Hurricane experts admit they can’t predict hurricanes early

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by PapaG, Dec 13, 2011.

Moderators: 6

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
Page 1 of 2
  1. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Their models can't accurately predict seasonal hurricanes. Refreshing to see Dr. Gray admit this fact. Not surprising at all that you have to find this news in a Canadian paper, because our media isn't going to touch this one with a ten-foot poll.

     
    PapaG, Dec 13, 2011
    #1
  2. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko boomer maniac Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    34,393
    Likes Received:
    25,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Uhm, I think it says they can't accurately predict hurricanes in December. They apparently can predict them closer to hurricane season:

    I am highly amused by this, though:

    barfo
     
    barfo, Dec 13, 2011
    #2
  3. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Um, for the past 20 years, they looked back on their next-year hurricane forecasts, given each December, and said they were worthless in terms of predictive value.

    It's bunk science, and it's a bunk model. You believe in bunk. Congrats.
     
    PapaG, Dec 13, 2011
    #3
  4. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko boomer maniac Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    34,393
    Likes Received:
    25,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    I don't think this is about what I believe. This is about your overgeneralization of what the article said.

    barfo
     
    barfo, Dec 13, 2011
    #4
  5. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,096
    Likes Received:
    9,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the parallel is that if the "nation's top forecasters" using supercomputer-based quantitative modeling have an inability to correctly predict weather patterns and phenomena 3-6 months away, how can anyone predicting the next hundred/thousand/million years have any credibility whatsoever?
     
    BrianFromWA, Dec 13, 2011
    #5
  6. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko boomer maniac Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    34,393
    Likes Received:
    25,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Because there is a difference between weather and climate.

    barfo
     
    barfo, Dec 13, 2011
    #6
  7. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,096
    Likes Received:
    9,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ah. So supercomputer-based quantitative modeling sucks for "weather," but can be counted on for climate?
     
    BrianFromWA, Dec 13, 2011
    #7
  8. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    We can't use a supercomputer to figure out with much confidence when a single person is going to die, but we can know with some certainty when the majority of people in a population are going to be dead.

    Identifying a single bit of weather logically might be more difficult than determining the upcoming climate.

    With that being said, is there (and I ask because I don't know for sure either way) evidence that our models accurately predict climate? Given the slow rate that climate changes and the youth of the science, it seems like it'd be tough to have done by now.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Dec 13, 2011
    #8
  9. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko boomer maniac Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    34,393
    Likes Received:
    25,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Exactly.

    I would say (and I'm not an expert in the field either) that we have "indications" that we can accurately predict climate, but we haven't had time to actually do the experiment, and we won't know for sure how good the models are for decades. Then again, all we have to go on in any field is our current knowledge, and our current knowledge about anything can turn out to be wrong. We (humans) just have to do the best we can given our limitations. Being honest about (neither minimizing nor exaggerating) those limitations is a big part of that, of course.

    barfo
     
    barfo, Dec 13, 2011
    #9
  10. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    The burden of science is on the provable in terms of repetition, not on guessing according to ... what, exactly? If you're asking these questions now, then you already know your answer in terms of science. If you argue it, well, you're just being Ed O.

    Where is the scientific proof that long-term climate models are accurate?
     
    PapaG, Dec 13, 2011
    #10
  11. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    In other words, you've put your 'faith' into models that are unproven. You're basically a Model Fundamentalist. Welcome to your religion, as you're taking these prophecies based on the work of a few 'holy men' who speak things you want to hear.
     
    PapaG, Dec 13, 2011
    #11
  12. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Barfo's a christian?
     
    MARIS61, Dec 13, 2011
    #12
  13. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko boomer maniac Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    34,393
    Likes Received:
    25,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Oh, stop assigning beliefs to me. I believe no such thing - as I just said in what you quoted. Try reading my posts sometimes instead of just trotting out your fake outrage.

    barfo
     
    barfo, Dec 13, 2011
    #13
  14. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    I read what you posted. It was full of faith related to an unproven belief.
     
    PapaG, Dec 13, 2011
    #14
  15. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I am arguing the logic of why it is easier to predict climate than weather... it's simply easier to predict, for example, where a forest will be rather than where a tree will be.

    That has precious little to do with science. I don't understand why you had to take a shot at me just because I refuse to automatically support anti-climate change positions.
     
    Ed O, Dec 13, 2011
    #15
  16. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko boomer maniac Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    34,393
    Likes Received:
    25,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    I don't think you can quote anything from my post that is 'full of faith'. Go ahead and try. Was it where I said our current knowledge could turn out to be wrong? Was it where I said we wouldn't know how good the models are for decades? Was it where I said we should be honest about the limitations? What, exactly, was it that was 'full of faith'?

    I think you must have a religious belief about the way I post, and are unable to accept reality because it conflicts with your faith.

    barfo
     
    barfo, Dec 13, 2011
    #16
  17. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    How is it easier to predict where a forest will be versus a tree? I can plant a tree tomorrow in my lawn and have more certainty that it will exist versus plotting out where a forest will be 500 years from now.

    Your contrarian gig is getting old. Follow your mind, and not your heart, and use your brain.
     
    PapaG, Dec 13, 2011
    #17
  18. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    Really Ed. Where is it proven scientifically that it is easier to predict climate over weather?
     
    PapaG, Dec 13, 2011
    #18
  19. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    That doesn't mean anything. Sorry.

    I'm not being a contrarian.

    As for "using my brain": do you still think that I think that the economy is helped by people sitting around, protesting?

    I'm eager to know if you really think that.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Dec 13, 2011
    #19
  20. PapaG

    PapaG Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,870
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tualatin, OR
    I think you have me confused with somebody else. I never once said the economy would improve with people sitting around protesting.
     
    PapaG, Dec 13, 2011
    #20
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page