Guest essay by Eric Worrall
ON the 24th December this year, Montreal was a poster child for the “new normal” – mild weather, no snow in sight. All that came to an abrupt end on the 29th, when Montreal strayed off narrative with a record breaking snowfall.
From the 24th;
Montreal’s Christmas Eve record-breaking temperature matches Los Angeles
Dec. 24 high of 16 C matches cities synonymous with sunny, warm weather at this time of year
…
The balmy temperature was the last thing Anaum and Muhammed Sajanlal were expecting when the siblings arrived in Montreal from Kuwait recently.
They had big plans for winter fun.
“I was looking forward to building a snowman because we see in the movies and cartoons that they build lots of snowmen. We can’t do that in Kuwait,” said Anaum, 11, on CBC Montreal’s Daybreak.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-green-christmas-temperatures-warm-record-1.3380104
Fast forward to December 29th;
Montreal saw a record snowfall for a Dec. 29 on Tuesday after 39.2 centimetres of snow blanketed the city and caused delays at the airport and left streets a mess for motorists and pedestrians.
Environment Canada confirmed the record, which eclipsed the 30.5 cm of snow that fell on Dec. 29 in 1954.
A few more centimetres were expected Wednesday, but no other major accumulations are in the forecast for the moment, Environment Canada told the Montreal Gazette.
City crews and contractors began the lengthy cleanup process at 7 a.m. on Wednesday, with all of the city’s boroughs getting to work by 7 p.m. to clear as much snow as possible before a pause for New Year’s Eve kicks in at 7 p.m. on Dec. 31.
Clearing operations are to resume Jan. 2 at 7 a.m.
Read more: http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-sets-new-snowfall-record-after-tuesdays-storm
No doubt all that snow was due to CO2 causing climate alarmists to make fools of themselves. Thankfully civic authorities in Montreal ignored the hype; Mayor Denis Coderre’s new snow clearing programme appears to be a resounding success.
El Nino finally getting in sync with the polar cold for the wet to turn to white out east? Let’s see how far down the east coast it makes it.
I do not like engaging in dialogue with warmist trolls, so instead I re-post the following, including two recent papers.
I do want to wish all of you a Happy New Year – even the trolls..
Regards to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/09/are-we-chasing-imaginary-numbers/#comment-2047103
On the subject of REAL numbers and real lives:
One’s predictive track record is an objective measure of one’s technical competence, and based on its negative predictive track record, the IPCC has NO credibility.
Since its first report (FAR, 1990) the IPCC has predicted catastrophic global warming due to increased atmospheric CO2. However, global temperatures in the Lower Troposphere (LT) have NOT warmed in more than 18 years despite significant increases in CO2, according to the most accurate temperature data measured by satellites. The Surface Temperature (ST) data claims some warming, but it is increasingly obvious that the ST data is inaccurate, due to its increasingly large divergence from the satellite data.
Despite claims of more extreme weather due to global warming, the incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. The climate has been remarkably stable despite substantial increases in atmospheric CO2.
Over-hyped fears of global warming are utterly wrong. In fact, cold weather kills. Throughout history and in modern times, many more people succumb to cold exposure than to hot weather, as evidenced in a wide range of cold and warm climates. Evidence is provided from a study of 74 million deaths in thirteen cold and warm countries including Thailand and Brazil, and studies of the United Kingdom, Europe, the USA, Australia and Canada.
Contrary to popular belief, Earth is colder-than-optimum for human survival. A warmer world, such as was experienced during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, is expected to lower winter deaths and a colder world like the Little Ice Age will increase winter mortality, absent adaptive measures. These conclusions have been known for many decades, based on national Excess Winter Mortality statistics.
Excess Winter Mortality in the USA typically totals about 100,000 per year – that is, 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year during the cold months of December through March. Excess Winter Deaths range from about 5000 to 10,000 in Canada and up to 50,000 per year in the United Kingdom.
Despite our colder climate, Canada typically has slightly lower Excess Winter Mortality Rates than the USA and much lower than the UK. This is attributed to our better adaptation to cold weather, including better home insulation and home heating systems, and much lower energy costs than the UK, as a result of low-cost natural gas due to shale fracking and our lower implementation of inefficient and costly green energy schemes.
Global warming alarmists seeks to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of green energy. In Europe, where green energy schemes have been widely implemented, the result is higher energy costs that are unaffordable for the elderly and the poor, and increased winter deaths. European politicians are retreating from highly-subsidized green energy schemes and returning to fossil fuels.
The problem with green energy schemes is they are not green and they produce little useful energy, primarily because they are too intermittent and require almost 100% fossil-fueled (or other) backup.
