Hurricane experts admit they can’t predict hurricanes early

[PapaG]

Their models can't accurately predict seasonal hurricanes. Refreshing to see Dr. Gray admit this fact. Not surprising at all that you have to find this news in a Canadian paper, because our media isn't going to touch this one with a ten-foot poll.

Hurricane experts admit they can’t predict hurricanes early

OTTAWA — Two top U.S. hurricane forecasters, famous across Deep South hurricane country, are quitting the practice of making a seasonal forecast in December because it doesn’t work.

William Gray and Phil Klotzbach say a look back shows their past 20 years of forecasts had no predictive value.
The two scientists from Colorado State University will still discuss different probabilities of hurricane seasons in December. But the shift signals how far humans are, even with supercomputers, from truly knowing what our weather will do in the long run.

Colorado State has been known for decades for forecasts of how many named storms and hurricanes can be expected each official hurricane season (which runs from June to November.)

Last week, the pair made this announcement:

“We are discontinuing our early December quantitative hurricane forecast for the next year … Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill.”The two will still make the traditional forecasts closer to hurricane season.

An earlier version of this story incorrectly said they were stopping all forecasts.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Hurric...s+unreliable/5847032/story.html#ixzz1gRwr6IP1

 

[barfo]

Their models can't accurately predict seasonal hurricanes. Refreshing to see Dr. Gray admit this fact. Not surprising at all that you have to find this news in a Canadian paper, because our media isn't going to touch this one with a ten-foot poll.

Uhm, I think it says they can't accurately predict hurricanes in December. They apparently can predict them closer to hurricane season:

The two will still make the traditional forecasts closer to hurricane season.

I am highly amused by this, though:

Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Uhm, I think it says they can't accurately predict hurricanes in December. They apparently can predict them closer to hurricane season:



barfo

Um, for the past 20 years, they looked back on their next-year hurricane forecasts, given each December, and said they were worthless in terms of predictive value.

It's bunk science, and it's a bunk model. You believe in bunk. Congrats.

 

[barfo]

Um, for the past 20 years, they looked back on their next-year hurricane forecasts, given each December, and said they were worthless in terms of predictive value.

It's bunk science, and it's a bunk model. You believe in bunk. Congrats.

I don't think this is about what I believe. This is about your overgeneralization of what the article said.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think the parallel is that if the "nation's top forecasters" using supercomputer-based quantitative modeling have an inability to correctly predict weather patterns and phenomena 3-6 months away, how can anyone predicting the next hundred/thousand/million years have any credibility whatsoever?

 

[barfo]

I think the parallel is that if the "nation's top forecasters" using supercomputer-based quantitative modeling have an inability to correctly predict weather patterns and phenomena 3-6 months away, how can anyone predicting the next hundred/thousand/million years have any credibility whatsoever?

Because there is a difference between weather and climate.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

ah. So supercomputer-based quantitative modeling sucks for "weather," but can be counted on for climate?

 

[Ed O]

We can't use a supercomputer to figure out with much confidence when a single person is going to die, but we can know with some certainty when the majority of people in a population are going to be dead.

Identifying a single bit of weather logically might be more difficult than determining the upcoming climate.

With that being said, is there (and I ask because I don't know for sure either way) evidence that our models accurately predict climate? Given the slow rate that climate changes and the youth of the science, it seems like it'd be tough to have done by now.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

We can't use a supercomputer to figure out with much confidence when a single person is going to die, but we can know with some certainty when the majority of people in a population are going to be dead.

Identifying a single bit of weather logically might be more difficult than determining the upcoming climate.

Exactly.

With that being said, is there (and I ask because I don't know for sure either way) evidence that our models accurately predict climate? Given the slow rate that climate changes and the youth of the science, it seems like it'd be tough to have done by now.

Ed O.

I would say (and I'm not an expert in the field either) that we have "indications" that we can accurately predict climate, but we haven't had time to actually do the experiment, and we won't know for sure how good the models are for decades. Then again, all we have to go on in any field is our current knowledge, and our current knowledge about anything can turn out to be wrong. We (humans) just have to do the best we can given our limitations. Being honest about (neither minimizing nor exaggerating) those limitations is a big part of that, of course.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

We can't use a supercomputer to figure out with much confidence when a single person is going to die, but we can know with some certainty when the majority of people in a population are going to be dead.

Identifying a single bit of weather logically might be more difficult than determining the upcoming climate.

With that being said, is there (and I ask because I don't know for sure either way) evidence that our models accurately predict climate? Given the slow rate that climate changes and the youth of the science, it seems like it'd be tough to have done by now.

Ed O.

The burden of science is on the provable in terms of repetition, not on guessing according to ... what, exactly? If you're asking these questions now, then you already know your answer in terms of science. If you argue it, well, you're just being Ed O.

Where is the scientific proof that long-term climate models are accurate?

 

[PapaG]

I would say (and I'm not an expert in the field either) that we have "indications" that we can accurately predict climate, but we haven't had time to actually do the experiment, and we won't know for sure how good the models are for decades. Then again, all we have to go on in any field is our current knowledge, and our current knowledge about anything can turn out to be wrong. We (humans) just have to do the best we can given our limitations. Being honest about (neither minimizing nor exaggerating) those limitations is a big part of that, of course.

barfo

In other words, you've put your 'faith' into models that are unproven. You're basically a Model Fundamentalist. Welcome to your religion, as you're taking these prophecies based on the work of a few 'holy men' who speak things you want to hear.

