2014-2015 Winter Forecast (here we go)

[marcski]

Less talk, more skiing!.

 

[jack97]

For someone who does not want to argue or done with arguing.... it seems like you are but not.:roll:

There is no such thing called a GCM5 set.

haha... yep, too many acronyms in my head, forgive me, I'm a product of my environment.

One of the best dataset. Far from perfect like all other datasets of ocean temperatures.

Perhaps, but for measuring temp at various ocean depths ARGO is the latest we have and is better than its predecessor.

Can you please provide citations to those 'several' imaginary papers ? (not blogs, not websites - peer-reviewed papers).

Lots out there, but not in Nature Climate Change. They are in more rigorous journals. Just look up Knox and Douglass, Wunsch and Heimback for OHC. I think they are tenured or are emeritus.

I have some more if you go on about satellite measurements.

That's precisely my point. His job is to provide weather forecasts a few days ahead to private clients. For the nth time, meteorology and climatology are two very different disciplines.

JB just made a call about our winter and the climate for the next 20 to 30 years. BTW, so its ok for you and AGW to cite land surface showing one day or one month is the hottest in recorded history which includes the reconstructed temps since late 1800's.

 

[dlague]

Less talk, more skiing!.

Yes that was the original thinking! I am hoping that we get at least as good a winter as last minus January!

 

[Not Sure]

Lots of interesting reads lately
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

[jack97]

Lots of interesting reads lately
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Another interesting place, 1300 peer reviewed paper supporting natural cause climate change. You can find papers on the cloud feedbacks. In addition, papers by Lindzen and others published early to mid 1990s. Back then, these guys never drank the kool aid because they needed to see cause and effect.

+1300 peer-reviewed-papers

 

[dlague]

In line with other forecast I guess!

http://snowbrains.com/el-nino-2014-update-noaa/

 

[Rowsdower]

Another interesting place, 1300 peer reviewed paper supporting natural cause climate change. You can find papers on the cloud feedbacks. In addition, papers by Lindzen and others published early to mid 1990s. Back then, these guys never drank the kool aid because they needed to see cause and effect.

+1300 peer-reviewed-papers

Many of those aren't from reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals. Others are commentary pieces, not research articles. The actual peer reviewed articles there are mis-cited. They talk about certain aspects of the climate, weather phenomena, environment, or ecology, but whose purpose has nothing to do with offering a competing theory to AGW. They seem to mischaracterize scientific research. We do not all sign onto broad, overarching theories that guide all our studies. I can still study natural variations in climate, but my data, together with other observations are still best explained by AGW at present.

In other words, they are citing papers explaining natural mechanisms of climate change without understanding that these don't disprove AGW, rather, they are all factored into AGW models.

Please don't mislead people with non-peer reviewed articles and the misrepresentation of actual scientific articles in the future.

Thank you.

 

[jack97]

Please don't mislead people with non-peer reviewed articles and the misrepresentation of actual scientific articles in the future.

Who are you to say these papers are misleading? Most of the papers are authored by scientist and professors that are tenured or are emeritus status. They are free to pursuit there own scientist interest. And yes, they are peer reviewed.

BTW, telling people these papers are misleading is rather arrogant, people who have interest in this should decide themselves.

 

[Rowsdower]

Who are you to say these papers are misleading? Most of the papers are authored by scientist and professors that are tenured or are emeritus status. They are free to pursuit there own scientist interest. And yes, they are peer reviewed.

BTW, telling people these papers are misleading is rather arrogant, people who have interest in this should decide themselves.

I already explained why. What's there that is peer-reviewed is presented in a manner that suggests it contradicts AGW when that is not the case.

 

[jack97]

What's there that is peer-reviewed is presented in a manner that suggests it contradicts AGW when that is not the case.

I read thru some of papers by Lindzen, Ballings, Spencer, Christy, Douglass, Knox, Soon and Idso. They suggest natural causes, they never bought into AGW. I would suggest you read them, especially the papers by Lindzen since it is not paywalled. Lindzen has been very critical of the lack of theoretical principles in the GCM models used to support the greenhouse effect and the climate sensitivity projected by these models. Below is the link of one of his many papers, first one talks about the lack of cloud feedback in the GCMs back in the early 90s. Second paper shows he is still critical of the models since the observations are diverging from the models.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf




Trenberth and Fasullo have suggested the heat due to CO2 forcing has gone into the ocean. The papers by Douglass and Knox (no pay wall) shows, since 2003 the ocean (heat content) is cooling or in a pause. This does contradict AGW given the hypothesis implies most heating is due to CO2 forcing. As seen with observations, CO2 is monotonically increasing but the ocean temp, land temp and troposphere temps have stagnated. Below is the links to Douglass & Knox, last paper definitively argues against Trenberth and Fasullo that the heat is hiding in the ocean.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Douglass_Knox_pla373aug31.pdf

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3446#.U9zTuPldWSo



I can list more but I'm not sure if you really interested or if you want stay in your comfort zone with AGW dogma.

 

[billski]

http://firsthandweather.com/283/early-2014-15-winter-forecast-region-region-breakdown/

 

[dlague]

http://firsthandweather.com/283/early-2014-15-winter-forecast-region-region-breakdown/

That works for me!

 

[JDMRoma]

http://firsthandweather.com/283/early-2014-15-winter-forecast-region-region-breakdown/

Well not to be a Debbie Downer but it looks more like last year with more snow in the southern part of NH and Mass than
there is up North NH / Ski areas. Not that last year sucked or anything but Most of the season there was more snow in my backyard than above Concord NH.....Just sayn

 

[Puck it]

This does not look quite right for Calif. being an el nino year.

 

[BenedictGomez]

These winter forecasts made in July are nothing more than attempts to generate web hits and marketing buzz.

It's one thing to point out analogues or possible trends, but snow maps? Jeesh.

 

[dlague]

These winter forecasts made in July are nothing more than attempts to generate web hits and marketing buzz.

It's one thing to point out analogues or possible trends, but snow maps? Jeesh.

Hey if anything it emerges the AGW discussions - speaking of which - it has been very quiet!

 

[jack97]

This does not look quite right for Calif. being an el nino year.

The blogger mentions a el nino modoki (last term is japanese for similar but different). Warm water are more toward central pacific, hence trends will be different for CA.

 

[jack97]

Hey if anything it emerges the AGW discussions - speaking of which - it has been very quiet!

 

[Not Sure]

http://www.weathertrends360.com/
A freind had a conversation with the guy who runs this Co.
was interesting , claims for my area colder and average precip.
Predicted a major Hurricane between FL and NC in 2011 Irene.
looks like a lot of big money relys on his forecasts

last years predictions
http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blo...nationals-2013-2014-Top-10-Winter-Predic-1670

 

[moresnow]

These winter forecasts made in July are nothing more than attempts to generate web hits and marketing buzz.

But it was posted on the 31st, so it was practically August. Winter forecasts made in August, as you know, are far more reliable.