Phone Environment Canada and ask for a prediction for next month, or for the summer of 2017. They will say they don’t do medium or long term forecasts. The best you can get from their web site is a whimsical “Chance of White Christmas.” While there, you can read a report prepared for the Prime Minister that says in part:
The science is conclusive: Warming is unequivocal and human influence on the climate system is clear.
This is a false statement, and the evidence is presented inadequate and easily refuted. If the science is conclusive, their forecasts will work. It is a self-serving report, but more of that later.
The entire global energy, climate, and environmental policies are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast that the world will warm. The problem is, the forecast is wrong. Worse, every forecast the IPCC ever made starting in 1990 was wrong.
John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville illustrated the problem in Figure 1:
The IPCC average the output of 102 models, but those outputs are themselves averages. Every computer climate model works the same way. They start at a point of equilibrium and double CO2. The computer model calculates the effect and produces a final temperature. The problem is that the result is different every single time because it is a random process, so they average the results. So you have the average results of 102 models then averaged.
The IPCC admitted the problem in their 2001 Science Report.
In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
They thought it was safely hidden in the Science Report because they knew few people read or understand them. It disappeared in the 2007 Report.
Canada wastes millions on climate models, but their IPCC model results are the worst, as Ken Gregory demonstrated (Figure 2).
These results are not surprising because the same “coupled non-linear chaotic system” limitation applies to weather forecasts. This is why they fail very quickly after about 48 hours.
When Environment Canada experimented with three, six and 12 month forecasts, the results were disastrous. Figure 3 shows the results of a 12-month forecast against a 30-year (1981-2010) average.
The Canadian average accuracy was 41.5 percent. You can achieve a better average tossing a coin.
This result is not surprising. In 2008 Tim Palmer, climate modeler at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading England said in New Scientist:
I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.
Professors Green and Armstrong explain the problem:
We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. …
The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing.
None of this is surprising. The data on which to build the models is totally inadequate.
There is no data for at least 85 per cent of the world. Where a weather station exists, they assume it represents conditions for a 1200 km radius.
Most weather creating mechanisms are inadequately understood. It is worse with IPCC global climate models because most major mechanisms are omitted.
For example, the three greenhouse gases are water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Their percentages in the atmosphere are 95%, 4% and 0.36% respectively.
Because their research definition says they only look at human causes of climate change, they ignore water vapour.
They argue that humans add water vapour to the atmosphere but, as a minute fraction of the total, it is inconsequential. The problem is we have no idea how much water vapour is in the atmosphere or how much it changes.
The problem with that is that a one percent change in water vapour is greater than any change caused by human additions of CO2.
If Environment Canada (EC) and the IPCC were basing a business on their forecasts, they would be bankrupt. They only keep going because there is no consequence for failure in government. Once a government agency is set up to solve a problem it is guaranteed to fail because if they solve the problem they are out of business. Instead, they immediately set about obfuscating and expanding the problem. They convince the politicians they are working on the problem, but it is far worse than they thought, so they need more funding.
With the claims of man-made global warming, it was Environment Canada that convinced the government of the problem in the first place. Gordon McBean, former Assistant Deputy Minister at EC, chaired the founding meeting of the IPCC in Villach Austria in 1985. There is no way now that EC is going to tell the politicians and the public that what they told them in 1985 is not true.
The report presented to the Prime Minister that I mentioned at the beginning was prepared by senior bureaucrats at or connected to EC. Gregory Flato, an EC employee, is a Lead Author of the 2013 IPCC Report. His co-author Alain Bourque is head of Ouranos, a consortium on regional climatology and adaptation to climate change. They do not exist if human-caused global warming does not exist. No wonder EC is a regular Ouranos Consortium member.
The deception continues despite the fact that every forecast the IPCC made is wrong. But it will continue because Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, is a lawyer who knows nothing about climate change and so is another slave to the bureaucrats.