Because accuracy improves as distance from the target increases:
If you think it just couldn’t be possible for any weather outfit to perform as poorly as the UK’s Met Office in long-term outlooks (13 out of 14 wrong), think again. It appears the US national weather services are right on their heels when it comes to who can make the all-time least accurate outlooks.
And we’re supposed to believe these people when it comes to their climate forecasting?
I thought the UK met office had already gotten out of the long term forecasting business exactly for this reason. Oh well, hope springs eternal. But really, isn’t coin tossing cheaper and, ultimately, just as accurate?
And the crowds all cheered….for a smart-alecky. sissy, pup.
Turdo la Doo is a perfect reflection of the shallow, self-obsessed fools who will vote for him.
‘scuse me while I copy/paste that one into the rights thread….
Well here we have the medias favourite addled darling “David Phillips”, every time we need a scary weather story or a prediction about the coming winter/summer weather the Globals etc run to the second best Canadian weather predictor behind the great Suzuker. Both are always wrong, but when your in the media, you obviously don’t have much latitude or money to seek out a Joe Bastardi, only Fox in the US uses Joe. Up here in the Canadian MSM they only use peer reviewed global warming believers to tell us that minus 40 is a sign of impending doom from globull warming.
And this is why I don’t think there is a grand conspiracy among scientists and government bureaucracies. If they were really trying to conspire against the public and taxpayers then they wouldn’t make themselves look this ridiculous. To say it another way, if they knew the official climate models were garbage they wouldn’t rely on them to make predictions. They’d refrain from making predictions and instead focus on general scariness and panic. These general statements would then be linked to every specific weather event – think of how new age psychics manipulate their clients.
The real question is why the models are so bad. Obviously much of the answer is simply that it is an immature science and they are still struggling to understand the major variables and how they interact. Unfortunately they cannot admit this because the politics have made it essential that they produce certainty and “unprecedented” whether it is true or not.
ICYMI, there was a link that does explain one nefarious reason why the models are so bad (beyond the immature science). In their quest to give the politicians what they need a small group of researchers have been meddling with the data. Since the data is used to produce the models, the models amplify the errors created by these spurious adjustments. Then these same flawed models are used by researchers in their papers to make predictions about wildlife, the economy and seasonal predictions. 13 out of 14 wrong predictions for Met Office would make me wary of relying on any of those other papers on the affects of climate change on the economy and biodiversity since almost all of them are model based.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/hockey-team-overachievers-hiding-the-1940-1970-decline/
And that’s the difference between the earth vs. sun centred solar system that often comes up in the climate debate. The earth centred system was absolutely wrong but the model was able to give correct answers about where planets would be. Human centred climate models, CAGW, cannot even do that. They consistently get everything wrong and conjure up lame explanations to save the CAGW hypothesis. I suspect the giants of science from the Greeks to Einstein would laugh at the absurdity of it all.
How about getting some competent people back into these organizations for once?“ – Artical
The new progressive world we live in thrives on medicocracy.
Millions of illiterate Third World colonists, open borders, Affermative Action, Public Education, Government controlled MSM, Liberal Socialist Entertainment industry – IS DESIGNED to breed medicocracy.
It’s an ideology silly.
This just confirms that if you really need accuracy, The Farmer’s Almanac is the place to go.
The Gray Lady proselytizes:
“The End of Snow?
…
Officials canceled two Olympic test events last February in Sochi after several days of temperatures above 60 degrees Fahrenheit and a lack of snowfall had left ski trails bare and brown in spots. That situation led the climatologist Daniel Scott, a professor of global change and tourism at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, to analyze potential venues for future Winter Games. His thought was that with a rise in the average global temperature of more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit possible by 2100, there might not be that many snowy regions left in which to hold the Games. He concluded that of the 19 cities that have hosted the Winter Olympics, as few as 10 might be cold enough by midcentury to host them again. By 2100, that number shrinks to 6…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html?ref=todayspaper
Mark
Ottawa
I think these predictions are made to keep government weather agencies on-side politically. It is better to have to explain to the boss how your warmer-than-normal prediction for the winter got blind-sided by a polar vortex than to be accused of not being a team player because your prediction for cold is off-side with a regime’s global warming agenda.
Now for something totally different. “Your” is a second person possessive adjective to describe something that belongs to someone, e.g. “your car”. It is not a contraction of “you are”. That contraction is “you’re”. With that off my chest, I feel better.
Yes there is nothing like sitting in the dark knowing that gender equality and diversity targets are working hard to restore the power.. Four days later your power comes back on and you get to read in the news what a good job they all did..
Just brutal..
The fallacy of weather/climate forecasting may be that warmists are applying science to predict random events. Science, by its nature, cannot accept such randomness. They abhor chaos. Instead they are designing models with one independent variable when, in fact, there are billions of variables creating virtually random outcomes. I even suspect the outcomes are worse than random. I suspect the outcomes of long-term projections appear to be the reverse of the prediction more often than an accurate prediction.
I have done considerably better. Go look on weather forums, you’ll see for yourself. You are not allowed to know this because I am blacklisted by your wonderful Canadian government and its public service “association” — oh well, there goes three hundred million down the drain when I would have done it for less than one million. Can they do the math? I guess not, they took that out of the curriculum and replaced it with “climate change” study. I gave up on Canada years ago because of this b.s. and the nativist tendency will ensure that nobody ever looks into it — wasn’t born here, therefore not really a person.
Stuck between two bad ideologies, in other words. Perhaps the most authentic Canadian story of all, but not one that anyone but myself would ever articulate.
Over the past few days, there has been some interesting weather here in Oregon.
More interesting still was the weather maps being displayed on TV.
The weather guy pointed out the large areas of rain, and mentioned that these were most likely snow
“because the models all run hot” and temperatures are generally lower than they predict.
If even the few hours ahead models run hot, what chance is there for anything trying to predict decades out into the future.