Climatologists Said La Nina, Don't Expect Much Rain California

[SSDD]

They are not close to accurate 3 months out but they can tell you for certain what will happen a century from now.

This Afternoon
A 30 percent chance of showers after 4pm. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph.
Tonight
Showers, mainly between 10pm and 4am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 4am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. Low around 49. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph becoming southeast in the evening. Chance of precipitation is 90%.
Thursday
Rain and possibly a thunderstorm before 10am, then showers likely, mainly between 10am and 4pm. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 57. West wind around 15 mph, with gusts as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Thursday Night
Showers, mainly after 10pm. Low around 48. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph. Chance of precipitation is 80%.
Friday
Showers before 10am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 10am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 54. South wind 5 to 10 mph increasing to 10 to 15 mph in the morning. Winds could gust as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Friday Night
Showers likely and possibly a thunderstorm. Cloudy, with a low around 47. Chance of precipitation is 70%.
Saturday
Scattered showers, mainly before 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 57. Chance of precipitation is 50%.
Saturday Night
A chance of rain after 10pm. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 47.
Sunday
Rain likely, mainly after 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 58.
Sunday Night
Rain. Cloudy, with a low around 49.
Monday
Rain. Cloudy, with a high near 56.
Monday Night
Showers likely. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 42.
Tuesday
A chance of showers. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59.

How DARE you. Don't you understand climate is not weather or something.

At least that's what liberals say when their predictions go awry.

Ok, so you didn't take any science or math in school.

Climatologists study averages over significant time periods.

Your weather forecaster doesn't have the advantage of that averaging.

So then why do the restrict their studies to such a narrow period of time...why do they not extend those "significant" periods of time back to recent periods (within the past 10,000 years) where the temperatures were warmer than the present without the aid of internal combustion engines? Why don't they freely acknowledge that the present is actually cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Arctic Weather Map

Rampart River, 50 degrees
Cape Chelyuskin 12 degrees
Golomjannyj Island 23 degrees
Vize Island 14 degrees
Bely Island 21 degrees
Krenkal Island 10 degrees

The temperatures that you posted are actually warm for that time of the year, those I posted are hot for this time of year. And it shows on this graph;

That is quite a departure from the norm.

Your weather data is BS. Rampart River is near Fairbanks where it is -44F right now.

call out the leftist liars where ever they are

 

[Old Rocks]

Temp. °F 26 9 -1 -5 11 22 5 2 -2 -7 -1 13 3 22 35 37 43 48
Dew Point °F 17 4 -7 -13 2 11 1 -1 -6 -12 -6 2 -5 5 20 20 23 31
Mean Pressure at Sea Level

Rampart River Weather Station Record - Historical weather for Rampart River, Canada

Here is the data from that site. I do expect you to post the site that you got your data from.

Bogus data, dufus.
It's -35.
As in NEGATIVE THIRTY FIVE.

Meteo Rampart River - Weather Rampart River - Canada » ILMETEO.it

Yep, two different sites with very different temperatures. Given the temps of the area around it, I would have to go with the colder temps.

 

[Old Rocks]

They are not close to accurate 3 months out but they can tell you for certain what will happen a century from now.

This Afternoon
A 30 percent chance of showers after 4pm. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph.
Tonight
Showers, mainly between 10pm and 4am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 4am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. Low around 49. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph becoming southeast in the evening. Chance of precipitation is 90%.
Thursday
Rain and possibly a thunderstorm before 10am, then showers likely, mainly between 10am and 4pm. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 57. West wind around 15 mph, with gusts as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Thursday Night
Showers, mainly after 10pm. Low around 48. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph. Chance of precipitation is 80%.
Friday
Showers before 10am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 10am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 54. South wind 5 to 10 mph increasing to 10 to 15 mph in the morning. Winds could gust as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Friday Night
Showers likely and possibly a thunderstorm. Cloudy, with a low around 47. Chance of precipitation is 70%.
Saturday
Scattered showers, mainly before 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 57. Chance of precipitation is 50%.
Saturday Night
A chance of rain after 10pm. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 47.
Sunday
Rain likely, mainly after 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 58.
Sunday Night
Rain. Cloudy, with a low around 49.
Monday
Rain. Cloudy, with a high near 56.
Monday Night
Showers likely. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 42.
Tuesday
A chance of showers. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59.

How DARE you. Don't you understand climate is not weather or something.

At least that's what liberals say when their predictions go awry.

