Not well
NOAA totally blew winter forecast… But it will be 4 degrees warmer in 100 yrs. http://t.co/dCsmpLTevQ
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) February 19, 2014
This is why Warmists only like to make predictions 50-100 years out
(Business Week) Surprised by how tough this winter has been? You’re in good company: Last fall the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that temperatures would be above normal from November through January across much of the Lower 48 states. This graphic shows just how wrong the official forecast of the U.S. government was.
The big red blotch in the top map represents parts of the country in which the Climate Prediction Center forecast above-average temperatures. The frigid-looking blue blotch in the bottom “verification†map shows areas where temperatures turned out to be below average.
I bet this will soon be blamed on “climate change”. Or Warmists will flip to “that’s not climate, that’s weather. And we know what will happen 100 years from now (insert Dean scream). The Lonely Conservative notes that Warmists want to blow up the economy when they can’t even get one season correct. Ace
I don’t really think it’s terrible that government meteorologists failed to predict how tough, cold, and snowy this Global Warmening winter would be. Predicting the future, like hitting a curveball, is hard.
But, of course: I’m a bit skeptical when they move straight from one near-term failed prediction to a long-term prediction, also failed, at least for the last 17 years, and tell me “Serious You Guys you have to trust on this, the Science is Settled.”
Warmists have removed skepticism from science. Now you must Believe, Have Faith, and Comply.
Steve Milloy? Really? A proven liar and a lobbyist for big energy. Was Marc Morano too busy pleasuring the Koch brothers to weigh in?
You know this but it doesn’t stop you: Weather forecasting differs from long-term climate.
It’s the well worn denier “They can’t tell me if it’s going to rain today at 3 but they can predict the weather 100 years from now!” argument.
Here’s all you need to remember: The Earth is warming because of the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere over the last century.
Oh boy! An ad hominem attack that doesn’t address the truthfulness of Milloy’s statement!
I guess under Jeffery’s standard we shouldn’t listen to him as he is a proven liar as well.
To some extent there is a difference. But the problem is that long term weather prediction and long term climate prediction both rely on the same modeling procedures and data.
Says the guy who admits data is falsified and changed to fit a theory in which he believes.
Guitar,
Don’t feed the troll.
“Weather forecasting differs from long term climate.” Right. The short term throws them for a loop but the long term stuff they’ve nailed down. Only in Jeffery’s world.
My apologies to the Coolist, Mr. Milloy. On reflection, he was right on both counts. NOAA blew the short-term forecast and it will be 4 degrees warmer in 100 years. On the other hand I was right to label him a paid shill for oil, energy and tobacco interests. He is paid to mislead you.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair
The linked Business Week article gets all sciency on us and blames the current Eastern US cold snap on the “polar vortex” and a ridge of high pressure that’s pushing polar cold southward. We have baked Alaska, drought stricken California and a frozen Eastern half of the US, for now.
g2 claims the models and data used to predict short-term local weather in the US is the same as for predicting global heat accumulation 100 years out. Evidence to support your claim? Thanks.
Pirate claims that CO2 mitigation will “blow up the economy”. Again, supporting evidence? Thanks. Note that this claim is the absolute cornerstone of the latest iteration of the Coolist’s agenda. Having lost the scientific argument, this is your Alamo. Your house is unlikely to catch fire, yet you have insurance. With the risks of global warming being so great shouldn’t we “buy insurance”? So, how much will that cost us in terms of “blowing up the economy”, which is a very imprecise term. Will it shrink GDP? How much? Will it drop projected yearly GDP growth from 3% to 2.9%?
Surely, you have a treasure trove of studies and analyses demonstrating the impact of reducing carbon dioxide and methane emissions on GDP, otherwise how could you claim it will “blow up the economy”. A Google search of “CO2 reduction economic impacts” yielded 3.5 million hits, so surely you can cherry pick 1 out of 3.5 million to support your stance.
The Farmers Almanac had this winter right.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.†— Upton Sinclair
I agree with this quote. However, it is the catastrophists who are paid to not understand basic science.
