If President-elect Donald Trump is looking for places to cut costs, he might want to take a look at the National Weather Service’s seasonal forecasting unit.
Yesterday at the Daily Update over at Weatherbell Analytics, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi looked at the season forecasts, generated by billion dollar super-computers, recently put out by NCEP. Turns out they were totally wrong. You have to pity the poor persons who placed their bets on them.
The first example is the forecast for North America made by NCEP in November for December:
Here we see a warm December was forecast for North America. And you’d think with those billion-dollar super computers and all the years of experience the NWS has accumulated over the past 100+ years, they’d be able to land a general forecast (going out only a few weeks) somewhere in the ballpark, right?
Amazingly, they missed the ball park by light years. In fact the very opposite has taken place, at least where people live:
You have many industries and institutions who rely on these forecasts in order to get a rough idea of what to expect and thus plan accordingly. Today they have got to be wondering about what has happened. Joe wonders if the NWS models are capable of predicting any cold weather at all. There seems to be an obsession with warmth.
Maybe cold no longer exists in the warming fantasy world of government weather forecasting –who knows.
Joe points out that he same busted result happened for the November 2014 forecast made in October 2014.
Coldest in 50 years
The NWS end-of-year forecast for Asia was even worse. Here’s what the NWS projected for the final 3 months of 2016:
Clearly they forecast a rather mild late year for the entire Asian continent.
Now here is what has happened so far:
It was completely wrong!
According to Joe, instead of being on the mild side, huge parts of Asia have seen to coldest Oct-Dec period in 50 years! He comments:
I’ve never seen anything like this, as bad as this in computer modeling.”
We would expect that the Russians are not too impressed with the NWS, and are for sure using their own methods, by now.
So what’s wrong?
Joe seems to think that the NWS is relying too much on “computer model mathematics” and nowhere near enough on using analogues. Joe’s theory is that if you had very similar weather patterns in the past, then you can use them to help predict today’s weather patterns. I’ve been following Joe for a number of years, and it seems to work quite well for Weatherbell. Of course he’s gotten some wrong, but more often he’s been almost dead on.
Slipshod models?
Bastardi concludes that his method of using analogue years “has beaten the pants off the big high-powered mathematical models. And we didn’t need billions of dollars to develop this, either“.
Forget models predicting 40 years out
Joe comments on the model’s failing to see the cold:
Here’s what I want to ask you: If you can’t see this, how the heck is it supposed to know down the road 20, 30, 40 years if cooling is going to take place? It goes with what is going on now.”
Enjoy the weather. It’s the only (correctly forecast) weather we got!”
“Here’s what I want to ask you: If you can’t see this, how the heck is it supposed to know down the road 20, 30, 40 years if cooling is going to take place? It goes with what is going on now.””
Weather models are not climate models. This comment by Bastardi is utterly stupid.
Climate models are far more complex, and so even far less reliable. Joe’s comment is not what is “stupid” here.
“Climate models are far more complex, and so even far less reliable.”
Why?
(You do realize, I hope, that climate models can’t predict anything?)
Stop being such a pedantic oaf
Are you one of those who thinks models predict something?
You are one that thinks models do anything at all.
They don’t. They are basically USELESS for anything but low-end propaganda.
Nobody should be using them to make any sort of decision about anything, because they are totally un-validated and the results so far are woefully bad compared to reality.
Actually you are wrong, of course. Look at the UKMO site and there you will find a statement made in 2009 which said we can use our new weather model and computer to make forecasts 10yrs ahead and sell those forecasts to make more revenue (sic)
Yes, sod, we don’t know how to forecast weather, but we’ve sure got climate figured out. Scientists agree:
Ljungqvist et al., 2016
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v532/n7597/full/nature17418.html
[M]uch work remains before we can model hydroclimate variability accurately
Hawkins et al., 2016
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2806-8
Irreducible uncertainty in near-term climate projections
Wagner and Zeckhauser, 2016
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/dp84_wagner-zeckhauser.pdf
Confronting Deep and Persistent Climate Uncertainty
Despite important advances in other areas of climate science, we have discovered new uncertainties that make us even less confident about the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity than we were before the latest IPCC report was published.
