I realize that I am giving the impression that I am anti-computer model. That is really not the case. I have used computer programs for computational purposes. I realize that my problem is an over-reaction to a reliance on computer models which are not capable, that is, computer models designed to prove a preconceived premise: Anthropogenic cause of global climate change. A previous email conveyed my feeling that we are on the same page and there is agreement with your assessments on the use of computer models.

I have been following Gustav on the NOAA website that provides a dynamic satellite picture of the Gulf area. At two o’clock yesterday, the 28th, Gustav was over Jamaica. There is a low proceeding NE from the vicinity of Vera Cruz. There is a wind loop from south Texas toward the Yucatan Peninsula and then to Florida. It seems to non-meteorologist-me that Gustav could be deflected to the east. I don’t see where the highs are located. What is the attraction of Gustav along the predicted path? Is the Texas-Florida loop an indicator of the counter-clockwise rotation of a lower-low?

“Is it possible, given the same data, that an experienced meteorologist could produce results as accurate as the computer models?”

I don’t think so any longer, especially for hurricanes. Humans are still useful to judge differences between the models, assess the biases models have, know when they should be discounted, etc. We’re also better at figuring out where models go wrong. For example, the southerly jog in Gustav’s path was due to dry air getting pulled into the storm and the center relocating to convection to the south, it didn’t really move that way.

Hurricanes are inherently tough, tough things to forecast, but over the last several years have gotten quite a bit better at forecasting tracks. Intensity is a tougher thing to forecast and progress there has been slower.

I’ve watched a professional TV meteorologist prepare for a news segment, and there’s still a lot of work to do to interpret the model output and figure out some of the smaller scale things the models don’t handle well.

If you have been following the progress of Hurricane Gustav, you will see the the application of computer models to only a small portion of reality. Real-time data is available and up to 14 computer models are constantly computing predicted wind velocities and directional movement of the hurricane and yet cannot predict, reliably, the wind velocity and direction of movement, a day in advance. Is it possible, given the same data, that an experienced meteorologist could produce results as accurate as the computer models? He might use a computer for computational purposes but not as a CYA device.

“A scientist is not necessarily defined as one who has a degree in a scientific pursuit from an institution of higher learning.”

That is true. I have to laugh at the Alarmists’ constant appeal to authority arguments, when those same authorities, as shown in the Wegman Report to Congress, are the same small clique of back-scratching government employees who uncritically peer review each others’ work for the primary purpose of getting ever more grant money.

Here are three googled definitions of “scientist,” from the first one to the last one:

A person who uses observation, experimentation and theory to learn about a subject.

A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy.

I concur with your other admirers, that your website is an outstanding example of objective thinking and exposition. With your permission, I will use information from your website in future discussions of AGW = ACO2 (anthropogenic carbon dioxide). I don’t concern myself with global warming/climate change. Nature takes care of that without my help or hindrance.

A scientist is not necessarily defined as one who has a degree in a scientific pursuit from an institution of higher learning.

Your site is quite impressive. I doff my non-existent hat to you. The people who post on this site are amazing (myself excluded).

Lucy’s site:

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm