Call me crazy, but I thought the forecast for Snowquester was pretty good, as total busts and epic fiascos go. The models in this case predicted serious snow in the I-95 corridor, but the storm “underperformed,” and didn’t drop snow intensely enough and consistently enough to cool down the warm layer of the atmosphere and the warm ground in the urban areas. For those of us in the city, Snowquester turned out to be the winter storm equivalent of Albert Haynesworth.
Still, I blame the storm more than I blame the computer models. The models are pretty good. It’s Nature that messed this up.
h/t to JunkScience.com and Marc Morano
O/T
El Nino Explained (funny)
https://twitter.com/AStonerDK/status/309734307247816705/photo/1
As late as the 1750’s 13- and 14-year old girls were burned as
witches in Bavaria, for “having communion with the Devil,
casting spells and ‘making’ weather.”
The only thing that has changed is the burning part. The climate “puritans” say consumption is wrecking the weather. We need to restrain ourselves because we don’t need SUVs, all this modern stuff and we use too much electricity, hence everywhere you turn, somebody is preaching using less energy. We must purify ourselves or the gods will punish us with too much CO2. Cult leaders tell you that listening to naysayers is sinful and one must not pollute the mind with contrary information lest you be led astray. How many people have googled “carbon” instead of “carbon dioxide” and came away with images of soot or dirty stuff?
Your opinion is not worth a hoot if I am denied the opportunity to entertain an opposing opinion. To label someone a “denier” is to presume you, or your group, alone hold the keys to truth and knowledge. Just like cults, this position must be protected at all times lest you lose the key to the kingdom. Scientific American placed keywords such as “watts” to keep “deniers” from commenting and all are aware that censorship is rampant. They are not the least bit interested in global warming NOT happening and they get very upset at the very suggestion. One’s “wrongness” can be directly judged by their efforts to prevent contrary information entering the picture.
This is not the work of science. It’s the work of a cult.
cool down the warm layer of the atmosphere and the warm ground in the urban areas
UHI makes a difference??
But K-K-K-Katie told us “nothing is natural anymore”.
Jason Samenow, of the Capital Weather Gang, in the President of my own Anit-Fan Club.
I don’t think it is appropriate of me to comment on predictions made by the President of my Anti-Fan Club
I guess that is to be expected in the world where Models tell the truth, and reality always lies.
Ask a greenie dressed up in a polar bear outfit what “truth” really is.
These are weather models which are getting better. With a weather model you can predict, test, fix, and repeat. With climate models you check back in 30 years and see how you did.
Yeah, but if you’re Jim Hansen, you take the last 30 years, lie about them, and call them “within 50% of Scenario C,” and call it “pretty darn good, I’d say” (his words) then you have the ability to do anything you want
But models that do not predict are not good. Regardless of what brain dead journalists want to claim. The model failed. Reality did not.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
”What is a Soviet historian?” the joke goes in Moscow: ”One who can predict the past.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0328/032805.html/(page)/2
“Still, I blame the storm more than I blame the computer models. The models are pretty good. It’s Nature that messed this up.”
Please see –
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/models-are-useless-for-three-hours-but-perfect-for-50-years/#comment-200379
I have a comment above still in moderation (twitter feed caused that?)… Thanks
Hmm, so he states the computer model ‘punked’ the real world. Just confirms my suspicion: these people aren’t people at all– they’re robots.
I gotta say that the modeled snow is easier to shovel.
But the excuse is BS. Even if it were colder, it wouldn’t be much.
Jim in Jersey.