But These Are The People We Should Trust When They Predict Global Warming?

We get their mockery and their in-your-face wastefulness, but do they know what they are talking about? How many times do the global warmists get to make false predictions before we’re allowed to stop listening to them?

Bloomberg Businessweek reports, “

Surprised by how tough this winter has been? You’re in good company: Last fall the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that temperatures would be above normal from November through January across much of the Lower 48 states. This graphic shows just how wrong the official forecast of the U.S. government was:

map of predicted temps

The big red blotch in the top map represents parts of the country in which the Climate Prediction Center forecast above-average temperatures. The frigid-looking blue blotch in the bottom “verification” map shows areas where temperatures turned out to be below average.

The story spends words pretending it is offering an explanation when all it is doing is re-stating the problem. It claims the cause of the miscalculation was:

Underestimating the mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

How can you offer as an explanation for underestimating the cold the fact that you underestimated the cold? That is not an explanation at all. Are they telling us that they just guess about whether or not there will be cold waves and they guess how cold or warm they will be? They never tell us they just got lucky when their predictions are correct, so I have to assume that there is a procedure they follow or are supposed to follow. In that case they could say something like, “We had an intern who was supposed to enter that part of the data, but he got drunk and skipped work that day and never told us.” That would be an explanation. Instead, they are telling us that they underestimated how cold it would be because they thought it would be warmer. How informative.

The story heaps report of ignorance on top of reports of ignorance. They can’t figure out why the polar vortex is lasting. Naturally, they could never predict such a thing. Then we have an affirmation that predicting the climate months in advance is nothing like the daily weather report.

No doubt.

But since they are offering no explanations, I will give you my own guess.

Months-ahead climate forecasts are what Halpert calls “boundary-value problems.” Instead of taking a snapshot of the quickly changing atmosphere, climate forecasters focus on things that change more slowly, such as temperatures of the land and oceans. The concept is that these enduring conditions will “force” the daily weather in a certain direction. Climate forecasters can’t say when a storm might hit, but they try to say whether a given three-month period will be wetter, drier, hotter, or colder than average.

Fine. What is one of the supposed “enduring conditions” that only a flat earther would dare refuse to consider?

You know what it is: global warming. The world is supposed to be heating up. So they were not going to predict a downward spike.

In fact, even if some suspected a much colder winter, I would wager they didn’t want the embarrassment of making the EPA look silly as it imposed new regulations. So they hoped that the weather would be warmer and published their incorrect estimate.