Farmers Almanac More Accurate Than Climate Science

This exceptionally cold and snowy winter has shown that government climate scientists were dead wrong when it came to predicting just how cold this winter would be, while the 197-year old Farmers’ Almanac predicted this winter would be “bitterly cold”.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted temperatures would be “above normal from November through January across much of the lower 48 states.”

This, however, was dead wrong. As Bloomberg notes, the CPC underestimated the “mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.”

CPC grades its prediction accuracy on a Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfect accuracy) to -50 (no better than playing pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded).

CPC’s score for October’s weather predictions for November through January was -22 and the September weather prediction for October through December was at -23.

“Not one of our better forecasts,” Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director, told Bloomberg Businessweek.

What actually happened this winter? A “polar vortex” swept down and caused every state except Florida to experience snowfall and brought about 4,406 record low temperatures across the U.S. in January along with 1,073 record snowfalls.

The most recent winter storm that slammed into the eastern U.S. last week knocked out power for more than 1 million people in the Southeast and caused 21 deaths along the East Coast. More than 2,500 flights were delayed last Friday and 1,500 were canceled from East Coast airports.

Who could have predicted such a harsh winter? The Farmers Almanac did, according to a CBS News report from August 2013. The nearly 200-year old publication hit newsstands last summer and predicted that “a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey,” and also predicted “a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.”

“We’re using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. It’s going to be very cold,” Sandi Duncan, the almanac’s managing editor, told CBS News in August.

While there was thankfully no snow on Super Bowl Sunday, those sad Broncos fans trying to get back home from New Jersey had some trouble as snow started falling the day after the most important football game of the year.

The Midwest and Great Lakes regions also saw terribly cold weather and record levels of snowfall this winter. Major Midwest cities like Chicago, Cincinnati and Detroit have seen record levels of snowfall. Chicago alone saw 45.8 inches of snow by the end of January, and, as of Friday, the Great Lakes were 90 percent frozen over.

The Midwest and New England were hit with frigid weather and snow for long periods of time. So long, in fact, that there were propane shortages and natural gas prices spiked due to increased need for heating and supply bottlenecks.

The Farmers’ Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles — a prediction system that has remained largely unchanged since its first publication in 1818. While modern scientists don’t put much stock in the almanac’s way of doing things, the book says it’s accurate about 80 percent of the time.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/#ixzz2tu9uyfOX
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/#ixzz2tu9uyfOX="1" href="This">Libtards are gonna cry over this one

There is a saying that I really think is appropriate here-

even the sun shines on a dog's *** some days.

There's a difference between weather, as described in the article, and climate.

To elaborate a bit, weather forecasting is more short-term and is subject to much higher variability than long-term (climate) forecasting where things tend to average out. Inconsistencies are bound to happen. It doesn't invalidate decades of prior research.

There you go using logic and facts...

How about this then?

Was it this year or next year the liberals man god al gore said the ice caps were going to melt unless we all gave money? Perhaps he should demand blood sacrifices like in the ancient world.

It wasn't last year, he was too busy selling Al Jazheer TV to people who hate Americans. You know, those who watch that network the most.

Ah yes, the greatest snakeoil salesman the world has ever seen.
"Larry, this is a good deal"

Lets play a drinking game, take a drink for every lie in the video and see who *** you up the most in the end and see if it matches real life.

So the liberals are right about climate change and neocons have nothing, thanks for clearing that up.

No one talking about the haarp conspiracy yet?

no you forgot, "libtards"

since you know, opening up without calling people who like to be progressive instead of regressive HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE just wouldn't be like a neocon.

Is that the name of the skin flute obama plays?

What does that even mean? lol

I hate to mention this but the north pole's ice cap has melted. Long before Al's speech so it isn't a prediction or anything.

Also, the Farmer's Almanac has always been far more correct on long term seasonal weather than any weather service.

Weatherman you man failed scientist correct ?