McDonald, 2016
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301540905_A_Paradigm_shift_to_an_Old_Scheme_for_Outgoing_Longwave_Radiation
There are many cases where the climate models do not agree with the empirical data. For instance, the data from radiosondes (and MSUs) do not show the amount of warming in the upper troposphere that is predicted by the models
Fan et al., 2016
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0037.1?af=R&
[W]e are still in poor understanding of (1) some of the mechanisms that interact with each other over multiple spatial and temporal scales, (2) the feedbacks between microphysical and dynamical processes and between local-scale processes and large-scale circulations, and (3) the significance of cloud-aerosol interactions on weather systems as well as regional and global climate. … [L]arge efforts are needed to escalate our understanding.
Ghan et al., 2016
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/25/1514036113.full
A large number of processes are involved in the chain from emissions of aerosol precursor gases and primary particles to impacts on cloud radiative forcing. … Given the diversity of the relationships, constraints are needed to guide model development and reduce uncertainty in estimates of the radiative forcing. Unfortunately, the preindustrial observations needed to constrain the sensitivities are not available. … Removing those biases is necessary if climate models are to be used for simulations of future climate change.
Kim et al., 2016
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069293/
Climate models have large uncertainties in representing dehydration and cloud processes in the TTL, and thus their feedback with surface climate, prohibiting an accurate projection of future global and regional climate changes.
Also, climate models underproject the decline in Arctic sea ice.
It’s odd, Kenneth, that you don’t understand why projecting climate is a lot easier than predicting weather…
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” — IPCC TAR (2001) Section 14.2.2.2 Page 774
—
IPCC AR5:
“For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations [97%] show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations (Box SYR.1, Figure 1a).”
“However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble”
“Almost all [97%] CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.”
—
Fyfe et al., 2016
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html
It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414 (press release)
“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.” … Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.
—
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2111.html
[G]lobal warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and simulated internal variability. …. [T]he observed rate of global warming over this period is less than that simulated in all but two of 117 CMIP5 simulations.
—
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379114001000
Globally, the general trend of increasing air surface temperature over the last 15 years has slowed in recent years, and is currently four times less than predicted by simulations within Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) (Fyfe et al., 2013).
—
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
[A]s the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat.
—
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2138.html
Surface global warming has stalled since around 2000 despite increasing atmospheric CO2.
—
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/860.summary
Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere?
—
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062775/abstract
The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years
—
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2605.html
Despite a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), global-mean surface temperature (T) has shown no discernible warming since about 2000, in sharp contrast to model simulations, which on average project strong warming.
—
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4655
“Greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, but for about 10 years starting in the early 2000s, global average surface temperature stopped climbing and even cooled a bit,” said Willis.
Also, climate models underproject the decline in Arctic sea ice – See more at: https://notrickszone.com/2016/12/23/national-weather-services-multi-billion-dollar-models-fail-totally-botched-forecasts/#comments
Crap at that too, aren’t they!
Indicates a major missing component.
As I said, it’s odd that you don’t understand this.
Spitting out a lot of links, which no context, is you speciality. Too bad you are incapable of putting them in context.
“Too bad you are incapable of putting them in context.”
Says Appell, who totally ignores the fact that for most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene, sea ice was often summer ice free.
Your continued IGNORANCE of this fact speak loud to you being nothing but a low-end propaganda monkey.
Get some basic historic perspective, appell-pip.. so can avoid looking like a monumental fool all the time.
In every link Kenneth provides, he supplies “money quotes” to support his assertions, and yet D.o.A. pretends they aren’t relevant.
Every time they are caught in a lie they default to to obfuscation and insults. Typical of Leftists.
Still waiting for him to make a cogent argument in support of any of his dubious claims.