The lessons are clear: When misinformed politicians fool with energy systems, the costs are enormous – globally, trillions of dollars of scarce resources have been squandered, economies have been severely damaged, and innocent people have needlessly suffered and died.
Yours truly, Allan MacRae
The UN’s IPCC Has No Credibility on Global Warming 6Sept2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/the-uns-ipcc-has-no-credibility-on-global-warming-6sept2015-final.pdf
Cold Weather Kills MacRae D’Aleo 4Sept2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
Way back in 2002, three of us predicted the current global warming fiasco with remarkable accuracy. A recent summary is here:
The UN’s IPCC Has No Credibility On Global Warming September 6, 2015
by Allan MacRae
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/the-uns-ipcc-has-no-credibility-on-global-warming-6sept2015-final.pdf
[excerpt]
Summarizing the IPCC’s track record: The IPCC has fabricated false projections of catastrophic global warming and extreme weather that have not materialized. The IPCC’s false claims are contradicted by two decades of credible data. The IPCC has negative credibility.
In contrast, the eight predictions we made on our 2002 PEGG rebuttal remain credible:
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.” NO net global warming has occurred for more than 18 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2.
2. “Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.” Note the extreme pollution of air, water and soil that still occurs in China and the Former Soviet Union.
3. “Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.” Since the start of global warming mania, about 50 million children below the age of five have died from contaminated water.
4. “Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.” Canada signed Kyoto but then most provinces wisely ignored it – the exception being now-depressed Ontario, where government adopted ineffective “green energy” schemes and drove up energy costs.
5. “Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.” Note the huge manufacturing growth and extremely polluted air in the industrial regions of China.
6. “Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the Former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.” Our government did not pay the FSU, but other governments did, bribing them to sign Kyoto.
7. “Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.” IF one believed the false climate models, one would conclude that we must stop using fossil fuels.
8. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.” Governments that adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and these governments are in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as fast as they politically can.
IN SUMMARY:
All the above predictions that we made in 2002 have proven correct in those states that fully adopted the Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the IPCC’s scary climate projections have materialized.
So what happens next? Will we see catastrophic humanmade global warming?
No, we predicted in 2002 that Earth will soon cool and that prediction is increasingly probable.
My paleoclimatologist colleague and I predicted the commencement of global cooling by 2020 to 2030 in an article I wrote in 2002. This prediction is gaining credibility as solar activity in current Solar Cycle 24 (SC 24) has crashed. This prediction is still less than certain, but SC25 is also projected to be very weak, so we will probably experience two consecutive very-weak Solar Cycles in SC24 and SC25. IF the Sun does indeed primarily drive global temperature, as I believe, then successive governments in Britain and continental Europe have brewed the perfect storm. They have crippled their energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected wind and solar power schemes. Global cooling will probably happen within the next decade or sooner, and Europe and the world will get colder, possibly much colder. Winter deaths will increase as cooling progresses, especially harming the elderly and the poor. Excess Winter Mortality rates will provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
Timing is difficult to estimate, but I now expect natural global cooling to be evident by 2020 or sooner.
…
I find Dan Pangburn’s Earth temperature (climate) model of interest.
http://agwunveiled.blogspot.ca/
See Figure 1.1.
Dan has built a simple Earth-temperature (climate?) model that has two significant inputs variables:
– solar intensity (the integral thereof, which makes sense) and
– a ~60year sawtooth (AMO/PDO?)
Normally I would redo Dan’s model from scratch but I have no time.
I suggest others should examine it – it is simple and sensible and does not require any fudging of data (such as the fabricated aerosol data used in the models cited by the IPCC to force-hindcast the natural global cooling from ~1940-1975).
I note that Dan’s model predicts imminent global cooling. This agrees with my (our) own opinion, which we first published in 2002. We now expect natural global cooling to be evident after the current El Nino runs its course, by 2020 or probably sooner – say as soon as 2017?.
Regards, Allan
Allan MacRae
I agree with you that a natural cooling cycle will be in the cards for the future as the current El Nino declines. In North America cooling has already been underway for at least a decade . Analysis of the climate events that led to the last cool cycle 1940-1980 shows that similar events are already happening again now . A return to a negative PDO will be the key.( it went negative in 2007 but briefly went positive the last 2 years due to the El Nino. It is again declining.