Ok, so you didn't take any science or math in school.

Climatologists study averages over significant time periods.

Your weather forecaster doesn't have the advantage of that averaging.

So then why do the restrict their studies to such a narrow period of time...why do they not extend those "significant" periods of time back to recent periods (within the past 10,000 years) where the temperatures were warmer than the present without the aid of internal combustion engines? Why don't they freely acknowledge that the present is actually cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

What are you talking about, numbnuts? The paleo-climate record is clear. This interglacial peaked out about 8000 years ago, and has been cooling since. It is not the absolute temperature that we are worried about, but the rate of change. At the present rate, we will blow by the temperature of 8000 years ago rather quickly, and just keep going. With all that implies for sea level and agriculture.

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Weather Map

Rampart River, 50 degrees
Cape Chelyuskin 12 degrees
Golomjannyj Island 23 degrees
Vize Island 14 degrees
Bely Island 21 degrees
Krenkal Island 10 degrees

The temperatures that you posted are actually warm for that time of the year, those I posted are hot for this time of year. And it shows on this graph;

That is quite a departure from the norm.

Your weather data is BS. Rampart River is near Fairbanks where it is -44F right now.

call out the leftist liars where ever they are

Dumb ass, too fucking lazy to actually do any research yourself?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Arctic Weather Map

Rampart River, 50 degrees
Cape Chelyuskin 12 degrees
Golomjannyj Island 23 degrees
Vize Island 14 degrees
Bely Island 21 degrees
Krenkal Island 10 degrees

The temperatures that you posted are actually warm for that time of the year, those I posted are hot for this time of year. And it shows on this graph;

That is quite a departure from the norm.

Your weather data is BS. Rampart River is near Fairbanks where it is -44F right now.

call out the leftist liars where ever they are

Dumb ass, too fucking lazy to actually do any research yourself?

fuck you liar

 

[Weatherman2020]

Oh gee, it faded away leaving the climatologists hanging out there with their prediction of a dry winter.

No La Nina could well mean no cooling rebound from the third record hot year in a row.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

And yet again they failed to predict it just months ahead but we are supposed to destroy the economy based upon what they say will happen a hundred years from now.

No, you stupid ass. Between wind and solar, and the new grid scale battery technology, we will have a more stable, robust grid at less cost to the consumer.

World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind

Emerging markets are leapfrogging the developed world thanks to cheap panels.
by
Tom Randall
December 14, 2016, 10:00 PM PST December 14, 2016, 10:04 PM PST
A transformation is happening in global energy markets that’s worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity.

This has happened in isolated projects in the past: an especially competitive auction in the Middle East, for example, resulting in record-cheap solar costs. But now unsubsidized solar is beginning to outcompete coal and natural gas on a larger scale, and notably, new solar projects in emerging markets are costing less to build than wind projects, according to fresh data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The chart below shows the average cost of new wind and solar from 58 emerging-market economies, including China, India, and Brazil. While solar was bound to fall below wind eventually, given its steeper price declines, few predicted it would happen this soon.

“Solar investment has gone from nothing—literally nothing—like five years ago to quite a lot,” said Ethan Zindler, head of U.S. policy analysis at BNEF. “A huge part of this story is China, which has been rapidly deploying solar” and helping other countries finance their own projects.

Half the Price of Coal
This year has seen a remarkable run for solar power. Auctions, where private companies compete for massive contracts to provide electricity, established record after record for cheap solar power. It started with a contract in January to produce electricity for $64 per megawatt-hour in India; then a deal in August pegging $29.10 per megawatt hour in Chile. That’s record-cheap electricity—roughly half the price of competing coal power.

“Renewables are robustly entering the era of undercutting” fossil fuel prices, BNEF chairman Michael Liebreich said in a note to clients this week.

Dufus doesn't want to talk about the track record of climatologists anymore so now he's off on an insane rant about solar power.

Look, you dumb fuck, the predictions of the climatologists have been far better than the spewing of fools like you. At the time that Dr. Hansen made his predictions, you assholes were saying that no warming was occurring. Then, by 2000, when everyone could see it out their backdoor, you started yapping about natural variability. The lot of you are liars, and minions of the fossil fuel industry.



Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981

Projected Global Warming
Now we arrive at the big question - how well did Hansen et al. project the ensuing global warming? Evaluating the accuracy of the projections is something of a challenge, because Hansen et al. used scenarios based on energy growth, but did not provide the associated atmospheric CO2 concentrations resulting as a consequence of that energy growth. Nevertheless, we can compare their modeled energy growth scenarios to actual energy growth figures.