Sod. The IPCC was clear that long range climate predicton is impossible. Sorry, mate.
And this is reassuring how?
Who said it was reassuring?
It means that all the idiotic predictions / projections of the AGW scammers are basically a load of crystal ball gazing nonsense.
It means that their is no reason to waste any more funds on unreliable, and that the green blob can be dispensed with, and the world can be allowed to progress and develope rather than being squashed under a demented load of green regulations and scams.
Trump will make a great leap forward in getting this much necessary job started.
Glad Yule or Happy Christmas. ( unless you are are a Jehovahs Witness )
Wassail to all on the blog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XO5Zs-qlx4
sod 23. December 2016 at 2:24 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Weather models are not climate models. This comment by Bastardi is utterly stupid.”
Sooo…. climate is the 30 year average of weather so it is the LOW PASSED frequency component of WEATHER… meaning you subtract some information from weather and you get climate.
Now WHAT happens with the energy spectrum in a NON-LINEAR CHAOTIC FEEDBACK SYSTEM?
Right… It gets shifted from low to high frequencies and from high to low frequencies. Meaning the system is NOT a superposition of two or more separable systems.
So what was that again, your mythical separation between weather and climate?
Well not that warmunist scientists know mathematics OR signal processing. Or maybe they just consciously misapply them in order to keep the alarmist tax payer money flowing.
I so hope for a big fat YOU’RE FIRED for ALL of them.
I have generally found Bastardi to be one of the stupidest commentators on climate change. It’s like he knows nothing at all. My link above was just one example.
Naturally, he appears regularly on Fox News.
“have generally found Bastardi to be one of the stupidest commentators on climate change.”
No Appell.. that would be YOU by a long shot !!
You know NOTHING about climate or Earth’s climate history.
Joe Bastardi is several magnitudes of climate knowledge above you.
All you have is baseless propaganda pap.
“I have generally found Bastardi to be one of the stupidest commentators on climate change”
You really haven’t the first clue have you, Apple?
In any private business, projections this far off would demand a total rethink of the methods used. Only government can get away with errors this great and endure zero accountability. I was educated back in the 60s when synoptic meteorology and climatology dominated the curriculum. All the “new” mega-models can’t match the predictions that we used 40+ years ago. Joe’s use of analogues is a natural, and refined, offshoot of the earlier approach.
This is still important. We don’t plan around “climate change” in either the short or mid-term. For example, we have a major weather warning out for Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day (Manitoba, Canada).
That is tomorrow, Sunday and Monday, the next three days! The NWS and Environment Canada can’t even tell us whether we will get 10, 20 or 30cm of snow from the forming Colorado Low because they can’t determine the path of the storm. This is huge, considering the number of folks who will be traveling this weekend. Because I don’t follow, or use the “state-of-the-art”, “modern”, “coupled”, and “unprecedentedly complex and complete” models, I am watching the national radar systems both south and north of the border to track the storm, and will change any travel plans as needed. I’m sure the models will have it right at least a couple of hours before the storm hits. That’s probably a couple of hours later than I can figure out whether to stay put or head out.
The climate gurus, however, assure me that by Christmas 2050, blizzards will no longer be a problem owing to global warming. My grandchildren will be sweltering in southern Canada. Horsefeathers!
Pierre: the series of articles on recent research is the best climate synopsis currently on the web. Thank you – and Merry Christmas and the best in 2017. Richard
Thanks. And the thanks go to Kenneth Richard, who painstakingly made a huge effort to list the papers. Merry Christmas!
Add my admiration for that synopsis and thanks to you Pierre for your efforts throughout the year. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
R2Dtoo wrote:
“In any private business, projections this far off would demand a total rethink of the methods used.”
How far off?
If you don’t understand that projections are predictions, you really don’t understand the first thing about climate models.
The only way you can back-test climate models is to update them with the actual forcings that occurred…and then they do very nicely…. But they’re still models, and no model is perfect.
Should be…If you don’t understand that projections are NOT predictions….
