A very odd thing happened in Science. Turns out a famous weatherman has been forecasting highs in the 60s then 70s for New York City all winter long. But the temperature never rose above the single digits, teens, twenties, and thirties.
One day a writer at the New York Post wrote an article telling people not to trust the weatherman, who, it turned out, had issued a prediction for the following day for a “High of 80!”
Climatologists stationed at NASA on the Upper West Side were incensed that a non-scientist would interfere with Science. So the climatologists spoke with the weatherman, who said he was basing his predictions on a sophisticated computer model. The weatherman admitted his difficulties, but said his model would have performed great if only he had better measures of surface snow cover.
This reasoning wholly convinced the climatologists who held a press conference at which they insisted, “Whoever disagrees with this weatherman is a science denier. The weatherman is using a sophisticated computer model, which can only get better since we have provided the weatherman with New & Improved! measures of surface snow cover.”
Cowed, the press skittered away, went home and put on their shorts to await the promised warmth. But the next day the high was only 16oF. And for the next week it was bitterly cold, yet the weatherman went on predicting a heatwave. This raised eyebrows, but since nobody wanted to be called a denier, they didn’t insist the weatherman was wrong.
The climatologists suspected, however, that something wasn’t quite right. So they called another meeting with the weatherman. He admitted he had incorporated the New & Improved! surface snow cover measurements, but that hadn’t helped much. And besides, there wasn’t anything wrong after all. The model was still great—better than great—but it was natural variability that was to blame for the wayward observations. “Nobody,” he said, “Can anticipate natural variability.”
Again, the climatologists were convinced by this argument and they called another press conference. “The model this weatherman is using is correct,” they said. “It is really a quite excellent model. But natural variability interfered with observations.”
A man in the audience, a non-tenured engineering professor, was perplexed. He was bold enough to ask, “But that doesn’t make any sense. Natural variability is what the weather is. What you’re really saying is that the model does a poor job of representing the weather.”
“That is false,” the climatologists said. “The model is terrific. From whom do you receive your funding?”
The engineering professor said, “Well, partly from a company that manufactures a specialized product. But what does that matter? Your model said the temperature would be high and instead it was low. That can only mean the model is wrong.”
Now the engineering professor didn’t know it, but his Dean was watching the press conference. The Dean was embarrassed that he had a science denier in his department and the next day he moved to have the young professor terminated. A reporter (shivering like mad and dressed in a t-shirt) heard about the firing and asked the climatologists for their opinion.
“That this man was fired is proof of his incompetence. He wasn’t even a meteorologist. He obviously had a conflict of interest by receiving money from companies that might benefit from his work. This proves the model the weatherman is using is a good one.” And the reporter believed.
Meanwhile, a team of scientists argued that the model didn’t work and they offered a suggestion why it might be busted. They published their thoughts in a science journal, which caught the attention of the small fraction of the public who were tired of having to wear skimpy clothes in frigid temperatures merely to prove they were not science deniers.
The climatologists quickly called another conference to assure the public that all was well in hand. “The team’s suggestion of why the weatherman’s model is broken can’t possibly be right. Therefore the weatherman’s model must be a good one. Only science deniers can deny this.”
The weatherman continued predicting hot air, but only cold air was to be seen. Some in the public grumbled louder. So the climatologists contacted the state authorities. The governor and state legislature were brought in, as were educational, union, and business leaders. All begin promoting the climatologists’ message that the weatherman was right and the weather wrong. The president of the United States eventually came to the rescue with an official list of Science Deniers. He said that those who love Science should “go after” the deniers.
Which they did. And then everybody died of pneumonia.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Quaint tale. The Boy who cried “DENIER”.
Yes, I also immediately thought of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”!
“Yes, I also immediately thought of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”!”
And the boy who cried, “ICPP!”
But it was just running down his Leg…and that is another story
I like Animal Farm where some pigs were more equal than others.
Brilliant analogy
Somehow I think it would benefit from having the modeller also hold undisclosed large holdings in the pharma companies for pneumonia vaccines and treatments. It’s the undisclosed conflicts of interest driving this nonsense.
Yes, and with a happy ending.
