A tropical wave off the African coast has the potential to develop into the first serious tropical system of the season. For now, it’s just a disorganized mass of clouds with a moderately low pressure, but the computer models are predicting that it’ll become Tropical Depression 4 as early as Monday. For now, it’s known only as Invest 90L.
The SHIPS intensity model has “90L” approaching hurricane strength — it would be named Hurricane Dean — in 120 hours. The track models show it moving in the general direction of the Antilles islands, as storms in that part of the ocean tend to do, but the computers diverge wildly in predicting the hypothetical hurricane’s ultimate destination: “At one extreme, a harmless course recurving up the North Atlantic. At the other, a duplicate of the 1998 hurricane Georges — grinding over all the Greater Antilles, crossing the Florida Keys to the Gulf, then heading for Mobile Bay.” I believe this is where Fark.com would insert the headline “EVERYBODY PANIC.” But seriously, folks, it’s waaaay too early to put any stock whatsoever in such forecast details, with regard to either track or intensity. For now, this is simply an area of disturbed weather worth watching, but certainly not yet worth hyping, let alone panicking about oil prices over. (Seriously, WTF?) Invest 90L could very easily turn out to be nothing. Or something. It’s far, far, far too early to say. Just stay tuned.
If the wave does develop, it’ll be the season’s first Cape Verde system… just what you’d expect around mid-August. The 2007 hurricane season continues to evolve right on schedule, or a tiny bit ahead of it, despite what Drudge and other agenda-driven conservative websites would have you believe. Here’s an update of the climatology-versus-reality chart that I posted last month:
Just FYI.
P.S. Incidentally, Charles Fenwick — who is way more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am — also published a post last month, similar to mine, criticizing the “slow season” nonsense that Drudge and others have been peddling. This isn’t about global warming, people; it’s about telling the truth.
|
Categories: 2007 Hurricane Season
|
August 11th, 2007 at 8:39:25 pm
Bah. Mah.
:>
August 11th, 2007 at 9:12:14 pm
I would point out that the first “tropical” storm was a very questionable late April call. The second developed from a cold-core polar low near Yucatan, and gained some tropical characteristics over Loop Current before going ashore in the Florida Panhandle. The third short-lived system evolved from a frontal wave far out (and far north) in the Atlantic. All three of our systems have been very marginal. No Audreys.
This one looks like a real Cape Verde blow, right on schedule, as you say. But I don’t see us cramming a dozen named systems into the rest of our season. And the ones that form — including Dean — are more likely than usual to stay at sea, given the propensity for East Coast troughing this year.
August 11th, 2007 at 9:38:53 pm
What do you mean too early? I already know that this year is going to be a global warming caused hurricane disaster. Katrina already proved it and the experts already said that we are due much more.
Don’t panic? I started my panic about 4 years ago.
thanks.
August 11th, 2007 at 9:57:41 pm
Point conceded, Alan… but weak, short-lived storms are exactly what one would expect in a normal May, June & July, no? That the three named storms were weak, even marginal, is no justification for calling this a “slow” season thus far, or asking “Where are all the hurricanes,” as some have. … I know it drives you crazy when Gore and other zealots on his side of the climate debate twist the facts to suit their agenda. I’m just holding the “skeptics” to the same standard.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:35:17 pm
Well, it does look alot like 1934. Or is it 1998? You know, trying to make something about “conservatives and liberals fighting over Atlantic storms” is a bit silly. An emotional investment in weather is a sure sign that one’s worldview is wobbly. All I know is that it’s cold down here in the Southern Cone.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:52:21 pm
What you are seeing in the conservative press will blow over eventually.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:58:59 pm
Agenda-driven conservatives…as opposed to non-agenda-driven liberals. Ugh!
August 11th, 2007 at 10:59:05 pm
To add to what Alan said, not only were the first three storms questionable (I work with many meterologists who more or less mocked NHC for calling those storms “tropical” and I largely agree–the point is not their strength but their tropical characteristics, which were severely lacking) but since this year was predicted to have a very high chance of being above normal, the point is that this season is definitely not above average, and that for the second year in a row, the predictions are well too high.
So I would not say the Drudge’s of the world are being disingenuous, but they are just pointing out that the predictions are wrong. For the record, I wish people would do this with AccuWeather as well–where are all those storms that were supposed to hit the Carolinas and New England???