The pattern of global cooling changes during this past period progressed as follows:
• PDO pattern starts to decline from mostly warm( positive ) phase pattern after 1936
• Arctic temperatures peak in 1938 and 1943 and start to cool after 1944
• Cooler temperatures start in western North America after about 1935/1940
• PDO fluctuates near zero 1937-1939, but positive 1940-1941 due to an El Nino and finally goes mostly negative in 1944
• North Pacific stays warm 1940-1960 while PDO is in a negative pattern ( or cool mode)
• Cooler temperatures in Eastern North America after 1945/ 1950
• Eastern Canada starts to cool after 1950 ( almost 10 years after western Canada)
• AO goes mostly negative 1950
• Europe and Russia starts to cool by 1950 (except a brief cold period 1939/1942)
• Mexico temperatures start to decline after 1950
• AMO goes negative 1965-1995
• Cold temperatures trough in the 1970,s
• No net warming( A PAUSE) between 1940’s and 1980’s
Good response, thank you Herkimer.
Care to estimate when global cooling will be apparent in the satellite Lower Troposphere (LT) temperature data?
My best guess based on conversations with my knowledgeable friends, is some time in 2017.
That will, of course, require some time thereafter to confirm it is not just a downward blip – but I am guessing that 2017 will be the inflection year that clearly exhibits, in the satellite LT data, the start of a multi-decadal global cooling cycle.
Please look at Dan Pangburn’s temperature (climate?) model, which suggests that global cooling is overdue – except for the temporary effect of the current El Nino.
Best, Allan
Allan MacRae
I cannot predict what exact year cooling will be clearly detectable on satellite data as this cooling is a gradual process and will not be happening suddenly or to the same degree in all parts of the globe , but the signs may be similar to the 1940-1980 cool cycle . There were early cooling signs after 2007 which were subsequently overcome by the warming leading to the 2009/2010 El Nino. I think the general trend of the climate for the next 30 years will be one of cooling rather than warming( interrupted by warmer El Nino Years)
My analysis is that the cooling will increase and continue to show up first in the winters of North America and Asia. More frequent southerly shifts of the Polar vortex , jet stream patterns changes and AO have already been cooling these areas for the past decade. Then it may spread to cooler spring and fall and eventually to cooler summers. Europe and other parts of the globe will lag . Inner land or land locked areas will cool first and the most . Coastal areas will show cooling once ocean cooling becomes more significant ( like when the North Pacific PDO pattern stays consistently in the negative or cool mode with more colder water along the east side of Pacific than in the west or central Pacific) . The impact of negative AMO to eastern US and Canada will eventually follow to cool these areas as well . This cooler mode may not bottom until 2035 /2045 .
As others have noted, setting a new record for snow on a particular date is not such a big deal. What is a bigger deal is setting all-time records for monthly temperatures (and/or snowfall), particularly when the old records are not just beaten but beaten by a lot. Here, from the National Weather Service at Buffalo (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/prodsByState.php?state=NY&prodtype=discussion) is what happened here in Western New York:
You can also read what happened in Central New York according to the Binghampton office and, without going into as much gory detail, here is the summary sentence:
So, there is little doubt that this was a truly exceptionally-warm month in this region. This is, of course, likely due in large part to the strong El Nino conditions, but clearly over the last century or so over which data has been kept, there have been other strong El Nino years and they were not nearly this warm.
Those are the facts.
Ummm….you do realize we are just coming out of the LIA right ?? What did you think would happen ?? No one here says there is no warming, but how much is Man-Made and is it ” catastrophic ” is the main topic !!
This article discusses just how extensive the record warmth in December across the eastern U.S.: http://www.wunderground.com/news/christmas-week-forecast-warm-east
It notes:
There is a nice graphic illustrating this.
joelshore,
“December” is just a cherry-pick. Here’s the U.S. for the past decade:
http://40.media.tumblr.com/00cfc3dc0cdc552e62c2d2be2e31b025/tumblr_inline_nvhsnjKEiR1qij8k6_500.png
Declining temperatures. Sorry about your belief.
dbstealey said: “Declining temperatures. Sorry about your belief.”
Nope, you posted temperature anomaly data, not temperature data. You don’t plot a slope line through anomaly data. You look at the total area above the 0 line ( indicating positive or increasing temperatures) compared to the total area below it (negative or declining temperatures). In the graph you posted, the area above the 0 line is clearly greater than that below the 0 line, indicating rising temperatures. Thanks for providing additional data that supports joeldshore’s statement.
Chris-“You don’t plot a slope line through anomaly data. ”
Said no one ever.
You’d better get over to NSIDC and tell them they can’t do that!!
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
“In the graph you posted, the area above the 0 line is clearly greater than that below the 0 line, indicating rising temperatures. ”
Clearly? Clearly? Maybe you need an eye exam. But here…:
Here’s a link to a fun site at NOAA that puts that evil trend line right onto the screen for ya! (Make sure you stop at NOAA and chastise them for putting a slope line through anomaly data too!!!)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tavg/ytd/12/2005-2015?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2005&lasttrendyear=2015
-0.68F per decade baby! That is NOT a positive trend.
