Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Mild winter in Britain? What mild winter in Britain?

Just in case you were wondering about predictions of exactly how Near the End Is, you might want to check out the situation at The Met Office in England, a frequently cited authority on Global Warming. Turns out the Met Office predicted a mild winter in England this year.


As anyone listening to the news knows, England is now experiencing what appears to be the coldest December on record, "the worst December weather the UK has seen for almost 30 years."

But the even more interesting thing is that the Met Office is now denying that it made this prediction:
The Met Office has not issued a seasonal forecast to the public and categorically denies forecasting a ‘mild winter’ as suggested by Boris Johnson in his column in the Daily Telegraph.
But the blog Autonomous Mind points out that the Met Office, along with experiencing a warm weather deficiency, is also experiencing a memory deficiency. Here, says Autonomous Mind, is what the Met Office was saying in October:

The latest data comes in the form of a December to February temperature map on the Met Office’s website.

The eastern half of England, Cornwall, Scotland and Northern Ireland is in for temperatures above the 3.7C (38.6F) average, more than 2C warmer than last winter.

The map also shows a 40 per cent to 60 per cent probability that western England and Wales will be warmer than 3.7C (38.6F), with a much smaller chance of average or below-average temperatures.

But it doesn't apparently matter, says the Met Office:
Following public research, the Met Office no longer issues long-range forecasts for the general public...
Say whut? The organization that is predicting long term Global Warming is no longer predicting long term Global Warming?

What they mean, of course, is that they are not making forecasts about the weather months in advance, which, in relation to their Global Warming climate predictions, are short term forecasts. But here's the problem, if they can't get short term weather forecasts right, then how can they be trusted with long term climate forecasts?

We have already pointed out on this blog how all weather events are now considered to confirm the Global Warming hypothesis. In a previous post, one representative of the Chicken Little contingent went great lengths and a lot of effort to argue that my citations of articles showing that both short term cold weather events AND short term warm weather events are both taken as confirming the Global Warming theory were somehow misrepresenting the articles.

But all of the bluster from this particular individual doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what the articles suggested: that warm weather in Europe and lack of snow is somehow and indication of Global Warming and that record short term cold and increased snowfall are also confirmation of it. Both are to be taken as consisted with the Hypothesis.

So our first Global Warming Observation here at Vital Remnants is this:

I. All short term weather events are taken to confirm the Global Warming Hypothesis. No short term weather evidence can be considered to disconfirm long term predictions of Global Warming. This makes it very difficult to consider the theory scientific, since one of the criteria used by the Scientizers is that science must be falsifiable. It is scientific only to the extent that it has long-term falsifiability. So in the short term, anyone who points to colder weather and snowfall anomalies as reason to doubt the Hypothesis, can conveniently be dismissed as a crank while anyone who uses warm weather and the exact same snowfall anomalies as evidence for the Hypothesis is celebrated--or, if properly situated academically, given more grant money. It also makes it quite convenient for adherents of the Hypothesis, since no one is allowed to say that they are blowing smoke for another 40 years.

But now we have our second Global Warming Observation:

II. Long term Global Warming predictions must be considered reliable in spite of the inability to get short term predictions right. In other words, despite blowing it on short term weather predictions, which would seem to be more simple and straightforward than long-term climate predictions, we are still supposed to believe that the long-term climate predictions are correct and to spend lots of taxpayer money on that assumption. In other words, in those cases in which their predictive capability can actually be tested now, their ability to predict can look very poor, but in those cases in which their predictive capabilities cannot be tested, we are supposed to trust them.

So when you hear in the media say that snow is "now just at thing of the past," and "snow is starting to disappear from our lives" in 2000, for example, and then your country experiences disruptive snow in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, you tend to begin to doubt whether these people really can be trusted to tell you what it is going to be like in 40 years.

So there they are. And I will have to warn all those who will now descend on me telling me how ignorant I am about Global Warming that I will have to insist that my assertions must be dealt with according to the same rules they demand apply to their assertions: they cannot be disconfirmed by short term evidence, and their inaccuracy in areas in which they are testable cannot be taken as an indication of unreliability in areas in which they are not testable.


Singring said...

As long as the word trend doesn't mean anything to you, Martin, it is pointless to argue with you as you are ignorant of the science on the most basic level.

The articles from 2006 you link to state either that heavy snowfall events were 'average', or they refer to 'cold snaps', 'chilly spells' or heavy snowfall in a given week.

