures may suddenly increase 6C and sea level may suddenly rise 2 metres?
It is already becoming clear that many projections for climate change are much too high.

In New Zealand we have flat-chested weathergirls mostly. Not much attitude from any of ’em, altho I admit I rarely look — nothing to look at.

The fellow who wrote this article has, obviously, NEVER looked at a typical meteorolgy textbook.
If he had, he’d realize that the daily Weatherman knows about as much about the radiation exchange between the sun, the Earth, the atmosphere and space as the “average” climate “scientist”.
He knows enough (thank you Dr. Elsasser) to know that CO2 is included in the base derivation of the day to day heat up and cool down Elsasser charts. However, the contribution on the Upflux chart is EQUAL to the CO2 contribution on the DOWNFLUX chart, so they cancel.
THUS the day to day balance is based on the WATER VAPOR DISTRIBUTION only.
Maybe THAT is why the mere, puny, “intellectual lightweight” (by the author’s implication) have a profound dis”belief” (it should not be a FAITH matter, Easter is, NOT Atmospheric Science!) in AWG.
And, SURPRISE, it may be the AUTHOR’s general lack of knowlege in the area which is being reflected in HIS judgement upon people far more knowledgeable than he is, rather than THEIR inability to “understand”.
I think Freud called it, “Transference”.
Max

OT, but this graph keeps looking better every day!!
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

That observation about how weak our understanding is about climate change, and the fact that all climate change predictions are next to useless has been recognized as the truth by many leading atmospheric physicists and many other real scientists. What’s most disturbing is the fact that far too many people believe it’s the other way around – that it’s a consensus among leading scientists that we do know most of what there is to know about climate change, and that we can predict it to less than a degree over 50-100 years, which of course is all BS. We can blame much of this on the lack of professionalism of the media, and the many so called climate scientists, who are just career opportunists who bend every rule in the book to peddle their beliefs.

Ref – Max Hugoson (16:04:37) :
“The fellow who wrote this article has, obviously, NEVER looked at a typical meteorolgy textbook…”
_______________________
Doubt the article would have been much better if he had.
Ref – Max Hugoson (16:06:31) :
Pascvaks: NYC Garbage collector – $75 K a year.
________________________
Guess I should have said: Manhattan, KS:-)
Ref – Peter of Sydney (16:38:15) :
“…We can blame much of this on the lack of professionalism of the media, and the many so called climate scientists, who are just career opportunists who bend every rule in the book to peddle their beliefs.”
_______________________
There is no honor among thieves.

Pascvaks (15:59:22) :
Those were some unnecessary slurs against historians. We don’t try to predict the future (unless you are talking about the Marxist variety, which is an unfortunate subset). All we’re trying to do is either explain the present, or try to understand why things fell out the way they did in the past. We know that people don’t care about our discipline – we’ve got the salaries to prove it. Generally, we’re not arrogant – we’re being too thankful that we have a job. (None of these traits apply to hard-line Marxist historians, who probably do merit some of your slurs.) Not in my wildest imaginings would I ever have predicted that anyone could draw parallels between historians and climatologists. What have you got against historians?

DirkH (12:47:07) :
Again and again the idea pops up that it’s as easy to prognosticate what the entire planet is doing in 100 years than what a certain region will have for weather in 3 days.
I don’t know, i absolutely have no clue whoever had that idea in the first place, and i don’t know by now how it can be defended. I haven’t seen a good defense of this completely unfounded, crazy idea.
I think the idea stems from observing other areas of science/engineering and then (incorrectly as far as I am concerned) extrapolated it into climate “science”.
The idea of being able to accurately model something on a larger scale (time, distance, mass etc.) that can’t be accurately modelled on a smaller scale is a valid one in, say, orbital mechanics. We sure as hell can’t work out all the quantum-level subatomic interactions that make up the solar system as we know it but we can say with some certainty and accuracy where the planets will be at any given time in the future.
Applying this type of mindset to climatology is a flawed approach though. The relative scales of weather and climate are too close and there is a lack of solid data for the larger scale processes that could allow us to form suitable rules without the need to reflect back into the more chaotic world of weather.
Cheers
Mark
For instance, if you try to model all the quantum level interactions between all

Van Denton who is on WGHP is by far the best in North Carolina.He explains the weather and thing to look for.He doesn’t just go on TV and tell you what NOAA is saying like some i’ve seen.
That’s what I like about the forecasters here in PDX. They actually show the upper level flow and features and explain for the avg person what it means. It also gives those of us with a background in meterology light into their reasoning.

