In response to Bill Proenza’s departure from the National Hurricane Center, Glenn Reynolds says, “Good thing it seems to be a slow season.”
I like and respect Glenn, but I can’t let his misimpression go uncorrected, especially when this false notion that it’s been a “slow season” is already being used by global-warming skeptics to press their political agenda. (Not that global-warming alarmists don’t also sometimes use false or distorted facts to press their agenda, mind you, but two wrongs don’t make a right!)
There is simply no valid basis for calling this a “slow season” thus far. Quite the opposite, actually. We’ve already had two tropical storms, Andrea and Barry, which puts us ahead of schedule. In the “average Atlantic season” between 1944 and 2005, the first named storm formed on July 10 — tomorrow — according to NOAA’s Tropical Cyclone Climatology page. The second named storm formed on August 6, and the first hurricane didn’t form until August 14. So we’ve got a loooong ways to go before the activity we’ve experienced so far would qualify this as a “slow season.” (And even if, as some folks believe, Barry wasn’t really a tropical storm, we’re still ahead of schedule!) Here’s a graphical representation of this season compared to the average season:
Glenn is presumably basing his statement on the ridiculous LiveScience article that he linked last month. The article, published on June 25, asked, “Where are All the Hurricanes?” Given that the season’s first hurricane wouldn’t be expected to form until 50 days after the article’s publication date, I think it’s pretty clear how ridiculous that question was. As I wrote previously:
A website called “LiveScience” shouldn’t be misinforming the public in this way. Not to put too fine a point on it, but anyone who “might wonder where all the action is” is completely ignorant of the climatological reality. … Two tropical storms, and no hurricanes, as of June 27, makes for an unusually active season so far, not an unusually inactive one! (On average, there is approximately one tropical storm every two years prior to June 30.) That’s not to say it won’t ultimately be a below-average season…but “Where are All the Hurricanes?” is, at this point, completely and utterly the wrong question. It would be like asking, on November 1 in New England, after two small October snowstorms, “Where are All the Blizzards?” It just makes no damn sense.
Confusion along these lines by Glenn and other non-weather-nerds is somewhat understandable, given the insanely active seasons of recent years. (It’s less understandable when “scientists” are the ones confused.) But let’s be clear. If the implicit comparison is to 2005 — when, by this point in the season, we’d had four named storms, two of them hurricanes, one of those a Category 4 — that’s just ridiculous. 2005 was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in history, by far. Calling this a “slow season” because it’s behind 2005’s pace is like calling Andy Roddick a bad tennis player because he hasn’t won as many tournaments as Roger Federer.
It might end up being another below-average season. But the jury is very much still out, and at any rate it isn’t a “slow season” thus far. Moreover, studies have repeatedly shown that there is virtually no correlation between the level of tropical activity through July and the level of tropical activity from August onward. A couple of illustrative examples are 2004 — the year of Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne — when no tropical storms formed until July 31; and 1992, when the first storm didn’t form until August 16. Its name? Andrew.
UPDATE: Glenn has posted a correction.
UPDATE 2: I just wrote in an e-mail to Glenn:
It could be argued that this season isn’t significantly “ahead of schedule,” but rather that it’s roughly on schedule, given that storms like Andrea and Barry might not have been named at all in prior years, especially in the pre-satellite era. What can’t really be argued is that it’s behind schedule. In fact, it’s pretty much impossible for a season to be behind schedule until at least July 11. :)
UPDATE 3: As with seemingly all weather-related posts these days, the only thing anybody wants to talk about in comments is… global warming. Apropos of which, a hearty Amen to Scientizzle’s comment:
It’s worth reiterating:
Yearly very small fractional increases in average global temperature and, in particular, regional oceanic temperatures would not simply manifest its effects in the integer value of the variable number of tropical storms that meet an arbitrarily defined human threshold. If anthropogenic global climate change exists, and if that climate change does result in the oft-predicted increase in the number and/or intensity of tropical storms, it certainly cannot be reliably determined by any one year of activity. It likely cannot be reliably determined by a decade’s worth of activity.
