02-16-2018 12:28:03 PM -0800
01-23-2018 09:55:12 AM -0800
01-18-2018 11:02:22 AM -0800
01-09-2018 01:54:15 PM -0800
12-22-2017 09:40:32 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Canada Suffering from Climate Model-Based Energy Regulations

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.


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.


(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.