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.
It seems Ms Ridenour has long been familiar with the global warming debate.
From Wiki:
Seems she’s been flipped. There’s probably more to this than meets the eye. Just about every NGO you could name has been co-opted by activists and big money trusts. Conservatives are not immune to corruption. For someone who is presumably computer literate enough to do a search, Ridenoour’s bizarre assertion needs more explaining.
“The video isn’t being released to question the professionalism or dedication of NOAA experts, but to remind Americans that forecasts based on science that is still evolving is unreliable and shouldn’t be used to determine public policy.”
Sound like Dr. Ryan N. Maue is the one who is off base here.
Roman M says:
“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 differences aren’t significant in the real world or larger picture. Billions or even maybe trillions of dollars are backing the alarmist global warming will increase hurricane devastation party line. Until real scientists are willing to respond to rants from Hansen as nothing more than something from a typical unscientific doomsday cult, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. I see the difference very clearly. I also see the apparent unwillingness to address the cause of the satire which is the doomsday predictions by activists like Hansen.
Don’t think that I am suggesting that you take that position that increased forcing might not lead to increased hurricanes. I would hate to see you lose your house because you didn’t correlate increased hurricanes to increased forcing from CO2. You might even be persecuted as a denier if you stooped that low.
Its got me beat why you just don’t admit you can’t do it.The information you provide is useless.There is no pattern.Be prepared?I’m guessing that anybody who lives in the path of a hurricane will be prepared,it doesn’t need money spent to tell a person or government to be prepared.
My advice to people,be prepared for the worst case scenario every year.Can I have some money now?
This ‘prediction’ might better be called the over/under number for the ‘betting line’ …
Give me three, four … ‘x’ number of parameters identified with some relative scaling factor that leads these scientific organizations to forecast a low, medium or a ‘high’ hurricane season (perhaps in relation to last year?).
Specific numbers don’t really mean much; Identify the factors (graphically?) and maybe I’d a have a bit more insight …
.
RomanM says:
May 27, 2011 at 6:26 pm
“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.”
What makes a statement a prediction? Let’s try an example: “The Sun will explode just after dawn tomorrow, Eastern Daylight Time.” It is about the future. Does that make it a prediction? How about “Some unicorn will violate a virgin at dawn tomorrow.” Is that a prediction? There are no unicorns you know.
In addition, there are no natural regularities that contribute to the behavior of hurricanes and whose characteristics have been specified in a set of physical hypotheses that are rigorously formulated and that have been reasonably well confirmed. Given that no one has described such natural regularities, how could someone make predictions about them?
[Ryan: your final paragraph is nonsense.]
The real damage from Climate Change is the sludge thrown into the research pool by the AGW activists. It has infected every aspect of weather forecasting and reporting, even though it is oft stated that Weather is not Climate (except when it is used to prove Global Warming).
I’m sad to say that good forecasters are dragged down by all this.
Today, the public at large is both weary and wary, due to the immense amount of disinformation. So, it should come as no surprise that rejection levels are very high, even in conservative think tanks.
I can see where they are coming from.
Judy Curry was right when she intimated that we’d have to start over. It’s going to take a lot of time.
[ryanm: agree completely. If we cannot separate weather from climate, no matter your ideological bent, then the science suffers.]
Well said, Ryan.
There are political agendas and equivocation in both camps in this debate. The National Center for Public Policy Research here is belittling the NOAA as a whole, equivocating hurricane forecasting with AGW promotion when the two are in fact unconnected.
In doing so, the Center is no better than Joe Romm. And their arguments here are as contemptible as Joe’s.
I agree 1000%
It is a crying shame that these scientific philistines completely throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yeah….OK we all know about the NOAA party line on so-called ‘ocean acidification’ or the NASA party line thanks to James Hansen.
But regardless, these are still VITAL organizations who have contributed life-saving and quantum leaps of technology..thanks to the many, many bright and talented minds who are doing the business of science there.
For shame on this so-called “think tank”.
They need to choose their battles. And not create ones where battles should not be.
BTW…could somebody help me tackle the whining, self-important village idiot “comedian” in the video and give him a humiliating public wedgy? (With gloved hands, of course.)