When there is not a single computer anywhere that can predict, nor explain, the near 20 year “pause” in global warming, the basic premise of the theory is rendered impotent.
When the middle age warming have to be “eliminated” or adjusted to account for the premise, there is no science there.
When CO2 counts 10 times the current starved levels existed with climates similar to todays, without explanation, there is a lack of science there.
When CO2 increases LAG temperature increases by 800 years (in the geologic record), the absurdity of CO2 based warming is exposed.
When you can’t/won’t publish your source data for fear the fraud will be discovered, you have fraud.
When it stops getting warmer, and you change the name to “climate change” to CYA, it is propaganda.
A proper scientific theory INVITES skeptics to disprove it. Global Warming is little more than idoltry at the alter of Marx.
HS typed:
“When there is not a single computer anywhere that can predict, nor explain, the near 20 year “pause†in global warming, the basic premise of the theory is rendered impotent.”
The rate of increase has slowed slightly since the early 2000s,and still falls in the range of the models. This past decade is the warmest in 10s of thousands of years.
“When the middle age warming have (sic) to be “eliminated†or adjusted to account for the premise, there is no science there.”
There never was middle age warming (I assume you meant MWP) to speak of. Real data and real evidence shows that. Please show the data that supports your point.
“When CO2 counts 10 times the current starved levels existed with climates similar to todays, without explanation, there is a lack of science there.”
The CO2 levels (counts) haven’t been this high for nearly a million years.
“When CO2 increases LAG temperature increases by 800 years (in the geologic record), the absurdity of CO2 based warming is exposed.”
The current warm period is being driven by atmospheric CO2 not Milankovitch cycles.
“When you can’t/won’t publish your source data for fear the fraud will be discovered, you have fraud.”
The source data are freely available.
“When it stops getting warmer, and you change the name to “climate change†to CYA, it is propaganda.”
The IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was formed in 1988. Svante Arrhenius wrote about the effects of atmospheric CO2 on the climate in the 1800s.
“A proper scientific theory INVITES skeptics to disprove it. Global Warming is little more than idoltry (sic) at the alter (sic) of Marx.”
Is there a statute of limitations on trying? No. Skeptics have had 2 centuries and are still welcome to perform experiments and generate data. Karl Marx died before Arrhenius conducted his classic experiments, and I am unaware of his interest in global warming. Or did you mean Groucho?
It’s good to have a warming climate. It results in better crop yields, luxuriant plant growth, and reversing desertification. Too bad we are in a cooling cycle that shows no sign of stopping. It’s obvious by now thay CO2 has no effect on the planet’s temperature. The ‘settled’ science that atmospheric CO2 traps heat and magically zips it back to Earth remains an unproven theory started By Dr. Roger Revelle in 1959. Shut up you stinkin alarmist dipshits.
scissorbill typed:
“It’s good to have a warming climate.”
A warming climate in and of itself is neither good nor bad. The overall impact on human civilization of a few degrees C warming will not be good, though.
“It results in better crop yields, luxuriant plant growth, and reversing desertification.”
Do you have evidence to support your contention that a significant increase in the global mean surface temperature improves crop yields, plant growth and reverses desertification?
“Too bad we are in a cooling cycle that shows no sign of stopping.”
Really? What makes you type that?
“It’s obvious by now that CO2 has no effect on the planet’s temperature.”
It’s obvious by now that your statement is false. In the 1800’s scientists realized that the Earth was warmer than could be explained by the sun’s radiation. The atmosphere traps heat.
“The ‘settled’ science that atmospheric CO2 traps heat and magically zips it back to Earth remains an unproven theory started by Dr. Roger Revelle in 1959.”
There is nothing magical about the interactions between electromagnetic radiation and matter. CO2 doesn’t directionally zip radiation back to Earth. Svante Arrhenius wrote a paper in 1896 describing the phenomenon. Dr. Revelle suggested that human-generated CO2 emissions could lead to warming. Theories are never proven.
“Shut up you stinkin alarmist dipshits.”
Kiss my ass.
[…] William Teach noted that the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that temperatures in the continental United States would be above normal from November through January. He then quoted Ace of Spades, who had a great point: […]