August 11th, 2007 at 11:02:44 pm
I think your graph has a little bit of an “apples vs oranges” comparison problem. Conventions for named systems have recently changed (as has our ability to identify systems that momentarily develop tropical characteristics). In particular, it is unlikely that this year’s first storm would have been classified as a tropical system in the past–the past from which the historical distribution of named systems is drawn.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:04:04 pm
So if this year is right on schedule (compared to the average hurricane activity for the last 60 years) doesn’t that mean that all the hyperventilating, dire predictions of inevitably heavy hurricane seasons following hurricane Katrina are proving to be so much hot air? An average season is a slow season when compared to the breathless doom-mongering prognostications that were going around in 2005.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:09:58 pm
what they said:
# EK Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 10:59:05 pm
To add to what Alan said, not only were the first three storms questionable (I work with many meterologists who more or less mocked NHC for calling those storms “tropical” and I largely agree–the point is not their strength but their tropical characteristics, which were severely lacking) but since this year was predicted to have a very high chance of being above normal, the point is that this season is definitely not above average, and that for the second year in a row, the predictions are well too high.
So I would not say the Drudge’s of the world are being disingenuous, but they are just pointing out that the predictions are wrong. For the record, I wish people would do this with AccuWeather as well–where are all those storms that were supposed to hit the Carolinas and New England???
# wr Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 11:02:44 pm
I think your graph has a little bit of an “apples vs oranges” comparison problem. Conventions for named systems have recently changed (as has our ability to identify systems that momentarily develop tropical characteristics). In particular, it is unlikely that this year’s first storm would have been classified as a tropical system in the past–the past from which the historical distribution of named systems is drawn.
# kcom Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 11:04:04 pm
So if this year is right on schedule (compared to the average hurricane activity for the last 60 years) doesn’t that mean that all the hyperventilating, dire predictions of inevitably heavy hurricane seasons following hurricane Katrina are proving to be so much hot air? An average season is a slow season when compared to the breathless doom-mongering prognostications that were going around in 2005.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:19:22 pm
You need to revise your graph to stop at 1962. There is no reliable information about the number of Atlantic (or anywhere else for that matter) storms before satellite reconnaissance.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:53:05 am
So, this is what climate sicence has become, sad indeed.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:36:16 am
So, when do we get to see your post regarding the NASA retraction of 1998 as the warmest ever? How about the new, factual, conclusion that the 1930s were easily the warmest decade?
Perhaps you could add an attack on the “scientists” who refused to share their raw data when asked by a reputable climatologist? Data bought and paid for by the American people.
Nah, by attacking the fraudulent “professionals” involved in covering up the phony conclusions supporting the global warming template, perhaps other “professionals,” such as the gang at NHC who had fired someone who didn’t walk and talk as desired may shun you, too.
There is some serious ox goring here, Brendan. I sincerely hope you come back off the limb you’ve climbed.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:40:28 am
Agenda-driven conservatives…as opposed to non-agenda-driven liberals. Ugh!
Can you point me to where I denied that there are agenda-driven liberals??
I frequently criticize both sides for being overzealous and agenda-driven with regard to this issue. (Note my reference to “Gore and other zealots” above.) You’re the one who is (apparently) ignoring the foibles of one side while criticizing the other. So I’m not sure where you get off implying that I’m being biased.
Many of the other comments relate to things I’ve already addressed elsewhere, and it being 1:33 AM and my having just arrived home from an 18-hour travel day, I don’t feel up to digging those responses up now and repeating them here. But in general, as to the idea that this season is “slow” because it’s less than the dire predictions of the radical alarmists who absurdly said or implied that every season henceforth would be like 2005… that’s an absolute straw-man, since anyone who made such a claim is self-evidently unserious (i.e., the legitimate scientific advocates of global warming have never claimed any such thing), and in any event, it’s not a valid justification for using terms like “slow season” or asking “Where are the all the hurricanes,” which are clearly designed to make people believe that this is a historically slow season thus far (not merely that it’s “slow” compared to the expected level of the Gore-ocalpyse). If you want to rebut the claims of the most alarmist extremists on the other side, be my guest, but do so honestly and clearly, instead of by further obfuscating reality, as they are also doing. The fact that you believe you opponents are distorting the truth is no excuse for distorting it in the opposite direction. Fight lies with truth, not more lies!