Figure 4 shows the projected warming based on various energy growth scenarios. The fast scenario assumes 4% annual growth in global energy consumption from 1980 to 2020, and 3% per year overall from 1980 through 2100. The slow scenario assumed a growth of annual global energy rates half as rapid as in the fast growth scenario (2% annual growth from 1980 to 2020). Hansen et al. also modeled various scenarios involving fossil fuel replacement starting in 2000 and in 2020.



Figure 4: Hansen et al. (1981) projections of global temperature. The diffusion coefficient beneath the ocean mixed layer is 1.2 cm2 per second, as required for best fit of the model and observations for the period 1880 to 1978. Estimated global mean warming in earlier warm periods is indicated on the right.

Since 1981, global fossil fuel energy consumption has increased at a rate of approximately 3% per year, falling between the Hansen et al. fast and slow growth scenarios. Thus we have plotted both and compared them to the observed global surface temperatures from GISTEMP (Figure 5).



Figure 5: Hansen et al. (1981) global warming projections under a scenario of high energy growth (4% per year from 1980 to 2020) (red) and slow energy growth (2% per year from 1980 to 2020) (blue) vs. observations from GISTEMP with a 2nd-order polynomial fit (black). Actual energy growth has been between the two Hansen scenarios at approximately 3% per year. Baseline is 1971-1991.

There has not one prediction by the left that has ever occurred on ANY topic. You are batting 1.000.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
Filed under:

• Climate modelling
  
• Climate Science
  
• Greenhouse gases
  
• Instrumental Record

— group @ 2 April 2012
Guest commentary from Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma, KNMI

Sometimes it helps to take a step back from the everyday pressures of research (falling ill helps). It was in this way we stumbled across Hansen et al (1981) (pdf). In 1981 the first author of this post was in his first year at university and the other just entered the KNMI after finishing his masters. Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second author. It turns out to be a very interesting read.

They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Obviously climate science was a mature field even then: the concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much. Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.

Next they attribute global mean temperature trend 1880-1980 to CO2, volcanic and solar forcing. Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. They assume that no action will be taken before the global warming signal will be significant in the late 1990s, so the different energy-use scenarios only start diverging after that.





The first 31 years of this projection are thus relatively well-defined and can now be compared to the observations. We used the GISS Land-Ocean Index that uses SST over the oceans (the original one interpolated from island stations) and overlaid the graph from the KNMI Climate Explorer on the lower left-hand corner of their Fig.6.







Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols).

To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

References

1. Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | Science

 

[Weatherman2020]

LOL

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
Filed under:

• Climate modelling
  
• Climate Science
  
• Greenhouse gases
  
• Instrumental Record

— group @ 2 April 2012
Guest commentary from Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma, KNMI

Sometimes it helps to take a step back from the everyday pressures of research (falling ill helps). It was in this way we stumbled across Hansen et al (1981) (pdf). In 1981 the first author of this post was in his first year at university and the other just entered the KNMI after finishing his masters. Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second author. It turns out to be a very interesting read.

They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Obviously climate science was a mature field even then: the concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much. Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.

Next they attribute global mean temperature trend 1880-1980 to CO2, volcanic and solar forcing. Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. They assume that no action will be taken before the global warming signal will be significant in the late 1990s, so the different energy-use scenarios only start diverging after that.





The first 31 years of this projection are thus relatively well-defined and can now be compared to the observations. We used the GISS Land-Ocean Index that uses SST over the oceans (the original one interpolated from island stations) and overlaid the graph from the KNMI Climate Explorer on the lower left-hand corner of their Fig.6.







Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols).

To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

References

1. Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | Science

Find 1981 on the chart, dufus. The trend was already there in the "data".

 

[jc456]

Arctic Weather Map

Rampart River, 50 degrees
Cape Chelyuskin 12 degrees
Golomjannyj Island 23 degrees
Vize Island 14 degrees
Bely Island 21 degrees
Krenkal Island 10 degrees

The temperatures that you posted are actually warm for that time of the year, those I posted are hot for this time of year. And it shows on this graph;

That is quite a departure from the norm.

