Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
They are physically cleaning up after the “Blizzard of 2016” in the northeastern US. The job is not as onerous as anticipated and is going slowly because the government is in charge. However, it is time for an intellectual clean-up because of what went on. The entire sequence of events is a classic example of environmental and climatic exploitation that parallels the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception. [That same sequence] shows what is wrong with weather and climate forecasts, and how it is all amplified and perpetuated by people who don’t know what they are talking about, or, worse, want to know.
The underlying objective was to hype the potential for catastrophe against a backdrop of implications that the event is unnatural. The actors on the stage were the weather office bureaucrats at National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who are key players in the global climate deception that is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mainstream media TV meteorologists were seeking sensationalism under the guise of warning and protecting the people and supported them as usual. Regular mainstream media ambulance-chasing reporters, looking for extremes and creating them when necessary followed them on stage. They later produced stories explaining how the storm was evidence of climate change and global warming. They did this as they ignored the physical evidence, reality, the historical context, and the actual mechanisms of climate change.
The Buildup
The Slate headline threatened,
“This “Blizzard for the Ages” Headed for the East Coast Is Very Much the Real Deal.”
“Since early Saturday, nearly every single run of every major model has shown the potential for a foot or two of snowfall on a track to hit somewhere between Northern Virginia and Boston. What’s amazing—perhaps even more so than the impressive potential snow totals—is that all the major weather models are already locked in so far in advance. Simply put: There’s definitely a big storm coming, it’s just the details that are still being worked out.”
Notice it is ‘definite’ because all the models agree. In another speculative report, the rhetoric and hyperbole all heightened the anticipation.
“Winter storm Jonas is set to affect almost 76 million people as several feet of snow hit the north-east US, causing travel chaos for millions as internal flights are grounded and international flights under threat of cancellation.
The storm is expected to bring heavy snowfall to 15 states, with blizzard warnings, plunging temperatures and coastal flood warnings in place from 22 to 24 January.”
As usual, in today’s PR controlled and directed media, they produced slogans including Snow-mageddon and Snow-pocalypse and Snowzilla.
The Basis For the Hype
I am sure many skeptics reading the Slate quote immediately ignored what it said when they read the phrase “every major model.” Once again they are justified as the failed predictions attest. In this case, it is not just a single model failure but all of them. There is one interesting difference from previous failures that may reflect a growing awareness in the weather agencies that a credibility gap is growing. In an article titled “Snowstorms forecasters under fire as ‘historic’ accumulation failed to materialize” the spokesperson for the US National Weather Service said,
“My deepest apologies to many key decision-makers and so many members of the public,” wrote Gary Szatkowski, the meteorologist in charge of the organization’s office in Mount Holly, N.J. “You made a lot of tough decisions expecting us to get it right, and we didn’t. Once again, I’m sorry.”
Does he make the same apology for the failed IPCC predictions his agency promotes?
The spokesperson for the Canadian weather office was more defensive in his remarks.
“There is still a lot of complexity and it is still an imperfect science,” said Peter Kimbell, warning preparedness meteorologist at Environment Canada. However, he rejected the notion that forecasters get the weather wrong most of the time. “We actually get it right a lot of the time,” he said. “And it all depends on your perspective of what getting it right is. If we say we’re going to get 15 centimetres of snow and we get 12, is that good or not good?”
The claim of a 3-centimeter error is clever because it puts it within a tolerable range, but that is not what happened. Besides his agency doesn’t acknowledge the imperfect science when it makes global warming predictions for the next few decades.
While Philadelphia, New York and New Jersey had braced for 30 to 60 centimetres of snow, they got far less than that. New York City received about 20 centimetres, Philadelphia a mere 2.5 centimetres or so. New Jersey got up to 20 centimetres.
This is not a surprise because New Scientist reported that Tim Palmer, a leading climate modeller at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading England said:
I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.