 

[MARIS61]

In other words, you've put your 'faith' into models that are unproven. You're basically a Model Fundamentalist. Welcome to your religion, as you're taking these prophecies based on the work of a few 'holy men' who speak things you want to hear.

Barfo's a christian?

 

[barfo]

In other words, you've put your 'faith' into models that are unproven. You're basically a Model Fundamentalist. Welcome to your religion, as you're taking these prophecies based on the work of a few 'holy men' who speak things you want to hear.

Oh, stop assigning beliefs to me. I believe no such thing - as I just said in what you quoted. Try reading my posts sometimes instead of just trotting out your fake outrage.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Oh, stop assigning beliefs to me. I believe no such thing - as I just said in what you quoted. Try reading my posts sometimes instead of just trotting out your fake outrage.

barfo

I read what you posted. It was full of faith related to an unproven belief.

 

[Ed O]

The burden of science is on the provable in terms of repetition, not on guessing according to ... what, exactly? If you're asking these questions now, then you already know your answer in terms of science. If you argue it, well, you're just being Ed O.

I am arguing the logic of why it is easier to predict climate than weather... it's simply easier to predict, for example, where a forest will be rather than where a tree will be.

That has precious little to do with science. I don't understand why you had to take a shot at me just because I refuse to automatically support anti-climate change positions.

 

[barfo]

I read what you posted. It was full of faith related to an unproven belief.

I don't think you can quote anything from my post that is 'full of faith'. Go ahead and try. Was it where I said our current knowledge could turn out to be wrong? Was it where I said we wouldn't know how good the models are for decades? Was it where I said we should be honest about the limitations? What, exactly, was it that was 'full of faith'?

I think you must have a religious belief about the way I post, and are unable to accept reality because it conflicts with your faith.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I am arguing the logic of why it is easier to predict climate than weather... it's simply easier to predict, for example, where a forest will be rather than where a tree will be.

That has precious little to do with science. I don't understand why you had to take a shot at me just because I refuse to automatically support anti-climate change positions.

How is it easier to predict where a forest will be versus a tree? I can plant a tree tomorrow in my lawn and have more certainty that it will exist versus plotting out where a forest will be 500 years from now.

Your contrarian gig is getting old. Follow your mind, and not your heart, and use your brain.

 

[PapaG]

Really Ed. Where is it proven scientifically that it is easier to predict climate over weather?

 

[Ed O]

How is it easier to predict where a forest will be versus a tree? I can plant a tree tomorrow in my lawn and have more certainty that it will exist versus plotting out where a forest will be 500 years from now.

That doesn't mean anything. Sorry.

Your contrarian gig is getting old. Follow your mind, and not your heart, and use your brain.

I'm not being a contrarian.

As for "using my brain": do you still think that I think that the economy is helped by people sitting around, protesting?

I'm eager to know if you really think that.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

That doesn't mean anything. Sorry.



I'm not being a contrarian.

As for "using my brain": do you still think that I think that the economy is helped by people sitting around, protesting?

I'm eager to know if you really think that.

Ed O.

I think you have me confused with somebody else. I never once said the economy would improve with people sitting around protesting.

 

[barfo]

I think you have me confused with somebody else. I never once said the economy would improve with people sitting around protesting.

I think we had you confused with someone who reads the posts they are responding to. Probably not anymore, though, after this.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Uhm, I think it says they can't accurately predict hurricanes in December. They apparently can predict them closer to hurricane season:



I am highly amused by this, though:



barfo

Exactly. If they look out the window and see a Hurricane, they can predict it quite accurately.

 

[Denny Crane]

BTW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding[5] and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.[6] He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children."[7] He asked, "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"[8]

Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.[7]

Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."[9]

According to an earlier interview reported by Joel Achenbach, Gray had similarly said that the current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream.[6]

In a December 2006 interview with David Harsanyi of The Denver Post, Gray said, "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15–20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." In this interview, Gray cites the global cooling article in Newsweek from 1975 as evidence that such a scare has happened in the past.[9]
In 2006, Gray predicted a cooling trend by 2009-2010.[9]

 

[Denny Crane]

Barfo's a christian?

He's a terrorist.

 

[Denny Crane]

We can't use a supercomputer to figure out with much confidence when a single person is going to die, but we can know with some certainty when the majority of people in a population are going to be dead.

Identifying a single bit of weather logically might be more difficult than determining the upcoming climate.

With that being said, is there (and I ask because I don't know for sure either way) evidence that our models accurately predict climate? Given the slow rate that climate changes and the youth of the science, it seems like it'd be tough to have done by now.

Ed O.

The way you can fool yourself into thinking the model is accurate is if you put in data from 10 years ago and get results that are what really happened 10 years ago.

I would point out that past results do not guarantee future results are accurate.

I've not ever seen where any of the climate models accurately predict the past given actual past data as input.

 

[Denny Crane]

Since this is basically an AGW thread... I found some funny pictures that are worth sharing. These are of locations where some of the thermometers used to measure the temperature of the earth are located.

The data from these stations are used in articles published in peer reviewed journals.

(Note the proximity to things like air conditioners, etc.)