This is consistent with GW redictions because the trend is still up. But frankly I've given up trying to explain this to you as you seem bent on ignoring any and all sane discourse.

But I will issue this one challenge because you make this ludicrous claim:

'All short term weather events are taken to confirm the Global Warming Hypothesis.'

Can you cite any article or scientist who claims that the cold winter in the UK 'confirms' GW predictions? Who has said that? When? Where? Can we get a quoet from you, please.

For all other aspects regarding your post which is simply a regurgitation of your previous false claims, I will refer readers to the posts I made on your previous blog entry.

Main point:

This will be one of the warmest years on record.

Singring said...

'When you say 'one of the warmest years' do you mean now, or next summer?'

I mean this year, based on global temperature averages as reported by both the UK and US metereological services.


If you think that a cold winter in Georgia or the UK is somehow evidence that GW is not happening, whle global average temperatures show a consistent upward trend, then you are just as clueless as Martin. As I said before: They call it Global warming, not Georgia warming, don't they?

Then of course, it is a staple of denialists to ignore, misrepresent and confuse data.

I just have the sincere hope that you, Martin Cothran and all the other denialists have a long and healthy life so you can see what future awaits us and will have to realize how wrong you were.

Watch this space.

One Brow said...

But here's the problem, if they can't get short term weather forecasts right, then how can they be trusted with long term climate forecasts?

Standard probability theory: it's easier to predict the results of a million die rolls, with an accuracy of 1% and a fair die, than to predict the results of 100.

No short term weather evidence can be considered to disconfirm long term predictions of Global Warming.

No short-term, local weather event is evidence for or against a global, long-term trend. I agree. You say you agree, but you post as if you do not.

One Brow said...

Rob Murphy said...
Now if "Global Warming" is "global" then would not states which are known for warmer weather during Fall and Winter, based on "trends", stay consistent or actually become warmer than past "trends" show?

Why? Is there something that says the warming has to be uniform?

... China's excruciatingly high temperatures/weather or lack there of, ... top coal burners.

Do you think increased carbon dioxide production is a local phenomenon with local effects?

Really, you seem to be in denial that other countries (not just the three I selected) are exhibiting cold temperatures that break the "trend" of Global Warming, such as France (Paris, the city of lights AND snow).

Are you saying the globe as a whole is cooler? Based upon what observations?

But who am I, but a Denialist who ignores, misrepresents and confuses data.

Anecdotes are not data. It's hard to say you are ignoring, misrepresenting, or misusing data on climate when all you bring to the table is a few weather anecdotes. It elevates your position beyond what it deserves to connect it with the word "data" at all.

Singring said...


OneBrow has adressed all the major points excellently.

I find it particularly amusing that you seem to think that local C02 production will influence the local climate.

Could you give me any source - and I mean ANY source - to support that any climate scientist in the world - and I mean ANY scientist - makes that connection?

I will bet you right here, right now, that you will find not one scientist at any accredited university in the world who makes that claim. What say you? 50$ to a charity of the winner's choice?

'Slingring if I'm correct the "Global" in "Global Warming" includes Georgia, California and the ever coal burning China.'

Indeed it does. Measurements from all of those places are included in a globel average temperature, which is trendng upwards and has been for the past decades. This year, this average will most likely be among the three highest ever recorded.

To illustrate: Say the current temperature in Savannah, Georgia is 10 degrees F - does that mean I am to assume thart it is 10 degrees in Savannah, Georgia all year round?

P.S.: You do know what an average is, right?

Singring said...

'But here's the problem, if they can't get short term weather forecasts right, then how can they be trusted with long term climate forecasts?

Standard probability theory: it's easier to predict the results of a million die rolls, with an accuracy of 1% and a fair die, than to predict the results of 100.'

I will add another factor to that: it is much easier to make accurate predictions based on a large body of data spanning a long period of time. This reduces noise from unknown or unpredictable short-term variables which are precisely what mess up a lot of short-term predictions.

Imagine you are trying to draw a trendline based on only three or four scattered data points (this is what short term weather forecasts amount to because they have to rely on the short-term fomration of local weather systems, cold and hot fronts and wind direction etc.)

Now imagine drawing one using a hundred scattered data points. Much easier, much more accurate. It will still be difficukt and come out wrong sometimes, but it is more reliable.