Long-term trends, people! Only controlled long-term analysis will support or refute this hypothesis. Why is that hard to understand?
Lots of people on both sides of the argument seem to have a hard time understanding it. Some folks on the “skeptics” side seem to think that the deceptive rhetoric of Al Gore & co. on this front somehow justifies their own deceptive fact-fudging for rebuttal purposes. Which is odd, because I thought the Right was anti-relativism. In any event, when substantial numbers of people on both sides of the debate are deceptively or ignorantly conflating weather with climate, short-term occurrences with long-term trends, the whole public discourse on this important issue suffers greatly. It’s time we all made a commitment to do our part to raise the discourse, regardless of what others might be doing.
|
Categories: 2007 Hurricane Season
|
July 9th, 2007 at 9:43:56 pm
What about me?!?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:22:33 pm
Actually, it would be more accurate to say 2005 was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history. Up until the time of satellites, we missed storms which did not reach landfall or disrupt sea or air travel. I won’t mention the times before active sea travel in the Atlantic, when we probably mised most, if not all the hurricanes.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:46:06 pm
You’re right, of course, RHSwan. Usually I’m careful to say “recorded history,” but I was careless this time. Just corrected it. Thanks.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:13:40 pm
That was the most red herring post I have read in awhile. You forget to mention that Algore and the Gorons along with several warming alarmists have told us the following.
1. The Oceans will warm sooner in the season creating more storms.
2. There will be no comparison to the storms we will experience today with previous storms.
3. There will be more storms and they we be of higher intensity.
Your post totally disregards the prediction of the warming crowd. Of course most of the world disregarded their concert last night as well so they could watch reruns or enjoy the summer weather.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:52:40 pm
Rob, did you miss the second paragraph of my post? “Not that global-warming alarmists don’t also sometimes use false or distorted facts to press their agenda, mind you, but two wrongs don’t make a right!”
I didn’t “totally disregard” anything. The fact is, no scientist worth a damn, whether in the “warming crowd” or not, has ever claimed that every single season, from now until eternity, will be massively above-average (thus making it reasonable to describe slightly-above-average-to-date seasons as “slow”). Some irresponsible idiots might have claimed that, but not the respectable scientists. And my whole point is that the skeptics should seek to rise above the level of discourse occupied by those irresponsible idiots, rather than imitate it. In other words, if you think they’re lying, don’t fight their lies with lies — fight them with truth.
What the respectable scientists in the “warming crowd” have claimed is that, overall, in the aggregate, over the course of many years and decades, hurricane activity will continue to increase (and, yes, get earlier) as the oceans warm. That doesn’t mean there won’t be slow seasons, or average seasons — just that there will gradually be fewer such seasons, and more active & early seasons. This claim may be true or it may be false, but it is not disproven by a handful of weak/slow seasons (any more than it’s proven by a handful of strong/early seasons). And it certainly isn’t disproven by a season that isn’t even weak/slow at all, but is actually slightly above average to date.
Only long-term trends matter; short-term occurrences like individual storms and single seasons are just data points on the chart, not meaningful in and of themselves. (And again, I acknowledge that there are plenty of idiots on the Left who misrepresent this aspect of the argument. That doesn’t mean you should, too.)
In any event, under any conception of reality, it is totally unreasonable to ask “Where are All the Hurricanes?” on June 26, fifty days before we’d expect a hurricane to have formed (or perhaps 49 or 48 days, if the respectable scientists among “warming crowd” are right). Nor is it reasonable to say that we’re having a “slow season” when we’re 1-2 storms ahead of schedule (perhaps 0.5-1.5 storms ahead, if the respectable scientists among “warming crowd” are right).
