Government Weather Forecasting: A Corrupted Waste of Time and Money

by Dr. Tim Ball on February 8, 2011

in Atmosphere,Data,Government,History,Politics

It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future. Yogi Berra

Official weather forecasting hasn’t improved since it began and is of insufficient accuracy to be useful. Official climate forecasts produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are wrong, useless and dangerous. Weather and climate has been totally politicized through government involvement. It’s time to eliminate them in forecasting and research and reduce their role to data collection. Neither weather nor climate forecasts have improved over the centuries. In his book Weather Forecasting: The Country Way, farmer/author Robin Page wrote, “Yet it is strange to record that as the weather forecasting service has grown in size and expense, so it’s predictions seem to have become more inaccurate.” It isn’t strange but part of the deception government meteorologists and climatologists practice in leading the public to believe they’re improving because of bigger computers.

Weather folklore includes both weather and climate forecasts achieved without data. “Red sky in the morning sailors warning; red sky at night sailors delight” is an example of a weather forecast. The compelling English comment that, “A wet May brings a good load of hay; a hot May makes a fat churchyard” is a climate forecast because it’s based on a pattern established over time. Today we still have both, as national weather agencies provide weather forecasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make climate projections. The fact the IPCC deliberately call them projections and not forecasts is telling, as is the fact they are consistently wrong. They are meaningless, yet they are driving triple E global policies; energy, environment and economy.

They Know The Truth But Continue The Deception

Ironically, the late Stephen Schneider, who was at the centre from the start in the climate debacle, provides a good example of the deception with contradictory statements. In 1993 he told Discover magazine,

Scientists need to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination… that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of doubts we may have… each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

The last part is frightening. In the same year Schneider went beyond doubt to certainty when he said,

Uncertainty about important feedback mechanisms is one reason why the ultimate goal of climate modeling – the forecasting reliably the futures key variables such as temperature and rainfall patterns – is not realizable.

Other members involved with IPCC and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) acknowledged similar limitations, yet took research funds and a Nobel Prize while claiming forecasting was possible. In 1995 Kevin Trenberth said,

It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system… This may be a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.

The CRU said,

Uncertainties in our understanding of climate processes, the natural variability of the climate, and limitations of the GCMs mean that their results are not definite predictions of future climate.

To summarize, we don’t have an adequate data-collecting base, we don’t know or understand the historic record, we don’t know the mechanisms, and the computer models don’t work. Despite this they participated in the IPCC deception of world governments at the expense of the people.

They are not the first weathermen to influence policy, but certainly the most damaging. At the beginning of the 20th century a Scottish meteorologist, Alexander Buchan noticed over forty years of observation the pattern of warm and cold and that a particularly cold spell occurred between April 11th and 14th. It became known as Buchan’s cold spell and in 1927 was used to sidetrack British parliamentarians from fixing Easter to occur between 9 and 15th. of April. Earlier a Dr. Merriweather noticed the behavior of leeches he used to bleed patients predicted the weather. It was calm weather when they lay on the bottom; rain was expected when they crawled above the water line; and a storm was due when they were tightly curled out of the water. A special bottle designed so a bell rang when the leech assumed the storm position was displayed at the Great Exhibition in London of 1851.

Modern forecasting began with the advent of aviation in the First World War. The weather map was developed in the mid 19th century in the US to study storm systems. Then Roland Bjerknes converted it to a practical application from a cyclone development theory. Use of military terms like advancing or retreating Fronts, Warm and Cold sectors, or overrunning warm air reflect the military influence. In addition, most weather stations used to determine global temperature are located at airports.

After the war, flying expanded and the demand for better weather data and forecasts increased. Unfortunately, accuracy of forecasting has not improved. Since 1960 the number of weather stations has decreased significantly, so it’s unlikely to improve as long as government is involved and continue to ignore the major mechanisms that drive the weather.

The only role of national governments is to provide an adequate network of weather stations gathering a wider range of standardized data, which they make available to anyone. As it is, data is still limited to what is necessary for a simplistic weather picture. They should not be involved in forecasting, and definitely not in research. The total corruption of climate science occurred through government agencies by government employees. They have completely politicized climate science and in doing so, destroyed its credibility.

It Is Being Done Better Privately

Meaningful forecasts are being made using the Sun, the major weather driving mechanism with more success than government forecasts. Official science will ridicule the idea but anything that excludes solar activity is doomed to failure. General forecasts provided by The Old Farmers Almanac established by Robert Thomas in 1792 have a better chance of accuracy because they are fundamentally based on sunspot cycles. Piers Corbyn provides the best example of successful forecasting. Two measures of his success are the snide comment in Wikipedia that he is “a maverick British Weather forecaster” and a nasty comment in the leaked CRU emails. Here is what then Director Phil Jones wrote on 11 July 1996:

Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/ Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25% of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months ahead for what will happen in Britain.

The betting shops eventually refused to take his bets.

Corbyn has expanded his forecast service to global coverage. You can visit his site here. The big advantage is Corbyn is out of business if his forecasts are wrong. Government weather forecasts are consistently wrong, yet nobody is held accountable and they continue to receive large amounts of funding. Climate forecasts by the IPCC are more wrong, more damaging and more costly – yet despite that and the exposed corruption they continue to operate. Government weather and climate forecasts are one more proof that government involvement ensures failure.

Those who have knowledge don’t predict. Those who do predict don’t have knowledge.
Lao Tzu