2007 hurricane forecasts off mark yet again
Inaccurate predictions fuel the question for many: Why bother?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-canes2907nov29,0,944094.story?page=1

Not sure if this matters concerning the global warming debate or not. Despite the differences between weather prediction and climate prediction that have been covered here ad nauseam, this type of prediction error--three years in a row--doesn't fill me with confidence about even longer-range predictions.

BTW, Dr. William Gray is a global warming skeptic.

11/29/2007 5:12:04 AM

There are a lot of these. I could go find you one that is right if you want me to.

11/29/2007 5:48:34 AM

^^ So correct me if I'm wrong but meteorological modelling is a marrying of two predictive systems. One is the statistical model- created by utilizing decades of observations and creating complex correlations based on these observations then benchmarking the correlations using new observations and control sets of observations left out of the orignial correlations. The other component is the physics modelling component that fills in gaps in the statistical model while simultaneously checking it against what is physically possible. This is oversimplifying somewhat since they actually compare many of these individual models, but I think this is the basic idea behind them.

Couldn't a failure of this system be indicative of a breakdown of one of the components of the model? Since I doubt the laws of physics are changing, it's more likely that the collected observations used to create the correlations are no longer representative of or current climate system? Then doesn't the breakdown of weather modelling support the idea of a significantly changing weather and climate patterns?

Of course the reason could be as simple as the fact that long-term weather modeling using rigorous computation and physics checking is an extremely new thing. That means it's based on an extremely limited set of observations and hasn't had that many chances to be benchmarked against new ones. If this is the case then 3 years of woefully incorrect hurricane predictions is anecdotal and inconclusive in how it relates to the debate over climate change.

These "long term" predictive models deal with weather patters on a completely different time scale than the core concept of global warming. Change in seasonal and yearly weather patterns is a consequence of the longer term increase in average temperature suggested by global warming theories. So you can say decrease in hurricane activity suggests less energy in the atmosphere and therefore no global warming, or you could say that this dramatic change in weather patterns indicates a possible change in deep ocean currents as predicted by global warming proponents.

What would be more telling would be examining weather conditions by geographic region and quantify deviation from average. I think you could make more meaningful judgments by examining deviation from the average value of statistics like rainfall, temperature, windspeed, cloud cover over several years.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 6:15 AM. Reason : ]

11/29/2007 6:13:41 AM

Quote :

"Despite the differences between weather prediction and climate prediction that have been covered here ad nauseam, this type of prediction error--three years in a row--doesn't fill me with confidence about even longer-range predictions."

So one guy, despite being highly qualified, blows three years of hurricane forecasting and you want to question the credibility of all forecasts? Now if Dr. Gray was forecasting hurricane numbers 10-20 years in the future then fine, stand behind me in line to call him crazy. But to try and tie this into climate prediction or any other forecast model is a reach at best.

11/29/2007 7:58:33 AM

^

Quote :

"Not sure if this matters concerning the global warming debate or not."

I guess you missed this part of my post.

11/29/2007 3:57:17 PM

Then why bother posting it if you didn't want people to respond?

11/29/2007 4:34:55 PM

^ I never indicated that I didn't want people to respond. Do not try to twist my words or my intentions. You are the one that is confused about the post at issue--or maybe you're just trolling.

Quote :

"But to try and tie this into climate prediction or any other forecast model is a reach at best."

HockeyRoman

As any rational person can see, your post was a non sequitur to my post:

Quote :

"Not sure if this matters concerning the global warming debate or not."

hooksaw

11/29/2007 4:45:59 PM

You post an article about hurricane frequencies in a thread about climate change and how are you not trying to tie the two together?

11/29/2007 4:51:59 PM

^ By posting this, troll:

Quote :

"Not sure if this matters concerning the global warming debate or not."

11/29/2007 4:58:59 PM

Then don't post it in this fucking thread if you didn't want to tie it to climate change. I am not trolling you so get over yourself. I am calling out your bullshit by your having posted something, having it rebutted and then trying to rely on your escape clause of "Well shucks, I am not even sure what this might possibly have to do with global warming" instead of actually discussing the issue. Can you really be that dense?

11/29/2007 5:02:35 PM

good thing nobody ever tried to use hurricanes as proof of global warming

oh wait

Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html

Katrina's real name...is global warming.
http://www.boston.com/news/weather/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/

"Katrina's Real Name is Global Warming"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/01/147233

Katrina reignites global warming debate
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-09-01-katrina-global-warming_x.htm

Hurricanes and Global Warming - Is There a Connection?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181

hooksaw how dare you even mention hurricanes in the climate change thread...none of the anthro GW proponents would ever DARE to insinuate that a strong storm is evidence of global warming...