July 9th, 2007 at 11:56:35 pm
Incidentally, as the Houston Chronicle’s SciGuy has pointed out, there is serious scientific debate among non-skeptics — i.e., firm believers in anthropocentric global warming — about whether the anticipated rise in ocean temperatures will actually fuel more and stronger hurricanes. There are countervailing forces, also caused by global warming, that may offset the factors cited by Al Gore & co., and result in less of an increase in hurricane activity than anticipated, or no increase at all. So, the question of “whether global warming will cause more hurricanes” is a separate question from “whether global warming is real.” Even if one believes the latter question is settled (in favor of “yes”), the former certainly is not.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:09:14 am
Brendan,
You beat me to it. The relationship between global warming and hurricane activity is, indeed, a mystery. Even so, people spend an amazing amount of time discussing the fact that global warming will certainly lead to a greater number of destructive hurricanes. I wonder if Al Gore has something to do with that?
Engram
July 10th, 2007 at 12:12:33 am
Yes. Al Gore does have something to do with it. I personally believe that anthropocentric global warming is real, and I haven’t entirely decided whether I think Gore’s contributions are a net positive or a net negative, but in any event, he is by no means a perfect spokesman. He does have an unfortunate tendency to fudge some of the facts. I encourage everyone, on both sides of the debate, to not emulate that particular quality, which is really the whole point of this post. Calling this a “slow season” to date, or asking “Where are All the Hurricanes?” in late June, is Gore-esque fact-fudging, plain and simple. (Not that I’m drawing an equivalence between Glenn and Al. Glenn’s mistake was, I have no doubt, an honest one, and he corrected it promptly… and drove a bunch of traffic to me in the process. :)
July 10th, 2007 at 12:27:10 am
[Comment recovered after-the-fact from spam purgatory at 8:55 PM, July 11. -ed.]
Since we’re speaking of weather which really should be called wather [since all weather somehow involves water or the lack of it], the New York Times has a WONDERFUL article about the properties of the water molecule:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/science/10angi.html
July 10th, 2007 at 12:54:05 am
Actually, only one of those named storms didn’t even make it to full tropic storm status, which as I understand is the normal threshold for naming a storm. What gives with that? In any case, that makes one named tropical storm so far this year, which is just average….
July 10th, 2007 at 4:07:10 am
Points generally on point, Brendan. But your statement “this false notion that it’s been a ’slow season’ is already being used by global-warming skeptics to press their political agenda” implies that an “active season” would be similarly useful to global-warming activists. There is no evidence, as far as I know, that the frequency of hurricanes tracks climate change in any fashion. (The intensity of hurricanes being another matter.) I hope, in other words, that you didn’t intend to suggest that the number of hurricanes, great or small, is relevant to the climate change conversation.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:53:14 am
We’ve had two *named* storms, not two tropical storms. Prior to this year, subtropical storms were not named. In previous years Andrea would not have merited a name - it was a named storm this year though, for political reasons rather than meteorological. The best data I can find for Barry shows a maximum one-minute peak of 60mph winds; normally a 10-minute sustained wind speed is required for classification as a tropical storm, and it is not clear that Barry ever had a sufficient ten minute long stretch of winds high enough for it to be classified as a tropical storm either.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:10:10 am
I think the point is rather that this season isn’t way off the charts like Al Gore and others would have had you believe it would be. It may not be a “slow” season but it sure as hell isn’t a “fast” one either. The notion that hurricanes are stronger or more common now because of CO2 emissions is wholly false and everyone knows it is, only some keep pretending for political reasons. I need only point to an analysis written by Landsea to show that our record of hurricanes is biased by the technological development of the last century, a niggling little fact that the Gores and Emanuels would rather you forget.
Meanwhile, here in Norway, we’re having quite a sub-par summer, although we had a very warm first few weeks of June.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:05:04 am
The tension isn’t between current data and history, but between current data and the predictions of the alarmist-warmist crowd. “Scientists” are irrelevant, because Al Gore is the prophet, kids, and he clearly and unequivocally says that hurricanes come right out of the smokestacks of human activity. Heck, he even put that on the poster for his li’l flick.
The problem for Ayatollah Gore is that sooner or later he’s going to have to give alarmists some doomsday steak to go along with his fear-mongering sizzle. And his huge tactical mistake was to set the active 2005 hurricane season and the New Orleans flooding as emblematic of warmism alarm. That made for some nifty visuals and got everyone’s attention - but it set the bar for hurricanes awfully high.