What people overlook is that these are the same agencies, the NWS, NOAA, and EC, who are the IPCC. They are the same agencies telling political leaders and the public that the IPCC forecasts are accurate and must form the basis of political action. In the case of the snowstorm forecast, the political leaders are left without options. They believe they must over respond because a failure to prepare is political suicide. The politicians are in no position to challenge their weather bureaucrats, as Maurice Strong knew when he set up the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Historical Context
The storm of 2016 was a standard “Nor’easter”. They are so normal that there is a separate entry in Wikipedia. These storms develop as low-pressure systems along the Polar Front, the boundary between the cold polar air and the warmer subtropical air. They begin in the lee of the Rocky Mountains and are often called Alberta or Canadian Clippers. In the interior of the continent, the circulation brings moisture from the Gulf of Mexico to create legendary blizzards. When the Cold Front pushes toward the Atlantic coast, it tends to run parallel to the coast and the low-pressure system circulation means moisture is picked up from the Atlantic Ocean, and the prevailing northeast winds provide both the name “nor’easter” and the heavy snow conditions.
Lack of knowledge of the mechanisms and failure to check the history of such storms didn’t only hamper politicians.
False Attribution To Global Warming.
In a Business Insider article about “The Blizzard of 2016 (aka Winter Storm Jonas)” Tanya Lewis argues, “Massive snowstorms don’t disprove global warming – in fact, quite the opposite.” This statement is wrong for two major reasons.
1. Meteorologically, because the IPCC claim that greater warming will occur in the polar air than the tropical air. If true, this decreases the temperature difference across the Polar Front. The intensity of storms is determined by that temperature difference, known as the Zonal Index.
2. Historically, because there was a much greater storm in 1888 that followed the same path as the storm of 2016. Global temperatures were lower at that time.
The details and impact of “The Blizzard of’88” are described in a 1976 publication by the US Depart of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environmental Data Service written by Patrick Hughes and titled “American Weather Stories” (see image). Here is what one report outlined.
The blizzard cutoff and immobilized Washington, D. C., Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston. Snowfall averaged 40 to 50 inches over southeastern New York State and southern New England, with drifts to 30 and 40 feet. In Middletown New York, snowdrifts were reported to have covered houses three stories high. The townspeople had to tunnel through the snow like miners, even shoring up the passageways with timber. For two days, frequent gale force to near hurricane winds accompanied below freezing temperatures which ranged from near zero to the low 20s over much of the area.
Men, women, and children died in city streets, in country fields and on ice-choked ships and boats. Over 400 died, 200 in New York City alone. Thousands more suffer everything from exhaustion to amputation of frostbitten limbs.
The great storm buried trains all over the northeast, marooning passengers for days in some cases for a week or more. The blizzard was a marine disaster from Chesapeake Bay through New England. Some 200 vessels were sunk, grounded, or wrecked and abandoned. At least 100 seamen died in the storm they called the Great White Hurricane. Of 40 vessels in Philadelphia’s Harbor, only 13 escaped destruction or disabling damage, and at least 30 crew members perished.
Maximum wind velocities recorded range from 48 mph at New York City to 60 mph at Atlantic City and 70 mph at Block Island.
Ironically, the report notes,
“The Blizzard of ’88 was not the most violent storm to visit the northeast.”
Summary
Michael Crichton identified the overall challenges in analysing the events preceding, during, and following the Blizzard of 2016.
The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
As a finale and evidence of unwillingness to face facts the NWS claim
‘This storm ranks up there with the great blizzards of the past 100 years in terms of amount of snowfall, size of impacted areas and population affected,’
A very unhelpful, unscientific, statement that reveals the political hyperbole that drives the story. Not to be outdone NOAA report,
Last weekend’s historic blizzard has been revealed as the fourth most largest snowstorm ever to hit the Northeast, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
It is nice to learn that NOAA has records covering the entire multi-billion-year history of the region as the word “ever” indicates. Maybe they could use these to put their claims about the record warm in 2015 in perspective.
The Blizzard is a classic example of how those with a political agenda took a normal, natural, event and turned it into a potential catastrophe. They gave their claims legitimacy with computer models. The compliant sensation-seeking media repeated and amplified the story until politicians were left with no choice but to overreact. In fact, this is a self-inflicted wound because the politicians lead people to expect the government to look after them.
The final fiasco is that disciples of the false story about human-caused global warming saw an opportunity to further their agenda. They ignore the fact that the models were wrong about the blizzard and make claims that are scientifically inaccurate. Of course, they will never give up as long as they ignore reality and their jobs and careers are dependent on maintaining the deception. The storm of 2016 shows how the deceptions are occurring at the local and global scale.
===============================
UPDATE:
The Washington Post reported that airport weather observers lost their snow-measuring device in the blizzard. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration spokeswoman Susan Buchanan would say only that “questions were raised about the reading.”