Your weather data is BS. Rampart River is near Fairbanks where it is -44F right now.

you didn't adjust what the station recorded. That is your error.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Arctic Weather Map

Rampart River, 50 degrees
Cape Chelyuskin 12 degrees
Golomjannyj Island 23 degrees
Vize Island 14 degrees
Bely Island 21 degrees
Krenkal Island 10 degrees

The temperatures that you posted are actually warm for that time of the year, those I posted are hot for this time of year. And it shows on this graph;

That is quite a departure from the norm.

Your weather data is BS. Rampart River is near Fairbanks where it is -44F right now.

you didn't adjust what the station recorded. That is your error.

I needed to remove that funny - symbol in front of the number.

 

[jc456]

Arctic Weather Map

Rampart River, 50 degrees
Cape Chelyuskin 12 degrees
Golomjannyj Island 23 degrees
Vize Island 14 degrees
Bely Island 21 degrees
Krenkal Island 10 degrees

The temperatures that you posted are actually warm for that time of the year, those I posted are hot for this time of year. And it shows on this graph;

That is quite a departure from the norm.

Your weather data is BS. Rampart River is near Fairbanks where it is -44F right now.

you didn't adjust what the station recorded. That is your error.

I needed to remove that funny - symbol in front of the number.

exactly, that adjustment.^^^^^^^

 

[jon_berzerk]

No La Nina could well mean no cooling rebound from the third record hot year in a row.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

And yet again they failed to predict it just months ahead but we are supposed to destroy the economy based upon what they say will happen a hundred years from now.

No, you stupid ass. Between wind and solar, and the new grid scale battery technology, we will have a more stable, robust grid at less cost to the consumer.

World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind

Emerging markets are leapfrogging the developed world thanks to cheap panels.
by
Tom Randall
December 14, 2016, 10:00 PM PST December 14, 2016, 10:04 PM PST
A transformation is happening in global energy markets that’s worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity.

This has happened in isolated projects in the past: an especially competitive auction in the Middle East, for example, resulting in record-cheap solar costs. But now unsubsidized solar is beginning to outcompete coal and natural gas on a larger scale, and notably, new solar projects in emerging markets are costing less to build than wind projects, according to fresh data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The chart below shows the average cost of new wind and solar from 58 emerging-market economies, including China, India, and Brazil. While solar was bound to fall below wind eventually, given its steeper price declines, few predicted it would happen this soon.

“Solar investment has gone from nothing—literally nothing—like five years ago to quite a lot,” said Ethan Zindler, head of U.S. policy analysis at BNEF. “A huge part of this story is China, which has been rapidly deploying solar” and helping other countries finance their own projects.

Half the Price of Coal
This year has seen a remarkable run for solar power. Auctions, where private companies compete for massive contracts to provide electricity, established record after record for cheap solar power. It started with a contract in January to produce electricity for $64 per megawatt-hour in India; then a deal in August pegging $29.10 per megawatt hour in Chile. That’s record-cheap electricity—roughly half the price of competing coal power.

“Renewables are robustly entering the era of undercutting” fossil fuel prices, BNEF chairman Michael Liebreich said in a note to clients this week.

Dufus doesn't want to talk about the track record of climatologists anymore so now he's off on an insane rant about solar power.

Look, you dumb fuck, the predictions of the climatologists have been far better than the spewing of fools like you. At the time that Dr. Hansen made his predictions, you assholes were saying that no warming was occurring. Then, by 2000, when everyone could see it out their backdoor, you started yapping about natural variability. The lot of you are liars, and minions of the fossil fuel industry.



Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981

Projected Global Warming
Now we arrive at the big question - how well did Hansen et al. project the ensuing global warming? Evaluating the accuracy of the projections is something of a challenge, because Hansen et al. used scenarios based on energy growth, but did not provide the associated atmospheric CO2 concentrations resulting as a consequence of that energy growth. Nevertheless, we can compare their modeled energy growth scenarios to actual energy growth figures.

Figure 4 shows the projected warming based on various energy growth scenarios. The fast scenario assumes 4% annual growth in global energy consumption from 1980 to 2020, and 3% per year overall from 1980 through 2100. The slow scenario assumed a growth of annual global energy rates half as rapid as in the fast growth scenario (2% annual growth from 1980 to 2020). Hansen et al. also modeled various scenarios involving fossil fuel replacement starting in 2000 and in 2020.



Figure 4: Hansen et al. (1981) projections of global temperature. The diffusion coefficient beneath the ocean mixed layer is 1.2 cm2 per second, as required for best fit of the model and observations for the period 1880 to 1978. Estimated global mean warming in earlier warm periods is indicated on the right.