Now - too bad, al-Gore - one perceptive fact is fixed firmly in Joe Sixpack’s mind; “more hurricanes and more destruction and ever-increasing hurricanes and destruction than *2005* equals Gore is right - anything quieter means he’s fulla shiat.”
July 10th, 2007 at 7:25:10 am
The term “global warming skeptics” is a perjorative made up by very poor, highly politicized scientists who want to squelch criticism of the awful science underlying anthropogenic global warming. Why not just say “many scientists?” I am one of them and believe there is an even money chance (or better) that anthropogenic global warming is another dreary case of pathological science (think “cold fusion.”)
July 10th, 2007 at 7:30:29 am
I found a post from a weather blogger that said it would likely be quiet until the end of July based on ocean temperatures and upper atmosphere winds. His conclusion: it would seem to be a repeat of last year, but things could change later in the season. The post makes for an interesting read.
http://www.seablogger.com/?p=8049
July 10th, 2007 at 9:47:55 am
Brendan - Did you really mean to stake your meteorologic claim on “anthropogenic global warming” as opposed to the much more inclusive (and inclusivity is always a good thing) “climate change”? I had it on pretty good authority that the rubric of those opposed to modernity, progress, etc. had moved away from the “global warming” rubric so that EVERY unusual weather event could be used to advance their cause (see, e.g., The Day After Tomorrow).
On a more serious note, if acknowledged climatological experts can not accurately predict the major weather events in a current calendar year (speaking here not of 2007, but of 2006, when the official predictions - which called for an active season with many severe hurricanes making landfall on the United States - were off by 100% (no hurricanes showed up)), then why the devil should we have any confidence that those same experts are correct about what the temperature is going to be 100 YEARS from now?!
Not to mention the Lomborg observation that the vast sums which would be necessary to address this non-existent problem could better be used for other, more pressing global needs, like bringing clean drinking water to every person in Africa (at least those folks in Africa who don’t die from malaria because the global greens won’t let them use DDT to kill the mosquitoes), etc., etc.
Perhaps what this endeavor needs is, pace Chief Justice John Roberts, a huge dose of scientific modesty, and the acknowledgment that we really don’t yet understand the global climate (indeed, perhaps the better phrase might be the solar system’s climate, given the evidence that Mars seems to be warming at a rate similar to the Earth’s), and therefore should hold off on things like Kyoto.
But if the socio-political goal is to aggregate as much power as possible in governments and NGOs, then that wouldn’t work at all.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:31:05 am
Benedict,
That you could write this:
if acknowledged climatological experts can not accurately predict the major weather events in a current calendar year… then why the devil should we have any confidence that those same experts are correct about what the temperature is going to be 100 YEARS from now?!
suggests you have no real understanding of the difference between climatology and meteorology.
Also, I assume you meant to point out Roberts as an example of someone urging “scientific modesty.” In which case, your use of “pace” is backward from your intended meaning. If you’re going to use pretentious language to make yourself sound smart, it’s a good idea to use it correctly.
BTW, good post Brendan.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:52:55 am
Thanks, Aaron. But I think you’re just complimenting me because I called you articulate and clean. ;)
Benedict, I’ve addressed that specious argument before.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:10:13 pm
It’s worth reiterating:
Yearly very small fractional increases in average global temperature and, in particular, regional oceanic temperatures would not simply manifest its effects in the integer value of the variable number of tropical storms that meet an arbitrarily defined human threshold. If anthropogenic global climate change exists, and if that climate change does result in the oft-predicted increase in the number and/or intensity of tropical storms, it certainly cannot be reliably determined by any one year of activity. It likely cannot be reliably determined by a decade’s worth of activity.
Long-term trends, people! Only controlled long-term analysis will support or refute this hypothesis. Why is that hard to understand?
July 10th, 2007 at 12:31:15 pm
Forget Gore. I blame Lieberman. ;}
“What about me?!?”
Andrew, what ABOUT you? Everybody already knew you sometimes go all Cyclonic anyway. ;> That link was just a Reminder of the time you took a whack at depopulating Miami/Dade, which isn’t surprising Either. :) Now quitchyer huffing & puffing and get back to your Husbandly duties, there, Señor Dreamliner :].