You can argue with the conclusion that this season is above average thus far (I said it was either “right on schedule, or a tiny bit ahead of it,” which I think is fair), but there is absolutely no justification that I can see for saying that it is, thus far, below average. Yet this is what Drudge and others have been saying. That is absolutely, without any question disingenuous.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:48:32 am
P.S. For those who feel that I’m “out on a limb” because I’ve dared to suggest that Drudge and some other conservative websites are “agenda-driven” with regard to this issue, I suggest you look up the term “calling a spade a spade.”
It’s completely obvious that there is a very active agenda at work, trying feverishly to discredit the global warming theory. Likewise, there is a very active agenda at work on the other side, trying to advance acceptance of the theory. Both sides have agendas, and both advance them aggressively. Nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is when scientific accuracy is sacrificed for the sake of those agendas, and the most obvious examples of that phenomenon occur when undeniable truths — like the fact that the 2007 season is not, at this point, “slow” or below average — are ignored or denied because it suits somebody’s purposes. I’m just calling out Drudge & co. on this. Likewise, I’ve called out Gore & co. in the past when they’ve, for example, suggested that individual storms (e.g., Katrina) can somehow be “blamed” on global warming. I absolutely abhor and disdain the inability or unwillingness of the hacks on both sides to differentiate between weather and climate. I’ve talked about this many times before. So don’t just swoop in here and start treating me like the enemy because I suggested that your side of the debate might not be pure as the driven snow when it comes to advancing an agenda. There’s a lot of fault to go around, and yes, there are a lot of different sub-issues I could potentially talk about (if I wanted to turn this into a global-warming-only blog). But because I happen to know a fair bit about the particular issue of hurricane frequency and timing (as opposed to the more complex aspects of climate science, which I know less about), I’m obviously going to jump on this particular fallacy. That there are other fallacies committed by other people doesn’t make this fallacy any less fallacious. That’s about the weakest defense I can imagine, sort of like a Daily Kos denizen fulminating that how dare you criticize the Democrats when Bush is so much worse. Lame.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:04:50 am
Yet this is what Drudge and others have been saying. That is absolutely, without any question disingenuous.
Of course its disingenuous, its DRUDGE
August 12th, 2007 at 2:20:33 am
All of the above is spoken like true Katrina spectators. We participants couldn’t care less. There’s something headed towards us, so it’s time to pay attention and take care of a few last minute details. The rest of the preparations were finished before June 1.
We don’t care about Global warming, cooling or ever a Pan-Galactic Rabid Aardvark. Just give me some time to prepare, and my family will be OK.
PS. I let Rosie know that the Bush administration DENIES the existance of the Pan-Galactic Rabid Aardvark. I look forward to her debating the issue with Trump.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:34:51 am
I agree with you except for the last part.
“people; it’s about telling the truth.”
IMHO we have too much of the “Truth”, as defined by the presenter, and not enough of the facts required to find the truth on our own.
Seems to me anyone using the weather to make a political point is a bit off base.
I’m just saying.
Thanks for the soapbox!
August 12th, 2007 at 4:39:54 am
We’re heading into the busiest few weeks of the Atlantic hurricane season. Anyone with any knowledge of meteorology knows that. Mid-August to mid-September is when the waters are warmest and the greatest potential for big storms is present. Just because we haven’t seen anything significant YET doesn’t mean that nothing significant is going to happen. Anyone talking about a “slow” hurricane season at this point is just exposing ignorance.
That said, I’m not on the bandwagon with the Goracle and his crew of doom-and-gloomers about our impending doom from global warming. Reading that story about the Y2K bug in the temperature readings just made me laugh.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:03:47 am
I am happy to concede there are fools on the right who take every chance to belittle the fools on the left who attempted to politicize Katrina who pointed to it and the active season associated with it as evidence of global warming.
It is not the right, Brendan, who has sought to anthropomorphize the slight (by historical standards) advance in global temps the past two decades. It is, instead, the left who advances wild theories as to human causality. Not one of these has survived and significant peer review. Not one.
The greatest bogeyman of all, Rush, says there is warming. But he demands that scientific principles be employed when seeking causality. Do you have a problem with this?
My problem with you, Brendan, is that you ignored a black and white, inarguable, factual, example of junk science perpetrated by NASA scientists, who some consider to be giants in the global warming community. Your basic new judgment is skewed horribly.
