Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never liked how they classify their rain percentages. Today we had a 30% chance but virtually everyone got a little something, albeit it was very scattered.
Other days there's a 60% chance and we get nothing. Usually I take their percentage chances and cut them by a third to a half to calculate the real chance most of the time, with the exception of a 100% chance.. they usually nail that one down most of the time.
They've gotten better though.... I find the GFS model is the most accurate with snowfall, though I don't have access to all the weather models.
Same principle; the computer models are always wrong.
Dr Gavin Schmidt:"Models are not right or wrong; they're always wrong. They're always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells you more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it's skillful"
The emergent patterns of climate change - Gavin Schmidt - TED talks May 2014.
For a week or more they have been predicting increasing percentages of rain. Yesterday it was 100% for Saturday night and Sunday. "The computer models all agree" Lots of rain, rain and more rain. I just now looked at the forecast. Percentages down, amounts of rain significantly down. This goes on day after day after day. They never know. Most of the rain we gets comes rather unexpectedly. They are idiots and I am an idiot for putting in credence in their "forecast".
Well, the point I want to make is these are the same people that are so dang certain the mankind is causing global warming or cooling or oceans rising or drought or you name it.
They don't know squat!
Go to college and get a degree in meteorology. Show 'em how it's done. Get the National Weather Service straightened out. America is depending on you to come through for us all.
How accurate would a sportscaster be if he/she had to predict who was going to win in the next few days? How accurate would the newsanchor be if they had to predict how many people would get shot or what liquor store would get robbed?
What an uneducated comment. The two are not anywhere even close to how weather is predicted, (which, by the way, they can only be accurate in a 3 hour window). Did you not pay attention in ANY science class?
And you were wrong then too. Information about the climate models is not difficult to find. I provided you with a link to the IPCC AR5 chapter on climate models which shows your claim that "models don't include natural variability" is wrong.
And you were wrong then too. Information about the climate models is not difficult to find. I provided you with a link to the IPCC AR5 chapter on climate models which shows your claim that "models don't include natural variability" is wrong.
Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due to GHG. – IPCC AR5 Chapter 8
Section 8.4.1 of the IPCC AR5 Report provides 2 pages of discussion on observations of solar irradiance. But they conclude that all this doesn’t matter for the climate. I agree that the TSI RF variations are much less than projected increased forcing due to the GHG. But the solar-climate connection is probably a lot more complex than this statement implies.
Climate Etc. has had 6 previous posts on the sun-climate connection [link]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.