My preview of the hurricane season is up on Pajamas Media. Perhaps the most interesting point is this:
There…seems to be a new focus among the [seasonal] forecasters on explaining the uncertainties inherent in their task. NOAA, for instance, now includes percentage probabilities along with its predictions of storm activity, somewhat like the margin of error in a public opinion poll. And the margin is quite high: “an above-normal season is most likely (65% chance), [but] there is a significant 25% chance of a near-normal season and a 10% chance of a below-normal season.” (Definitions here.) “This outlook is probabilistic, not deterministic,” NOAA’s introduction states. It is “based on predictions of large-scale climate factors known to be strong indicators of upcoming seasonal Atlantic hurricane activity,” but there are “uncertainties inherent in such climate outlooks,” which the percentage probabilities are designed to take into account. …
Still, despite these acknowledged uncertainties, and despite the recent failures, forecasters have soldiered on and tried their best to accurately predict the 2008 season. In fact, the Klotzbach/Gray team has based its forecast on a newly tweaked model, designed to correct some of the errors of previous years. Cynics might compare this to college football’s BCS, which has repeatedly changed its formula to compensate for previous years’ problems — the sports equivalent of “hindcasting” — only to see brand new problems develop in subsequent seasons.
On the other hand, this is how the science evolves, and Klotzbach and Gray are forthright in admitting that it is a work in progress. In any event, “hindcasts” based on the new model come much closer to the mark than the real-time forecasts did in all of the last four years, which is significant, since 2004 and 2005 were both well above average (and were under-forecasted), while 2006 and 2007 were below average (and were over-forecasted). “The new hindcast model improves upon our real-time forecasts by approximately 60%…over the period from 2004-2007,” Klotzbach and Gray write.
P.S. Naturally, the comments are all about… you guessed it… global warming. *sigh*
|
Categories: Hurricanes
|
June 12th, 2008 at 11:01:29 pm
Yeah. How ’bout a little tweak after the recent FULL degree drop in global temps?
Oh. I forgot. It’s settled science.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:07:48 pm
Um, how ’bout staying on topic? The “tweak” in question has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Seasonal hurricane forecasting is NOT THE SAME THING as global climate modeling. And, again, Dr. William Gray is a global warming skeptic. So, in conclusion, what on earth are you talking about?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:15:37 pm
Okay, correction, “nothing whatsoever to do with that” is wrong, since certainly global temperatures can affect hurricanes. But your point is still incoherent, and you’re still wrongly conflating seasonal hurricane forecasting with global climate forecasting. You seem to be suggesting that the global temperature drop explains the necessity of the “tweak” to the hurricane models, a suggestion presumably grounded in the fact that the 2006 and 2007 hurricane seasons were relatively inactive. As such, you’re ignoring the stated fact that the “tweak” markedly improves the hindcasts for not just 2006 and 2007 (less active seasons), but also 2004 and 2005 (extremely active seasons). What does a one percent drop in global temperatures have to do with finding better ways to predict, several months in advance, monster seasons like ‘04 and ‘05 and less active seasons like ‘06 and ‘07? In a word: nothing.
We’re just not even talking about the same thing. You want to bash Al Gore and disprove global warming. I want to talk about hurricanes. I don’t give a flying s**t about Al Gore, and I’m not particularly interested in a debate on the merits of global warming. And it’s not like you can accuse me of personally spreading the orthodoxy on AGW; these days, my sole contribution to that debate is to poke holes in both sides’ more fallacious arguments. As for the underlying substance, I steer clear. I just don’t know enough about climate (as opposed to weather) to go there, and I get so frustrated by the raving lunacy and rabid evangelism on both “sides” that I really want nothing to do with either one.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:49:12 pm
My beef is the degree to which you dismiss arguments against “settled science,” Brendan.
Climatology is a nascent science. Very, very, little is “settled.” We can’t even model a ten day forecast, yet we accept climate models? We can’t even get the “Ninas” right. CO2 is a problem worthy of drastic measures? Revelle himself, the creator of CO2 as a greenhouse gas theory, before his death, warned that this “problem” was not worth costly “fixes.”
You ripped many in here two years ago for doubting the actual data as regards the temperature of the earth. This was one thing I agreed with you on. The temp is the temp is the temp. But where have your posts describing the huge drop in the temp been? Where has the natural journalistic skepticism been in here? Why has there been no “dot-connecting?”?
The latest data show that the temp is what it was in 1998. It dropped a full degree in ONE year! A year that CO2 levels increased.
The bottom line is that climate science is NOT reliable. Hurricane forecasting beyond even twelve hours is unreliable. I challenge you, in the remaining days, to not speak of all of this being a “settled” science. It is clear you recognize the truth of my position as regards hurricane forecasting. Please acknowledge the same as to modeling the climate DECADES out.
June 14th, 2008 at 3:06:45 pm
Ummm … Brendan - a tad defensive, no ?
Are you *that* broken up about Tim Russert, or did Ed touch a nerve ? (In which case *I* should brace for incoming, too ! (grin))
This is still your blog, and you are not obliged to report on anything you don’t want to …
With that said, it is eminently legit to observe that, for whatever reason, you seem to be following in the less-than-noble traditions of the Gray Lady-of-the-evning-of-a-certain-age - the NY Times - which is among the Eldest in one of the Oldest Professions …
With *that* said - do you have any comment/response/thoughts about the comment on your PajamsMedia post by “David Gillies” ?