Which is the greater story, Drudge cites a “lay” or non-professional opinion and links to sources? Or is it lifelong, respected, professional climatologists at NASA are caught perpetrating a lie and fraud (2K computer glitch my ass), and attempted to cover it up by denying raw data to other climatologists?
Add to this the incredible incuriosity of the MSM in such a bigtime screwup/coverup at NASA? To NASA’s credit, they did rerun the numbers and acknowledge that the debunkers of their original WIDELY reported study were correct. But where was the news conference? And why are the two “scientists” who rejected peer review allowed to remain in such a sensitive position within NASA?
Drudge did not politicize the NHC and he did not politicize the climatology unit at NASA. These two allegedly scientific bastions did it all by themselves.
While we’re at it. How about responding to the direct criticism of the data used in this very thread by yourself regarding the methodology of declaring a tropical event in past decades? Your graph is in question, my friend. Prove it out. Or kindly withdraw it.
The consequences of shaping our lifestyles based on false assumptions is far too great to be playing around. Until it is proven that man is causing horrendous rises in temps, as opposed to natural fluctuations such as those recorded over the centuries (GREENland, anybody?), we will needlessly cause severe hardship that will inevitably lead to privation and suffering for many millions. That’s what worldwide depressions do, Brendan.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:17:21 am
Methinks Ed is getting spun up.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:58:14 am
Brendan, I know this is a subjective call, but in past years, this years’ first storm would not have been designated, and before satellites, the third would probably not have been noticed. After these the tropics went truly quiet, with waves weaker than normal, relative to season. Even now that remains the case. We finally have one strong wave. I continue to expect a subnormal tally this year.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:36:26 am
Brendan Loy’s work stood out during the Katrina crisis precisely because he has scientific knowledge about hurricanes. Still does. I have learned a lot by reading this blog from time to time and he has taught me today about the problem of failing to distinguish between weather and climate. Now I understand why it drives me spare when people seriously suggest that a hot day should be taken as proof of global warming. I can now smugly tell them that they are confusing the two. It will probably have no effect but I might feel better. There is a big difference between say an Al Gore or a Michael Creighton and someone like Drudge who is primarily out to tweak the nose of the opposition. Al Franken would be ‘tweaker’ on the other side who I also find entertaining but would not dream of taking seriously as a source.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:33:45 am
Another weak hurricane season spells disaster for the dumb lefty douchbags who overplayed their hand in 2005.
Yeah. Whew. Nothing but monster hurricanes blowing ashore daily this year.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:41:34 am
The 2007 hurricane season continues to evolve right on schedule, or a tiny bit ahead of it, despite what Drudge and other agenda-driven conservative websites would have you believe.
Matt Drudge would merely have us click on his site and sustain his current lifestyle. His hype of the weather is totally outside of his site being considered “conservative.” Besides, he’s linking to the MSM, where the real hype is.
I don’t presume to take Mr. Loy to task over his communication skills, but it really does come across as “conservative blogs have an agenda to over-hype the weather for their own purposes.” Well, I read the conservative sites and most are just annoyed with the panic-mongering of the MSM over things that have been happening naturally.
Just listen to your local television station. It’s possible we’re all gonna die from a heat wave long before the scary hurricanes come to kill us. They spend so much time assuring us that sharks aren’t consciously targeting us, but somehow, our government is steering hurricanes to our doorsteps.
I see an agenda. It’s to sell panic. Now, who will profit from panic? News-pushers. That makes them one helluva step below politicians.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:06:16 am
Joan - I agree with everything you say here, except, I checked your site and have to disagree there. My dog Buster is the best dog in the whole world.
Seriously, this idea of the news to sell panic is why in part their ratings have tanked so badly. For a while, every teaser for CBS news was about the latest threat to health and safety. That was a complete turn off for me, and I imagine lots of others as well.
It’s reasonable to take precautions, but to live in constant fear is ridiculous. We’re taking a late September vacation in the Outer Banks, so we’re paying the hurricane insurance, but we’re still going.
Now might be a good time for people to review the story of Chicken Little, and Don Quixote as well, but make sure to have water, non-perishable food, medicine and small bills on hand, just in case.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:39:14 am
Various helpful quotes:
“I’m from the weather bureau, I’m here to help….”
“Vee hav vays of makink you aggrrree with zee Global Warming….”