Totally agree, too bad there aren’t 10 gold stars to “click” on.
Bit unfair to make out that it’s the weatherman who gets it wrong (as I’m sure Anthony would agreee).
What is the difference between a meteorologist and a climate scientist? When a meteorologist is wrong, he loses his job; when a climate scientist is wrong, he gets another grant.
As they say, “To err is human, but to really § ‰♣ up, you need a government.”
Ah yes, but the theme seems to be “you need a government sponsored model”.
“Written observations from the period of the Maunder Minimum referred to the wind coming from the east during particularly cold winters, which strengthened the team’s “blocking” hypothesis.
The way in which solar activity affects the behaviour of blocking episodes is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.
Solar UV heats the stratosphere (20-50km above the surface), particularly the equatorial stratosphere. This results in a temperature gradient, which leads to the formation of high level winds.
“The change in solar activity undoubtedly changes the stratospheric winds,” said Professor Lockwood.
Studies have shown that the state of the stratosphere can make a considerable difference to what happens in the troposphere, which is where the jet stream occurs, Professor Lockwood explained.
“There has been some quite simple modelling that indicated that heating the equatorial stratosphere with more UV would actually move the jet streams a little bit, by just a few degrees.
“That, of course, has the potential to change the behaviour of the jet streams – and that is the sort of thing that we think we are seeing.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8615789.stm
17 km polar vortex.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-157.40,91.70,344
Do you really blockade works “locally”?
An enjoyable fictional homily. It must be fictional as no weatherman or climatologist could possibly be as stupid in real life as those in this fictional story, right?
No. No, of course not. 😉
I am reminded of a story a co-worker told of a TV weatherman in Denver in the late 60’s / early 70’s. Seems he was almost always wrong, so much that the residents could depend on it. If he said it would be sunny and clear, better take the raingear. Forecast of rain this weekend, go ahead and plan the picnic. Everyone was happy. Then a big surge of outsiders moved in, didn’t know about the system and got him taken off the air. The results, they when from 95% of what not to expect to 60% of knowing what to expect. The old timers that knew the code were not happy.
His forecast should have been: “Cloudy otherwise clear”
I have posted this before – but at about eight or nine, I and three co-pupils forecast weather to Mrs Elam’s class (at a school in London); our take – in Spring, I think – was that tomorrow will be just like today.
We [Dicky, Vil, Uppy and me] did this for a week – and I think we were as good as the Met. Office.
I would still like to know when the Met Office [or any other forecaster] beat ‘same as today’ in temperate climes like the UK over – say – three consecutive months.
Auto
Melbourne has a $24billion desalinisation plant to prove you wrong.
Oddly enough there is a commercial on TV recently in Ontario (I think) – A weatherman who predicts a sunny, warm day, only to come outside and find it snowing heavily.
I think someone in one advertising agency is a Skeptic….
The most famous ‘epic fail’ weather forecast in England is that by Michael Fish on 15th October 1987.
Weather forecasts in England are not interactive phone-in programmes where members of the public give their own opinions. So it was odd when, the now infamous weather presenter Michael Fish said “Earlier on today a woman rang the BBC to say she’d heard there was a hurricane on the way. Well, if you’re watching, don’t worry there isn’t ”
It was also odd, because we don’t get hurricanes, ever.
But Michael Fish’s words of reassurance have passed into the national consciousness.
From Wikipedia
We don’t know who the woman who phoned in was.
I fully remember that day, night and the following morning morning! Thanks Mr. Fish. I can’t believe this, it’s actually on YouTube!!
To be fair to forecasters and public officials, the 1987 hurricane was an example of the storm suddenly getting more intense as it arrived in Southern England.
There have several cases in the US the past few years where serious storms have been forecast on the East coast, warnings have been issued and then the storm was less bad than expected.
Reality is: sometimes you’re going to get it wrong.
Reality is: sometimes you’re going to get it wrong.
==============
a coin toss gets it wrong less often than the climate models. this takes real skill and suggests that whatever the models predict, bet on the opposite being true.
ferdberple
February 27, 2015 at 5:35 am
A 50%/50% chance from a meteorologist’s perspective is quire a high probability. Like playing Russian roulette with 3 rounds loaded in the chamber.
