Post by Dr. Ryan N. Maue
The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative “think-tank”, has again issued a press release asking if NOAA is Smarter than Fifth Graders (?) when forecasting the number of Atlantic tropical storms in 2011. However, in their lame satirical attempt at making serious points, they reveal how little they actually know about seasonal hurricane forecasting. Amy Ridenour, president of the outfit, falsely conflates seasonal hurricane forecasting with climate science methods relating human-caused global warming to changes in x, y, and z phenomena.
Ridenour and her Think-Tank should not mock the researchers who are legitimately trying to determine the ferocity of the upcoming hurricane season – as preparedness is the key to preventing loss of life. NOAA, including the National Weather Service and the many labs around the US including the Storm Prediction Center and National Hurricane Center perform admirably to warn the public of impending situations, and often explain the causes and implications of weather phenomena in professional manners.
If you read the NOAA Hurricane Outlook for 2011, you will find the scientific reasoning for the upcoming “above-normal” hurricane season. However, predicting the exact number of storms is indeed a crap-shoot, as many tropical cyclones develop from small-scale, seemingly opportunistic disturbances that are not necessarily characteristic of the prevailing large-scale climate. Looking to the tropical Pacific for the current and upcoming El Nino Southern Oscillation phase is well-established in the scientific literature to be a statistically significant and useful predictor of Atlantic and Pacific seasonal tropical storm activity.
“Washington, D.C. – The same organization that challenged NOAA to bragging rights for the best hurricane forecast last year using a trained chimp armed only with a pair of dice and a craps table is challenging the agency again: This time by putting two fifth graders up against the multi-billion dollar federal agency.
“Forecasts are just that: forecasts. All that matters is what actually happens,” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “We should keep this in mind as we consider whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Past forecasts of rising temperatures, sea levels, and droughts and other extreme weather events due to rising concentrations of carbon haven’t proven any more reliable that NOAA’s annual hurricane forecast. Until their reliability improves, it would be irresponsible to base policy on them.“
I ask Ridenour to retract her conclusions based upon her false logic, and issue an apology to the specific forecasters at NOAA, who are not invested in global warming prognostications, but legitimate public service in providing expert assessments of hurricane risk in 2011.
Instead ask this question: how much money has been spent on seasonal hurricane forecasting research instead of climate change modeling scenarios for the year 2100? If you are going to mock someone, then make sure you have the right target.
Ryan M.,
I do think there are some responsible scientists in NOAA…but in the meantime the success rate of the organization and the usefullness of their (LONG-RANGE) forecasts are another thing alltogether.
I mean, their prediction is basically worthless…it has such a high spread that a monkey shooting at a dart-board is almost as useful. And I have noticed that after predicting weather patterns in 6 months times for only 3 years almost now, I do much better then they do. Why is this? I shouldn’t be doing better then people who have done this as a carear, for me its just a hobby.
Same with the hurricane prediction. I make a small window of a prediction. If I am wrong, I admit it afterwards and learn from what I did wrong.
Granted its not just the NOAA that gives such a large window for their prediction…but I kind of wonder what is the point of this in the first place.
That being said, the NOAA does provide other services which I rather enjoy and use quite a bit. I have no issues with the job of immediate forecasting that they do, they seem to do that as good as one would expect…the weather after all in the short-term tends to be very difficult as we all know.
But for their hurricane predictions? I would rather take the monkey in the dartboard if it was mission critical.
Ryan,
you are right that many folks use hurricane forecasts for business reasons … what you don’t seem to appreciate is that NOBODY would use the NOAA forecast … nobody that is trying to make money that is …
The NOAA brand is sullied I don’t care what division you work for … is it guilt by association … why yes it is …
but then after some time has passed if you still work at NOAA and they still have the Climategate crew onboard then guess what … You have chosen to associate with the guilty … either way, cry me a river and clean up your shop …
I agree with Bill Jamison. Money spent on predicting hurricanes is money wasted. Instead, it should be spent on hurricane preparedness.
Sorry Ryan. I cannot trust the NOAA.
“As the funding agency and a contributor of scientific expertise for this study, NOAA commends the members of the Committee on America’s Climate Choices for their diligent work over the last three years and their valuable contributions to this monumental effort.
This final report, from the nation’s most esteemed scientific body, is another independent, peer reviewed scientific report that adds to the growing body of scientific information telling us that climate change is occurring and poses significant risks to America’s economy, communities and natural resources.
This report not only re-affirms the broad international scientific consensus about the causes and consequences of climate change, but makes clear that comprehensive, sustained efforts must begin today to deal with those consequences. As the report states, the question is no longer if the climate is changing, but rather what are the options for dealing with it. Specifically, what are the tools and information that communities need to 1) understand the risks, 2) prepare for and deal with impact already occurring and 3) understand what actions they can take to limit future emissions and the magnitude of future impacts.”