11/29/2007 5:02:44 PM

It's not even about hurricanes anymore. He wants to try and make it seem that since hurricane forecast models were wrong for three years then surely all forecast models in the future must be called into question. Please keep up with the topic at hand.

11/29/2007 5:07:13 PM

Quote :

"He wants to try and make it seem that since hurricane forecast models were wrong for three years then surely all forecast models in the future must be called into question"

no thats not what he's doing...but the more and more wrong predictions by so called experts, the more you should say "hmmmm i wonder if they do know everything like they say they do"

11/29/2007 5:10:00 PM

^^^^ You have no control over what I do, troll.

Quote :

"Not sure if this matters concerning the global warming debate or not."

^^^ Ha-ha. Yeah, I'm out of control![/sarcasm]

And Al Gore would never do such a thing, would he?



[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 5:10:16 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw: this type of prediction error--three years in a row--doesn't fill me with confidence about even longer-range predictions."

Look, I know you are old and I know you are probably heading out the door to K&W before they close so I will hold your hand here. You posted what I just quoted. You stated that since there was "this type of prediction error --three years in a row" (referring to hurricanes) that you are not confident about "longer range predictions". Now that means one of two things. Either you are not confident in longer-range hurricane predictions beyond a year which, to my knowledge, do not exist. Or you are implying your lack of faith in longer-range models that do exist such as energy balance models, one-dimensional radiative-convective models, two-dimensional statistical-dynamical models, or three-dimensional general circulation models. Now, would you actually like to address what you said or just keep relying on your pathetic cop out and feasting on the red herring that twista tossed to you?



[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 5:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 5:32:11 PM

i feel sorry for anybody who is confident about any predictions

they are PREDICTIONS, not things that have already happened

11/29/2007 5:33:48 PM

Curious. Tell me then, do you check and see if it's going to rain tomorrow or be cold? Or do you just step outside naked in the morning and then decide what would be appropriate to wear that day? If the former is true then enjoy feeling sorry for yourself.

11/29/2007 5:40:35 PM

i usually open my door in the morning in boxer shorts and an undershirt and get a feel for the temperature

but sure i'll check the forecast...see what the high and low temps are supposed to be...if there is a chance of precipitation...but thanks to radar and satellites a 1 day in advance forecast of weather is pretty accurate

but along the same lines, you know as well as i do that if a meteorologist tries to predict the weather say 1 week in advance, theres a good chance they'll be wrong...because predictions are easier when its a short time in advance...predictions are a lot harder when we're talking about years or decades in advance, like some of the climate change predictions

11/29/2007 6:09:37 PM

Chaos Theory

11/29/2007 6:23:15 PM

You do realize they use modeling for even the next day's forecast, right? Look, I've said it before and I will reiterate that I hate how the dominant aspect of weather has become fortune telling. Yes, there is a great deal of science and programming that goes into modeling and forecasts but it burns me up that the focus of meteorology is more on predicting the future and not enough education and understanding of the weather. Now don't go off thinking that I am validating bad forecasts due to a lack of understanding. You would think that since weather is such an important part of our lives that people wouldn't simply be content with just knowing if it is going to rain tomorrow or not.

11/29/2007 6:25:07 PM

but they do a lot more than just use models when predicting the next day's forecast

i mean let me look at a radar...if i see a big lower pressure point, i'll predict a chance of rain there since high pressure air goes towards low pressure areas, and when it converges there, the air must rise, often forming rain clouds...i can look at a satellite on monday that shows a big storm system across kansas and missouri...i could predict a chance of rain over the next couple days...that isnt exactly the most difficult thing to predict

but a week later...thats a different story...and hence when someone says "we expect sea levels to be 3" higher in the year 2025" i'm not going to have as much faith in that long term prediction as i would when the meteorologist says "this continental polar cold front is coming down from canada...i predict lower temperatures over the next couple days"

11/29/2007 6:27:53 PM

Quote :

"Couldn't a failure of this system be indicative of a breakdown of one of the components of the model? Since I doubt the laws of physics are changing, it's more likely that the collected observations used to create the correlations are no longer representative of or current climate system? Then doesn't the breakdown of weather modelling support the idea of a significantly changing weather and climate patterns?"

I'd say it's probably more likely that the original model sucked balls. You know, given the fact that we don't know shit about how the climate really works.

Quote :

"So you can say decrease in hurricane activity suggests less energy in the atmosphere and therefore no global warming, or you could say that this dramatic change in weather patterns indicates a possible change in deep ocean currents as predicted by global warming proponents."

