Kenneth E. Kogut

October 30, 2017

Abstract

Research finds that next day temperature forecasts for five locations in United States of America, are very inaccurate.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made the forecasts.  Common sense therefore indicates that NOAA’s forecasts of global  warming during the next 83 years worldwide would be correct only by chance. This is especially true when considering that there is an additional great uncertainty, not even considered by forecasters and this report, regarding the possible future concentration of carbon dioxide and the effectiveness of any particular concentration of carbon dioxide–during various years and at various altitudes–on future warming.

Introduction

United States of America was the chosen area to study because NOAA should be the best in the world at forecasting, and it has forecasted global warming.  This was in 1990.  Their report is “Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment.”

The period of investigation in Kogut’s study was the entire summer of 2017.

Only comparisons of forecasted temperatures with their actuals were studied.  Because amounts of precipitation are not forecasted, precipitation could not be studied.  Also, it would be inappropriate to study whether there was no precipitation versus any amount of precipitation, because precipitation forecasts are given as a percent probability.

Wind speeds are forecasted in a vague manner and so cannot be checked.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, through National Weather Service (which reports to NOAA), provided forecasted and actual temperatures.  Comparisons were made of forecasted highs and forecasted lows versus actual highs and lows of the next day.  Only next day forecasts were studied. 

The study was made for these five locations: 

Results

Following are the major findings of the study.

• When NOAA forecasted next-day warming, there was actual next-day warming only 62.8% of the time.
• The percent of times any forecast of warming was followed by actual cooling was 20.8 .
• Of the 419 times NOAA forecasted warming, there was actual warming only 263 times.
• The average percent error in the amounts of warming which were forecasted was 57.2 .
• When NOAA forecasted cooling, there was actual cooling only 66.3% of the time.
• Of the 365 times NOAA forecasted cooling, there was actual cooling only 242 times.
• The average percent error in the amounts of cooling which were forecasted was 50.3 .
• The percent of the time forecasted next-day temperatures were actually observed was 16.6 .
• The percent of forecasts which would have been correct if yesterdays’ actuals had been used as today’s forecasts was 15.3 .  So NOAA was better by only about 1%. 
• The average error, in degrees Fahrenheit, of all forecasts, correct or incorrect was 2.5 .
• The five greatest errors, in degrees Fahrenheit, for the entire study were 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19.

Conclusions

Since NOAA should be the best in the world at forecasting NEXT DAY temperatures in the US and they failed, mankind is not capable of forecasting whether there will be global warming far into the future.  One thing this means is that no NOAA study since 1990, which was their first study, should be considered valid.

Note these facts about NOAA and its work:

• Although NOAA was horrendously inaccurate in forecasting next day temperatures, this was in the geographical area (the US) where they would do their best work.  Its accuracy for the rest of the globe had to be very much worse.  The size of the US is only 1.9% of that of the rest of the world, and most of the area of the world is over oceans.  Very little data is taken over oceans.
• Since NOAA first made its forecasts of global warming, which was reported in 1990, they have awesomely upgraded their satellites.  At least one is the size of a school bus.  Therefore, the spreadsheet on which was accumulated NOAA’s incompetent performance in US forecasting, represents data far more accurate than NOAA had when they first forecast global warming.
• In 1990, along with others, NOAA showed that their “best” estimate for global temperature rise for 2100 was 7.5 degrees Fahrenheit (4.2 degrees Celsius).  In the spreadsheet used as a basis for the report you are reading, NOAA showed that there was an average of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit error (1 degree Celsius) in their own forecasts for the NEXT DAY when forecasts were for warming.
• The forecasts in that study don’t take greenhouse gases into consideration.  However, NOAA did consider greenhouse gases when it made its forecasts to 2100.  It is almost beyond comprehension how much more complicated, and therefore how less accurate NOAA must have been when it concluded that there will be global temperature increases, especially increases of any specific amounts.
• One must keep in mind that 2100 is approximately 30,000 NEXT DAYS from the last data point of the study you have been reading about and 40,000 NEXT DAYS from the 1990 NOAA report.  Therefore their chance of being correct for 2100 is zero,

Thus, there may be global warming or there may not be; no one can tell either whether there will be warming or how much warming there might be.

Qualifications of researcher

While most high school students could have done the above study, following are the qualifications of Kenneth E. Kogut:  1) Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering.  2) Has written 108 examination problems for use in licensing Chemical Engineers worldwide.

Discrediting possible rebuttals to this study

If there are any rebuttals on the ground that this research was not done by meteorologists, climatologists, computer scientists, or PhD’s, the rebuttal to that rebuttal should be that this is totally incorrect: Meteorologists, climatologists, computer scientists, and PhD’s were very much involved.  It is these which made the forecasts that were proven to be so grossly inaccurate.  Once made, many high school students could have analyzed the data.  

Recommendations

Many who don’t want to be convinced that there won’t be global warming won’t be convinced by this study.  Thus, additional studies are needed.  Such work should not be done by NOAA/NWS for two reasons: 1) They have been shown to be incapable of accurate analysis, and 2) They have a vested interest in falsifying their findings.

I recommend studies which include many more than five locations.  One study could cover one year.  After writing a report of that study, the researcher could then continue it by including temperatures for an additional four years.  The reports generated should be sent to global-warming alarmists who are in positions of power over alleged mitigation steps.

In addition to studying NOAA’s NWS’s performance, additional studies should be made of NOAA’s National Hurricane Centers’ performance.  It has forecasted more hurricanes as a result of alleged global warming, yet when forecasting tropical depressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes, it hasn’t been capable of even forecasting their paths.

Since NOAA oversees the following, studies could be made of the accuracy of their work: Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service, National Centers for Environmental Information, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, National Climate Data Center, and National Integrated Drought Information System.