Aphan, I’ll be more explicit, perhaps that will help you understand. db plotted a line through temperature anomaly data and called that temperature. It’s not. You then send me a link to a site and cherry pick a short period just for the contiguous US, and then crow about -.68C/decade. Gosh, the last time I looked, we live on a planet that consists of more than the continental US. Let’s look at that, shall we?: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/12/11/1880-2015?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2005&lasttrendyear=2015
Oh dear, the site you have given me does not support your position. A clearly increasing trend in global temperatures, and over the last 10 years it is .16C/decade, or 1.6C per century.
Chris says:
db plotted a line through temperature anomaly data and called that temperature. It’s not.
Go complain to NOAA. It’s their chart, and they labeled it “temperature”. I just re-posted it.
Chris #1: “Nope, you posted temperature anomaly data, not temperature data. You don’t plot a slope line through anomaly data. You look at the total area above the 0 line ( indicating positive or increasing temperatures) compared to the total area below it (negative or declining temperatures). In the graph you posted, the area above the 0 line is clearly greater than that below the 0 line, indicating rising temperatures. Thanks for providing additional data that supports joeldshore’s statement.”
I responded to EXACTLY what you said. First off, dbstealey plotted a TREND line, not a slope line (there IS a difference…you know that right?) People DO plot a TREND line through anomaly data all the time.
Chris #2: “I’ll be more explicit, perhaps that will help you understand. db plotted a line through temperature anomaly data and called that temperature. It’s not. You then send me a link to a site and cherry pick a short period just for the contiguous US, and then crow about -.68C/decade.”
Wait…YOU, YOURSELF, said that “you look at the total area above the 0 line….compared to the total area below that line….in the graph you posted…indicating rising temperatures.”
So YOU, used a graph that showed “anomaly data” (only you LOOKED AT IT instead of drawing a trend line through it) and declared it to be “indicating TEMPERATURES!…not “rising anomalies”. (self-rebutted)
“You then send me a link to a site and cherry pick a short period just for the contiguous US, and then crow about -.68C/decade. Gosh, the last time I looked, we live on a planet that consists of more than the continental US”
Really? Maybe that’s because joeldshore’s comments were all about a “short period for the contiguous US”…oh wait….his posts were actually about an even SMALLER area…the EAST SIDE of the contiguous US….last time you looked did the planet we live on consist of more that just that?
joel was using the Eastern US temps as if THEY ALONE were indicative of global temperature increases. DB attempting to show him how stupid that is because they aren’t even indicative of US temperature increases, much less, the GLOBE. YOU stepped in with some irrelevant, and illogical points, then contradicted yourself, and in the end, the point you make about DB’s chart being lame only makes joel’s charts/temps look even more lame. Way to go!
If you go here, you can look at the graph over various time periods and have a good chuckle about how dbstealey should a cherrypicked time interval (way too small to see the trend on a regional scale) to produce a downward trend in a graph that shows a clear upward trend over longer time intervals: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&datasets%5B%5D=cmbushcn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=1895&endyear=2015&month=11
That’s what dbstealey does: He uncritically accepts graphs made by people who share his point of view., The antithesis of a REAL skeptic.
joelshore,
Chuckle away, joel. As usual, you’re desperately looking for any factoids that would support your belief in dangerous AGW. It’s just projection on your part when you accuse me of cherry-picking, because all I do is report what Planet Earth is telling us.
Unfortunately for your totally unskeptical alarmist narrative, there’s nothing worrisome happening. But keep looking, you need something to do and it’s harmless.
Don’t worry DB…
I had posted that “joel was using the Eastern US temps as if THEY ALONE were indicative of global temperature increases.”
He assured me, in his own words, that he was NOT doing that:
“I never made any claim here about global temperatures. Frankly, there are enough falsehoods flying around here that I don’t try to correct everything at once in every post. In another post, we could discuss global temperature trends. In this post, I was merely trying to correct any false impressions that the December weather in eastern North America was not that unusual. It was quite exceptional over the period that we have records.”
And we all know that changes in weather should not be extrapolated to mean changes in climate.Right? *wink*
“If you go here, you can look at the graph over various time periods and have a good chuckle about how dbstealey should a cherrypicked time interval (way too small to see the trend on a regional scale) to produce a downward trend in a graph that shows a clear upward trend over longer time intervals:”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&datasets%5B%5D=cmbushcn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=1895&endyear=2015&month=11
Well perhaps DB was making to Chris was that the trend in a REGION is not an indication of the trend on the whole continent. Maybe Chris needed to know that. Just because you and I and DB all know and admit that a regional trend can only logically apply to that region, doesn’t mean that Chris knows or admits that.