July 10th, 2007 at 12:46:42 pm
Long-term trends, people! Only controlled long-term analysis will support or refute this hypothesis. Why is that hard to understand?
Perhaps because it is very short term events like Hurricane Katrina that are being used as “evidence” that global warming is happening, and that it’s caused by man, and that we gotta destroy the economies of the western democracies (but not places like China or Russia) in order to Save The World (TM).
And of course, there is no long-term analysis anymore, because climate science no longer operates via the scientific method, but operates instead by the consensus of those in the employ of the United Nations. Who just happen to be arguing for a massive increase in the funding and political power of the UN. How convenient.
And that’s why we get things like subtropical storms becoming named storms - because certain people with political agendas are trying to make the current hurricane season seem much worse than it actually is, in a transparent attempt to bolster the Anthropogenic Global Warming dogma.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:50:34 pm
As per update #3, I think you’re asking a lot of talking heads because both sides have a lot to gain by ignoring the long term analysis in favor of short term tea leaf reading. First, those who strongly believe that global warming is caused by human interaction with the environment will never be placated by a “wait and see” analysis because, according to their ideology, by the time we’re done waiting, we’re already screwed and what we’ll see is the absolute chaotic decline of our planet and the mass death of civilization. It’s easy to see why those who desperately want to convert the Hummer-driving, environment-hating segment of the population will jump on things like periodic droughts, floods or other disasters and try to link them to global warming to inspire lifestyle changes in the people around them.
Second, people who think that global warming is a bunch of bollucks will point to any example of cold weather and gesticulate at it madly, as if one example obliterates the entire argument of the global warming crowd. In doing so, they have a lot to gain because there are plenty of stupid people out there who will bitch and moan about blizzard conditions and think, well, a few more degrees wouldn’t be so bad.
I would finish this comment, but Brendan’s bitching at me to go do stuff. Slave driver. >)
July 10th, 2007 at 1:19:20 pm
Brendan, now Stop that! She’s pregnant, you cur! (Oops. Sorry, Robbie. :)
Becky, your comment is utterly Trenchant. Please Continue it when/if you can.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:31:51 pm
[Comment recovered after-the-fact from spam purgatory at 8:55 PM, July 11. -ed.]
Aaron (and Brendan) - NASA says here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
that “the difference between weather and climate is a measure of time” and “When scientists talk about climate, they’re looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.”
So the factors that go into the study of meteorology (for weather) are identical to the factors that go into the study of climatology (for climate), and yet we are supposed to believe that while scientists can’t get the shorter-term forecasts correct, we are supposed to believe their longer-term analyses?
Let’s try some analogies:
“I can’t tell you what the stock price of Google or GE or ExxonMobil will be tomorrow, but in the year 2100 the Dow Jones Industrial Average will be at 143,987.16.”
or
“I can’t tell you who will win tonight’s All-Star Game or this year’s World Series, but by the year 2100 the mean major league batting average will be .276.”
or
(circa 1988)”I don’t know who will succeed Erich Honecker as the General Secretary of East Germany, but by 2000 the Soviet Union will have grown to include most of the nations of Africa and Asia.”
What you are asking us to believe is profoundly counter-intuitive. Can you provide any reliable, repeatable examples from any scholarly discipline where short-term unknowability / uncertainty is coupled with long-term accuracy?
Aaron - On the pace issue, you got me. I checked my Fowler’s Modern English Usage (2d Ed.), and discovered that where I thought pace meant “with a nod towards” or “as so-and-so suggested”, it actually means “despite someone’s opinion” or “though so-and-so will doubtless not agree.” So how about this:
“The prediction of global average temperatures decades and/or centuries into the future is, pace Brendan Loy and Aaron, a futile and counter-productive endeavor.”