Since 1981, global fossil fuel energy consumption has increased at a rate of approximately 3% per year, falling between the Hansen et al. fast and slow growth scenarios. Thus we have plotted both and compared them to the observed global surface temperatures from GISTEMP (Figure 5).



Figure 5: Hansen et al. (1981) global warming projections under a scenario of high energy growth (4% per year from 1980 to 2020) (red) and slow energy growth (2% per year from 1980 to 2020) (blue) vs. observations from GISTEMP with a 2nd-order polynomial fit (black). Actual energy growth has been between the two Hansen scenarios at approximately 3% per year. Baseline is 1971-1991.

There has not one prediction by the left that has ever occurred on ANY topic. You are batting 1.000.

correct

 

[Billy_Bob]

They are not close to accurate 3 months out but they can tell you for certain what will happen a century from now.

This Afternoon
A 30 percent chance of showers after 4pm. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph.
Tonight
Showers, mainly between 10pm and 4am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 4am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. Low around 49. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph becoming southeast in the evening. Chance of precipitation is 90%.
Thursday
Rain and possibly a thunderstorm before 10am, then showers likely, mainly between 10am and 4pm. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 57. West wind around 15 mph, with gusts as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Thursday Night
Showers, mainly after 10pm. Low around 48. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph. Chance of precipitation is 80%.
Friday
Showers before 10am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 10am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 54. South wind 5 to 10 mph increasing to 10 to 15 mph in the morning. Winds could gust as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Friday Night
Showers likely and possibly a thunderstorm. Cloudy, with a low around 47. Chance of precipitation is 70%.
Saturday
Scattered showers, mainly before 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 57. Chance of precipitation is 50%.
Saturday Night
A chance of rain after 10pm. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 47.
Sunday
Rain likely, mainly after 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 58.
Sunday Night
Rain. Cloudy, with a low around 49.
Monday
Rain. Cloudy, with a high near 56.
Monday Night
Showers likely. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 42.
Tuesday
A chance of showers. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59.

How DARE you. Don't you understand climate is not weather or something.

At least that's what liberals say when their predictions go awry.

Ok, so you didn't take any science or math in school.

Climatologists study averages over significant time periods.

Your weather forecaster doesn't have the advantage of that averaging.

So then why do the restrict their studies to such a narrow period of time...why do they not extend those "significant" periods of time back to recent periods (within the past 10,000 years) where the temperatures were warmer than the present without the aid of internal combustion engines? Why don't they freely acknowledge that the present is actually cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

But that would discredit their meme.. Now why would they want to show themselves the liars they are? Oh, that's right! They are pseudo-scientists with an agenda.
For a moment there I was confused..

 

[Weatherman2020]

They are not close to accurate 3 months out but they can tell you for certain what will happen a century from now.

This Afternoon
A 30 percent chance of showers after 4pm. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph.
Tonight
Showers, mainly between 10pm and 4am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 4am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. Low around 49. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph becoming southeast in the evening. Chance of precipitation is 90%.
Thursday
Rain and possibly a thunderstorm before 10am, then showers likely, mainly between 10am and 4pm. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 57. West wind around 15 mph, with gusts as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Thursday Night
Showers, mainly after 10pm. Low around 48. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph. Chance of precipitation is 80%.
Friday
Showers before 10am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 10am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 54. South wind 5 to 10 mph increasing to 10 to 15 mph in the morning. Winds could gust as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Friday Night
Showers likely and possibly a thunderstorm. Cloudy, with a low around 47. Chance of precipitation is 70%.
Saturday
Scattered showers, mainly before 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 57. Chance of precipitation is 50%.
Saturday Night
A chance of rain after 10pm. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 47.
Sunday
Rain likely, mainly after 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 58.
Sunday Night
Rain. Cloudy, with a low around 49.
Monday
Rain. Cloudy, with a high near 56.
Monday Night
Showers likely. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 42.
Tuesday
A chance of showers. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59.

How DARE you. Don't you understand climate is not weather or something.

At least that's what liberals say when their predictions go awry.

Ok, so you didn't take any science or math in school.

Climatologists study averages over significant time periods.

Your weather forecaster doesn't have the advantage of that averaging.

