Sometimes, you just have to laugh. Earth is a complex system, and forecasting weather events in such a complex system is no easy task due to the built in entropy aka “chaos” of dynamic weather systems. The best we are able to forecast into the future with and skill is about 7 to 10 days. 30 years ago, the best was 5 days. We often criticize climate models for their attempts to forecast 10, 50, 100 years into the future, so it is instructive to look at what happens just a month ahead, as so brilliantly illustrated by these tweets from the Weather Channel.
The source of that Tweet is this article: February Temperature Outlook: Mild in Central, Eastern U.S.; Colder in Northwest
They say this: “February could be warmer than average in the Southern Plains and parts of the East” and supply this labeled graphic seen below.
But then, nature and chaos step in, they Tweet 20 days later:
And then…just three days later…..
So much for model forecasting skill less than a month ahead. To be fair, the forecast came from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center and the Weather Channel simply graphically stylized the forecast for TV and web use.
But we are expected to believe unverified climate models have useful forecast skill years, decades, or even a century in advance.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Climate Doomsters claim that CO2 allows most IR from the sun to pass thru the atmosphere and heat the oceans and land and….. atmosphere to some extent. At night, they claim that CO2 blocks….limits…traps…much IR from radiating back into space and this results in warming over time. The CO2 for some reason sort of acts as a one way valve and it results in man made global warming because man keeps increasing the CO2. Is this their CO2 story? Anyone?
“The Climate Doomsters claim that CO2 allows most IR from the sun to pass thru the atmosphere…”
As I understand it, most of the energy that passes through the atmosphere from the sun is in the form of short-wave radiation (Light) which is absorbed by the earth then re-emitted in the form of long-wave radiation (IR). It is this IR that is supposed to be affected by greenhouse gasses. Wager vapor is the largest greenhouse gas followed by CO2, methane and others. The claim is that the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by man is singe thing (the “control knob”) causing all the warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
The IR is easily felt on your skin on a sunny day. Of course I am just trying to get the Doomsters story straight. UV is very energetic but the width of the UV spectrum is about as narrow as the visible light spectrum. IR has a very wide spectrum.. The Doomsters need to work on their explanation why a one way action?….if CO2 is blocking IR, then it must block in both directions it seems to me….add CO2 to the atmosphere and it should block incoming …if in fact that is what it does…block IR during the day and thus cooler temp during day to offset any warming at night. When I ask about this I usually get an answer that it is complicated….that is why records show cooling of temp from about 1940 to 1980 while CO2 went up 15%.
OK, lets try this:
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/GreenhouseEffect
There are MANY fantasies of how CO2 is meant to cause warming
NOT ONE of them is backed by even one skerrick of scientific evidence.
The “greenhouse effect” postulates the Earth’s surface is some 33 degrees K warmer than its average radiating temperature of 255K, giving average surface temperature of 288K. (287K before homogenisation and pasteurisation) but Chines still have it at 287K while EU has it 289K; so take your pick.
It is the so-called “greenhouse gasses” that cause the 33 degrees C difference.
Now lets consider that there are two clearly observable temperature control mechanisms that thermostatically limit the range of ocean temperature to a low of -2C up to 30C. Anyone with global surface temperature data can see the result every day of the year for every year since satellites started global surface measurements:
Three tropical oceans with warm pools at 30C and two polar oceans with sea ice/water interface at -2C to give an average of 14C (287K). Keep in mind that 97% of the heat available to drive Earth’s weather is held in the top 100m of the oceans.
The fact that sea ice forms at a precise temperature is well known. The regulation of the warm pool temperature to 30C is less well known but easily observable using a myriad of methods.
Take 5 seconds to consider the alternatives offered and decide which is more likely. (a) some delicate heat balance dramatically upset by a tiny amount of additional trace gas or (b) two powerful thermostatic control processes that work to achieve the same upper limit across there tropical oceans thousands of miles apart and the same lower limit around two polar oceans at opposite ends of the globe.
You should not need any more than 5 seconds of thought to rightfully conclude that the “greenhouse effect” is just some sick fantasy that suits the questionable motives of wotld-be autocrats at the UN trying to separate you from your earned wealth.
There is also a small group of geologists offering the theory of https://plateclimatology.com
Can this be explained?
David Middleton-
“The record-shattering cold temperatures and winter storm were accurately forecasted well-ahead of time.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/18/arctic-air-freezes-permian-shale-fields-fake-news/
The color is off the scale. It was 46 degrees below the average high where I live.
Maybe we should start a weather service. I made comments at the end of December and the beginning of January which hit the nail on the head as to what the cold spot at 500 hPa meant for upcoming temps in the NH. Reading the tea leaves with the aid of earthnull it looked pretty clear to me that a cold wave was going to impact many areas across the NH. There was a noticeable change also at 500 hPa of wind patterns diving deep down towards the Equator which induced me to make that comment in early January. A comment which caused someone here to question what I was talking about.
I replied that to my mind the change up meant a sea change in the climate, and bingo look at what has taken place. I do not have the depth of overall understanding that most of you around here have, but I have always had a unique way of finding answers. That trait is further enhanced by the great commentary around here which spurs my thoughts at times to accurately connect the dots.
