More settled climate science

Hurricane predictors admit they can’t predict hurricanes - December forecasts are too unreliable, experts say

Two top U.S. hurricane forecasters, revered like rock stars in Deep South hurricane country, are quitting the practice because it doesn’t work.

William Gray and Phil Klotzbach say a look back shows their past 20 years of forecasts had no value.

The two scientists from Colorado State University will still discuss different probabilities as hurricane seasons approach — a much more cautious approach. But the shift signals how far humans are, even with supercomputers, from truly knowing what our weather will do next.[/b]

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

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Hurri ... z1gRwQZr4n

From above... "But the shift signals how far humans are, even with supercomputers, from truly knowing what our weather will do next.[/b]" ... or what our climate will do next.

Well at least we know that if we re-elect Obama, the oceans won't rise as fast.

You do know there is a big difference between "weather" and "climate", right?

And while it may always be extremely difficult to predict such a local thing as weather, predicting climatic changes is not quite so difficult.

It's similar to an increase in the amount of volcanic activity on earth. It isn't hard to know when volcanic activity is on the increase. But just knowing there is "more" volcanic activity doesn't necessarily allow you to predict that Volcano A will erupt on such and such a day - or whether it will erupt at all.

Here you go -- read the original report, instead of all the damn commentaries.

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/fo ... ec2011.pdf

My commentary --- if you look at the huge variation in the models, you'll agree that climate studies is still a crap shoot, at best.

The micro (short-term) science is reasonably accurate. The macro (long-term, large-scale) science is still mostly a mystery.

AspenValley wrote: You do know there is a big difference between "weather" and "climate", right?

And while it may always be extremely difficult to predict such a local thing as weather, predicting climatic changes is not quite so difficult.[/b]

It's similar to an increase in the amount of volcanic activity on earth. It isn't hard to know when volcanic activity is on the increase. But just knowing there is "more" volcanic activity doesn't necessarily allow you to predict that Volcano A will erupt on such and such a day - or whether it will erupt at all.

Not quite so difficult. How about linking me to something that will back up your contention. If predicting climatic change is not quite so difficult, then the ice would be gone, the methane would have killed 4.5 billions, all the polar bears would be dead, the Maldives would be under water, our coastline would have taken over our ports, Europe would not be having anymore snow storms... I could go on. All of those statements are items that was predicted to have happen by now or the near future. Pretty simple huh? Bull crap.

"Easier" still isn't "easy". And the things you list aren't exactly predictions, they are more speculation along the lines of some reporter asked a question like "If global temperatures went up 3 degrees what kind of effects would you expect to see?".

Your complaint that every single possible effect that has been speculated to be a potential effort has not happened is without merit and an unreasonable demand of the science. As is complaining without merit that rising global temperatures don't in some way guarantee ANY specific effect, such as hurricanes in the Caribbean. It can make certain weather phenomena more likely, or more extreme, but it isn't even possible to look at some spell of really unusual weather and be able to definitely attribute it to "global warming". It just doesn't work that way, it's far too complicated. Imagine throwing a needle into a haystack and demanding to that science predict exactly where it will land. It's theoretically possible to calculate that, but it would take more computing power and time than is feasible. That doesn't mean that science can't explain how the needle will travel or that the science is bogus or a scam.

AspenValley wrote: "Easier" still isn't "easy". And the things you list aren't exactly predictions, they are more speculation along the lines of some reporter asked a question like "If global temperatures went up 3 degrees what kind of effects would you expect to see?".

[snip]

Like a reporter asking questions? No... more like "scientific facts" presented in the IPCC report. Duh.

bailey bud wrote: Here you go -- read the original report, instead of all the damn commentaries.

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/fo ... ec2011.pdf

My commentary --- if you look at the huge variation in the models, you'll agree that climate studies is still a crap shoot, at best.

The micro (short-term) science is reasonably accurate. The macro (long-term, large-scale) science is still mostly a mystery.

Science Chic wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

AspenValley wrote: "Easier" still isn't "easy". And the things you list aren't exactly predictions, they are more speculation along the lines of some reporter asked a question like "If global temperatures went up 3 degrees what kind of effects would you expect to see?".

[snip]

Like a reporter asking questions? No... more like "scientific facts" presented in the IPCC report. Duh.

Show me where in the IPCC report it says that 4.5 billion would be dead by now, the Maldives would be underwater, polar bears would be extinct, and all the ice would be gone by now.

You are confusing the sensationalist media with true scientific data and ranges of scenarios/projections.

My mistake on the IPCC reference in regards to 4.5 billion dead. But you can find chapters and portions of the Fourth IPCC report that deals with ice (Himalayas), sea levels (IPCC sea level numbers), polar bears (Tundra and Arctic/Antarctic ecosystems - Chapter 4) none of the assumptions have proven out.