So then why do the restrict their studies to such a narrow period of time...why do they not extend those "significant" periods of time back to recent periods (within the past 10,000 years) where the temperatures were warmer than the present without the aid of internal combustion engines? Why don't they freely acknowledge that the present is actually cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

But that would discredit their meme.. Now why would they want to show themselves the liars they are? Oh, that's right! They are pseudo-scientists with and agenda.
For a moment there I was confused..

Al Gore gets the Nobel Prize for his climate change scam and we talk about pseudo-scientists? Love it!

 

[WillReadmore]

They are not close to accurate 3 months out but they can tell you for certain what will happen a century from now.

This Afternoon
A 30 percent chance of showers after 4pm. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph.
Tonight
Showers, mainly between 10pm and 4am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 4am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. Low around 49. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph becoming southeast in the evening. Chance of precipitation is 90%.
Thursday
Rain and possibly a thunderstorm before 10am, then showers likely, mainly between 10am and 4pm. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 57. West wind around 15 mph, with gusts as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Thursday Night
Showers, mainly after 10pm. Low around 48. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph. Chance of precipitation is 80%.
Friday
Showers before 10am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 10am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 54. South wind 5 to 10 mph increasing to 10 to 15 mph in the morning. Winds could gust as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Friday Night
Showers likely and possibly a thunderstorm. Cloudy, with a low around 47. Chance of precipitation is 70%.
Saturday
Scattered showers, mainly before 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 57. Chance of precipitation is 50%.
Saturday Night
A chance of rain after 10pm. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 47.
Sunday
Rain likely, mainly after 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 58.
Sunday Night
Rain. Cloudy, with a low around 49.
Monday
Rain. Cloudy, with a high near 56.
Monday Night
Showers likely. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 42.
Tuesday
A chance of showers. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59.

How DARE you. Don't you understand climate is not weather or something.

At least that's what liberals say when their predictions go awry.

Ok, so you didn't take any science or math in school.

Climatologists study averages over significant time periods.

Your weather forecaster doesn't have the advantage of that averaging.

So then why do the restrict their studies to such a narrow period of time...why do they not extend those "significant" periods of time back to recent periods (within the past 10,000 years) where the temperatures were warmer than the present without the aid of internal combustion engines? Why don't they freely acknowledge that the present is actually cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

How would we know what temp it was 10,000 years ago if scientists weren't studying that?

When you make mistakes that huge, wouldn't it make more sense to ask questions rather than to jump to conclusions?

 

[Weatherman2020]

They are not close to accurate 3 months out but they can tell you for certain what will happen a century from now.

This Afternoon
A 30 percent chance of showers after 4pm. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph.
Tonight
Showers, mainly between 10pm and 4am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 4am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. Low around 49. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph becoming southeast in the evening. Chance of precipitation is 90%.
Thursday
Rain and possibly a thunderstorm before 10am, then showers likely, mainly between 10am and 4pm. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 57. West wind around 15 mph, with gusts as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Thursday Night
Showers, mainly after 10pm. Low around 48. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph. Chance of precipitation is 80%.
Friday
Showers before 10am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 10am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 54. South wind 5 to 10 mph increasing to 10 to 15 mph in the morning. Winds could gust as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Friday Night
Showers likely and possibly a thunderstorm. Cloudy, with a low around 47. Chance of precipitation is 70%.
Saturday
Scattered showers, mainly before 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 57. Chance of precipitation is 50%.
Saturday Night
A chance of rain after 10pm. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 47.
Sunday
Rain likely, mainly after 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 58.
Sunday Night
Rain. Cloudy, with a low around 49.
Monday
Rain. Cloudy, with a high near 56.
Monday Night
Showers likely. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 42.
Tuesday
A chance of showers. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59.

How DARE you. Don't you understand climate is not weather or something.

At least that's what liberals say when their predictions go awry.

Ok, so you didn't take any science or math in school.

Climatologists study averages over significant time periods.

Your weather forecaster doesn't have the advantage of that averaging.

So then why do the restrict their studies to such a narrow period of time...why do they not extend those "significant" periods of time back to recent periods (within the past 10,000 years) where the temperatures were warmer than the present without the aid of internal combustion engines? Why don't they freely acknowledge that the present is actually cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

How would we know what temp it was 10,000 years ago if scientists weren't studying that?

When you make mistakes that huge, wouldn't it make more sense to ask questions rather than to jump to conclusions?

When you know crocodiles and palm trees used to live in Alaska, you know things were a tad warmer then.

 

[WillReadmore]

They are not close to accurate 3 months out but they can tell you for certain what will happen a century from now.