While skimming it, I thought the intense cold might have made even Seth Goebbelstein write an article without “climate change” in it. Sadly, I searched and it was not to be:
https://apnews.com/article/weather-texas-2a3095311cf760fb9f1a6d2e835e5bc0
Yes, and the second crisis is readers exposed to unprecedented distortions whether citing failed climate science of global warming causing more polar outbreaks that has been refuted in the Journal Nature or ignoring EIA multi-day stats on the ERCOT power grid by power source.
In 1917-18, there was a pandemic sweeping across the globe during the last part of a global war. Now we have a pandemic sweeping across the globe during a Climate Crusade Global War. They all fall down.
NOAA issued a similar ‘warm winter’ prediction and they blamed it on La Nina.
Do you have data to back up the claim that forecasts are accurate 7 to 10 days ahead somewhere?
Because as far as I can tell, 3 day and more is just a dartboard for NYC forecasts. None of the weather services have been reliable more than 3 days this winter. Of the ones I check, none.
In calgary the 7-10 day forecasts are 50% accurate 10% of the time
So I bought a weather rock
I use a weather canoe, it sits on a pair of sawhorses in the side yard and is 100% accurate.
The accuracy of weather forecasts depends almost entirely what climate you live in. Some climates are very dynamic and more chaotic than others, while some have almost no change for centuries. Forecasts are quite easy in those places. Good weather forecasting requires processing vast amounts of info. Computer models can’t manage that.
Here’s some info you will never see in mainstream anything…research the Maunder minimum of 1645 to 1708, the Grand Solar Minimum, NASA and NOAA report on zero sun spot activity causing planet cooling for the next 30 to 50 years, the coming crop failures and famine around the world and on and on…GET PREPARED NOW!!!
I remember seeing that forecast this fall, as well there being a la nina this year. Last time there was a la nina this part of the country (mid-Atlantic US coast) was cold and snowy. That was several years ago. So I knew back then that the forecast for a warm winter was likely to be wrong. And I was right! So I don’t pay much attention to those “warmer or cooler than” forecasts.
And Schellnhuber’s POTTY INSTITUTE models are a COMPLETE and UTTER FAILURE as well
https://notrickszone.com/2021/02/19/junk-grade-models-even-short-term-climate-and-weather-modelers-get-it-all-wrong/#comments
Anthony you need to pay more attention to a true prognosticator namely, Punxatawney Phil who saw a shadow on the 2nd Feb. and predicted six more weeks of winter.
The calendar did that, all Phil did was see a bunch of kleig lights and drunken party goers.
“The best we are able to forecast into the future with and skill is about 7 to 10 days.”
I haven’t seen any weather forecasting skill over more than a day. They can get lucky most of the time. But let’s take last weekend as an example.
In the Puget Sound area, for Friday into Saturday a week ago, they were calling for 6-10 inches of snow Seattle and south. And 1-4 inches north of Seattle. I live about 70 miles north (as the sea gull flies, if they don’t detour to McDonalds), and we got at least a foot of snow in 12 hours. So were they “right” because they forecast snow, the amount be damned?
For most regions of the world 72 hours is about as far out as forecasting can be depended on, and then rarely. Here in western PA we have repeatedly had snow forecast, multiple inches, and so far we have very little. Laurel Highlands got hammered, as usual, north of I 80 has a good cover on. The days that snow was called for had very little, the days it was not supposed to snow it did(even though very little) so their reliability if pfffft.
Nature Mocks Trust the Sciencers.
If your goal is to poison the well, congratulations.
Another MEANINGLESS comment from Loy-dumb
Do you have ANYTHING to back up ANYTHING you say, or is it all just mindless jibber-jabber?
Nature really is making a total MOCKERY of the non-science of so-called “global-warming”.
And YOU make a total mockery of yourself, and all other AGW cultists and apologists, every time you post.
The well you so desperately defend IS poison.
You might want to learn what “poisoning the well” means before you embarrass yourself again.
Read Nicholas Nassim Taleb on prognosticators and doxastic comittment; their lack of skin-in-the-game. He recommends Damocles’ Sword of Truth hang over their credibility, their paychecks and their heads. Trust and verify. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
“The best we are able to forecast into the future with and skill is about 7 to 10 days”
I think you’re being extremely generous there, it would also depend on where, when and what kind of weather was being forecast.
The forecasts here in France are as useful as a chocolate teapot, this is what they predicted for us.
“Seasonal forecasts for the quarter November – December – January 2020–2021 in
Europe and mainland France.
During the quarter, the country should experience temperatures around normal (no particular mildness expected). Regarding precipitation, a dry scenario is most likely over a large half South-west of the country while in the northeast no scenario emerges.”
Turns out to have been one of the wettest and coldest winters for years!!
The Weather Channel, last place anyone should go to for information about weather, ever. If they simply ran a real time satellite/radar composite 24/7 you could mute it and get some useful idea about what will come your way short term, as it stands they are simply one more source spewing Man Caused Globall Warmining propaganda.