Reality is: sometimes you’re going to get it wrong.
==============
The modellers think reality is what gets it wrong.
I think the woman’s son was studying the weather charts and told his mother to stay at home because it looked like a severe storm was on the way. So she called in to the BBC and was mocked on TV that night.
P.S. She did choose her son’s advice over that of the BBC and suffered no ill effects.
For me, the most infamous weather forecast was in Maine when I was going to college. The local Channel 5 weatherman said that there was a light dusting of snow coming in over the weekend – “you’ll be able to sweep it out of the driveway with a broom.” 36 hours and 40 inches of snow on the level – 6 feet or more in the drifts later, the light dusting finally stopped.
Gaia? 😉
@ur momisugly MikeB “we don’t know who the woman that phoned was” … Gaia?;)
How about this one in 1979 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Fastnet_race
Sarah Jane?
Yes that is (or had been this winter) a regular commercial in Ontario and was an ad for an SUV. At least when he picked up his freezing wife/girlfriend at the corner, in the snow, his next prediction was for “an expensive meal” or not a threat.
I think some of the idea is modeled on the poor forecasting by a major network here, but the intent is to show it is best to be prepared with a reliable SUV.
http://youtu.be/6oTG-6U6YGs
At the time, I felt quite sorry for the Met Office because I never expected their models to have sufficient skill and thought they were doing the best they could. But they copped a lot of grief.
I think it may have marked a turning point where they decided they were better off predicting disaster than actually trying to tell the truth as they saw it. As a result, I now trust their weather predictions less.
If the Met Office predicts bad weather and they’re wrong, nobody gets hurt. If they predict good weather and they’re wrong, chances are somebody gets hurt. Better to play it safe and err on the side of pessimism. Or use loaded dice and a bad penny.
Otter, you may enjoy this vid on Canadian weather forecasting.
We will always have Environment Canada’s (motto – Cloudy with a chance of making stuff up.) +1 degree weather near the end of the 7-day forecast to give us hope.
My wife and I were acquainted in the late 1970s with a local weatherman in Terre Haute, IN, named Dave Kirk, who often spoke about the vagaries of actually predicting the future (which tomorrow’s weather assuredly is). He said, “My biggest worry is when folks have to shovel eight inches of partly cloudy.” While Dave was an excellent local weatherman, he did have the occasional missed forecast–as many weathercasters still do, even with far more sophisticated and comprehensive gear to work with.
It would have improved the article if he or she gave us a time frame other than an old picture from the Godfather era.
…or instead used the image of the War Room from ‘Dr Strangelove.’
Paul: My guess is that as the head pic is marked IWM, I figure it’s from the Imperial War Museum. I think it shows a pre-sortie briefing for air-crews during WWII.
It won’t be a pre-mission briefing because (a) all the top table are in civvies (b) none of the audience are in uniform or flying kit but most telling (c) the map display is far too wide ranging and large scale from Moscow on the left, Italy in the middle to India on the right. More likely it’s some sort of strategic conference – but the lack of uniforms is puzzling.
Harry: Good guess
PRESS GETS PICTURE OF AUSTRALIA AT WAR: PRESS CONFERENCE HELD AT THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, LONDON, ENGLAND, UK, 1944
In the Ministry of Information conference hall at Senate House, journalists listen to speeches given by three members of a delegation of British Newspaper Proprietors, who have just returned from Australia. Left to right, the panel are: Sir Neville Pearson, Sir Walter Layton, Mr Ernest Thirtle (parliamentary secretary to the MoI), Mr Samuel Storey MP and Mr J H Brebner (director of the MoI news division).
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205195748
Unfortunately, most of the characters in this little parody will not recognise themselves and so will carry on their merry way.
This graphic goes very nicely with the above post. The story is more or less where we are now. No matter what the evidence they insist they are right or will be right – then move the goalposts as usual.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
This image should be added to the following wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Many thanks to William Briggs for writing this, and to Anthony for cross posting it.
You forgot to add that the climatologists ran it through their models too and that, when adjusted to account for the increase in co2, it was indeed the hottest temperatures ever modeled.
