Re: More fraudulent IPCC models.

On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:17:53 +0000 (UTC), don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

Anyway, long range weather predictions don't require a computah or
government grants. The Old Farmer's Almanac has been doing it for 200
years (and is still selling well):
<http://www.almanac.com/weather/>
<http://www.almanac.com/weathercenter/howwepredict.php>

I have read those Old Farmer's Almanacs enough.

I've only read perhaps 2 of them. I liked the concept of a mysterious
and undisclosed formula involving sunspots. As you note, it makes the
valid assumption that this years weather will be quite similar to last
years weather. Were I to predict the weather in this manner, my
guess(tm) is that I would have at least 70% accuracy. It's a fair
assumption, even with global warming and occasional catastrophes and
good enough for the small farm.

But nowadays in the post-1998 era, I have noticed increase in seasonal
lag in ice cover on the southern half of Hudson Bay, making winters in the
NE portion of USA generally a few days later in both beginning and end.
Autumns appear to me to be warming while the first half of spring so far
appears to me to be resisting warming from one decade to the next.

Good, but are you able to extrapolate from that a warming trend and
use it to predict future NE weather? Or perhaps these are normal
historical variations? Dunno.

Just how accurate is the weather predictions? See:
<http://www.forecastadvisor.com>
Plug in your zip code and compare the various reports. For my area:
<http://www.forecastadvisor.com/California/SantaCruz/95060/>
the 1 to 3 day temperature forecast was perhaps 80% accurate to within
3 degrees. I've been watching this page for perhaps 2 years, and
found that the NWS (National Wx Service) has been fairly consistently
near the bottom of the temperature accuracy list. Yet the government
owned and operated NWS are the authorities on weather and they
couldn't possibly be that bad? They can't nail the temperature to
within 3 degrees over a 3 day period, yet climatologist are trying to
nail the temperature to within 0.1 degrees over perhaps a 100 year
period? Perhaps the climatologists and weather forecasters should
arrange to meet and exchange computer models?

That begs the question, what's the difference between a climatologist
and a weather forecaster? Easy. A climatologist is a former weather
forecaster who extends their predictions far into the future. Other
than that, there's not much difference between them. They both use
the same computer models, the same assumptions, and the same
historical data. Oh, there is another difference. They derive their
income from different sources. Weather forecasters usually work for
government, military, or commercial organizations. Climatologists
tend to hang around universities, research organizations, and
institutions supported by government and corporate grants.

Hmmm... this just appeared on the bottom of the above forecast URL:
"On average, NWS Digital Forecast's low temperature forecasts
for Freedom were off by 2.70 degrees last year."

Like all good jokes, my original comments about the inability of
climatologist to produce an accurate weather report for the next
century has more than a small grain of truth buried in it. My
previous attempt to predict local rainfall based on historical data
can be tweaked into a rising or falling trend based on nothing more
than the order of the polynomial series used to average the data.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-forecast.jpg>
For fun, I just change the trend line from 2 or 3 order polynomial
average over a 25 year period to 6th and 5th order. Instant dog leg
(also known as hockey stick). I just uploaded a revised version.
The graph:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
and the Excel spread*** used to generate it:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-forecast-06.xls>
Excel won't do polynomial trends beyond 6th order, so this is the
worst case. I'll need a statistics program to produce a genuine
hockey stick.

There's also the problem of where forecasters and climatologists get
their money. Forecasters are usually salaried positions, where one
slaves away for 40 years and retires knowing that their predictions
are perhaps 5% better than the Old Farmers Almanac. Climatologists
are funded by research grants, government programs, universities, and
any company with an agenda involving global warming. It's really
difficult to find a climatologist that doesn't have an agenda. The
university and government flavor are constantly trying to justify
their research, usually by making outlandish claims, which immediately
promote additional research funding. If the researcher spends the
money and finds nothing, they're not going to get any more funding.
So, every single climate research report has discovered something of
note. Seen any reports that claim the source data is garbage and that
using it to predict the future is no better than casting dice?
Probably not. Whether the resultant reports are useful, correct, or
worthwhile, is subject to debate. Those funded by industry tend to
favor the goals of their supporters. Oil money is not going to fund
anyone that takes global warming effects seriously. I'm not
suggesting that this is all bad. It's just that lacking a better way
to fund research, we have to live with the current methodology and
live with its consequences.

How about cosmic rays are linked to global warming?
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm>
6 years later, the effect appears to be in doubt:
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403083932.htm>
<http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.pdf>
As always, more research is necessary. There are also links to global
warming from sunspots, bovine flatulence, waste management, rotting
vegetation behind dams, and volcanism.

The whole mess kinda reminds of the Y2K debacle. Those that predicted
that the effects of data arithmetic failure would be minor were
generally ignored as apologists. Alarmists, survivalists, and
futurists, received top billing and media attention as they predicted
the demise of civilization as we know it. While there are
considerable differences between Y2K and global warming, there are
some interesting similarities. Both were trying to predict the future
based upon comparatively little data. Both relied heavily on media
attention for promoting various agendas (including the sales of
replacement Y2K compatible computahs). Both had their lunatic fringe,
with amazingly similar slogans such as "it's the risks, not the odds".

Anyway, enough ranting for now. Accuweather says it should be 52F
degrees outside. My thermometer says 51F. If the trend continues at
the rate of 1 degree per day, we'll be in another ice age by the end
of July.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@xxxxxxxxxx
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
.