Um ok? That has nothing to do with the point I was making. Seems like you found a climate change related article and wanted to share it in order to seem relevant.

I will point out that those two scientists don't dispute anthropogenic climate change just the severity of current models. I haven't read the full context of Kerry's comment but shunning outspoken criticism from qualified critics isn't something I would condone.

80% of the time, the Almanac's accurate every time.

What, you mean that scientists aren't even sure what is causing global warming? That means that global warming is man-made and we must all punish those who don't hug trees and not blindly believing in your faith!

Again, you fail to grasp at what they are saying.

They are saying that it is unknown as to why global warming is occurring, which throws into question that global warming is a man-made event.

>.>
And he would be correct. Model outputs are constantly being disputed and revised in response to new data, but the fundamental cause is well-known and accepted even by these critics. Seriously, this was IN the article you linked.

No credible scientist is saying that they don't know what's causing rapid climate change. The current consensus is anthropomorphic climate change among basically every climate scientist. Current models aren't perfect, of course, but you are attempting to cast a doubt net by blatantly misrepresenting the numerous sources that have been put under your nose. At this point, it's nothing more than trolling.

97% of climate scientist on one side

Politicians and billions of dollars coming from people who will be hurt the most if environmental regulations gets put in place on the other side.

Well, let's sit down and have an honest debate about who's right.

If climate change was just a hoax, we would have cleaned up our environment for nothing!

Does anyone really fault me when I say conservatives are just too stupid to realize they've bought into propaganda?

Of course they would say that it is man-made. If they said otherwise, they would either be a heretic or out of a job.

They are being paid to say that it is man-made.

I know that is a hard concept for both of you, but people do what they are paid to do. If you were given a large sum of money to go around saying the earth is flat, I'm pretty sure you would do it in a heartbeat, and screw with your integrity.

I'm not saying that climate change isn't occurring, I'm saying that it is unproven that climate change is man-made. But you go continue spouting the populist speeches, that just makes you a tool and a puppet who doesn't understand the role they are playing.

Give me undeniable proof that the climate change is man-made and I swear to you now, I will turn liberal. I'll even start promoting Socialism.

No, they would still have a job.

Climate science don't clean up the environment; they analyze and report. There's much more to climatology than climate change. Even without climate change, the climate will still be there. This line of thinking is just something fox news likes to repeat.

Again, too stupid to realize they've bought into propaganda.


I mean, what's more likely? Climate science worldwide are participating in a massive global scheme to force the public to believe in climate change, or oil companies are paying politicians to deny that it's occurring so they can continue to pollute without being hindered by the cost of regulations?

You can believe in one crazy scenario but you won't believe a much more likely one? News flash: people don't become scientist to get rich. If you want to be rich and powerful, you become a politician.

SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

This paper's pretty good if you actually care to read/skim it and aren't bothered by the fact that the writers and editors didn't work for free (lol?).

You don't seriously think I'm going to read through 100+ pages, do you?

This one's a better read (since, ya know, it's short).

In 3896 peer reviewed papers written with a stance on AGW, 97.1% of them endorsed AGE while 1.9% rejected it, with 1.0% uncertained.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

This was under a year ago. The debate was over long ago.


While I'm at it, the debate over evolution and the big bang was over long ago as well. Just deal with it.

How the hell did earth ever have multiple ice ages before mankind to cause them, must of been those damn dinosaurs, they got what they deserved for wreaking the planet while not listening to the credited scientists.

The IPCC reports are a bit unwieldy, but they're extremely comprehensive. If anyone seriously wants to understand the current status of the field rather than relying on the 'because we said so' logic that consensus studies tend to project, it's a good reference.

Climate can and has been changed by factors other than CO2. Logic would follow, using your example, that global cooling and global warming would rely on different mechanisms.

I don't know why it's so far-fetched that humans can influence the climate so dramatically when the proliferation of cyanobacteria was enough to change the planet's atmosphere in the Archaean and Proterozoic Eras.