“You forgot to add that the climatologists ran it through their models too each model generated a totally different result some very much hotter and some slightly cooler but the climatologists averaged the results of all the models and that average ‘temperature’, when adjusted to account for the increase in co2, it was indeed the hottest temperatures ever modeled.”
Please do not conflate “climatologist” with “climate modeller”. An important distinction.
Cheers.
Climastrologists ?
Good allegory, but leaves out the part where it is the people’s fault that it “will” be so warm, and that they need to all make sacrifices, lowering their living standards even if already low, “for the good of the planet”.
Below is a WUWT post that tells the real story of the cattle killing movement of the 19th century Xhosa of South Africa. After suffering defeats and subjugation from the British the following is what happened.
This is where we are headed with the war on co2.
The cattle killing true story continues:
The failure of the prophecy is blamed on the deniers. Never does it occur to the believers that the prophecy itself might be at fault. Each failure of the prophecy simply reinforces the belief that someone else is to blame. Never do the believers consider that the problem lies in their belief system.
Sounds familiar somehow. Almost like a pattern that is repeated time and time again throughout history. Until the false belief leads the system to collapse, and a new system replaces the old.
Very funny, but you forgot the “We are talking GLOBAL – New York City is not the globe, weather is not climate, extreme weather is caused by CO2 emissions, what is happening is exactly what the model predicts” cliches.
But it was a “computer model!” Al Gore has assured me that computer models are “very sophisticated” and that we should faith in them, since Al Gore said they are “very sophisticated.” And we all know that Al Gore knows science, after all he invented that inter-web device thing
That’s how Enron accounting was described. “Very sophisticated”
Ah, but you are leaving out a key part of this, and one that actually happens without any exaggeration.
As you note and as I believe although it is on a somewhat anecdotal basis, weather forecasts these days seem to have a built in high bias in their temperature estimates, generally a bias of around 1-2 F or 1 C. I have observed this, day after day, on the Weather Underground forecasts for Durham, for example. There are two problems with this. One is the obvious statistical one that if the weather prediction was as accurate as it should be, it would have zero bias and be too high as often as too low, but without a set of data to analyze to prove it, I almost never see it being too low but too high is “all the time”.
The second is more important and insidious. People don’t actually go back and look at what the weather was. The forecast in the newspaper or on the web is their perception of the temperature on any given day. If WU says (as it does today) that we’ll have a high of 42 (though on their own running forecast graph the high is forecast to be 40 F) then to most people that is what the high temperature will have been even if it never gets over 38F. Ditto for the lows, only worse. I often see that the low temperature for today is (say) 32 F even though the temperature outside at the time I’m reading the day’s forecast is 27 F. They can’t even hindcast the daily high/low temperature, and somebody who got up an hour later might look at the temperature outside of 32 and go “Yeah, dead on”. (It’s been very amusing looking at the nearly total inaccuracy of WU’s prediction of air pressure, BTW — the running graph nearly always has a huge discontinuity at the line representing the present.)
So you see, there is a purpose to the too-high forecasts. It perpetuates the illusion of GW. Of course on the good side, they are just predicting the weather that we are supposed to be having 50 years from now and it is amazingly non-catastrophic (or no more so than usual).
Sigh,
rgb
Before you condemn them, check the minimum temperatures
They may be using a trick of perception. If you give a low of 50 and a high of 80, people think: temperatures 50-80 and if it is to 55-79, they think “Accurate”. However, if you predict low of 60 and high of 78 and the the temperatures are 55-79, people think that you were wrong despite having the exact same error on your two measurements.
If the minimums are 1-2C high too, it could be a warm bias in the model. However, if they are 1-2C low, they are expanding their range to avoid being considered “wrong”
Weather underground is run by one of the biggest alarmists’ out there….
At one time, about a decade ago, I thought WU was the most comprehensive weather site. About 3 or 4 years ago the alarmist CAGW propaganda began to reach a feverish pitch on the site. It was like a warmists hive and they would seek to indoctrinate the children and spawn new warmists.