As a result, she said the National Weather Service would assemble an internal review team to assess how snow measurements are taken at Reagan National and other locations.
‘This storm ranks up there with the great blizzards of the past 100 years in terms of amount of snowfall, size of impacted areas and population affected’
You would think alarmists would be relieved.
It appears that the NOAA “scientists” quoted above, failed their English exams in addition to their science exams.
“as the fourth most largest (sic) snowstorm”.
Proving their grasp of grammer equals their grasp of meteorology – whilst we are being pedantic about weights and measures!
Here in not so bonny Scotland, we have the same doom and gloom numpties giving us weather forecasts.
Mind you I have not had a round of golf for over 3 weeks. Now that is serious January weather.
It’s articles like these that totally undermine the skeptic perspective. It is clear that Jonas was a major, historic storm. Here in NYC we received a solid 24″ as did many other areas along the coast. Shoreline flooding was widespread and winds were in excess of 35mph for several hours, classifying this as blizzard, at least using the watered-down version common today. So really, What’s Up With That?
This is for Marcus: Expect more severe weather as is the normal case for the beginning of a mini-ice age as the arctic fronts start working their way further south, just like in polar vortexes.Trump says a threatened blizzard on caucus day could threaten his victory. Just think, global cooling is now helping the lefty causes
Russell, I do not disagree with your statement . As a Canadian, I find Global Cooling extremely frightening !
Marcus: Thanks for the response I live about 15k on the west side of Montreal. This is the first winter I spent North. For the last number of years spent on Singer Island, Fl.,miss it but the good old looney keep me home. Oh well.
Is this one of Uncle Al Gore’s prediction.
People in Kuwait still in shock over the first time ever snow.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/blizzard-warnings-blanket-plains-midwest-forecasters-predict-18-inches-snow-n508416. Did you notice it stays south of Montreal! Ice Age Returns.
I just had to show these photos : a little levity is always good. https://www.google.ca/search?q=kuwait+snow&biw=1024&bih=498&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwis07buydbKAhVIFj4KHXP_A1AQsAQIOg&dpr=1.25
Ha Ha.. I love the frozen dinosaur pic !
It is ranked number 4 or number 5 depending on what objective scale you are talking about. THIS STORM WAS NOT OVERHYPED. IT BROKE ALL TIME RECORDS IN NYC, BWI, IAD AND MANY OTHER PLACES. Record high tides hit the delmarva to south Jersey, beating Sandy and March 1962 south of ACY. roads still werent cleaned 5 days later in spite of a thaw. It did not beat 1993, the superstorm for instance, but the heaviest of snow was not in the DC to PHL corridor ( a foot fell with that, here it was 1-2 feet DC and PHL and over 2 feet bwi and NYC. ACCUMULATIONS OF 2-3 FEET SMASHED THE AREAS FROM NORTHERN VA INTO PA AND NORTHERN NJ. The storm was UNDERDONE in NYC 2 days before, not overdone. While Sandy was no the strongest storm ever to hit the east, this is the equal of trying to pooh pooh Sandy in snowstorm terms. While it should not be climate change missive, pulling out a quote from last years storm that missed NYC but shut down the major hubs of southern New England. and btw Gary didnt need to apologize for that either as it wasnt like no one got hit That storm became part of the warmist snow is because of global warming propaganda because of the severity in southern New England
So if the 4th greatest hurricane hits the east coast, are you going to say it was overhyped Storms like this are worthy of their advanced billing
This is as wild as it comes between the snow, the wind and the major beach erosion and tidal flooding. You beat March of 62 with that, then set all time single storm records at dozens of stations, it is not a case of hype
March ’62 didn’t have snow along the shore. (Snow was further inland.) But the Delaware and Maryland beaches were obliterated by the three day nor’easter. Rehobeth experienced 40 foot waves. The record all time high tide in Lewis is still the ’62 storm.
My grandparent’s house on Long Beach Island NJ was destroyed in the March ’62 storm and was just a street or two from one of the three breeches across the island. I didn’t pay much attention the beach erosion in this storm, so I don’t know where the major damage was.
And Gary was apologizing for a blown forecast last year.
I think Joe Bastardi was making the point I made upthread Ric…that the failed prediction of the storm last year was of location…the storm last year missed New York City proper but did impact areas to the north and east, IIRC.
Not the same as predicting a storm and no storm materialized, just not as far south as had been warned.
