Crack Government Climate Models Predicted That January-April Would Be Hot In The US

13 Responses to Crack Government Climate Models Predicted That January-April Would Be Hot In The US

1. Ernest Bush says:

   April 29, 2014 at 11:00 pm

   You left the word be out of “Would be hot in the U.S.” It says Would Hot In The U.S.”

   Reply
2. Hell_Is_Like_Newark says:

   April 29, 2014 at 11:16 pm

   For investment and work reasons, I watch the weather in order to give me insights as to where energy prices might go. I have totally given up on NOAA. The gold standard of forecasting has been utterly contaminated by politics. So I looked elsewhere.

   The Korean (South… not North) weather service got the forecast for this winter fairly correct. They predicted severe cold for the eastern seaboard of the United States. They just under-estimated the severity. This was the coldest winter I can remember outside of my early childhood (1970s).

   Reply
   • Dave N says:

     April 29, 2014 at 11:53 pm

     I’m guessing you don’t even bother with the UK Met Office.

     How about Weather Action? (run by Piers Corbyn)

     Reply
     • Hell_Is_Like_Newark says:

       April 30, 2014 at 3:04 pm

       I find Piers Corbyn’s presentations a bit difficult to read. I know the guy has been way more accurate than the UK Met Office, but to me he looks like he should be standing over a corpse with lighting bolts going into it, screaming “Give my creation life!”

       Reply
3. Andy DC says:

   April 30, 2014 at 12:03 am

   A 10 degree departure over a four month period is probably unprecedented. You could only imagine the screaming and hand wringing if it happened to be a 10 degree positive departure. But of course record cold is entirely consistent with a warming planet (sarc).

   Reply
   • Ernest Bush says:

     April 30, 2014 at 3:54 pm

     Only if you consider the modern record while ignoring the past. We still live in one of the most benevolent times in the historical record, with respect to climate and weather.

     Reply
4. slimething says:

   April 30, 2014 at 1:05 am

   Since I’m from Michigan, I’ve been reading this thread over at WUWT concerning adjustment of the temperature data. Bill Illis commented about Michigan, then, I don’t know what part of Michigan he is from, DR really lambasted Nick Stokes after his reply claiming there aren’t massive adjustments.

   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/29/one-way-adjustments-the-latest-alteration-to-the-u-s-climate-record/#comment-1624852

   Reply
5. The Grey Enigma says:

   April 30, 2014 at 1:38 am

   Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.

   Reply
6. philjourdan says:

   April 30, 2014 at 11:26 am

   Yea, their reality leaves a lot to be desired as well. No way we are green.

   Reply
7. D. Self says:

   April 30, 2014 at 3:10 pm

   And they always predict an active Hurricane season, never fails.

   Reply
   • Andy DC says:

     April 30, 2014 at 5:06 pm

     Yes, the ones who predict the number of storms also names the storms. Since that is a very subjective process, it is not hard for them to make their predictions come true.

     Back in the days when people were honest, they said a storm had to be at least 1000 mb to qualify as a bona fide named storm. If they would use that criteria today, you would probably reduce the number of named storms by at least 80%.

     Reply
     • Billy Liar says:

       April 30, 2014 at 9:29 pm

       The 1000mb rule would have demoted 7 storms in the 2013 season taking the totals to 6 storms and 2 hurricanes from 13 storms and 2 hurricanes.

       ACE at the end of the season was 32 IIRC – that has been massaged up to 36 putting 4 places further away from the bottom of the table (10th lowest since 1950).

       Reply
8. Organic Fool says:

   April 30, 2014 at 8:29 pm

   Global warming at Lake Mille Lacs in Minnesota
   http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/04/29/lake-mille-lacs-residents-dealing-with-walls-of-ice/

   Ice destroying shore line, docks, trees.

   Video http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=10105812

   Reply