Blah blah blah …
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110518_americaclimatechoice.html
“If you read the NOAA Hurricane Outlook for 2011, you will find the scientific reasoning for the upcoming “above-normal” hurricane season. However, predicting the exact number of storms is indeed a crap-shoot”
“Insurance, commodities, energy, agriculture, transportation, tourism, government, and others use the seasonal forecasts to assess and mitigate risk. The reason is $$$. For the amount of research dollars and manpower invested in the seasonal hurricane forecast, the economic impact is huge.”
=============================================
Sorry Ryan, I fail to see the connection.
NOAA does not make predictions about landfall, and the list you made does not give a rats rear about fish storms.
NOAA predicting an above average season, then giving numbers/guesses that fall well within a “normal” season is nothing more than CYA, smoke and mirrors and hysterics.
“”6 to 10 could become hurricanes””” or could not, that’s like saying a 50% chance of rain. 6 is well within “normal”, not “above normal” but it’s not even a forecast, it’s a “could”
“”3 to 6 major hurricanes “”, so which is it? normal? or above normal?
Again, unless NOAA stops naming every two clouds that get within talking distance, narrows the cone of death from New York to Rio…….what exactly is NOAA forecasting?
Conversations like this should motivate all of us to ask what science is. My response is that science is sets of reasonably confirmed physical hypotheses which permit explanation and prediction of the phenomena in question. No reasonably confirmed physical hypotheses, no science and certainly no predictions.
People who are disappointed by my little definition should learn to be proud of their hunches and proud that they do not confuse their hunches with science.
[ryanm: i am not saying anything about my work at all. i am only discussing the NOAA seasonal hurricane forecasts which are based on sound science.]
Ryan M:
Don’t use small case for “I” it makes you look very “affected”. ALWAYS take the time to use proper spelling, grammer, and punctuation. (Also, it can make you look lazy, which I’m sure you are not.)
[ryanm: this is a blog — and this is my “in-line” commenting style. and by the way, grammer is not spelled with an “e”]
Some papers appear to show an increase in hurricane frequency during cold periods and a decrease during warmer periods. Maybe I’m living in denial. ;O)
http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/hurratlancent.php
Ryan I think I see the point you are trying to make. Your forecasts are useful because they are used by lots of other agencies in their budgeting, planning and preparing.
I think that you do not like it when your data is being interpretted and twisted by people like Al Gore for political purposes. ie Human caused Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption by CO2.(But I would like to hear you say it).
I also think that The National Center for Public Policy Research do not like it when your data is being interpretted and twisted by people like Al Gore/Newspapers/Scientists for political purposes.
You later say “These forecasts have nothing to do with climate change…”.
Have you ever called out a newspaper, scientist, blogger or politician for using your data in this way? If you haven’t why not?
You have called out the NCPPR so lets see where you called out other people for connecting a large hurricane season to Human caused Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate disruption.
Roy UK, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Conservatives are no better than Liberals when it comes to scientific ignorance. Ryan, the problem is that NOAA is predicting a target number with an uncertainty. This leads the general public to assume that they are absolutely sure of themselves (the public doesn’t understand the range they just see numbers). If they want respect, get out of the crystal ball game. Just call it lower, higher or about average because of x. Don’t make it seem more accurate than it really is. When they start acting professional and not like carny shills then they will get respect. If they want to play numbers then do it in the office. Not any worse than betting on the NCAA tournament.
It’s interesting to note that the Met Office abandoned its seasonal forecasts (predictions?) when it was clear to everyone that they were actually doing more harm than good. The harm being ungritted, icy roads, excess cold weather deaths and businesses stocked with thin jumpers and spring gear. ;O)
Small clarification:
The Met Office continues to offer its seasonal forecasts to gullible institutions and businesses.
As was said earlier, I think this was pushback aimed at NOAA based on their bogus manmade global warming / carbon dioxide scam. They have befouled their own nest (and in the case of Hansen keep on doing it). It will be a long time before the public trusts anything out of them at any level. You have no idea how damaging this all has been to federally funded science – perhaps rightly so. Cheers –
Dr. Maue writes: “NOAA’s seasonal hurricane forecasts aren’t based upon political agendas and bogus assumptions. Neither are Gray and Klotzbach from CSU or any other outfit that puts out forecasts. ”
Maybe you could call it not “political”, but there most definitely have been forecasts that have been used that have very little to do with science and everything to do with making money off of… some might say bilking… consumers.
The RMS forecasts (as recounted here) sure seems to have been an unholy collision between greed and climate alarmism. So, I wouldn’t be so quick to exonerate “any other outfit.”
So, essentially, they’re a bunch of liberals at heart.
OMG! What a disgrace.
Baby, meet bathwater.
Insurers and re-insurers set up their cash-flows to anticipate the size of the upcoming seasonal claims. Ballpark figures work for them and allow the forecasters to include enough factors to come up with a reasonable estimate.