So, basically, anything and everything is proof of global warming. if the sun rises tomorrow, that means global warming is a fact.

11/29/2007 9:23:24 PM

Quote :

"You know, given the fact that we don't know shit about how the climate really works."

In all kindness perhaps you may not know shit about how the climate really works. But I would hesitate to expand that ignorance to include those whom spend their careers as climate experts.

11/29/2007 9:28:00 PM

well, given that the "climate experts" haven't been doing too well recently... I'd say it's fair to expand my sentiment to them

11/29/2007 9:45:18 PM

Done too well in what?

11/29/2007 9:51:40 PM

was just listening to bbc and they were talking about the melting of the northwest passage. and someone from the canadian ice service (or something similarly named) says that the ice looks like the most pessimistic computer models for 2040.

12/1/2007 12:42:46 AM

Quote :

"So, basically, anything and everything is proof of global warming. if the sun rises tomorrow, that means global warming is a fact."

There's that interpretation, or there's what I ACTUALLY said, that this kind of anecdote is so weak that it effectively says nothing. 3 hurricane seasons is a small sample even compared to the short history of modern meteorology.

12/1/2007 8:49:30 PM

and 500 years is too small of a sample when we have evidence for climatic cycles that last 600 years...

12/2/2007 2:35:40 AM

you people know nothing about statistical or discriminant validity

12/2/2007 2:56:18 AM

^ Do you?

12/2/2007 4:19:31 AM

I doubt it, hooksaw, since his beliefs are founded upon a study with neither of those types of validity.

12/3/2007 6:43:34 PM

OMFG!!! IT'S 80 DEGREES IN DECEMBER! CLEARLY THE GLOBAL WARMING PEOPLE WERE RIGHT!!!

12/9/2007 7:34:13 PM

^ Yeah, and what gets me is when the temperature goes way below normal, many will claim that's global warming, too.

[Edited on December 10, 2007 at 3:13 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2007 3:03:02 AM

So we know that certain gases trap heat. We've been able to scientifically observe this.

We also know that we spew billions of tons of those very gases every year. We know this because we've been able to scientifically measure that as well.

We know that these gases don't dissipate out into space. We've been able to measure that too.

And lastly, we know that if the trend continues, the billions of tons we already emit will increase exponentially meaning we'll be emitting billions of billions of tons per year.

So please explain then the mental logical that goes through your very limited scope of understanding that somehow thinks this is an acceptable course of action. Please explain, without using a Fox News powerpoint, why you personally think not reducing global pollution is workable, nay, good solution.

In the name of science, I'm curious.

[Edited on December 10, 2007 at 3:11 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2007 3:11:17 AM

^ If that's to me, I've indicated nothing of the sort. I'll address it either way.

Global warming whackos continually forget that conservatives inhabit the same planet as everyone else. The overwhelming majority of us want a clean world just as much as anyone--but how to get there is the tricky part.

I do not believe that buying into a bunch of sky-is-falling alarmism will necessarily make the planet cleaner--if I did, I'd jump on the bandwagon in a second. I believe that Al Gore and the IPCC are actively engaged in leftist politics; some lawmakers, celebrities, and liberal business people are more than willing to support them; and that it's all one of the biggest scams to ever come down the pike.

If you want to spend your limited days worrying about the "threat of global warming," you are certainly free to do so. I, on the other hand, am not worried about this--and I have no intention of starting.

12/10/2007 3:33:02 AM

It's actually pretty simple.

1) Just because you don't buy into the fearmongering DOESN'T mean that you don't care about curbing pollution. This is what we call a "strawman."
2) Just because we "know" that CO2 has an effect on the climate doesn't know we know HOW MUCH of an effect it has on the climate. The fact is, we don't know shit about our climate. And those who claim to "know" about it are doing a poor job of looking at the most obvious driver of changes in climate: THE FUCKING SUN. Anyone with an inkling of intelligence should demand that the "scientists" take this into account before they start their fearmongering.
3) Many of us are smart enough to see the politicizing behind this global fearmongering campaign. We see that the obvious target is America and her economy, especially when we are told to IGNORE other larger emitters of CO2. Either CO2 is bad or it isn't. It doesn't matter how much money you have.
4) Many of us also see how much money Gore stands to make if people buy into his bullshit. When we add everything up, it's obvious that Gore is trying to make money, just like DuPont got rich on account of the whole CFC scare/bullshit.

12/10/2007 6:57:42 AM

Quote :

"OMFG!!! IT'S 80 DEGREES IN DECEMBER! CLEARLY THE GLOBAL WARMING PEOPLE WERE RIGHT!!!"