I have never returned to the site and began to use wxweb at MeteoStar instead. Unfortunately it looks like they are in the process of becoming a fee based site, so that option may be limited in the future. For me, a visit to WU is akin to financially backing the CAGW position.
rgb we have this constantly on our ozzie ABC TV weather where ‘above average temperatures’ is what one hears but very rarely ‘below average’ Even the predicted temps for the next day are often said that they will set a record.Of course the next day the temps are nowhere near the predicted values. FW’s
In Oklahoma City it seems that they are generally pretty temperature accurate when it’s cloudy but don’t seem to factor in the sun’s warming when not cloudy so tend to undershoot on sunny days.
The one big mistake noted during the 1999 F5 tornado is when one TV station was advising going to the center of the house and 2 other stations were telling people to leave their homes and go to shelters. Not bright to stay in a house with an F5 approaching unless there is no choice.
Dr Brown … I have noticed the same high bias in the Australian BoM forecasts for Brisbane. To my mind this is a psychological ploy to get people to talk about “high” temperatures and believe that the temperatures are increasing.
Greetings RGB,
I think you are being a tiny bit too harsh, (but only a little). I have noticed the same effect for the local Chicagoland forecasts, but over the years I have come to attribute the discrepancy to Urban Heat Island effects.
A while back I used to live a few blocks from 42N,88W … https://www.google.com/maps/@42,-88,13z … and if you look at the map in satellite view you will see an excellent example of the Urban Heat Island effect in one google map panel. The officially quoted thermometer for Chicago is located amongst the concrete runways at O’Hare field, four miles to the east. Just a mile to the east is the world’s largest industrial park, almost completely covered with buildings and asphalt parking lots. The center of the map is typical suburbia, with about 50%-50% coverage between homes and roadways versus green lawns and open parks. And just a mile to the northwest is the Busse Woods Forest Preserve, which includes almost 7 square miles of forests and lakes, with just a trace of parking lots and bike paths. The prevailing winds are west to east.
Anybody want to guess at the temperature difference between Busse Woods and O’Hare airport, just 6 miles away? It usually averages about 6°F. I have measured it exceeding 10°F.
Some of the local bicycle racing teams use the north south boulevard dividing the residential half of the village from the industrial park for interval training during the spring and summer months, as the traffic is light and the road is just long enough for good interval work at +30 mph. After an hour or so, we head off to the forest preserve for a few cool down laps on the bike path. Most of us ride with a Garmin Edge GPS or similar device to record workout telemetry, and many of these devices have built-in thermometers. As we leave the edge of the industrial park and traverse the residential portion of the village, the temperature immediately drops about 2°F. As we enter the forest preserve, the temperature drops another 2 or 3°F. The north end of the preserve in the deepest part of the forest can be another 2 or 3°F cooler yet, especially in the hollows near the water around sunset on calm days. The temperature gradient is such a permanent and reliable landscape feature that many of us bring arm warmers to the training rides well into June just to make sure we do not get chilled on our cool down laps.
Those of us living near the forest preserve all think the weatherman is nuts, as the temperatures at our homes never get close to the official forecast. Those living on the east side of the village near the industrial park think the weatherman does a better job. Those of us working at a business in the industrial park right next to the airport think the weatherman is spot on.
The astonishing thing to remember is that NONE of the buildings visible on the map were present in 1950, as the landscape was predominantly farm land west of O’Hare (then called Orchard Field, or ORD), so the thermometer had to read at least 6°F cooler back then. (Not to worry though, as I’m sure the official record as been “adjusted” correctly. Ha!)
I suspect you might be a victim of similar geography, as I note that Duke is on the western edge of Durham and looks to include the last few blocks of civilization before the town breaks up into farms and forests.
A bit rough but in the right direction.
Matt Briggs’ farce is not that different from what really happened in the past two winters in North America.
The US National Weather Service/Climate Prediction Center (NWS/CPC) and Environment Canada (EC) both predicted a warm-to-moderate winter of 2013-14, and it was bitterly cold in the eastern 2/3 of North America. Both NWS and EC utterly failed in their predictions for last winter.
Again for this winter of 2014-2015, NWS and EC predicted a mild winter and again it has been bitterly cold over the eastern 2/3 of North America. Both NWS and EC utterly failed in their predictions AGAIN this winter.