“Today in the news: Global Warming causes monster hurricanes. Experts blame Bush”
“Today in the news, Global Warming eliminates all hurricanes. Experts blame Bush”
“Herr Professor, I am sure you understand that you WILL publish an article supportive of Global Warming or your grant application will be, shall we say, carefully reviewed. Yes, most carefully reviewed indeed.”
Don’t you DARE say that Global Warming is affected by the Sun. I will report you to the inquisition.”
August 12th, 2007 at 9:45:33 am
Brendan,
I was not referring to the predictions of the alarmists, but the establishment (NOAA, Dr. Grey’s team, AccuWeather, etc) all of whom predicted this year and last to be above average. Is it unscientific of me (or anyone else) to point out their predictions are not turning out?
And not to get into semantics, but “slow” is not a scientific term. Maybe some people consider an average season to be slow, depending on the context.
But my main point is that I think Joe-on-the-street is reacting to the mainstream predictions of above average activity, and asking “where is it?” As a professional meteorologist myself, I think people who point out the error in the predictions of those in my profession should be encouraged, not chastized. It results in pressure for better science, which benefits us all.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:00:02 am
Yeah, I always seek out graduates of Notre Dame law school whenever I want expert advice about climatology.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:32:35 am
The great thing about this debate, and the slinging of charges of disingenuousness back and forth between right and left, is
that the truth will out in the next six weeks. One would think that this reality would make people cautious about making
flippant predictions. Their persistance in doing so is a scary commentary about the state of debate in our society.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:38:10 am
:rolleyes:
We’re talking about hurricanes, not climatology.
And while we’re at it, consider the motivation NHC has to gin up the excitement a little. Might even get some QuickScat funding, eh? Maybe that’s why we had those borderline designations, which Brendan now uses to bash Drudge, of all people.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:54:59 am
we really need a good statisical analysis to compare this season to the average in order to draw meaningful conclusions. I think that comparing the number of named storms is a very limited way of comparing hurricane seasons. There are likley better ways of comparing the seasons, such as the total number of storm days, the rate of storm days at this point in the season, or using a multipier to generate a total storm intensity total at this point in the season. Just counting storms seems trivial when trying to elucidate meaningful comparisons to past seasons and the average.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:59:47 am
[…] according to Brendan Loy, things may be heating up in the Atlantic as well: A tropical wave off the African coast has the potential to develop into the first serious tropical […]
August 12th, 2007 at 11:30:45 am
I agree with Brad. It is misleading to focus on the three “official” storms. But I’m not sure how a more thorough comparison of tropical seasons could be established. NHC keeps a running tally of tropical waves, but their intensity is more significant than their number. Alas, that is interpreted from satellite imagery which is often quite ambiguous.
IMO, Drudge et al have been right to call this season a quiet one, so far. We non-scientific commentators have gotten this impression just by reading what TPC forecasters have said about their ongoing evalutations of Atlantic systems.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:14:50 pm
Well, Loy? I hear you’re a hurricane expert. Where did you get your counts for storms in the ’40s and ’50s?
Nobody else has them.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:49:02 pm
Harry, my modified chart links to the original chart. It’s on NOAA’s website.
And I’m not a “hurricane expert.” Like Alan, I’m a layperson who knows a fair bit about hurricanes because I’ve been following them closely for a long time. But I’ve never claimed to be an “expert,” nor would I.
