LOL - Isn't that a bummer when it happens!
Some keys seem to be to look at who are "they" and what are their forecasting track records.
Agree that even the world's largest climate super computer at the Met Office in the UK has been horribly wrong, repeatedly for many years, in longer-range forecasts. Something like days ahead of time, they forecast a dry, warm winter, just before the worst cold on record hit their own country. Nobody knows how far back this massive cold "record goes. But, their CO2-based model completely missed forecasting the worst cold in about 350 years, "on record" since about the year 1659.
They forecast Dry and completely missed the coming Snows that were the biggest in a hundred years. If they program their computer, based upon anti-science political agendas and/or for getting grants, instead of with natural real world trends, it's no surprise they can be so wrong. For something like 9 times, they forecast temps and precipitation ahead of time, when each time, reality was the very much the opposite.
So, instead of relying on those who have such terrible track records, it's better to look toward those who have much better success rates.
- The Met Office and their world's largest super computer Modeling and thousands of staff, were finally shamed into dropping longer-range forecasts, because it was clear, they didn't have a clue. Funding their incompetence was being questioned.
It appears that natural cycles have been dominating many local, regional and global trends, that have been essentially left out, or not properly represented in most of the long-range models.
- The models don't adequately include massive, dominating natural trends in Ocean Phases, Clouds, Water Vapor and Indirect Solar factors.
=======
While not perfect, with it's approach, WeatherBell Analytics has been documenting how events we are seeing today are not "unprecedented." There are many natural cycles and natural events in the past, that are guides to what will happen in the future. They've had a pretty strong track record, backed by their real world cause-and-effect analysis of what has happened before, with similar global conditions.
- Better to reduce focus on those who are using assumptions and models that have not been working, who have been repeatedly wrong and who too often make their comments "after" events. Those problems decrease confidence.
- It is certainly much better to be following individuals and groups who are defining their reasoning, calling events in advance and getting a large measure of success. Those successes increase confidence.
We will see how some of these factors play out in our future, both this year and in upcoming years.