And one more thing, unlike the false idea about the warm eddy last year off New England having something to do with the snow, warm water off the east coast in a widespread fashion did help out with this. The eddy idea was wrong because if anything convective feedback from that well to the east may have competed with that storm. That is a known phenomena to meteorologist that study event like this But wide spread warm water like we have now in such a large area formed the basis for why we had so much snow this winter in the east in spite of it not being that cold a winter.. that a couple of blockbuster storms, beach bashers as I said in August, would occur. But warm water certainly helped this because it was there in the direct path of the storm in a widespread fashion
I think Dr. [Tim] Ball dashed off this post in too much of a hurry. I can see what he was trying to say, I think, and am planning to sit down and see if I can write what-I-imagine-he’s-driving-at better than he did. (I’ll make sure not to publish without fact-checking).
Back in the old days the newspapers had people who did nothing but fact-check, to make sure that reporters didn’t write stories that they’d later be embarrassed by, and have to retract. Sadly the modern media seemingly has not the time, money, or even the inclination to fact-check to that degree any more.
Any of us need a fact-checker, when we are writing in the heat of the moment, and all sorts of stuff gets published on the web these days that could use a good fact-checker. It is a form of peer review.
I suppose the fact-checking and peer review is now up to us, here in the “comments” section of WUWT. I’d like to thank you, Joe, for so often being the fact-checker when it comes to weather events. Your brain is like an encyclopedia of weather maps.
What I’d like to do is compare the two storms, nearly exactly a year apart, and also compare the two media circuses. There’s a lot that became apparent. I think I might call it, “A Tale Of Two Storms.” I think I could write about it in a way that would make people chuckle, rather than rage.
I’ll bet the people out on Long Island wondered, last year, when they read in the City papers that the storm was a “bust”. Only 20 miles east of NYC the deep snows started. They are the only folk who really got both year’s storms. This year we didn’t even get a flake, up here in New Hampshire, while last year (because I’m on a hillside facing east) we got nearly three feet of wind-whipped powder. That storm sure wasn’t a “bust” up here.
You can’t judge the whole world from your own back yard.
Blast! I meant Dr. Tim Ball, not Dr. Tom Ball. You see? We all need fact-checkers.
[Fixed – Ric (not really a mod.)]
Caleb,
+100
Michael Crichton (1942-2008) and Tim Ball helped identify the prototype of the pseudo-science myth making process. I thank both of them.
I lay the cause of the pseudo-science myth making process entirely at the feet of a certain school of scientists.
I never met Michael Crichton. I look forward someday to meet Tim Ball.
John
Wow. Have not seen such crap for ages. Criticism of models that turned out to be right because of a storm that wasn’t as bad as predicted a year earlier?? Mixing up inches and cm?? Maybe the author should lay off the red when ranting??
To say nothing of commenters who don’t read the comments where Dr. Ball’s error is fully described….
I expect there will be update today to the main post.
Read first, post second, please.
In MY LIFETIME, the 1993 Superstorm is the gold standard by which I judge winter storms. This one wasn’t remotely close. Not in coverage, not in strength, not in anything.
I was forecast to get 18-24″. Ended up with 12″, due to several hours of sleet in the middle, and a dry slot much bigger than the models predicted. This didn’t even rank a top 10 in my area. It was slightly larger than a normal winter storm for us.
I don’t quite understand two interlinked but apparently illogical facts:
1. The American people as a nation are extremely skeptical about global warming.
2. The American people continue to tolerate politicians and lobbyists who promote policies which result from something the American people don’t believe in.
Every survey out there says that the American people do not prioritise action on global warming, hence they really shouldn’t be voting for people who do. They shouldn’t be satisfying themselves with a two party oligopoly where the lobbyists control the spokespeople on both sides.
I don’t understand why they tolerate media moguls plugging global warming when they don’t believe in it. I don’t understand why they read newspapers which plug it, when they don’t believe in it.
Most of all, I’m amazed so many of them come to read WUWT so often yet still go out and tolerate the whole of the USA being controlled in exactly the opposite way!
This issue is no longer an issue of science, although of course there is plenty of science about the climate still poorly understood.
It is no longer an issue of public priorities.