It is apparent that NWS and EC have NO predictive track record, and do not even learn from their mistakes.
It is notable that some private weather forecasters accurately predicted the last two cold winters as early as July. Both NWS and EC apparently rely on big computer models to do their forecasting. The successful private forecasters that I know use analogue models – techniques that have been utilized for a very long time.
Allan: Do you the links to those predictions readily to hand? They make an interesting demonstration and extension of rgbatduke’s point.
Hi Bernie,
I have our PowerPoint sent to warn the USA and Canadian governments but I do not know how to post that.
I will ask for help and may be able to respond to your question..
You could also check on http://www.icecep.us as there may be something there.
I believe I posted two if the duelling forecasts on open thread weekend last week. I’ll go look for them.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20141016_winteroutlook.html
NOAA: Another warm winter likely for western U.S., South may see colder weather
Repeat of last year’s extremely cold, snowy winter east of Rockies unlikely FAIL
October 16, 2014
Temperature.
(Credit: NOAA)
Below average temperatures are favored in parts of the south-central and southeastern United States, while above-average temperatures are most likely in the western U.S., Alaska, Hawaii and New England FAIL, according to the U.S. Winter Outlook, issued today by NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center.
***************************
Allan’s comments:
“Repeat of last year’s extremely cold, snowy winter east of Rockies unlikely” FAIL
This winter is like last winter, two very cold winters for the eastern 2/3 of North America, record-breaking cold and snow last winter and again this winter. Cold and snow down to South Carolina to date this winter. NOAA/NWS was wrong in last winter’s long range forecast too, predicting a warmer-than-average winter.
“… above-average temperatures are most likely in … New England ” FAIL
Boston will report record-breaking snow in February. All-time cold records may also be broken.
My weather-forecaster friends correctly printed both cold winters and I have asked them to publish their story. If this thread is still open, I will post it by about Tuesday of next week.
Bernie – here is the one set of dueling forecasts for November of 2014 from NOAA and AccuWeather along with an interesting article on what may be bringing on the cold in Eastern North America:
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/13043/burning-questions-about-winter-cold
Bernie – Here is WeatherBell’s North American forecast vs. actual for Dec2014 thru Feb2015.
It is much more accurate than the NWS long-range forecast that I posted above,
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=88ff3822-9aad-4bc1-a1db-c4f84d39ce5f&c=be14c940-0dc1-11e4-8d9d-d4ae528eaba9&ch=be7a41d0-0dc1-11e4-8d9f-d4ae528eaba9
Repeating from above:
Matt Briggs’ farce is not that different from what really happened in the past two winters in North America.
The US National Weather Service/Climate Prediction Center (NWS/CPC) and Environment Canada (EC) both predicted a warm-to-moderate winter of 2013-14, and it was bitterly cold in the eastern 2/3 of North America. Both NWS and EC utterly failed in their predictions for last winter.
Again for this winter of 2014-2015, NWS and EC predicted a mild winter and again it has been bitterly cold over the eastern 2/3 of North America. Both NWS and EC utterly failed in their predictions AGAIN this winter.
It is apparent that NWS and EC have NO predictive track record, and do not even learn from their mistakes.
It is notable that some private weather forecasters accurately predicted the last two cold winters as early as July. Both NWS and EC apparently rely on big computer models to do their forecasting. The successful private forecasters that I know use analogue models – techniques that have been utilized for a very long time.
***********************************
All together now, all you frozen folks in New England and especially at the New York Times:
:”I BLAME GLOBAL WARMING!”
***********************************
This from icecap – The Blogosphere – great job by Joe d’Aleo and colleagues!
See http://icecap.us/ for Figures and Tables.
Mar 01, 2015
A remarkable February 2015
By Joe D’Aleo
The last three years had heavy snows and last March was coldest ever in VT. 2nd coldest in NH, ME, 5th in MA. Despite the fact that winters have been cooling in the CONUS (all 9 climate regions) for the last 20 years and snows have been increasing, the Union of Concerned ‘Scientists’, an advocacy group whose environmentalists have taken over most universities at least here in the northeast have been advising the state goverments that warming was producing less snow and threatening the ski and maple sugar industries.