From what I have seen, there is no real CAGW flavor to the NOAA hurricane analysts. In fact, being meteorlologists, they tend to be realists and very skeptical of the CO2 scenario as a driver of anything more than hype.
The motives of the attackers may be valid, but their target should be justified. Take on the NASA GISS nitwits as they are deserving of wrath and scorn. No global warming prediction has panned out, disaster wise. Hurricane prognostication, OTOH has helped to raise awareness of disaster mitigation and emergency management.
hold them to a higher standard but accept their limitations as well.
“Past forecasts of rising temperatures, sea levels, and droughts and other extreme weather events due to rising concentrations of carbon haven’t proven any more reliable [than] NOAA’s annual hurricane forecast. Until their reliability improves, it would be irresponsible to base policy on them.“ –Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Their? Who is “they?” that is the question. The way I read this, NOAA’s annual hurricane forecast is held up as a minimal level of performance to surpass before betting the entire economy of the US on global warming prevention. Is the statement ambiguous? Yes, if you understand “policy” (of some sort or other) to be based on hurricane forecasts. The quote is a syntax failure, not a scientific one. A clarification is most certainly called for. An apology? Wouldn’t hurt.
Ryan: [i am only discussing the NOAA seasonal hurricane forecasts which are based on sound science.]
If the forcasts are based on sound science then they should produce sound results. So let’s see a chart comparing forcasts and results for the last 20 years.
Rich Horton says: “…The RMS forecasts…[seem] to have been an unholy collision between greed and climate alarmism.”
RMS = Rhesus Monkey Statisticians?
PJB says:
May 27, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Baby, meet bathwater.
“The motives of the attackers may be valid, but their target should be justified. Take on the NASA GISS nitwits as they are deserving of wrath and scorn. No global warming prediction has panned out, disaster wise.”
To be honest and to avoid defamation of science, they have to switch from ‘prediction’ to ‘hunch.” All they have are hunches. I can read some old graphs and extrapolate just as well as they, but I will not call it science.
Ryan Maue says:
Insurance, commodities, energy, agriculture, transportation, tourism, government, and others use the seasonal forecasts to assess and mitigate risk.
Please tell me what value this provides. Will my insurance premiums decrease if a less than normal prediction is made? Do farmers plant more or less crops depending on these predictions? Are the airlines canceling flights as a result of these predictions? Are the power companies stockpiling more line equipment? As with the MET office, the UK govt. bought their warm predictions the past couple of winters and was totally unprepared. Mitigate risk … what?
On a likely determinable downside, perhaps some tourists may view these predictions (and possibly believe them) and adjust their travel plans away from the coastal areas.
These predictions are not worthwhile, but just a publicly funded game to try to justify maintaining their employment and status quo. I could argue extensively the downside to relying on such a prediction yet could not find a place to start to argue the upside. Thank you for your post but I’m not buying your argument.
Something like Gresham’s law in economics (bad money drives out good money) applied to science.
When the bad science of AGW drives out the good science and gets all the funding and headlines then all science is painted with the hue of AGW science. As a result, all science gets mocked, as is happening here.
The recent active tornado season was forecast well in advance of it happening. It didn’t help the citizens of Alabama or Joplin; we’ve still got a long way to go in that department. But good work and slow progress keeps being made (no thanks to Mr. Roker, as you noted in your earlier piece on the tornado events).
The same is happening here. Let’s not mock serious work which is still, even after all these years, in its infancy. And let’s not lump serious, honest efforts at forecasts with the AGW tainted efforts of others. Perhaps Ridenour and the NCPPR should sharpen their focus and distinguish between the honest science and those AGW proponents cashing in on what’s left of the reputation of real science.
Two small points to be made here:
1) WUWT needs more of this kind of thing. What one might call ‘pseudo-sceptics’ are just as capable of putting out propaganda as the ‘warmists’, and should be ridiculed for it just as much here on WUWT – which stands for good sense and rational debate.
2) Dr Maue, I challenge you to prove your claims. Not that I think for a second that they’re false – I possess greater knowledge of your work than is presented in this post. But it’s not good form to present things this way. It would be better if you provide some links to your – general, plural ‘you’ – work so people can judge for themselves how accurate and useful you have been.
Ryan, there’s no convincing some people that there are individuals who are trying to do genuine science and advance our knowledge of the world forward , even in the climate business.
Although the quality of current predictions of the intensity of the next hurricane season could be better, I have been impressed by the great improvement in the shorter term predictions of hurricane behaviors by the same people once those hurricanes have formed.
I am deeply dismayed by the relatively large group in this thread who seem to be unable to distinguish between the science activists and the real scientists who do not have an agenda to push at us. The press release by Ms. Ridenour could be classified as displaying the same lack of understanding. Their comments do not reflect well on those trying to deal with AGW believers in a genuinely scientific manner.
[ryanm: you get the point of my posting — we went through this 5-years ago over at Steve’s site. 🙂