Alan, I agree that focusing only on the “official” storms is somewhat misleading. But that’s what pretty much what everyone, on both “sides” of the debate, does, isn’t it? If this ends up being a below-normal season, in terms of the number of named storms, you’ll crow about that number as evidence that you were right (and Gore is wrong)… and conversely, if there are 20 named storms, Gore & co. will jump up and down reminding everyone that that’s “above average.” In other words, I didn’t invent the measuring stick, I’m just asking everyone to use it accurately, if they’re going to use it at all. At the same time, I acknowledge that the three storms have all been weak/marginal… but it’s not as if the various articles claiming this has been a “slow season” have been harping on that point while acknowledging the relative numerical abundance of official storms. Rather, they’ve been talking about the issue as if one should expect to have seen a whole bunch of storms by now, which is just climatologically unsound no matter how you look at it. If this were a nuanced debate over the meaning of the word “slow,” I would be less strident in my criticism, but the fact is that, on July 11, Drudge was linking to an article asking “Where are all the Hurricanes?” — and of course, said article got picked up all over the right-blogosphere — when, in reality, the first hurricane doesn’t form, on average, until mid-August! It’s just totally ridiculous how the historical numbers have been flatly ignored (not explained away or put in some arguable context, but simply ignored) in order to score political points, and I won’t just sit here and let that crap go unanswered. So, in summary, if there were a better statistical rubric for making this judgment, I would use it. But until someone points out such a rubric to me, I’ll continue using the one that everyone else, on both sides, uses, and I won’t feel bad about it. And if Drudge, the blogs, the MSM, etc., start making nuanced arguments about how we’re technically above average but really that’s because the historical averages are skewed by the lack of satellites and the NHC has been making marginal calls etc. etc., then I’ll at least respect those arguments, and I’ll respond to them in that vein. But when the articles and blog posts are basically asking, “It’s July/August, why haven’t we had any Katrinas yet?? Doesn’t this mean global warming is a fraud and it’s inevitably going to be a slow season??,” then yeah, I’m going to get pissed off and point out, in the most simple terms possible, how off-base those sort of questions are.
the truth will out in the next six weeks. One would think that this reality would make people cautious about making flippant predictions
Well, yes, I would agree, with regard to those people who are making predictions. For my part, I’m not predicting anything — I’m just saying that it is wrong to conclude, based on the data available to date, that this has been a slow or below-average season so far. I’m not saying it won’t ultimately be a slow season; I have no dog in that fight. I’m just saying that conclusion is premature at this point. If it’s ultimately a below-average season, my point won’t thereby be disproven, and if it’s ultimately an above-average season, my point won’t thereby be vindicated. My point has nothing to do with the ultimate disposition of the season as a whole. It’s simply that, through early August, this season is right around on schedule. We can debate around the margins about whether it’s a tiny bit above average, a tiny bit below average, etc. But it certainly doesn’t make 2007 a significantly below-average season to date that we’ve had three borderline storms through August 11.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:15:29 pm
Brendan, i think you are taking drudge too seriously in that post. It is an antagonism that is made to bring the debate up that there have been at least 1 or 2 downgrades in forecasts (although weak adjustments i might add) in what was supposed to be another onslaught in the Atlantic. The point of contention is that YOU are using data and forecasting hurricanes and at the same time attack both the left and the right. You yourself politicized the post while at the same time decrying those who do use weather to make political points. if you stuck to the hurricane and data, you would have no problems from any of the commentators. but you elevated yourself to a position of “authority” even though you are not an expert; and from that elevated authority you attacked others in a self-righteous manner.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:19:29 pm
Brendan Loy Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 1:49:02 pm
“the truth will out in the next six weeks. One would think that this reality would make people cautious about making flippant predictions
Well, yes, I would agree, with regard to those people who are making predictions. For my part, I’m not predicting anything — I’m just saying that it is wrong to conclude, based on the data available to date, that this has been a slow or below-average season so far. I’m not saying it won’t ultimately be a slow season; I have no dog in that fight. I’m just saying that conclusion is premature at this point. If it’s ultimately a below-average season, my point won’t thereby be disproven, and if it’s ultimately an above-average season, my point won’t thereby be vindicated. My point has nothing to do with the ultimate disposition of the season as a whole. It’s simply that, through early August, this season is right around on schedule. We can debate around the margins about whether it’s a tiny bit above average, a tiny bit below average, etc. But it certainly doesn’t make 2007 a significantly below-average season to date that we’ve had three borderline storms through August 11.”
So your admitting that your post is full of speculation and provides the end user with absolutely no useful info?
August 12th, 2007 at 2:28:24 pm
Bmili, you’re wrong. I’m not using weather to score political points; I’m correcting the factual record that others have obfuscated or ignored in the service of political agendas. If I followed your logic — that it’s “politicizing the issue” to criticize those who distort the facts for political ends — then it would be impossible to anyone to ever take others to task for politicizing science without themselves being accused of politicizing (and hypocrisy)! That’s ridiculous. The pertinent question isn’t whether I’m “politicizing” my post simply by addressing the issue, it’s whether I’m being even-handed in the way I address it. Considering that I’ve repeatedly criticized both sides for the same sort of mistakes, I think I pass that test.
As for your first point, “taking drudge seriously” is necessitated by the enormous influence he wields. Any article that Drudge links, especially if he gives it a sensational headline, automatically gets picked up — often uncritically — by legions of blogs and, in many cases, the cable newsies. Drudge may not deserve to be taken seriously, but one ignores him at one’s peril.