July 10th, 2007 at 2:15:57 pm
Perhaps because it is very short term events like Hurricane Katrina that are being used as “evidence” that global warming is happening
I repeat:
Becky, you’re right, of course. (And I’m not just saying that because I have to because you’re pregnant…hehe.) Those are indeed the reasons people fudge the facts. But they shouldn’t. Those who strongly believe in global warming should point to the long-term trends that they believe bolster their argument, and use THOSE facts to make their case (not the same thing as “wait and see”). Those who think global warming is a bunch of bollucks should refute those long-term trends, if they can. The arguments that “Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming” or “this blizzard proves global warming isn’t real” totally debase discourse and cause people to tune the whole thing out because everybody is being so ridiculous. So while I understand the motivations behind the deception and misinformation that’s floating around on both sides, I don’t have to like it, and I don’t.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:17:59 pm
And in response to Becky, you make valid points about the problems of a wait-and-see approach. I am certainly not advocating such an approach. There are, in fact, some valid reasons to deny such an approach (below), and some invalid reasons (namely our short national attention span and ignorance of the science and/or policies involved).
To summarize what we (think we) know:
What we have currently is a large, albeit to varying degrees incomplete, data set over a relatively short period of time (satellites & modern weather recording, etc.) combined with somewhat haphazard, but generally consistent, smaller set of historical data (ice cores, etc.) that has convinced a supermajority of climate scientists that there is a current upward trend in average global temperature–especially generally coinciding with the industrial revolution–that has a fairly high likelihood of significant contributions from anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.
[I think that’s a fair & reasoned outline.]
That scientific consensus has its turn in policy-making, because the very nature of the perceived problem, if indeed it is correct, would likely benefit from considered action (reducing gas emissions, etc.) sooner rather than later for several reasons, including the relative potential inexpense of trying to address some of the problems now, the possibility of reaching something of a temperature point-of-no-return, and the possible short-term effects (on the order of decades, remember) on sea level and global weather patterns.
It seems perfectly reasonable that if climate scientists are currently ~75% sure (a number I’ve seen before, but I can’t recall where) that anthropogenic global climate change is real and is likely to have some negative effects that could potentially be reversed or ameliorated by changes in current environmental policy, that it’s a discussion that should occur with deliberate attention.
That there is room for a valid, level-headed debate about the cost, efficacy and implementability of proposed measures—and the distributed global responsibility of enacting those measures—is very important to acknowledge. That too many blockheaded individuals (on all sides, of course) would rather spout political talking points than consider reasonable arguments for & against the bevy of reasonable proposed measures in a reasonable manner is unfortunate.
Last thing: I would like to point out a particularly egregious logical fallacy that has been bandied about above and in previous threads:
***In the ’70s, scientists thought we were headed for an ice age!***
The hypothesis of global cooling never enjoyed the widespread support that anthropogenic global warming receives today. It was a short-sighted look at a general cooling trend over ~20 years that followed a previous peak around 1939; the idea spread based on thinly-researched pop science books of the era. The current, broader analysis indicates that there is a trend upwards. Additionally, it is undeniable that, since that era, climate analysis has progressed by leaps and bounds.
Most important—the belief that because (some) scientists promoted a theory that turned out to be wrong has any relevance to the ultimate confidence in an updated theory is very fallacious. That many scientists were wrong that proteins were the mediator of genetic inheritance (and not DNA) doesn’t weaken the current genetic theory of DNA, for example.
The current theory could turn out false as well—and no scientists worth his or her salt would state otherwise—but that’s the nature of science…we work not in absolutes of true/false but in confidence intervals of widely evidentially supported and unfalsified to falsified.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:30:15 pm
Brendan, I have to say that I didn’t read the updates until Rebecca referred to them. The whole global warming / climate change issue long ago ceased to be about science when it was recognized that it could be used to advance the political agenda of the Left worldwide. That’s how you get hockey stick graphs that produce hockey sticks no matter what data is put into them, and how you get climate models that cannot predict the last few decades based on prior data being used as proof that a catastrophic climate shift is imminent. If science ruled on this issue then Mann would be making a new career flipping burgers and climatologists would admit that the climate forecasting models are no more accurate than a dartboard.