Then governments should be totally ignoring them , as the laod of BS that they are.
Time is anti-CO2 crusade was brought to an end.
The planet needs CO2 in much higher levels than it currently has.
This Anti-CO2 SCAM will go down in history as probably the biggest man-made progress destroying and economic disaster of all time.
The underlying mathematics of weather models and to large extent also climate models are the non-linear Navier Stokes equations. They are so complex that a full analytical solution is not feasible (yet) given current knowledge in mathematics. If you want to be rich find the analytical solution of NS equations and be famous as mathematician.
The numerical solution is inherently instable/inaccurate due to discretization (time steps, grids). That is the main reason why weather forecasts based on the numerical models are basically not valid after 3 to 5 days, and never will be irrespective of the size and speed of the computers. The floating point arithmetics can be an additional complication (accumulation of rounding errors may give different outcome of models on different hardware).
The irony is whether or not the hiatus (slow down) in the global temperature exists, is rather academical in my opinion. The science of Co2/AGW warming cannot be properly represented by the (numerical) models anyway.
The approach by Joe Bastardi of (long time) weather prediction based on analogues makes therefore sense.
“The science of Co2/AGW warming cannot be properly represented by the (numerical) models anyway.”
Why? Models just solve the partial differential equations that describe the physics.
How would you rather do it?
David Appell 24. December 2016 at 2:26 AM
Apart from our lack of basic understanding of what the minuscule amounts of CO2 has on weather/climate (IMO it is negligible as its effect are lost in the noise of more profound variables), we have from above —
The model may, or may not, have the mathematical description of some of the physics involved, some elements such as clouds are very poorly understood and their effects are only approximated, however it is doubtful these models have all the necessary variables described, and most certainly have many of the interdependencies poorly described.
Also these models have a finite resolution for the known parameters and locations, and this will limit the model’s accuracy. With chaotic system very small changes can ultimately bring very large variations in expected outcomes. Having limited parameter and location resolutions ensures this will happen when assessing climate’s very dynamic analogue system variations.
You obviously have zero idea what modelling partials entails, Appell.. otherwise you would realise just how stupid that statement is.
I’ve noted that about you many times. A very low comprehension about anything to do with maths except at the most basic level.
Now sit up and pay attention while Professor Essex explains how you are wrong.
Link to video Christopher Essex, Ph.D explains what is impossible.
I don’t think that the numerical errors are the ‘main reason’, although they do help a lot (can’t be stressed enough).
The main reason is that the system is chaotic so small errors in the initial condition get amplified exponentially (it’s called a Lyapunov exponent) over time. Obviously not only initial errors are amplified like that, but also numerical errors and perturbations along system evolution, but even without those, it’s hopeless to even pretend a long term accuracy for such a system.
“Why? Models just solve the partial differential equations that describe the physics.”
This gives me an idea about a subject on my blog: I’ll just pick up some physical non-linear PDEs to solve numerically and solve them as they should be solved – with an ‘infinitesimal’ grid size and temporal step size – and as they solve them in the climate ‘science’: with a grid size way larger than relevant physics scales and rather comparable in size with the size of the system… and compare results. Perhaps with an exact solution, if there is any, depending on the problem I’ll pick. Should be striking for anybody that asks such questions, apparently they do not know much about numerical methods…
Chaos theory is another big subject for the next year.
P van Torn wrote:
“If you want to be rich find the analytical solution of NS equations and be famous as mathematician.”
Climate models solve their equations numerically, not analytically.
Come on, this is basic stuff…..
“Come on, this is basic stuff…..”
So basic you clearly don’t understand the first thing about it……
“Climate models solve their equations numerically, not analytically.” – D.A., DOA.
Definition of to “Solve Analytically” _ Use algebraic AND/OR NUMERIC METHODS as the main technique for solving a math problem
http://www.mathwords.com/s/solve_analytically.htm
Yep. “Basic stuff.”
sigh
“Climate models solve their equations numerically,”
Poor Appell….Your ignorance is yet again in the spotlight.
