“Given our level of ignorance about what’s going on, we don’t want to compound that with a level of arrogance by saying we know what’s going to happen in a month,”
– Jonathan Martin
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
I wonder what he would say about the climate over a number of years. After all, predicting long term averages is a completely other business than predicting the weather in, say, a month.
He wasn’t even too keen on predicting what will happen in a year.
Why not ask him then.
It is easy to predict long term patterns if long term patterns are evident in historical records you just need to average out the observed variations and project those into the future. Care should be taken to use the longest period available of historic records and searching for ALL available patterns. It would probably be easier to do this on a regional rather than global basis as different regions follow different patterns.
That is ONE of the evident problems with Climate models being used today.
Precting the future climate is infinitely more difficult than predicting the weather in a month.
The average of erroneous data is still erroneous data. If someone uses a computer model to predict global daily temperatures for the next thirty years (the arbitrarily defined time period of “climate”) and then claims that the average of this data is a more accurate predictor of what mean global temperatures over the period will be than the daily predictions of temperature are for each day of the period, then they are utterly crazy. If the idiotic notion that “the errors tend to cancel each other out over time” were true, then it would follow that a weekly mean temperature prediction would tend to be more accurate than a daily prediction, monthly more accurate than weekly, yearly more accurate than monthly, and so on. This is a statistically testable proposition, both in theory and in practice. We don’t have to wait 30 years or longer to see if the climate modelers’ claims are true, they can, if they are right, show us right now that their models’ predictive powers improve progressively with time. So why don’t they?
When talking about Long Term, I am talking about Thousands of years and even hundreds of thousands of years. Thirty years is regional weather and only a portion of a pattern. You can not build a house using the pattern for a door or window and that is about what the current modelers are trying to do. They do not even get that correct because they are patterning their door from hanging beads. and their window from the curtains.
Good analogy Mike…..
@Mike Davi
I was actually addressing our self-described “Sense Seeker”. I’m not quite sure what your comment is relevant to here, so, at the moment, I have nothing to say about it.
Sorry, that should obviously be “Mike Davis”.
Steven:
Forecasting:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/
Mike,
Thanks for the link – I had forgotten about that site and it’s a good one.