If one strips away the political influence, and sees that science long ago ceased to matter on this issue, what is left of global warming? Nothing less than a primitive religion, animism - the same motivation for a primitive tribe to sacrifice a virgin to the volcano god is being used today to sacrifice the economies of the western democracies to appease Gaia. I guess we ran out of virgins.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:28:15 pm
[Comment recovered after-the-fact from spam purgatory at 8:55 PM, July 11. -ed.]
climate models that cannot predict the last few decades based on prior data
Ed, might I ask where you got this information?
The information I’ve seen is that the daily refinement of climate models has improved their efficacy in post hoc pedictions of past climate based on historical data.
In 2001: “Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates is increased by the ability of several models to reproduce the warming trend in 20th century surface air temperature when driven by radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols.” http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/309.htm
Or page 27 here: http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/107/action/107-117.pdf
Models will, of course, always be imperfect: they lack all possible information and rely upon generalized assumptions about gasseous & particulate behavior and limited variability in solar activity, for example. There are certainly valid criticisms of climate models, some that tend to be vastly over- or under-stated by those with ideologies they’d rather argue than evidence.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:04:51 pm
What’s going on with the comment above?
Your comment is awaiting moderation.?
Was my .pdf link too spammy?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:59:08 am
“…the same motivation for a primitive tribe to sacrifice a virgin to the volcano god is being used today to sacrifice the economies of the western democracies to appease Gaia. I guess we ran out of virgins.”
Well now that Last part there is probably prettymuch true, Minchau :), but your Preceding points are more-or-less all Magma. ;> Of course hypothetically even if the prevailing motivation were merely Animistic (nevermind that it Isn’t :), what Of it? If I accurately rat You out for robbing the Bank ~ my Motivation being Not to Communitarianly uphold civic order, nor even to Selfishly claim the grubby Reward, but rather simply schadenfreudenly to See you Suffer just for Fun ~ should you Therefore be Exonerated of the crime? ;> You seem like an intelligent kind of gaia, Ed; so Think about it. :)
July 11th, 2007 at 5:02:56 pm
“The current theory could turn out false as well–and no scientists worth his or her sals would state otherwise–but that’s the nature of science…we work not in abolutes of true/false but in confidence intervals of widely evidentially supported and unfalsified to falsified.”
Which is why the pontifications of one Albert Gore stick in our craw. “The science is settled”, “there is no more debate” and similar such absolutist statements are the pronouncements of an autocrat and not of a scientist or someone honoring the spirit of science. You can understand how we have no interest in ceding to a man like that, with those tendencies, one more ounce of power over us and our lives than he currently possesses. Science has been hijacked by him and people like him to fulfill a political agenda of controlling people’s lives, with the global warming argument merely a convenient pretext (independent of whatever merits the AGW hypotheiss has in its own right). If this were merely a reasoned scientific argument, the discussion would look entirely different and we all know it. (For instance, there would be no talk fo putting climate change “deniers” on trial, there would be no talk of treason, there would be no smearing of the motivations of people with an opposing point of view.) But it’s not, so you’ll excuse us if we don’t accept at face value our self-appointed nannies good intentions about dictating every facet of our lives. We know the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:46:56 pm
And you’ll have to excuse some of us for getting terribly frustrated that because a bloc of the populace doesn’t like the blowhard that happens to be the most prominent and vocal spokesman for the threat of anthropogenic global climate change (or, to be fair, maybe some just don’t like Gore’s techniques) that they’ll willingly spout crap like “Gorons” or “nannies,” rather than listening to what the scientists are actually saying.