Anyone that has any knowledge in meteorology knows this has more to do with La Nina off the S. American coast then anything else. The cooler waters off the S. American coast weakens the tropical jet streams in the eastern pacific allowing polar air to invade further south from the N. American winter. Almost like a safety valve warmer tropical air from the gulf of mexico and atlantic are able to push the subtropical ridge further north then usual this time of year. thus nearly 80 deg in NC in Dec; sinking air flowing from the equator heats up and makes it quite nice this week

Right now a lot of the country is being punished by ice storms and bitterly cold arctic air. We are stuck on an oasis of warm air that usually chills around Florida and extreme souther Texas this time of year. This is more of mileage game (miles the subtropical jet migrates north) then a temperature game ( degrees above normal the temperature is )

Quote :

"ust because we "know" that CO2 has an effect on the climate doesn't know we know HOW MUCH of an effect it has on the climate. "

agreed. i think human CO2 output has some effect but I think the hippy left exaggerates the extent.
Either way I do not see doomsday occurring while i'm alive, nor do I live at the beach, and I really hate cold weather. So Global Warming FTW

[Edited on December 10, 2007 at 10:15 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on December 10, 2007 at 10:18 AM. Reason : a]

12/10/2007 10:14:19 AM

Quote :

"The fact is, we don't know shit about our climate. "

WHAT?!

i love how your average joe can say "OH WELL WE DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT" and stuff like that when they have NO clue about the research that has been and is currently being done on the atmosphere, etc.

12/10/2007 10:48:05 AM

Hooksaw, since we both seem to agree on that pollution probably isn't very good for the planet, then can you reasonably justify why you don't think we should start changing how we pollute now as opposed to years from now?

12/10/2007 1:31:17 PM

^ (1) I find it impossible to believe that one gas humans naturally exhale will destroy the biosphere and ultimately lead to our doom. And (2) why the intense focus primarily on CO2? What about methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor?

12/10/2007 1:39:59 PM

Quote :

"can you reasonably justify why you don't think we should start changing how we pollute now as opposed to years from now?"

This is the question I'd like an answer too.

Also, I used the word "pollution" purposefully. It's a broader term.

12/10/2007 1:46:24 PM

He'll either not answer it or copy paste some shit in that doesn't answer it either. And he'll stick rolleyes in too.

Hell, I probably fucked up you getting an answer because he'll reply to me instead. I apologize ahead of time.

12/10/2007 1:48:39 PM

^^ I have answered your question. It requires a bit of thought to process, though.

Quote :

"(1) I find it impossible to believe that one gas humans naturally exhale will destroy the biosphere and ultimately lead to our doom. And (2) why the intense focus primarily on CO2? What about methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor?"

^ Please stop trolling me.

12/10/2007 2:05:58 PM

sandsanta is super serial

12/10/2007 2:07:02 PM

Question:
Can you reasonably justify why you don't think we should start changing how we pollute now as opposed to years from now?

Answer:

I find it impossible to believe that one gas humans naturally exhale will destroy the biosphere and ultimately lead to our doom. And why the intense focus primarily on CO2? What about methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor?


If I'm to understand this correctly, you don't believe that CO2 gas is a serious threat as a pollutant and that we should also focus on Nitrous oxide, ozone and water vapor?

Maybe I phrased my question incorrectly. I'm not asking your opinion on CO2 emissions, I'm specifically asking what your justification is in believing that human pollution does not pose a serious threat to the Global Environment.

12/10/2007 2:16:07 PM

^ Jesus H. Christ!

1. I don't believe that CO2 is a pollutant that will destroy us.

2. Even if it is, what about the other "pollutants"? CO2 gets a lot of press--yet "carbon credits" are simply purchased by those that can afford it to "offset" additional tons of the gas being spewed into the atmosphere.

The Learjet liberals don't actually seem to be concerned--why should I be?

12/10/2007 2:26:26 PM

^ This has probably been posted several times in the past 38 pages, but I can't say i'm surprised you choose not to remember.


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.html

co2 emissions dwarf other types of emissions, so it would be relatively useless to overall manmade GHG emissions to lessen other GHG before CO2.

12/10/2007 2:47:51 PM

^

Quote :

"The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.) Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (see IPCC list of greenhouse gases)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses

12/10/2007 2:50:31 PM

^ nothing you posted there precludes anything I posted, or indicates that we should worry about other GHG emissions over co2.

12/10/2007 2:53:21 PM

Hooksaw,

You just retyped your first reply.

I'm not asking you about CO2, I'm asking you why you believe its not important to reduce pollution now. All pollution.

I've stated this three times now. Answer this question directly and stop talking about CO2.

12/10/2007 3:33:45 PM