Alphan says:
That’s simply not true. I made no such claim. This article was about the weather in one city, Montreal. And, if you read it, you might be led to think that Montreal (and the general eastern part of North America) wasn’t having that mild a winter so far after all. I was merely pointing out that a huge swath of Eastern North America had a ridiculously mild December, with all-time records for the month not just being broken but broken by a wide margin.
I summarized the point with this paragraph:
I never made any claim here about global temperatures. Frankly, there are enough falsehoods flying around here that I don’t try to correct everything at once in every post. In another post, we could discuss global temperature trends. In this post, I was merely trying to correct any false impressions that the December weather in eastern North America was not that unusual. It was quite exceptional over the period that we have records.
joeldshore.
Pardon my incorrect assumption. 🙂 At least now Chris knows, directly from you, that using your post to attempt to discredit DB was the WRONG thing to do. Forgive me?
Chris, joelshore sez:
I never made any claim here about global temperatures.
So relax. There’s nothing unusual happening.
Chill, bro…
Alphan says:
Well, there is no doubt that dbstealey’s post was an embarrassing cherrypick of a limited time period of the U.S. temperature record…and a period so short that even if it were on a global scale, there would be huge errorbars on the underlying trend. Given that it is on a regional scale, the error bars over such a period are so large as to make what he showed completely meaningless. So, Chris was correct in the larger sense of calling dbstealey out on it although I would say that his argument about temperature anomaly vs temperature isn’t really the problem.
dbstealey says:
No…There was something very unusual happening. A large area of the Eastern U.S. had a December average that was not only a record over the entire instrumental period but a record by a wide margin. That is a very unusual event.
On the other hand, very unusual events do happen now and again. So, that alone is not proof of anything. To see if there is a pattern of such unusual events, it is necessary to look at this more carefully on a global scale. And, for this, we have the conclusions of the IPCC (http://www.climatechange2013.org/), endorsed by most of the major scientific societies in the world. These include such conclusions as:
and
and
Good post Anthony.
This latest short term record snowfall of 39.2 cm (almost 18% of the typical total winter snowfall for Montreal) is interesting particularly since back in 2010 the DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION predicted that the average cross-country ski season in Quebec will be cut in half in only 10 years. It just shows you how unrealistic and wild the alarmists climate predictions are. Montreal has an average winter snowfall of about 218 cm or 85.6 inches so this latest fall is consistent with the past snow . Cities like Quebec get over 300 cm of snow a winter and Saguenay, Quebec gets 342 cm . Expect a lot of more snow later this winter . We are heading for decades of colder and more snowier winters in my opinion . Winters in Canada and North America have been getting colder since 1998. PEI, Canada got 18.1 feet of snow last winter and there were cold temperature and snowfall records set all over Eastern Canada and Eastern United States )
joeldshore
“there have been other strong El Nino years and they were not nearly this warm.”
Have you looked into the 1877/78 El Nino.?
Ralphellis-
The fact is that both John Robertson and Brandon Gates make incorrect assumptions about the images in question. The images do NOT represent either a “forecast”, a “hindcast” or “modeled weather”.
The “plot” in question reflects 2 representations of the SAME image. The left representation shows the “actual” average “temperatures” that were OBSERVED/MEASURED/RECORDED during a 6 hour period on December 30th, 2015 (someone printed “Actual temperature” on it as well as “30-35F” to highlight this) The right representation, again, is the same image-same date, time period and location-with an overlay added to it to highlight the anomaly, or “departure” of the temperatures on that day from the NORMAL, OBSERVED, MEASURED, RECORDED, ACTUAL average temperatures on that date, at that location, in the past.
Not everything that gets spit out of a “computer weather model” can be considered “computer modeled weather”. Only the stuff produced BY that computer after it has been subjected to the simulated processes used by that computer, can be considered to be computer modeled weather. Let’s call it “computer simulated weather” (CSW) because it highlights my point. Actual real time data is recorded and fed INTO the model which then runs the REAL TIME DATA through a series of mathematical calculations based upon our current knowledge about how the weather works (a simulation process) that produces forecasts, projections, based on that real time data. But you can ASK the modeler for a snap shot of the “real time data” that is constantly being fed into that computer model and that modeler can generate that data for you in an image-which is exactly what the article contained. A snap shot of the actual real time data-not the result of a simulation that was run using that data. And the images in question are clearly a SNAP SHOT.