Just because Al Gore goes vein-popping hyperbolic, doesn’t mean the science is wrong or that none of his points are worth considering. Watching a chunk of the general public dig their heels in because they don’t want someone telling them what to do, without thoughtfully considering the evidence and ramifications, can be downright infuriating.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:50:13 pm
Scientizzle - *some* of us do not respect Gore because we respect science (and integrity) …
When Gore promotes yet more Nanny-statism, that merely adds to our reasons to respect him even less …
We listen to scientists, and we ask questions, and we ask that the scientists substantiate their reasoning … and when the scientists say “The science is settled!”, we then respect said scientists less and less … the reason we call ‘em “Gorons” or “nannies” is precisely *because* we *have* listened to them …
And that can be for the ‘Cult of Global Warming’ Scientists or the ‘Evolution Is Settled Fact’ Scientists …
Some of us have used Solar Water Heating since the 80s, yet we are the Bad Guys in the eyes of those of the Cult of Global Warming as they fly their private jets to benefits because we “do not believe in Global Warming” … we use fluorescent bulbs whenever practical (cuz we are Scots, in my case) … we have planted many trees, over the years … we compost … we recycle … we only have an SUV cuz we have 4 kids … we understand that nuclear power generation is probably the least CO2 generating technology for industrial-society-level electricity generation available to this country … (the hydro-electric sites are pretty much already in use) … and so on, and so on …
By all means enjoy your own scientific knowledge and expertise, but please try to remember that some of us also have scientific knowledge and expertise and can also do the arithmetic without needing a calculator to do so … Gore’s numbers just do not add up …
He may well have points worth considering - but, if he does, he has hidden them well amongst the other stuff that he does …
As an individual, I have difficulty taking Gore seriously since he seems determined to be considered as the Pope of the Cult of Global Warming, personally proud of the Indulgences he has Purchased to Forgive - sorry, Offset - His Sins of Excess Carbon Footprintness … and then he does this Live Earth thingie - which is to be considered “Green” because of the Indulgences (sorry, again, Offsets) that they purchased ???
A certain Reichschancellor-who-shall-remain-nameless made the trains run on time - and also ended up presiding over the slaughter of over 6 million people who didn’t believe as he did … do we remember the good that said Reichschancellor did ?
I’ll make you a deal to lessen frustration for both of us … list some of the Gorean science that can be supported as plausible/verifiable and you’ll get the agreement of reasonable folk … when one chooses to support Gore’s “Gas should be WAY more expensive to discourage folk from using it” philosophy, one tags *oneself* a Goron … (I don’t think *you* have done so, but that’s an example of a Goronic criterion) …
July 11th, 2007 at 8:57:17 pm
It’s a little hard to be thoughtful when someone is bashing you over the head and telling you not only what to think, but that you have no right to make an objection or an argument of your own because the question is settled and you just need to shut up. And it’s not just Gore, it’s all kinds of people.
Here’s an analogy: There are plenty of people nowadays ruing their support for the unrest that overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979. I’ve seen articles quoting Iranians saying that (to paraphrase) “I never thought it was going to turn out like this. This isn’t what I wanted.” Sure, there was plenty wrong with the Shah’s regime and some kind of change was certainly a good idea but the people who were naive enough to put their support behind the students, the Ayatollah, and other radical anti-Shah agitators got way more than they bargained for. And they’re still paying for it.
As noble as your sentiments are about listening to the scientists and thoughtfully considering the evidence and ramifications, you know and I know it won’t be the scientists running the world or making the final decisions. It will be people like Al Gore - hyperbolic, vein-popping control freaks who think they are entitled to run the world by virtue of their virture. (Just like the Guardian Council in Iran.) And yes, they are self-appointed nannies. I make no apologies for using that word. If you want to help the situation what you need to do is get those people to back off, to stop saying “the debate is over” and trying to squelch other people’s speech. Behavior like that doesn’t encourage a feeling of trust in the “chunk of the general public” you are trying to persuade. In other words, create a climate where you treat people as adults, engage in actual debate, try to win them to your side through persuasion (even if it takes awhile), stop smearing their motives and let them make up their own minds. Create a space where people feel safe to have an actual discussion. Not that I’m specifically accusing you of that, but right now we see too much evidence that it’s not the science that’s going to determine the future, it’s what those people misusing and abusing the science are going to do with it. And we want no part of that.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:31:11 pm
[…] back to look up the tidbit from Glen Reynolds that inspired this, I discovered that the ever alert Brendan Loy posted a response generally similar to what I had in mind. I press on regardless. Please bear in mind that this is […]