You really have no idea how any of this basic stuff is done, do you.!
You live in a fantasy land, captured there by your own ignorance.
1+1=11
2+3=23
7+7=… Oh, that’s a hard one! I can never figure out which 7 to put first.
[…] National Weather Service’s Multi-Billion Dollar Models Fail …Totally Botched Forecasts! […]
I have a simple method to improve modelled forecasts.
Whenever a government agency propagates their model as being useful in projecting or predicting future events then ALL employees of that agency shall have their wages and pensions linked to accuracy of outcome.
Employees shall enjoy a 10% enhancement of payment for correct forecasts, 5% payment reduction for grossly inaccurate forecasts. Missed catastrophic events cost 15% payment per event. Criteria for assessments will be agreed before publishing the forecast, and will be assessed by majority vote from 3 independent teams from the insurance industry — in the event of a dispute by the forecasters, the industry assessment is taken as correct.
If providers of these models believe that they can forecast unreasonably long time periods then all agency employees will pay into a maintained insurance fund yearly until due date or their retirement — pay out to either the government, or the nominated future generation recipients, when assessment time is due.
The general rule is for those making the forecast having to put money where their mouth is, every time.
It seems that, driven by the need to continually support the Global warming thesis climate scientists are trying to look at the temperature record at altogether to fine a scale and can only create models that respond with warming.
Viewing the Holocene at a broader scale would probably be much more fruitful, on a century by century and even on a millennial perspective.
All the Northern Hemisphere Ice Core records from Greenland show:
• the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.
• each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
• for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point “climate optimum”, have had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.
• but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature loss at about 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.
• the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacials the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
• the beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.
• eventually this late 20th century minor temperature blip will come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.
• other published Greenland Ice Core records also exhibit the same pattern of a prolonged relatively stable early Holocene period followed by a subsequent much more rapid decline in the more recent past.
This point is more fully illustrated here:
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/
Meteorologist Pete Parsons of the Oregon Department of Forestry makes a monthly report for that State using analog years. Recently used are: 1983-84, 1992-93, & 1998-99.
You may not be interested in Oregon but the approach is interesting. The current one for Jan-March, issued 20 Dec ’16:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/NaturalResources/Documents/Weather/dlongrange.pdf
This comment did not appear within 4 hours so I re-posted it, so there is a duplicate below.
Sometimes I think comments from here (Washington State) get tangled in Rossby Waves and the North Atlantic Gyre on their way to Germany.
Best to all.
Merry Christmas!
(or whatever floats your boat)
“Joe Bastardi: Idiot, Liar, or Both?” 3/12/12
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/joe-bastardi-idiot-liar-or-both.html
Neither. Look in the mirror, you will see a LIAR, and IDIOT and a FOOL, and an IGNORANT low-life creep looking back at you.
It is you to the very rotten core.
Just look what he is doing. From bottom to top he commented here at 2.25, 2.26, 2.40, 2.42, and 2.52 AM. You can predict that he also did the former post about the Hockey stick: Yes he did at 2.57 and 4.02 AM. How should we call this? Serial trolling?
Mindert — I notice that you can’t offer a substantive reply to any of my comments.
qed
I notice you only have a link to the very bottom of the propaganda sewer to support your story.
Nothing, NADA.. as usual
I couldn’t help noticing David Appell gives no response to the material in the link edmh gives here…..
edmh 23. December 2016 at 6:41 PM
https://notrickszone.com/2016/12/23/national-weather-services-multi-billion-dollar-models-fail-totally-botched-forecasts/comment-page-1/#comment-1154245
I wonder why that is, not so rhetorically speaking.
Also, I wouldn’t buy a new car from Gavin Schmidt, let alone a used one. (same for Appell, btw)
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/december-brings-even-more-spectacular-data-tampering-from-gavin-schmidt
Appell and Sod have had their hats handed to them on this thread compliments of Joe B and Ken R. You’ll find your shorts about a km back down the road!