They have been repeating this since at least 2007, ignoring new snow records not only in ski areas but in the big cities. Boston 10 year running mean is at a new high. A lot of bad energy and regulatory policy has been already enacted based on ‘failing climate models’ on the state and federal level.
Enlarged
While some democrats with full mainstream media support, are trying to silence scientists who don’t accept the so called consensus ‘warming’ position, mother nature is voting ‘Nay’.
Last three years had heavy snows and last March was coldest ever in VT. 2nd coldest in NH, ME, 5th in MA. It was the coldest and snowiest December to March ever in Chicago and snowiest ever in Detroit. NOAA and Enviornment Canada had projected at the end of November 2013 a warm winter for the Great lakes and east in 2013/14. NOAA’s winter outlook in October for 2014/15 smarting from a busted 2013/14 headlined the politically correct forecast
“Repeat of last year’s extremely cold, snowy winter east of Rockies unlikely.”
Note that we have high respect for NOAA forecasters at all levels who strive hard to provide accurate forecasts and life saving warnings. However, the last two years were high confidence cold forecasts based on ocean temperature patterns. I was told over dozen years ago, NOAA seasonal forecasters are not permitted to work with any factors not statistically determined by the universities or labs to be valid. Private sector forecasters can play detective and look at all factors- like ocean warm and cold pools outside the tropical Pacific and solar. See how well the ocean pools and other factors’ analog pattern (left) fit the actual November to February mean (through February 27) (right).
Enlarged
After a frigid November, in late December’s mild weather got the official winter off to a slow start nationwide. January brought cold but the thaw mid month knocked down the anomalies. Then came this February. The month has been a remarkable one from the Great Lakes to the Northeast and Mid Atlantic.
Enlarged
This February has been 2nd coldest winter month EVER in BOS behind only February 1934. BOS had 8 feet of snows since January 24th and will set the all-time record this week (they are now at 102”, record 107.6 inches in 1995/96).
In Boston, where they have had 8 feet of snow since January 24th, it was the 2nd coldest February and month ever. It was the snowiest winter (DJF) on record and will be the snowiest season perhaps by Monday. There is some evidence this may be the snowiest year since the Pilgrims were here in 1717.
Enlarged
It was the coldest month ever in Worcester and Hartford, 2nd coldest in Providence (like Boston trailing 1934).
In Concord it was the 2nd coldest February just 0.1F behind 1934. In Nashua the next town west from me, it was the coldest month ever beating out January 1888! Records go back to 1886. Nashua had 18 days at 0 or below and 25 days below freezing, both records for any month. We are foot away from the all time record.
Enlarged
In Chicago where it was the 3rd snowiest February, it was the coldest since records began in 1872. February 2014 was 8th coldest.
It ranked between 2nd and 5th coldest month in lower Michigan.
Enlarged
In Cleveland it was the coldest February and trailed only 1977 for the coldest month.
The ice cover has increased to 88.8%. Last year this is when the ice made its run for the gold, topping out at 92.5%. They were 85.4% on the same date.
Enlarged
The next 5-10 days, cold temperatures will help challenge the record. As with Antarctica, when the facts are inconvenient, expect the media to dredge up some story that implies the opposite. The last two weeks there were stories that Lake Superior may be warming faster than any other lake in the world. The last two years it has frozen over (rare because it is so deep) and last year ice flows remained into June with lake temperature 7F below normal.
In New York CIty it was the 3rd coldest February and 9th coldest month since records began in 1869.
Enlarged
In Baltimore, it was the 5th coldest month since 1871.
Speaking of icy water, this is from a photographer on Nantucket.
The waves captured by NBC photographer Jonathan Nimerfroh are so thick with ice that they’ve drawn comparisons to ‘Slurpees’ and other frozen beverages, but the texture and shape of the wave also suggest a giant, grey tongue, licking the shores of Nantucket.
