More On NOAA Model Uncertainty

The turquoise cone below shows NOAA’s Joaquin “Forecast Uncertainty” as of September 30 at 11:32 PM. The hurricane is currently 677 km east of the forecast track, but their forecast uncertainty cone was only 210 km. Their actual uncertainty was more than three times larger than what their model predicted.

ScreenHunter_10653 Oct. 04 05.17
ScreenHunter_10651 Oct. 04 05.12

Joaquin is currently forecast to move towards Ireland as a strong tropical storm.

ScreenHunter_10652 Oct. 04 05.15

These are their good models. Their climate models are completely useless, and have 0% accuracy. Barack Obama then takes impossibly stupid interpretations of completely useless models, and uses them as an excuse to wreck our energy infrastructure.  The US press cheers this treachery, and refuses to publish any accurate information.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to More On NOAA Model Uncertainty

  1. ozspeaksup says:

    I read the uk mail yesterday evening
    theyre having kittens over it

  2. Billagain says:

    So much variability in these “spaghetti” forecasts, but there is only one “settled” prediction for AGW.

  3. omanuel says:

    Regretfully, Steven, the World has been floating in a cesspool of deception since Stalin won WWII and established the UN on 24 Oct 1945 to take totalitarian control of the world.

    On pages 153-154 of his 1994 autobiography, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows”, Sir Fred Hoyle BLOWS THE COVER ON THE BIGGEST LIE in “STALIN’S SCIENCE.”

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281017812 or

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/STALINS_SCIENCE.pdf

    1. Without any new data and without any discussion or debate, Fred Hoyle reports on pages 153-154 of his 1994 autobiography, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows”, that mainstream opinions on the internal composition of the Sun were unanimously changed changed from:

    _ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to

    _ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946

    2. Twelve years later in 1957, B2FH (Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle, “Synthesis of elements in stars,” Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 547-650) present data on neutron-capture cross-sections and abundances of neutron-capture products in the solar photosphere in such a way as to convince most solar and nuclear physicists hydrogen fusion is the way stars generate energy and make heavier elements out of hydrogen.

    3. However, that is FALSE. It was shown in 2005 that the 1957 data for neutron-capture cross-sections and abundances of seventy-two (72) different neutron-capture products in the solar photosphere reveal:

    _ c.) About ten (~10) stages of solar mass-fractionation selectively enriching lighter atoms at the top of the solar photosphere, and

    _ d.) The solar interior consists mostly of iron (Fe)

    See “Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections”, paper #1033, 36th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), Houston, Texas, March 14-18, 2005.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1033.pdf

    4. Thus, the experimental data published by B2FH in 1957 in fact FALSIFY:

    _ e.) The 1946 change in the internal composition of the Sun from Fe to H, and

    _ f.) The 1957 B2FH paper on stellar element synthesis by hydrogen-fusion

    • Oliver, that has nothing to do with this topic.

    • Ted says:

      Oliver,

      How about just a link, and maybe a line or two, after each RELEVANT comment? Kind of like a signature.

      You must know by now that almost no one reads a wall of text like that in a comment, especially when we’ve seen it so many times before. I like you, and I think you’re probably on to something. And you do contribute to the discussion here. But oddly, your relevant comments seem to be entirely divorced from your thread hijacks. It’s like two different people. More appropriately, it’s like a person, and a robot. Everyone here knows what I’m saying, and we all ignore the robot. If you could add something very brief at the end of comments we’ll actually read, I think you’d get a lot more interest.

      More importantly, Tony seems to be getting annoyed by the robotic comments. That, by itself, should make you consider changing your format. This is his sandbox. We play in it purely by his permission.

  4. gator69 says:

    Joaquín [xoaˈkin] or Joaquin is the Spanish language version of Joachim. It is a male name which finds its origin in Hebrew and literally means “lifted by Yahweh”. Jojakim (originally Eljakim) was a king of Judah in the Old Testament.

    Divine intervention.😉

  5. Gail Combs says:

    I wonder what Joaquín has been drinking, Irish Whiskey?

  6. omanuel says:

    The question is whether or not the force in the Sun has any influence on Earth’s climate. See in particular the NASA video on stellar flares (reference #10).
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/The_FORCE.pdf

  7. … takes impossibly stupid interpretations of completely useless models …

    That’s the genius of a sophisticated polymath. A faithful representation of completely useless models would be completely useless. He knows a really stupid interpretation improves his odds of being right.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    Speaking of “Their climate models are completely useless…” and “The US press cheers this treachery, and refuses to publish any accurate information.”

    Miranda Devine reporter for the Perth Edition, The Sunday Times, did a write up on Dr Evans evasculation of the core Climate Model physics. Right on cue the weaselly stoat, WIKI con-man Connelly showed up to try and confuse the issue by setting up a strawman, saying Dr Evans had General Circulation Models all wrong. Dr Evans had said up front he was talking about Simple Models of Climate Change ” — models for climate built out of little more than basic physics,a few equations aided by hand-waving….”

    • Rico L says:

      It is really good that this got published in the media, I read Jo Nova regularly. Lets see what happens… it might just get fizzled out if we don’t get clicking on it to increase it’s trending. I have been on a click mission to try and get every link to it at least once.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Rico he now has David The Appaling and Then-Theres-Physics trying to set up strawman saying what he is de-constructing is not the basic model.

        Unfortuately I can’t see the comments for Miranda Devine’s article. I understand they are running scared.

  9. Jason Calley says:

    Maybe the models need to have a error band on their error bands. “We may be off by 200 kilometers, but that 200 kilometers may be off by 300%.”

  10. rah says:

    National Hurricane center now shows it weakening to a Tropical Storm some time Wed and heading towards the Bay of Biscay.

  11. Andy Oz says:

    I think we are being too harsh on NOAA and NASA.
    I mean they didn’t make a fake volcano video like BBC did they.

    http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/bbc-admits-faking-volcano-footage/story-e6frfqcr-1227558182624

  12. rah says:

    For two days the European model has been showing it going into to Spain but the National Hurricane Center just changed their track to agree with the European Model.

  13. QV says:

    Obviously “climate change” is making hurricanes more unpredictable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s