John was wrong about the image being “computer modeled weather” (or CSW) when he told Brandon “your faith in computer modeled weather is touching”. Brandon didn’t correct him; he merely replied “Have you ever been on a commercial airliner? If so, your faith in computer modeled weather (CSW) is touching.”
At that point, I responded that it wasn’t necessary to have faith in computer modeled weather to get on a commercial airliner. First, it’s a stupid presumption anyway since faith is something someone believes in and most people don’t have a clue about the technology used by airplanes anyway, so how could they “believe in” something they aren’t even aware of in the first place? And second, since Brandon likes to argue semantics for days, I gave one logical, fact based reason for why it isn’t necessary to have faith in CSW at all, …commercial pilots don’t fly the plane based on CSW, they fly it based on real time data.
Of course ToneB jumped in and made all kinds of wild allegations and insinuations as if what I’d said could be extrapolated across the whole of the aviation industry including route planning and flight scheduling or ANYTHING AT ALL outside of the parameters of Brandon and John’s comments-which only dealt with “computer modeled weather” and being on a “commercial airliner”. Brandon started cutting and pasting FAA regulation manuals…what a joke. And Brandon still seems to think that commercial flight schedules are dependent upon weather forecasts! We can only forecast “weather” accurately for something like 10-14 days (and the accuracy grows worse over time) but I can go online TODAY and find the scheduled flights to anywhere in the world during the entire year of 2016 posted already. Flight routes and times are already calculated a year in advance…so how can they possibly depend on future weather forecasts at all ?
Of course pilots use the output of software models that generate weather forecasts. Real time data alone is not sufficient, a pilot would never take off on a long commercial flight with that alone. On long flights major storms can form after take-off, without modeling tools to predict those, the risk factor would go up considerably. By using these modeling tools, pilots are able to make changes in flight plans (altitude, routing and speed) in order to avoid problems.
Major storm systems don’t just appear out of nowhere and they can be tracked days in advance, and on board radar gives them real time readings, along with live feeds from ground controls along the route. Pilots must also have real time information on where other airplanes are in order to avoid sharing airspace suddenly with them should changes be required for some rare, sudden reason.
Nobody is saying that pilots do not need real time data. But it is simply untrue to say that they do not use information from weather forecasting tools. They use both, and are required to use both.
From a summary of how flight planning works: “By agreement with the International Civil Aviation Organization, there are two national weather centres (in the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and in and the United Kingdom, the Met Office), which provide worldwide weather forecasts for civil aviation in a format known as GRIB weather. These forecasts are generally issued every 6 hours and cover the subsequent 36 hours. Each 6-hour forecast covers the whole world using grid points located at intervals of 75 nautical miles (139 km) or less. At each grid point, the weather (wind speed, wind direction, air temperature) is supplied at 9 different heights, ranging from about 4,500 feet (1,400 m) up to about 55,000 feet (17,000 m).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_planning
It’s just your imagination. Believe Imam Al Jazeera Goracle, not your lying eyes ….
I liked the part where the mayor said:
“The biggest change is the central city will now determine when a snow-removal operation is to begin. Once that decision has been made, which can occur even after a storm of only 10 centimetres, all boroughs will have 12 hours to begin removing snow.”
In other words they don’t bother clearing the snow if it is less than 10cm (about 4 inches).
Here in Vancouver (BC) the city practically grinds to a halt when we get 10 cm! We almost call out snow plows for flurries…
When I was growing up there were always pictures of Montreal’s snow falls – the city streets with the snow pushed higher than 1 story building.
Yeah…I think the rest of Canada regards you guys as a bunch of w*mps living in the tropics! 😉 Although one of the two winters I lived in Vancouver (1992-1994), we did get a lot of snow (about 30 cm or so, as I recall, depending on what part of the metro area)…I even cross-country skied in Stanley Park, apparently not something you can do very often.
Of course, the snow was also usually not far away as long as you were willing to drive up (in altitude) to it. I have pictures of hiking in shorts in about 2 feet of not-yet-melted snow in Garibaldi Park in July.
Sigh. The narrative is so directed as to be pathetic. A media report had David Phillips (Environment Canada’s official forecaster or something like that) on the 24th talking about the lack of snow in southern Ontario and Quebec. He openly stated that cities like Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City had a 95% chance of snow on the ground on Christmas day. Great, thanks, but sadly Environment Canada’s grasp of probability doesn’t seem to understand that 5% or 1 in 20 chance of no snow on the ground on Christmas day. It’s unlikely but not even remotely impossible. Especially in a year with a strong El Nino influence. Again, sigh.
dbstealey December 31, 2015 at 5:29 pm
Toneb,
The following graph ‘adjustments’ could also be from the Onion. NSIDC “adjusts” the raw data to make it look more alarming:
(Of course, after they adjust it, it’s no longer ‘data’, is it?)