This Afternoon
A 30 percent chance of showers after 4pm. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph.
Tonight
Showers, mainly between 10pm and 4am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 4am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. Low around 49. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph becoming southeast in the evening. Chance of precipitation is 90%.
Thursday
Rain and possibly a thunderstorm before 10am, then showers likely, mainly between 10am and 4pm. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 57. West wind around 15 mph, with gusts as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Thursday Night
Showers, mainly after 10pm. Low around 48. Southwest wind 5 to 10 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph. Chance of precipitation is 80%.
Friday
Showers before 10am, then rain and possibly a thunderstorm after 10am. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 54. South wind 5 to 10 mph increasing to 10 to 15 mph in the morning. Winds could gust as high as 30 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Friday Night
Showers likely and possibly a thunderstorm. Cloudy, with a low around 47. Chance of precipitation is 70%.
Saturday
Scattered showers, mainly before 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 57. Chance of precipitation is 50%.
Saturday Night
A chance of rain after 10pm. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 47.
Sunday
Rain likely, mainly after 10am. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 58.
Sunday Night
Rain. Cloudy, with a low around 49.
Monday
Rain. Cloudy, with a high near 56.
Monday Night
Showers likely. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 42.
Tuesday
A chance of showers. Mostly sunny, with a high near 59.

How DARE you. Don't you understand climate is not weather or something.

At least that's what liberals say when their predictions go awry.

Ok, so you didn't take any science or math in school.

Climatologists study averages over significant time periods.

Your weather forecaster doesn't have the advantage of that averaging.

So then why do the restrict their studies to such a narrow period of time...why do they not extend those "significant" periods of time back to recent periods (within the past 10,000 years) where the temperatures were warmer than the present without the aid of internal combustion engines? Why don't they freely acknowledge that the present is actually cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

How would we know what temp it was 10,000 years ago if scientists weren't studying that?

When you make mistakes that huge, wouldn't it make more sense to ask questions rather than to jump to conclusions?

When you know crocodiles and palm trees used to live in Alaska, you know things were a tad warmer then.

And, who found that, figured out the year, and determined what the temperature actually was?

The claim was that scientists didn't study that period.

So who figured that out?

 

[Weatherman2020]

How DARE you. Don't you understand climate is not weather or something.

At least that's what liberals say when their predictions go awry.

Ok, so you didn't take any science or math in school.

Climatologists study averages over significant time periods.

Your weather forecaster doesn't have the advantage of that averaging.

So then why do the restrict their studies to such a narrow period of time...why do they not extend those "significant" periods of time back to recent periods (within the past 10,000 years) where the temperatures were warmer than the present without the aid of internal combustion engines? Why don't they freely acknowledge that the present is actually cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

How would we know what temp it was 10,000 years ago if scientists weren't studying that?

When you make mistakes that huge, wouldn't it make more sense to ask questions rather than to jump to conclusions?

When you know crocodiles and palm trees used to live in Alaska, you know things were a tad warmer then.

And, who found that, figured out the year, and determined what the temperature actually was?

The claim was that scientists didn't study that period.

So who figured that out?

Irrelevant as to when or exact temperature. The fact is at one time crocodiles and palm trees existed in Alaska.

 

[WillReadmore]

Ok, so you didn't take any science or math in school.

Climatologists study averages over significant time periods.

Your weather forecaster doesn't have the advantage of that averaging.

So then why do the restrict their studies to such a narrow period of time...why do they not extend those "significant" periods of time back to recent periods (within the past 10,000 years) where the temperatures were warmer than the present without the aid of internal combustion engines? Why don't they freely acknowledge that the present is actually cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

How would we know what temp it was 10,000 years ago if scientists weren't studying that?

When you make mistakes that huge, wouldn't it make more sense to ask questions rather than to jump to conclusions?

When you know crocodiles and palm trees used to live in Alaska, you know things were a tad warmer then.

And, who found that, figured out the year, and determined what the temperature actually was?

The claim was that scientists didn't study that period.

So who figured that out?

Irrelevant as to when or exact temperature. The fact is at one time crocodiles and palm trees existed in Alaska.

The claim was that climatologists limit themselves to one short period of time.

So, no, this is absolutely relevent.

We have temperature information going MUCH farther back than 10,000 years. And, we have other information about the climate in thise times, too - co2 concentrations, for example.

The claim that climate science is limited to a short and recent prriod is blatantly false, and needs to be retracted.