“Appell and Sod have had their hats handed to them on this thread compliments of Joe B and Ken R.”
No. You are making things up.
Again: bastardi does not understand the difference between weather and climate.
Even IF a long range weather forecast got something wrong (and we would need to see if that really is the case and how bastardi looks in comparison if we take a couple of his forecasts) then we would still see something that is much better than the permanent “forecast” of massive winter/snow incidents that were spread here over the last year.
Why do we not wait and see how things look in the end?
“bastardi does not understand the difference between weather and climate.”
You really think so? You’re the expert to judge this? Yes, my questions of course are rhetorical.
I am just looking at what he said (quote at the end of your article):
“Here’s what I want to ask you: If you can’t see this, how the heck is it supposed to know down the road 20, 30, 40 years if cooling is going to take place? It goes with what is going on now.””
You really are becoming rather odious. Must come with losing so many arguments
“David Appell, Idiot, Liar, or Both?”
I leave it for others to decide.
tom: Interesting that you couldn’t refute the points I brought up in my post about Bastardi.
Science wins over name calling every time.
You were the one with the name calling..
…and yes, Joe Bastardi wins against you every time.
You have NOTHING.
“Joe Bastardi: Idiot, Liar, or Both?”
Don’t you mean “David Appel: Idiot, Liar, or Both?”
To which the answer is quite clearly BOTH.
And that’s on one of his better days.
good comment edmh, Sod is just a socialist, alarmist troll who has no understanding of technology. His comments come from green propaganda.
Some COOL pics and vids from the FREEZING northern Russia.
http://rbth.com/politics_and_society/2016/12/23/surgut-residents-eat-ice-cream-ride-bicycles-in-50c_666698
MC+HNY… to all realists.
But, but …
Gavin tells us it’s “the hottest year ever”.
A phrase (with attribution) which should be on every publicly owned building and transport vehicle over the winter season, so that everyone ‘gets the message’!
tom: Do you have scientific proof Gavin is wrong?
If not, then shut up.
It is almost certainly NOT the hottest year ever.
Most of the Holocene before the drop into the LIA, including the RWP and MWP, was warmer than now.
REALITY is not your strong suit, Appell-grub.
A nice collection of articles documenting Schmidt’s rape of the data.
http://realclimatescience.com/?s=GAVIN+SCHMIDT
Enjoy next week, rotten-Appell.
You’ll find your granny’s coal or gas fired heater going flat-out, I bet.
https://s19.postimg.org/uygscf1bn/portland_forecast.png
“then shut up.”
Where the **** do you get off telling people to shut up.
You are nothing but a baselessly arrogant prat.
Meteorologist Pete Parsons of the Oregon Department of Forestry makes a monthly report for that State using analog years. Recently used are: 1983-84, 1992-93, & 1998-99.
You may not be interested in Oregon but the approach is interesting. The current one for Jan-March, issued 20 Dec ’16.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/NaturalResources/Documents/Weather/dlongrange.pdf
John: I live in Oregon.
Why is this report particularly interesting?
Nice negative temperature anomaly over Oregon at the moment, hey Appell.
I’m sure your coal or gas fired heating is up full !
Feeding upwardly adjusted and homogenised data into invalid models …
Nonsense in = even more nonsense out.
Actually, adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend.
See Karl et al, Science (2015), Fig 2.
Quoting BS propaganda from Tom Karl.
You really are sinking to the bottom of the sewer, aren’t you worm.
You know they have intentionally wiped out the 1940’s warming, and know they are continually fudging to try to malufacture some sort of warming trend that simply doesn’t exist except from El Nino effects.
Documenting the lies
http://www.c3headlines.com/science-censorshipdeceit/
See also here
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/
and here
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/hansen-knew-why-the-1930s-were-warmer-before-he-adjusted-them/
[…] – See more at: notrickszone.com […]
NWS stealing money, shamefully stealing money