Except of course as you’ve been told before they aren’t ‘adjusted’, just a 5-day smooth.
The daily data can be found at: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
Of course you will continue posting the graph because it fits your propaganda, just like you still continue to use graphs which have been documented as being incorrect, for example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/
Phil.
People usually post graphs that they think support whatever point they are attempting to make at the time. That doesn’t make those graphs propaganda, nor does it prove that comments made using those graphs are propaganda either.
Do you have any charts that prove that the NCDIS does not “adjust” it’s data? Or did you just come here to make accusations about dbstealey—to post * “derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”*
* (definition of propaganda)*
Aphan January 6, 2016 at 11:00 pm
Phil.
People usually post graphs that they think support whatever point they are attempting to make at the time. That doesn’t make those graphs propaganda, nor does it prove that comments made using those graphs are propaganda either.
Do you have any charts that prove that the NCDIS does not “adjust” it’s data?
dbstealey showed the following graphs, claiming they were evidence that ‘NSIDC “adjusts” the raw data to make it look more alarming’. As has been pointed out to him before those graphs are the result of 5 day averaging, which is done to smooth the data to make it less alarming.
http://oi28.tinypic.com/2co31gi.jpg
Knowingly posting graphs you know to be wrong as he has done in this case and multiple times with the Alley data (the subject of the wuwt thread I linked to), is the mark of a propagandist. He knows that the graph he repeatedly posts is incorrect but he keeps doing so despite knowing where correct versions can be linked to. Anyone who does that can expect to be criticized.
Phil.-
Adjust-“alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result.,modify, alter, regulate, tune, fine-tune, calibrate, balance”
Are you claiming that what the chart shows is NOT adjusting by the above definition?
Aphan January 7, 2016 at 5:42 pm
Phil.-
Adjust-“alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result.,modify, alter, regulate, tune, fine-tune, calibrate, balance”
Are you claiming that what the chart shows is NOT adjusting by the above definition?
They are not “adjusting” the raw data to make it look more alarming which was what stealey claimed, it’s a systematic smoothing to make it less alarming. Also it works in the same way regardless of the direction of the change contrary to stealey’s assertion. Finally as I posted above the unsmoothed data is available.
Phil. sez:
…those graphs are the result of 5 day averaging, which is done to smooth the data to make it less alarming.
Except Phil. left out the essential fact: the “adjustments” always go in the direction of showing more scary global warming.
If the “adjustments” were 50/50, showing both warming and cooling, then Phil. would have a valid point. But he doesn’t — and he’s commenting on a post that’s more than a week old! Is this a slow week in the .edu industry, Phil.?
dbstealey January 7, 2016 at 9:40 am
Phil. sez:
“…those graphs are the result of 5 day averaging, which is done to smooth the data to make it less alarming.”
Except Phil. left out the essential fact: the “adjustments” always go in the direction of showing more scary global warming.
If the “adjustments” were 50/50, showing both warming and cooling, then Phil. would have a valid point.
That’s the point stealey, the graphs which you posted (which are of arctic sea ice extent not temperature) do show smoothing in both directions: a sudden drop in the spring is smoothed in the manner shown in the graph, a sudden rise in the fall shows an opposite smoothing. So yes I do have a valid point, you seize on a graph which you don’t understand because it matches your prejudices and make incorrect statements about it, and even when corrected post it again and again.
But he doesn’t — and he’s commenting on a post that’s more than a week old! Is this a slow week in the .edu industry, Phil.?
No, actually it’s a very busy one.
Phil., your assertions are no match for my evidence. I have plenty more. Just ask, and I’ll post it.
If you really believe that government agencies don’t artificially tilt toward the global warming scare, there’s nothing I can do to change that belief. But for others, the endless “adjustments” that fabricate more and more global warming are convincing.
And:
No, actually it’s a very busy one.
Then why are you commenting on a week old article that hardly anyone will read? Is that what you’re being paid to do?
(Deleted -mod)
Really? Based on the evidence…you arrived at THAT conclusion? Are you a sockpuppet? 🙂
[Reply: Correct, ‘Richard Molineux’ is a sockpuppet. Also posts under the name ‘Chaam Jamal’ and others (K. Pittman, etc.) As usual, his time writing comments has been wasted, as they are now deleted. –mod]
Mods, I love how his post was about someone else being “smarter” than someone else, and yet he wasn’t smart enough to remove his OWN telltale signature…
dbstealey January 7, 2016 at 12:54 pm
Phil., your assertions are no match for my evidence. I have plenty more. Just ask, and I’ll post it.