It seems to be an issue of the American People rediscovering what caused them to found their nation in the first place and to found political organisations which allow them ‘to pursue happiness’, which will usually be equated with living in dry, warm homes both in the summer and in winters (when heating is required); it will be equated with accurate weather forecasts and a media which aims to make the American people happy, not neurotic; it will be equated with educating children truthfully about the weather, historical climate and the science which underpins it; and it will be equated with applying the principles of economics to the real problem of finding cheap sustainable sources of power for the USA at whatever time the extraction and utilisation of coal, oil and gas becomes economically unrealistic.
It’s exactly the same in my country, the UK. The thing is, here though: no-one set out in any Declaration/Bill of Rights that the destiny of the British people was ‘the inalienable right to pursue happiness’. We were simply told to bear allegiance to the Crown, trusting to God that the nefarious process of genetic reproduction produced monarchs through the ages who were philosopher kings rather than sex-obsessed nitwits. Your ancestors fought a War of Independence to reject that premise…….
Even if we are subsumed into the European Union, we don’t have the right to elect politicians to enact laws for us at a European level. They merely rubber stamp what faceless officials in Brussels tell them to rubber stamp.
So really it is the American people who still, until someone abolishes your beloved Constitution, have in your hands the inalienable right to elect Presidents, Congress(wo)men and Senators who allow you pursue happiness through the sustainable production of cheap, environmentally acceptable forms of energy.
rtj1211 commented:
“1. The American people as a nation are extremely skeptical about global warming.
2. The American people continue to tolerate politicians and lobbyists who promote policies which result from something the American people don’t believe in.”
Only 40% of Americans vote so it’s guaranteed that the majority doesn’t get represented. Why? We’re living the good life and complacent. So far AGW has affected the people minimally and our newfound PC lifestyle thinks saving the world by killing off people is OK….as long as it isn’t them. They are slowly figuring out that it’s not temperature but fossil fuel and industry that’s the target. RIght now AGW is on very few voters’ radar but continued energy price escalation, industrial decay, and resulting unemployment will put it there. The biggest problem is the Left/Socialists have gained control of the media and are using it to their advantage. 30 years ago “Socialism” was an ideology associated with Europe.
Absolutely bloody SPOT ON !
The “Blizzard of the Ages” turned out to be no big deal here. About 2 ft of snow (considerably more nearby), but no power outage here & actually very few recorded. I could have gotten out on the road on Monday (snow ending Sunday afternoon) if I’d tackled the 5 ft deep blockage in front of my vehicle then. Neighbor even helpfully cleared out a space beside my car w/his farm tractor on Monday, along w/my other neighbors.
So seems, w/helpful neighbors and experience w/recent heavy snow events (36″ here in a single storm in 2010), recovery is surprisingly quick w/little inconvenience. Mild weather after the snow helps too.
I always though Gore looked more like a used car salesman than a diplomat.
From the OP:
Other comments here have pointed to a number of flaws in Dr. Ball’s article, which I think is to be commended. That said, I think that Dr. Ball does make a good point above, and I agree with him that the headline is dead wrong, albeit for a different major reason — namely that one single weather event does not “prove” or “disprove” global warming due to any cause. As well, a major blizzard is not inconsistent with global warming due to any cause.
As the body text of the article explains, heavy storms are actually expected due to increased precipitable water in the atmosphere, which is a stronger statement than “not inconsistent with” to be sure. The veracity of those statements is not my point here (but an important conversation nonetheless).
My main critique of the news article stands, however. My personal practice is to scan headlines to get an overall sense of what goes on in the world, then drill down on what interests me. Sometimes the first few paragraphs are enough, especially since it is standard journalistic practice for the lede paragraph and first few subsequent blocks of text to contain the most salient points, with supporting details added further down.
If the headline does not accurately reflect the body text of the article, then I am potentially getting misleading information in my news scan. If I didn’t already know better and hadn’t read the entire piece, this headline would have misled me, and that’s a problem. No two ways about it.
Microwave Radio Frequencies dominate the Earth with millions of subscribers.