Your second comment is nonsensical. Because I’m NOT speculating or forecasting, but merely correcting the record with regard to the present data, therefore my post is “full of speculation”? Huh? WTF? You make no sense.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:32:04 pm
P.S. Oh, and I didn’t “elevate” myself to anything. I just called it like I saw it. That’s what I’ve always done, and generally, I’ve found that the people who agree with me like it, while the people who disagree don’t. Your reaction, and those of the other negative commenters here, is in line with that observation. I criticized some conservatives, so now some conservatives are mad at me. When I criticize liberals, liberals get mad at me. I don’t think that suggests I’m being “self-righteous” or speaking from a place of “elevated authority” or anything else. It just suggests that I’m expressing an opinion and people who don’t like it are saying, “I don’t like that.” Duh.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:35:24 pm
(What is “self-righteous” about my post, exactly? The fact that I criticized “Drudge and other agenda-driven conservative websites”? So when conservatives criticize the denizens of Daily Kos for being radical liberal blowhards, are they being “self-righteous”? Huh? I admit I can get self-righteous at times, but I fail to see how it’s happening here. I think you’re just a little oversensitive.)
August 12th, 2007 at 2:37:14 pm
Anyway, this whole thread is pissing me off, as always seems to happen with global warming-related threads, so I think I’m going to vacate it and go do something more productive, like petting my cats.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:01:43 pm
well is the readership wrong or its author? it was the dig at drudge that annoyed me, i didnt have a problem with anything else
August 12th, 2007 at 3:03:22 pm
And here I was thinking that the amount/strength of hurricane development had to do with the ENSO cycle, which continues to be apolitical.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:04:41 pm
and it was your throwing off Ed’s observations in the comment section that maybe drudge’s story wasnt so sensational
August 12th, 2007 at 3:12:39 pm
Well, Brendan, if you want to abandon the field, you’ll be missing a great opportunity to advance understanding of the dynamics of the GW debate.
You started by calling out Drudge and other conservatives as being agenda driven. Fair enough. Yet I, and others, pointed out the same is true of the “professionals.” So, which side has more to gain in pursuing their agendas?
I (and Rush and Drudge) say it is the scientific community. If enough fear can be ginned up within the public, millions in government and foundation funding will be thrown at the “problem.” For Drudge and Rush, this is one of many issues used to attract an audience.
I am convinced that the NHC (and HERE is the real story) decided to name the systems in question this year as “tropical” for three reasons. One, in their minds, any publicity that leads to public awareness of, and preparation for, a coming hurricane season is a good. Two, the very same publicity benefits the NHC in that it validates the need for funding of the agency. In an ever-shrinking NOAA budget, this is no small consideration. Three, the NHC is on the hook for predicting a normal to high number of storms this year. They blew it last year and ALL the current date suggest they will be wrong again this year. They sure as hell do not want to be seen by the public as being the Chicken Little/Boy Who Cried Wolf. Each of these realities points to a politicization of the designation of these systems. So, instead of using traditional criteria in designating tropical systems, they stretch mightily.
Cam I prove this happened? No. I was not in the meetings. But I am extremely comfortable in my conclusion. There are many, many public comments as to the odd nature of these designations.
Brendan, you did this country a very great service when you compiled Katrina data that led to much greater knowledge for millions. You are in position to perform a similar service by rooting out junk science, which you profess to loathe, and forcing further and improved accountability by those who are tasked with providing us the best and most valid weather information.
You don’t want the mantle of hurricane expert to the masses any longer? Fine. Abandon the field. But don’t you dare continue to publish incomplete information. Seek out both sides’ evidence and post the good and the bad from each side in the GW debate.
The power to persuade you have accumulated still rests with you. It is a responsibility you simply MUST honor.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:48:08 pm
Brendan, you have defended your position well, but you may be overlooking one point. When Drudge elects to play the contrarian, he is of course raising his own profile, and facts be damned. But there is something else. Drudge counters the huge preponderance of conventional opinion, repeated constantly in every medium, that (1) anthropogenic warming exists, and constitutes a grave crisis, (2) the oceans are heating up because of aformentoned warming, (3) more and stronger hurricanes are a direct consequence of 1&2. I’m glad a few people are pushing the other way against the alarmist propaganda. But I regret the politicization of absolutely everything.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:29:58 pm
The best way to describe the hurricane prediction process. It’s a guess. There are many factors that have to come into play for a prediction to come correct. And this year, there have been a couple of factors that have inhibited tropical development. Those inhibiting factors are beginning to go away, thus you’re going to see tropical development popping up here and there.
