Rather than simply guessing, you (all) could look at the forecast...

"Guessing" in science is called "Prediction". It is based on the best
understand one possesses, which might not give much better resukts than
coincidence, but science progresses by getting a bit right, then
refining and getting more right with ever greater accuracy of
prediction.

Looking at somebody else's prediction does not test your own
understanding. If "he' could predict, how come "you" can't? What does
he know that you haven't learned?

James Annan is a consumer of science, not a practicer of science. James
Annan "buys" prediction instead of makes predictions. That means James
Annan does not have confidence in his knowledge of basic physics. Since
James Annan knows best about James Annan's deficiencies, all I need
point out is that Annan has given his reduced evaluation of Annan's
opinion on weather science.

Climate is weather over a 20 year or longer time period. In other
words, there is no part of climate which is not built of weather
events. If Annan cannot call weather but has to buy weather reports,
what can Annan possibly know about climate. In orther words, Annan i
wearing a sign around his neck saying "I am a loud-mouth, swelled head,
and I want you to pay attention to the ignorant pronouncements I
publish".

My "predictions" are three correct for three published predictions, and
the forth prediction is time and date stamped out there right now. If
you think that is trivially easy, do so yourself. NATE was predicted 48
hours before the weather service gave it as name or even a number. When
James Annan predicts exactly what the weather service predicts, after
the weather service website has already posted its prediction, that
only shows that Annan can read, not that he comprehends any science.

The PRO and the CON forces for global warming arguments need to post
some testable predictions showing they understand the science that
climate is built upon. If you can't predict two days ahead, your
predictions 20 years from now are even more worthless. People who can't
predict basic weather cannot truely understand when they are being
hoodwinked by paid professional liars doing science hoaxes to defraud
the body politic. They quote bizzare websites like the moonie
Washington Times, they quote the arch criminal science hoaxers S. Fred
Singer and Steven J. Milloy, and they quote the T.C.I. PR agency-run
website Tech Central Station that had three staff working on the Swift
Boat hoax project.

Like the Tobacco RICO criminal conspiracy, the pollution lobby just
wants "controversy" not resolution -- as long as the debate continues
they can point and say "see, even the scientists disagree". But what if
the disagreement is between people who can shovel jargon but can't
actually do any science. Shouldn't we end the controversy by excluding
everybody who can trust their physics knowledge enough to make
predictions which come true more often than coincidence? Why play into
the corporate Organized Crime game plan?

My record is three for three this storm season. What's yours? My
understanding of science is PROVABLY superior to your understanding,
because you know best how weak your knowledge really is. You are quite
correct to not make predictions which would surely expose your flawed
understanding to ridicule when one after another of your windbag,
fat-head predictions turns into embarrassment.

Lucky for you there are a lot of fat head windbags around for camoflage
you can hide behind each other and pretend that quotes from other
people with PhDs behind their names means you understand what the hell
they are talking about. If the PhDs can't beat my record they are fat
head windbags too, because science is about two things -- only two
things -- never more, never less, than tow things: (1) Explain & (2)
Predict. If either one is absent it is NOT science. Because PhDs can't
predict climate if they can't predict weather -- it really is that
simple, climate is made of weather. If you don't understand weather
then you can't understand climate.

We can cut a lot of the "controversy" away from the global warming
"debate" by ignoring dumb-bells who haven't learned their basic physics
yet enough to beat the weather service with predictions. The weather
service is deliberately conservative, and waits before publishing. That
means they THEY know before they report and you could know BEFORE THEY
REPORT too, based on access to the same data. It so happens the data is
public for everybody to access.

MEANWHILE, the ONLY guy on this newsgroup who has put a prediction out
with timestamp and datestamp well ahead of the weather service is
telling you that you talk too much and understand too little, and I
don't give a squat how many PhDs you trail after your name. Explain AND
Predict, or else keep studing -- you don't know enough yet to have a
turn on the megaphone.