It’s bad enough when the media indulge in sensationalism, but it is totally unprofessional when weather and climate institutes do the same.
In his latest Saturday Summary, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi at Weatherbell Analytics goes after, rips US weather and climate agencies for poor, and often hyped forecasts.
At the 2:54 mark Joe says:
And that’s one of the big problems we have today. People that are here today are classifying things that happened before and changing everything that was recorded before.”
As an example Bastardi cites GISS in their dubious claim that September 2014 was the warmest on record, when clearly it was not. Bastardi shows that at least 7 or 8 other satellite-era years were warmer, such as 2003.
Satellite measurement shows that September 2014 was a mere 0.195°C above normal. Image from Weatherbell.
On the GISS claim, Joe says:
All I’m saying is that there are several so-called reliable measurements of global temperatures and all you see these people doing that are making, screaming and yelling of the hottest temperature ever, is using one of the least reliable datasets. Their very own NCEP reanalysis shows something very different. So, again, there’s a lot of controversy in this. And what happens is that they scream this stuff out, and then they walk it back.”
Next Joe shows a chart (5:00) depicting global temperature over the last 10 years, which clearly shows it to be in decline.
The veteran meteorologist also calls out the over-hyped El Nino predictions made by the National Weather Service (NWS) last April. Six months later we see that the predictions were totally false. The AGW crowd, Joe says, bought it all up without question and that the predictions made in April were based on “busted models”.
NWS “blowtorches” the US winter
The incompetence of the US weather agencies doesn’t stop there. Other examples Joe presents include botched predictions of cyclone tracks, and the NWS dubious winter forecast calling for a “blowtorch winter”.
US National Weather Service winter forecast blowtorches the US. Source: Weatherbell.
Though seasonal forecasts are tricky, Joe lays out in detail his reasoning why he thinks the other models are more reliable and why the NWS model “has troubles”.
Right now, Joe sees a cold winter for the eastern half of the USA, and so does the European model.
Whatever causes “warmest” or “coldest” or “highest level of ice cover in Antarctica since records began” it is not carbon dioxide.
If a molecule has an upward component in its free path movement between collisions then some of the translational kinetic energy in that molecule (M.Cp.dT) supplies the additional gravitational potential energy (M.g.dH) that it acquires by virtue of its additional altitude. Vice versa for downward motion. Equate the two and you have the temperature gradient dT/dH = g/Cp which should not be hard to understand.
Because the laws of physics can be used to explain this gravitationally induced temperature gradient, the fact that the surface temperature of a planet is higher than the radiating temperature of the planet is fully explained (and confirmed empirically) by this autonomous temperature gradient.
There is thus no need for any other explanation as is supposedly presented in the false radiative greenhouse conjecture.
Whatever causes “warmest” or “coldest” or “highest level of ice cover in Antarctica since records began” it is not carbon dioxide.
If a molecule has an upward component in its free path movement between collisions then some of the translational kinetic energy in that molecule (M.Cp.dT) supplies the additional gravitational potential energy (M.g.dH) that it acquires by virtue of its additional altitude. Vice versa for downward motion. Equate the two and you have the temperature gradient dT/dH = g/Cp which should not be hard to understand.
Because the laws of physics can be used to explain this gravitationally induced temperature gradient, the fact that the surface temperature of a planet is higher than the radiating temperature of the planet is fully explained (and confirmed empirically) by this autonomous temperature gradient.
There is thus no need for any other explanation as is supposedly presented in the false radiative greenhouse conjecture.
I was wondering where the phrase “blowtorch winter” came from. Did not find that but did find a map here:
http://theweathercentre.blogspot.com/2014/09/updated-jamstec-model-supports-cold.html
Much of central North America is an unequivocal blue (aka cool). The science seems not to be settled.
I have not been to the site before and so have no opinion.
I was just quoting Joe, who said NCEP NWS “blowtorches” the US in its winter forecast.
Further, there is this gem via Pamela Gray of NE Oregon and posting on Bob Tisdale’s site.
Pamela says “I always cross-check with our guy in Oregon regarding his forecast. He reminds me of you Bob. And both of you tend to get it right. In any event, NE Oregon wood stoves and snow plows will be working over time during the early winter and then can relax a bit into Spring.”
The link she provides is:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/docs/dlongrange.pdf
Talk of a possible Polar Vortex 2.0 here.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-19/prepare-gdp-downgrades-eurasian-snow-flashes-polar-vortex-20-warning
I think the Jetstream will come to sit in a specific configuration, reach way down to the South, and some areas will get lucky, some not.
Last year’s configuration was good for Germany so I hope for a repeat.
Actually, I don’t think we need to sound the alarm quite yet:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2005.67/plot/uah/from:2005.67/offset:0.04/plot/gistemp/from:2005.67/offset:0.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005.67/offset:0.43
Yes, they’ve gotten a few warm months at the surface to cry about as of late, but their global trend over the last years still looks pretty much in line with the satellites.