Steve Goddard (11:27:27) :
Climate models are essentially extended weather models + some parameters that vary over long periods of time.
Everyone who works with these models understands that weather models are of very limited value after about three days, due to chaos. So it is astonishing that climate scientists believe these same core models for decades or centuries.
The whole concept of climate feedback is that today’s weather affects tomorrow’s. If you can’t get today right, you definitely won’t get tomorrow right either. This is known as compounding errors.
It would be hard to guess correctly when you, in particular, will die, but insurance companies can guesstimate the “life expectancy” of people like you very well.
It would be hard to predict what a random roll of a die would produce, and making that prediction 6000 times would not make you any more proficient, but you could predict pretty closely how many sixes you would roll in 6000 tosses.
It’s also hard to predict the exact weather for Honolulu 3 years from now (April 2) by making 1095 sequential one day forecasts, but knowing its climate helps one make a very good guesstimate:
http://www.to-hawaii.com/images/clip_image002.gif
This is known as using the appropriate concepts for the problem at hand.
This is why physics and chemistry are two separate fields of science.
This is why meteorology and climatology are two separate fields of science.

I have a lot of respect for meteorologists, who put their reputation on the line each time they produce a forecast. However, I have little respect for the current crop of climatologists who over-promise then under deliver. Why are these people still trying to prove the falsified theory of CAGW instead of trying to discover how our climate system really works?
I came across this interesting article on the topic today, which illustrates some of the problems.
“…But when it comes to providing a reliable idea of what the weather will be like in five days’ time, the Met Office has admitted that its computer-generated forecast is about as dependable as an August bank holiday heatwave. Amid criticism from academic researchers and rival forecasters, the state weather agency confirmed yesterday that its popular online five-day weather service, used by thousands to plan their weekend activities, cannot be relied on to give an accurate forecast.
The admission comes after academics called for all Met Office predictions to be made the subject of independent scrutiny and for them to avoid over-simplification of forecasts. One survey found that over a three-week period, two-thirds of the Met Office five-day forecasts failed to remain consistent, in one case making a prediction for one 24-hour period of heavy thunderstorms that then changed to clear sunshine and then to rain in successive days…”
Full article here:-
http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/forecast.htm
Interestingly, the Met Office, despite their poor performance, have this item on their web site:-
Global Comparisons
“The World Meteorological Organization compares similar statistics among national met. services around the world. These show that the Met Office is consistently one of the top two operational services in the world.”
God help the rest!

Steve Goddard (11:27:27) : Climate models are essentially extended weather models + some parameters that vary over long periods of time.
Everyone who works with these models understands that weather models are of very limited value after about three days, due to chaos. So it is astonishing that climate scientists believe these same core models for decades or centuries.
Not at all astonishing at all if you are familiar with physics and the relation between statistical mechanics and fluid mechanics in particular. The ‘real’ equations for a simple gas are the equations for the individual molecules with their interactions, i.e. Newton’s equations, a system of 3N equations in 3N unknowns, the coordinates x,y,x of each molecule, where N the number of molecules is HUGE. This system is chaotic so using it to predict the trajectories a fraction of a second later is futile since the computed and actual trajectories diverge in a fraction of second. NONETHELESS by appealing to the appropriate AVERAGES this set can be reduced to the familiar analytic equations of fluid dynamics which describe the evolution of averages (which is what temperature, pressure, fluid velocity etc really are) for a MUCH longer period (hours, days, etc, depending on the particular flow).
Alternately one can use the Monte Carlo method when it is computationally feasible. This involves producing many different ‘predictions’ of the molecule trajectories and then using these to construct the evolution of the appropriate averages (i.e. temp pressue, etc). Remarkably even though the individual trajectories are inaccurate, THE AVERAGES are.
Magic? Tell that to the physicists of the 19th century who discovered it.
The climate problem can be approached similarly as a Monte Carlo experiment by producing a collection of ‘weather predictions’ by running a weather prediction or GCM model many times. The evolution of the ‘climate’ is then extracted by taking the appropriate averages.

R. Gates (14:55:41) :
Bruce Cobb said:
(regarding climatologists…)
“They don’t have a clue what is happening to our climate, or why.”
————
Ouch…
But somehow the AGW skeptics do, right?
REPLY:
An expert is someone who knows their limitations and is humble because reality has smacked them in the face several times. In my favorite sports, rock climbing, caving and horse back riding someone who is arrogant and thinks they are an expert can end up severely injured or dead. I have lost several friends to “accidents” due to their arrogance.
Climate Scientists do not have the expertise of meteorologists because they can model and prognosticate to their hearts content without actually having reality deliver any sharp lessons. That is why meteorologists and geologists are more apt to be skeptics.
Skeptics by definition are saying if you have a theory then PROVE IT. Give us the data, let others test it and validate your findings, We know the climate is very complicated and we know we have only a very sketchy understanding of it. As has been stated many times it is up to the climate modelers to prove their theory, it is not up to skeptics to come up with the “truth” Our job is to point out the emperor has no clothes and nothing more.