Re Late April Storm. the definition of a tropical system is very clear and specific. If a storm meets those definitions, it’s a tropical system. In fact, I’d say the NHC tends to wait until things are definitive before making the call. There was no doubt that the systems were all made correctly. Just because some people think they weren’t ‘impressive’ enough to warrant the tropical designation is ignoring the very definition of tropical.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:52:12 pm
Brendan,
You’re right on point. Both sides politicize the issue, and most people confuse “climate” with “weather.” In my honest opinion (and I’m a lay person who has followed this for years as well), we are as of yet incapable of predicting long term climate change. There is no solid science to back current claims, and they are indeed political. And most ardently conservative people and sites that deal with the issue (including the “King” of conservatives, Rush Limbaugh) do not say there is no warming, they simply say that we don’t have the science to relate it causally to man made effects.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:55:19 pm
Now wait a minute, Loy. You’re calling people to account on the subject of hurricanes because you claim to know more than they do.
But then you use imaginary data. That NOAA imagined the data is no excuse. Everybody in the business knows that storm counts before the early ’60s are not reliable.
It is also true that early season storms can be both big and powerful: Andrew, Camille, Donna, Debbie.
I don’t read Drudge, so I don’t know what he’s said, but I do know that there have been no big storms for two and a half seasons. I don’t think that’s significant of anything except that Atlantic storms don’t exhibit regular patterns from year to year.
But that’s not what you said. You said this is an average year. Well, they’re all average, buddy. It’s a random walk.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:27:03 pm
[…] I’ve been involved in a long debate on hurricane arcana at Brendan Loy’s website. Posted at 6:27 PM | […]
August 12th, 2007 at 7:08:52 pm
Ed, how is it “abandoning the field” to say that I don’t want to become deeply enmeshed in the climate-change debate, which I happily concede that I don’t understand nearly as well as I understand the day-to-day realities of hurricane prediction? (“Dammit, Jim, I’m a weather nerd, not a climate nerd!”)
This particular climate-change-debate-motivated factual distortion got my hackles up because it touches on my primary area of quasi-expertise, namely the day-to-day (and month-to-month) realities of hurricane prediction. You seem to think that, because I commented on it publicly for that reason, I am therefore obligated to comment publicly on all factual distortions in climate change debate. I don’t buy that. It’s a bit like saying that, if an expert in Islamic culture gets upset when an administration official mischaracterizes Islamic culture during the course of debating the Iraq war, and suggests that the mischaracterization is driven by a broader agenda relating to the war as a whole, the culture expert is now obligated to comment on all mischacterizations, by both sides, about any and all aspects of the war debate. I don’t think he/she is so obligated. And like that hypothetical expert, I, as a lay quasi-expert on hurricanes, prefer to stick mostly to weather, not climate — to hurricane\s, not the climate change debate — commenting on the latter only occasionally, usually when people are mischaracterizing the former to advance an agenda re: the latter. I don’t think I’m somehow derelict for doing so.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:46:52 pm
It’s a lost opportunity, Brendan. You spent considerable time in a magical place with a couple of lakes. One of the abiding covenants of that place is that of those who are given much, much is expected.
You chose to expand the scope of your post regarding the hurricane season into a diatribe against Drudge and conservatives and their GW biases. You received yet another Instalanche (a very great privilege, imo) and you have failed to respond directly to the concerns that the NHC is fudging their processes and that your graphic information was, at best, irrelevant to the point you were attempting to support.
I have been a regular and faithful reader and supporter. It pains me to say this - you disappoint me and I thought you were better than to run from a battle you created.
You have forgotten what it means to have a bully pulpit and the associated responsibilities. You have abandoned the higher principles you professed from the Katrina days.
Yes, Brendan, you aren’t derelict for tailoring your content. The dereliction is in failure to defend your methodology in shaping your content. In short, there is little to differentiate you from Drudge in this thread.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:17:25 am
Ed in his last comment eloquently summed up what i was trying to say but failed to articulate.