Actually they completely demolish your evidence, you claimed that the NSIDC curves you showed indicated they had been ‘adjusted’ to be in the direction of more scary global warming. Whereas what they showed was the application of a smoothing process which acts in the direction to make it less alarming!
If you really believe that government agencies don’t artificially tilt toward the global warming scare, there’s nothing I can do to change that belief. But for others, the endless “adjustments” that fabricate more and more global warming are convincing.
Which is not what is being discussed here, the example you gave was not such a case. You claimed that the ‘adjustments’ were in one direction only which is not true, the smoothing process works in exactly the same way regardless of the direction of the change. This has been pointed out to you before but you’ve chosen to repost the faulty material, if you have plenty more ‘evidence’ I suggest you use it instead.
“No, actually it’s a very busy one”
Then why are you commenting on a week old article that hardly anyone will read? Is that what you’re being paid to do?
Perhaps you should suggest to Anthony to have a shorter lifetime for posts if it bothers you, however some of us have work to do. With New Year, a birthday and a final exam to write, the last week was rather busy, answering your posts wasn’t a high priority, sorry.
No one pays me to post, does someone pay you to post all your ‘charts’?
Phil.,
Do you really believe that there’s no warming bias in gov’t agencies? If you do, then we’re too far apart to discuss it.
From all the solid evidence I’ve seen, they are taking their marching orders from a guy who can replace them at will — and that guy is a scientifically illiterate ‘community organizer’ who has a political agenda.
What other result would you expect?
dbstealey January 8, 2016 at 5:19 am
Phil.,
Do you really believe that there’s no warming bias in gov’t agencies? If you do, then we’re too far apart to discuss it.
Since you appear to be incapable of reading and understanding what’s posted you’re probably right. However, if you continue to post erroneous posts like the one above expect to be corrected.
Phil.,
If it weren’t for your assertions, you wouldn’t have much to say.
dbstealey January 8, 2016 at 8:09 am
Phil.,
If it weren’t for your assertions, you wouldn’t have much to say.
Just the facts stealey, something you’re unable to deal with!
Phil. sez:
Since you appear to be incapable of reading and understanding what’s posted…
…&etc.
Could you be any more juvenile? (Don’t answer that!)
Your response as usual has no facts, it’s just the equivalent of: “neener, neener.”
Phil., you are about the only one around who refuses to believe that gov’t agencies would “adjust” the record to artificially show scarier global warming.
Earth to Phil.: the heads of those departments are at-will appointees. When the Community Organizer wants results, he gets results.
We see those results. If you don’t, that’s because you see what you want to see and disregard the rest. In that, you’re very much like James McGinn, the elected President of ‘Solving Tornadoes’. ☺
dbstealey January 8, 2016 at 7:56 pm
Phil. sez:
“Since you appear to be incapable of reading and understanding what’s posted…
…&etc.”
Could you be any more juvenile? (Don’t answer that!)
Your response as usual has no facts, it’s just the equivalent of: “neener, neener.”
Phil., you are about the only one around who refuses to believe that gov’t agencies would “adjust” the record to artificially show scarier global warming.
Nice try at deflection stealey but anyone who has read this will see that you made a specific claim which I rebutted with facts. You have made no attempt to address the facts, just complained about the timing of my response and personal attacks and finally attempt to switch from the specific to the general.
Earth to Phil.: the heads of those departments are at-will appointees. When the Community Organizer wants results, he gets results.
The data you presented was from the NSIDC, which is not a government institution.
We see those results. If you don’t, that’s because you see what you want to see and disregard the rest.
I saw the results, unlike you I knew what I was looking at, you made an incorrect claim about the data. You saw what you wan’t to see and ignored the facts, and the rest of the data.
Phil.
“The data you presented was from the NSIDC, which is not a government institution.”
Might as well be- “NSIDC is entirely funded by competitive grants, with the largest share of funding from NASA, and smaller shares from NSF and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/news/energy/2010/11/101227-national-snow-and-ice-data-center-makeover/
So the sockpuppet is busted again!
This guy is so pathetic he’s pretending now to be an Islamic warrior! heh.
But in reality, he’s this:
http://orig03.deviantart.net/a8f1/f/2009/225/a/4/keyboard_commando_by_plognark.jpg
Hey I know that guy! I think he’s currently commenting in a Morano thread right now. 🙂 I didn’t know he had a brother….:P
Abe, just stop.