Mackowski: Weather isn’t climate, but let’s confuse the two anyway

“Climate change deniers can deny facts all they want, but let them deny the weather outside right now.”

Writing at Scholars & Rogues, Chris Mackowski admits that weather isn’t climate, but nevertheless advocates that alarmists exploit the mild winter of the Eastern U.S. to advance alarmism.

4 thoughts on “Mackowski: Weather isn’t climate, but let’s confuse the two anyway”

  1. According to Goddard (GISS) the 2011/2012 winter was cooler than the 2010/2011 winter. Actually it was cooler that the previous 3 winters.

  2. Climatologists assure us that weather isn’t climate. Yet, they measure (or reconstruct) the weather to deduce ‘the climate’. From their conclusions about the climate, they deduce future weather conditions, or blame recent weather events on ‘the climate’. All this crap rests on a false dichotomy. Weather is climate is weather. Climatologists know this, though won’t admit it. And, to be relevant to anyone, anywhere, it all must ultimately be about the weather.

  3. Yes, but to these clowns, the entire northern hemisphere is composed entirely of the lower 48 U.S. states and southern Ontario, Canada, this winter. Forget about the rest of Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Europe, far northern Africa, and the majority of Asia. Apparently, they don’t count.

  4. Climate is weather. It can never be anything but, as climate is just the accumulated weather of a long period. But make no mistake, climate cannot change or affect weather. Weather can effect climate. Other weather can affect weather, but climate cannot. No matter where you are, your weather is effected by inputs and feedbacks.

    Cause and effect is:
    – inputs/feedbacks -> weather
    – weather -> climate

    It can not happen in any direction but that. The problem is that most people don’t even understand the theory they are defending. The forcings and feedabcks that cause weather are not linear or constant. They are chaotic in most cases, and the few cyclical systems are not all in constant relation to each other. This means that the same conditions in the same area never happen twice. Until you can model all the cycles and the forcings in accurate ways that are accurate in all ways at the neginning, you will not be able to predict anything over time. Weather forcasting works because we can take an okay snapshot of the weather in an area and run it for a few days. It can’t extend further because we can’t model all the forcings accurately enough to cover more than a few days.

    Climate models do not fix this problem, they ignore it and claim climate is different than weather. No single model run is even remotely accurate, that is why they do multiple runs and average them. Due to the factors described, all model runs go outside any reasonable expectations. But claiming the chaotic nature in the models averages out to accurate predictions is such unbelievable garbage that you have to wonder if anyone actually believes it.

    Take a frisby. throw it 100 times. Map the points it lands. Average until you find the centre. Now, what are the odds the frisbie will land on that spot? Modelers will say quite good because, the more times you throw it, the average is close to the middle. But in reality it is almost 0%, you only get one throw just like you only get one run of the actual weather and chances are few ,or none, of your throws actually landed in the middle (average). The next throw can be expected to land anywhere in the range you have marked out, because the average doesn’t effect each individual throw. Average is really only helpful in predicting the outcome of many throws, not one. Average or climate, cannot cause backward effects. So all the various throws actually do is create a range of possible outcomes for each “individual” throw. Each throw is unique, unaffected by the average. Again, the average is only good for predicting the outcome of many throws, not each throw. The next throw might be outside the entire circle due to a one time effect from a unique event, or from a unique combination of the regular events that hadn’t happened yet.

    The climate models are even worse, in that they don’t even have a fraction of the forcings and inputs correct. The future weather and/or climate is not going to be a collection of runs, It is going to be one run. Your model will either be wrong or right. If you are good for 5 years, but then go off for 5. That means you are missing some variables and the longer you run it, the further it is gonna go off reality. Climate and/or weather models will never be useful for doing anything but giving short term ranges, and they will only ever be as good as the accuracy of their inputs. The inputs to real climate are the entire earth and solar system. Everything from if a farmer plants a crop in a field this year or leaves it fallow, to the sun and flares will have an effect. No model is even remotely accurate, so the longer they run, the worse they get.

    It has taken thousands of years of collective knowledge and all our ingenuity and science to be able to predict weather a few days out with even limited accuracy. Our seasonal predictions are a slap in the face of our arrogance. Our decade and multi decade predictions are a joke and likely always will be. Cliamte science is a real enough discipline, but the idea that they can make accurate predictions that we should act on, is nothing but a con game. The next time the weather forecast says rain for tomorrow and it is sunny, that the understanding of that prediction was orders of magnitude better understood than climate predictions.

Comments are closed.