Since the late 1950’s, Microwave Radio Frequencies have become the dominant form of communication for TV’s, Cell Phones, Weather Stations, and a host of others uses. Each of these companies having MILLIONS OF SUBSCRIBERS! Satellite antennas and Earth antennas transmit UHF and higher microwave frequencies all over the planet. Just like aVacuum tube in old electronic technology, microwaves are insulated by the vacuum of space. Because the vacuum of space acts as an insulator, microwave radio frequencies are scattered through our atmosphere at an accelerated rate. The Earth is a rotatingelectromagnetic field containing a dielectric material called water. Sending oscillating microwave radio frequencies through an electromagnetic field into a dielectric material, such as water, creates radio frequency heating (also called RF heating) at the molecular level of water. Because Earth’s electromagnetic field points directly towards the North Pole and the Earth’s atmosphere is circulating the warmed air through ordinary convection towards the North pole, the radio frequency heating is guided directly towards the Polar Ice Caps. This is melting the Polar Ice caps. Since our atmosphere is made of water and the Earth is covered with water and ice, microwave radio frequencies pass through our atmosphere, oceans, and ice caps. Because the wattage levels are minimal, warming is caused by a constant flow of waves that are never turned off. It is similar to cooking food in the microwave oven at a lower wattage setting. It takes longer, but still achieves it’s goal. Global Warming history completely coincides with the history of artificial satellites and the use of microwave radio frequencies. The industrial Revolution happened at the beginning of the 1800’s. Yet, in the late 1950’s is when Global Warming became an issue. The timeline of Global Warming does not coincide with the Industrial Revolution or Automobiles at all.
http://globalmicrowave.org/
That site says:
I fear the only appropriate response is to wave back.
Ric,
Regarding microwave radio frequencies I am NOT knowledgeable but you and others might know …
‘jmorpuss’ begins with radio frequencies associated with communications but to interact with water (and cook food) the radiation needs to be of a higher frequency than ordinary radio waves. Or so I read. Thus, it seems that most of the concern expressed by ‘jmorpuss’ is meaningless.
So, yes, let’s wave back.
Indeed Brandon:
“Meteorologically, because the IPCC claim that greater warming will occur in the polar air than the tropical air. If true, this decreases the temperature difference across the Polar Front. The intensity of storms is determined by that temperature difference, known as the Zonal Index.”
Mr Tisdale:
Nope:
It is winter and the deltaT at the PJS level is at a maximum with unmeasureable difference to pre-AGW jet strength.
The Arctic amplification (greater warmth) is vertically mixed overwhelmingly only in the summer when the air becomes unstable and the Arctic’s decreasing albdeo (more heat in at the bottom vis open waters) raises tropospheric heights.
Also a “storm” or mid-latitude depression has a number of factors governing its strength. The PJS strength is but one. More crucial is the position of the jet aloft of the surface Low, it’s curvature (left exit being most developmental ) and the strength of WAA entrained into the “storm”. The release of LH from the condensation of the snow from preciptable water also adds considerable energy.
Apologies to Mr Tisdale – Dr Tim Ball is, of course, the author of this article.
Um. New York here. Two misapprehensions in this article:
1. The predictions were somehow wrong or false. Nope, NYC was exactly as claimed—meteorologists were abundantly clear from the get-go that we could get anywhere from 2 inches to 20-something, depending on where the northern edge of the storm hit.
As it more and more clearly began to move north of the city, the snowfall predictions rose—and in fact, we closed out at 26-something (depending on where you read). EXACTLY what was predicted. So no, “snowmageddon” was in no way, shape, or form a failed prediction–on the contrary, spot on.
2. Cleanup was slow “because the government was in charge”. Again, false. NYC was up and running by Monday morning, thanks to the timely, effective actions of the government. It’s down south in the Blue states, where government is “the enemy”, that you had issues with snow removal.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of the current NYC administration, and am not a slavish fan of government. But this time they got it right–even to the point of having snowmobiles trek down from upstate to help out. The only complaint was some locations in Queens, where the streets are simply to narrow to accommodate snowmobiles (but I’m sure the citizens don’t want to give up 6+ feet of sidewalk!).
Bottom line: This piece was a double fail. I’ll be a tad more skeptical of anything by Dr. Ball going forward, because this is something I happen to be familiar with, and he got it 180 degrees wrong.
in the msm weather forcasts often reside next to horoscopes:
lots of readers equal anonym weatherman next to shamanism.
The absurd outcome:
CAGW alarmism is ‘scientific’ because written by prof. redactions.
Scientific drawn weather forecast ranks near crossword enigma.
xcuse my dinglish – Hans
‘CAGW alarmism is ‘scientific’ because written by prof. redactions.’
When it’s just yellow press.
And that same professional redactions aime for the Pullitzer Prise – founded by the inventor of yellow press, Pullitzer:
a world wide Stachonow System.