Monday, December 28, 2009
...this quarter, at least, North America's weather is making a mockery of the people who use climate models to forecast the months and years ahead.
So let’s compare the complete Autumn temperatures vs. the forecasts from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. In August, CPC forecast that most of the US would have above normal temperatures from October through December, and perhaps more importantly did did not predict that any areas would have below normal temperatures.
As you can see below, their prediction was largely reversed from what has happened.
The folks at the linked post have trouble understanding the difference between signal and noise. In a very short period, there's lots of noise but in a longer period you can pick out a trend.
That's why we can't be very confident as to whether temps in three weeks will be colder or warmer than today, but we can be pretty confident that they will be warmer in six months. I don't think the author at the link is able to wrap his mind around that idea.
As for the specifics of the post, the above average temps did occur where most of it was predicted - in the Southwest and the Northeast. They didn't predict the colder-than -average temps, that's true, but I think short term predictions like these have more to do with random weather fluctuations of the jet stream and little to do with climate models that incorporate greehouse gases.
"I think short term predictions like these have more to do with random weather fluctuations of the jet stream and little to do with climate models that incorporate greehouse gases"
I see that we have moved on from the Semantic Wars of Global Warming versus Climate Change, slouched past Wheather versus Climate...and have arrived at Short Term versus Long Term predictions.
Sooner or later the AGW Cult is going to have to come to terms with itself....especially now that they have been "outed" in East Anglia and trivialized in Dopenhagen!
Brian you are correct. Are you on record preaching that sermon to the catastrophists over the last two decades?
If you are, good on you, and point taken. If not, why does this only start to bother you now?
From the religious archives of the CRU comes this little piece of "weather is not climate" humor, circa 2000, "It will not snow anymore in Britain".
Anon, the words about no snow "in a few years" are the reporter's and not a direct quote from the CRU researcher. I'd guess the actual prediction was in a few decades.
That's reasonable for low-elevation, southern parts of England. The report includes this:
"in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991."
Only a small temperature increase would eliminate snowfall.
Well, thank Zeus for that explanation. Of course, and despite your feel-good news that it hasn't snowed much in 18 years, it's snowing like crazy over there this winter. But weather is not climate. Amen.
Since that was February, and last winter, here's some pics from this winter. Snow in England may not occur very often, thanks to the Gulf Stream, but it does occur, especially with a cooling climate in the northern hemisphere. Anyway, I now return you back to your religious programming.
More snow pictures from earlier this month in England.