Enlarged
Here’s what the photographer had to say about his images: “When I pulled up to the beach I could see the horizon just look strange. When I got to the top off the dunes I saw that beginning about 300 yards away from the shoreline the ocean was starting to freeze. The high temp that day was around 19 degrees. The wind was howling from the southwest which would typically make rough or choppy conditions not so good for surfing, but since the surface of the sea was frozen slush the wind did not change the shape. What resulted was perfect, dreamy, slush waves. Most waves were around 2 feet with some larger sets slushing through around 3 foot or waist high. What an experience to be absolutely freezing on the beach watching these roll in while I mind-surfed them! I wonder if a shaper can make me a special designed slurfboard?”
“The next day I drove up to see if they melted but beginning that same 300 yards away from shore the water had frozen solid and there were no waves at all. I’ve been asking all the fishermen and surfers I know if they have ever seen such a thing and they have all reported that this is a first, a result of it being the coldest winter we’ve had in 81 years. I guess the people I asked weren’t old enough to remember a colder winter than this!”
One last thought, we hear that warming is why we are seeing more snow because warm air holds more water. Meteorologists know that cold weather produces snow. Indeed most big snow years are cold years, warm years lean on snow.
Enlarged
What about in, say, six months later when temperature actually is 70F and the weatherman says, “See, I told you so!”?
Gee, mod, I made a mistake. Could you erase all evidence of it?
[No. It’s easier to fix the italics than the problem. .mod]
Sorry PiperPaul, that only works with an ignorant, compliant, complicit, Progressive news media wandering around in the CAGW herd.
“Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), resigned today following accusations of sexual harassment by a former employee at the energy think tank he heads in New Delhi”
In his defense, Raj was quoted as saying “97% of woman love me”
A very sensual consensus!
So … he runs a (government-funded?) “energy think tank” AND he is (actually, was, I guess) IPCC boss. I see no conflicts of interest there at all, in fact, SQUIRREL!
Very good, but nothing beats “Two Days Before the Day after Tomorrow”; climate crises due to beaver dam vandalism. South Park, of course.
“It’s Global Warming! It’s right behind us!”
“It’s coming the other way!!”
It is unfortunate that the fable of “The Emperor’s Cloths” ends when the young boy exclaims that the Emperor was naked.
What happened next was probably too ugly to put in a child’s fable. I suspect the child was sold into slavery, the parents killed, the home razed, and the Emperor continued to prance around naked until he died of exposure for relying on the naked climate scientist’s forecasts.
Not at all. He went and spent the whole treasury on carbon credits, thus creating a comfortable aura of do-good, which kept him nice and warm ever after, until he tried to melt a glacier by imperial fiat alone. The polar bears had a good day.
My favorite was
“The first on-air meteorologist was Percy Saltzman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who hit the airwaves on Sept. 8, 1952. Saltzman later served as meteorologist with Global TV from 1980 to 1982”
“The president of the United States eventually came to the rescue with an official list of Science Deniers. Unbeknownst to the public, a second list of high priority Science Deniers was drawn up in Top Secret and Drones were dispatched to terminate the offenders. This was an urgent matter of National Security, after all!”
The base station for Melbourne’s temperature was closed down last year, allowing the BoM to cherry pick high temperatures at new suburbs and airports to represent the temperature of “Melbourne.”
That’s why Nick Stokes graph from a few weeks ago represented January temperatures in Melbourne as “above average” in bright glowing red, which Nick described as being overstated.
Coldest January in my life described by the BoM:
=====================================
Melbourne in January 2015: warmer days and nights
Despite a cool end to January, both daytime and night time temperatures were still slightly above average for the month. January began with high [normal] temperatures, with several locations around Melbourne recording maximum temperatures over 40°C on the 2nd, 3rd and 7th.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/vic/melbourne.shtml#summary
=====================================
When they say the “end of January” was cool, they mean the entire three weeks that followed the first one!
yeah, they are trying to uphold their outlook for january-
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3571
BOM are complete failure for the last decade or so. their outlooks are always wrong, they fudge storm intensities, acorn data etc. what is left? they are not a service any more, they are just an arm of a propaganda machine.
at least they still have rain radars available to the public i suppose.
There is the story about the great Enrico Fermi and one of his physicist proteges who ran up to him to show him the latest findings of his research: Fermi, asked, How did you get those results? I used a model, was the reply. To which Fermi’s rejoinder was, With a model I can prove the moon is made of cheese. (Or some such substance, I forget which).