Get PJ Media on your Apple

Canada Suffering from Climate Model-Based Energy Regulations

America should look north to see what happens when government attacks coal.

by
Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

Bio

March 29, 2014 - 12:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

If your forecasts are wrong, then the science upon which you based your forecasts is wrong. End of story. The beauty of science, unlike religion, is that it is falsifiable by observational evidence.

No climate forecast, whether short-, medium-, or long-term, produced by government weather agencies has been correct. Environment Canada’s (EC) are the worst: less accurate, they admit, than flipping a coin. Nevertheless, government climate forecasts are the basis of all of Canada’s national energy and environment policies.

The same scenario exists in the U.S., and around the world: all government departments are obligated to base their research and policies on their national weather offices’ positions.

Trillions of dollars have been wasted. In Canada alone, according to the auditor general, EC wasted $6.8 billion between 1997 and 2005 on climate change because of their trust in hopelessly flawed climate forecasts.

The UK Met Office (UKMO) also provides an instructive example. They forecast that this winter would be drier than usual. Instead, torrential rains and flooding occurred. A January 27, 2014 headline of a BBC story by Paul Hudson proclaimed: “Met Office global forecasts too warm in 13 out of last 14 years.”

The UKMO also consistently got the sign wrong, forecasting warm when it was cold and cold when it was warm, wet when dry and dry when wet. They could not have been more wrong if they had intentionally produced bogus forecasts. Except for their correct forecast of warming in Eastern Canada, EC forecasts for the winter of 2013/14 were as wrong as those of the UKMO.

Despite vast amounts of public funds devoted to trying to improve forecasting skill, success has been elusive. On February 20, 2014, the Daily Caller summed up the situation well: “Report: Farmers’ Almanac More Accurate than Government Climate Scientists.”

Let’s look in more detail at the Canadian situation, since it is one we are most familiar with and is representative of the forecasting problems going on in governments across the world.

EC forecasts look ahead one to three months, four to six months, and 10 -12 months. They perform skill tests to determine the accuracy of their predictions over the period 1981 to 2010. The map below shows the average short-term temperature forecasting skills for three winter months. Overall, they are right only 48.5% of the time. This is the general level of accuracy for all their short-term seasonal temperature forecasts: less accurate than a coin toss. Their accuracy is even worse with precipitation forecasts.

a1

EC forecasts for long-term temperature trends are just as unreliable. No matter what the climate is actually doing, the department has convinced the Canadian government to pursue a global warming agenda. And that agenda is based on the nonsensical forecasts of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group EC played a major role in creating.

The IPCC creates an ensemble computer climate model projection by combining the output of 22 models, including Canada’s, claiming it improves accuracy. But weather is non-linear and chaotic, so they get a different result every time each of the 22 models is run. To get what the IPCC considers a useable result, they run each model a few times (usually five) and average the results. They then take the average for each of the 22 models and then average them all. This produces the curve labeled “Multi-model average” in the following graph.

a2

(Graph courtesy of Friends of Science)

This is not science. It is simply averaging the results of computer simulations of a system we do not yet have the physics to understand.

A scientific theory of climate does not exist.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (16)
All Comments   (16)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Dr.Ball spent a major portion of his career in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which Environment Canada announced this week experienced its coldest winter since back in the 1890s. Yep, so much for global warming.
Keep telling the truth Dr. Ball, we miss you here.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The results of this climate change folly will be a world that many would not wish to be living in. From my point of view, this disaster couldn't happen to a more deserving world. The greed, corruption, crime, and mostly the entitlement generations of the past few decades from the boomer on up …. when they look up from their iPhones one day and wonder why they aren't on line anymore …. and everything seems a lot different then before …. well … enjoy .. you earned it.

I am old, so I will have to duck out and miss the worst of it ….
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Last fall I noticed that the sun was setting earlier and rising later with each passing day. Based onthat observation I predicted that we would be in constant darkness by March of this year. But for some odd reason, the trend reversed itself sometime in December. So now I'm predicting 24 hour daylight. We need to do something before we all burn up. /sarc

This is as scientific as IPCC seems to do and they get kabillions in funding. Where's my money?
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It is time to withdraw from the UN’s IPCC and to shut down all national environmental agencies that have distorted science to fit political agendas"

Maybe it's because I live in California but it seems there are just too many people who believe in this crap. Part of the reason is that those who promote these scams have been effective at selling CO2 as a harmful pollutant in the same class as smog, CO, nitrates, sulfates, particulates, etc. I have yet to have a discussion with a "believer" who didn't end up falling back on the basic desire for "clean air". So I don't see reversal of these harmful policies anytime soon because in the end, useful idiots are way more dangerous than any climate affect predicted by these models.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Seems like the Canadians could have saved a few bucks and just run down to the local drug store and bought a copy of The Farmer's Almanac.


20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
"They perform skill tests to determine the accuracy of their predictions over the period 1981 to 2010."

They overbuilt their models. A model that has an R^2 between 95% & 100% for historical data will generally perform poorly for prediction.

As they say a little bit of knowledge is dangerous and some scientists are fooling themselves. They do know as much about the art of modeling as they think they do. An undergrad could do better.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
The stated purpose of the UN is to pursue the fantasy of outlawing war, but it's really a mechanism to prop up and lend legitimacy to brutal dictators. Throw the pukes out, shut the doors, and put the joint up for sale as office space. Someday down the road, the space might get filled if we ever grow up and kick the flower children out of government.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
The entire death cult of "global warming" (and now "climate change") is quickly crashing down. There is simply too much evidence against the doomsayers quicky mounting, far too much even to begin to summarize here.

I suggest a *great* site that is my goto page for all things skeptical:

wattsupwiththat.com

Not just a blog, but THE most comprehensive place tp go to keep up on all things related. I highly recommend it!
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is one of the perversions of 20th/21st century life that everything is politicized, everything becomes a cause, and therefore the State steps in and as night follows day, makes things worse.
But the weather ! Now that's perverse.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dr. Roy Spencer's "The Great Global Warming Blunder" explores how the research and hence the models are based on unscientific processes. The IPCC models are funded on the unproven assumption that temperature changes are caused by weak forcing amplified by positive feedback and that the planet is very sensitive to minor changes (which it is not). In short, the outcome is known and all the researchers have to show, absent any actual longitudinal measurements, is that the models support the foregone conclusion. This is how religions work. They start with a premise and use anecdote, feelings and human need to produce dogma. That is probably how religions have to work. But it isn't how science works.

A short quote:
"Feedback is the big-picture, bottom-line, end-of-the-day issue that trumps all others in the global warming debate. If we can actually measure the feedbacks operating in the real climate system, we can then easily determine how much manmade global warming will occur in response to our greenhouse gas emissions."

Well worth reading.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Great religions don't start with a ( philosophical) premise, they start with a revelatory event. Hence the need to see in every extreme weather event, some kind of revelation. The problem with this is that great religious revelations have heretofore always stemmed from human events, not natural ones, howevermuch the mystery a shared (human/divine) Being, and how do we really know how much the weather is shaped by human interactions.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All