Last August, the Commerce Department's/NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center forecast above-normal fall (October - December) temperatures throughout most of the U.S.:
source: NOAA
The actual temperatures NOAA recorded during that period were:
source: High Plains Regional Climate Center via NOAA
Oops. Similar news from Britain here.
I'm not claiming three months of weather is "climate." Just that warming zealots' unreliable computer models aren't "climate" either.
7 comments:
One common factor in the AGW hysteria and the financial crisis is that both relied heavily on modeling with little real-world check on the data.
Another commonality is that there was a lot of money involved for the very few who were involved in generating the models, and the money largely depending on getting one set of results.
By which I conclude that dragging a 100 bucks through a trailer park, dragging 100K through a university, and dragging 500K through a financial firm gets about the same result.
I do not think the media is going to report on these commonalities, however.
Depended! Not "depending".
My defense is that I've just been out shoveling more Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The Swartzberg Test:
The validity of a science is its ability to predict.
Ergo, "Global Warming Science" is pretty much self-evidently not valid at all.
> By which I conclude that dragging a 100 bucks through a trailer park, dragging 100K through a university, and dragging 500K through a financial firm gets about the same result.
...Or 500 bucks through Congress. (Them hoors is cheap, they just won't stay bought).
OBH - My father always said, "An honest politician is one who stays bought."
By the way, I note the second map is done using "provisional data". Odds are, it'll "provisionally change" to much more closely resemble map 1 by the time it stops being provisional.
MOM:
> OBH - My father always said, "An honest politician is one who stays bought."
"Honest" and "politician" go together sort of like "wise" and "postmodern liberal", though, donchathink?
M_O_M: Agreed.
OBH: Given that NOAA's prediction "was largely reversed from what has happened," that would be quite some correction. But I agree that the "Swartzberg Test" (which also was Karl Popper's approach) traveled within the Schwarzschild radius never to re-appear.
Post a Comment