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Dr Maue,
I understand your frustration with the video presented, having watched it prior to this posting. While your predictions may not have a political AGW slant, it is plainly obvious the the perception is that it does. Personally, I have seen less shrilling within NOAA for blaming everything on Global Warming. This is encouraging, since it shows true science being applied within the organization. However, this has not always been true, and one only has to look at the prediction for the year after Catrina as an example. The prediction for the following year was for destruction of epic proportions in which the coasts would be scoured free of all life. I know I exaggerate, but not by much. Each successive year gave a prediction similar to the last, with the same results, minimal activity.
While the prognostication teams had what they thought were good, science based reasoning for the predictions, the effect was “If we predict it, it will eventually happen”, but it never occurred. So most of the public is left with asking why prediction was the same thing over and over again even though it isn’t working, and are left with one explanation; by political edict, global warming is occurring, and we are required to call for more hurricanes no mater what. For if we say there will be fewer, then global warming can’t be the cause of both higher and lower seasonal hurricane counts. It is sad that the hard work of individuals can be tainted this way, but when you have “Scientists” claiming that everything from Aardvark sinus infections to Zebra stripe patterns being affected by Global Warming, what can you expect?
[Ryan: you are wrong. After Katrina in 2005, scientists working at the National Hurricane Center, including Chris Landsea and Gerry Bell (at CPC), chalked the hyperactive seasons of 1995-2005 to the warm phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), not global warming. Their predictions for the subsequent seasons were based on the AMO, sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic, and the evolution of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the Pacific. The current scientific consensus among serious tropical cyclone researchers across the field is this: Global Warming has NOT yet had a “detectable” effect on North Atlantic hurricane activity. It is an open question as to how AGW will manifest itself in terms of hurricane intensity and/or frequency — Knutson et al. (2010) Nature Geoscience.]
eyesonu says:
May 27, 2011 at 5:53 pm
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.
==========================
Thank you for your comments…but you are making no sense whatsoever.
You obviously are painting with a broad….a VERY BROAD brush.
That is a no-no…if you want to “argue the downside” or the upside, for that matter.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Noelene says:
May 27, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Its got me beat why you just don’t admit you can’t do it.The information you provide is useless.There is no pattern.Be prepared?I’m guessing that anybody who lives in the path of a hurricane will be prepared,it doesn’t need money spent to tell a person or government to be prepared.
My advice to people,be prepared for the worst case scenario every year.
Can I have some money now?
=====================
No, you may not.
Your ‘study’ is a broad-brush, and very simplistic version of…hmm…lemme see here…what the devil do they call that?….oh yes….common sense.
But scientifically, it is worthless. DUH. The Boy Scouts motto. OK….we get it.
But….NO money [and justifiably so].
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Marc Morano needs to stop dumping on Chris Christie. I’m getting tired of it already.
Smokey says:
May 27, 2011 at 2:18 pm
I agree with Bill Jamison. Money spent on predicting hurricanes is money wasted. Instead, it should be spent on hurricane preparedness.
=========================
That is a simplistic overstatement.
DAMN so many broad brushes here.
It needs to be BOTH: Money spent on predicting hurricanes AND on hurricane preparedness!
What the hell is up with this either-or, black or white type of nonsense?
Have you guys forgotten (yoo too, Smokey!) to look at things more finely?
It is not either or….in this case at least, it is BOTH. Again…..DUH. 🙂
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I am not sure what is in the air tonight, but some of the normally reasonable commenters on here, have gone of the deep end in an apparent REACTION to the political overstepping of NOAA and NASA in recent years.
Yeah yeah I recognize those excesses too, and I condemn them….but that still does not negate the good they have done.
All of that notwithstanding, Ryan’s post and his points still makes complete sense…at least to those who are not just giving an emo, predisposed, prejudiced, and reactive response to a politically sore problem
Again….I warn you…don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
When it comes to this, our logic needs to have the razor-sharp and pin-point accuracy of a surgeon….as opposed to the massive, indiscriminate bluntness of a bulldozer.
Geez.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I believe that I was not clear in my message. At no point did I state that the forecast team was negligent in the issued product ( I re-read my post just to make sure). My point was the perception of the product. When you have a movie with a smoke stack showing the spiral of a hurricane being taken as fact, and statements from within the NOAA hierarchy agreeing with that thought process, the results that you are seeing are to be expected. In 2006, Katrina (sorry spell check messed me up) and other incidents were being used to try to force the global warming perception on the world. At that time virtually everything was being blamed on “Global Warming”. Numbers watch has a list of 859 things blamed on “Global Warming”, many of which are mutually exclusive. You cannot expect a blown forecast to be perceived any other way, especially given the current state of affairs with the Climate Science community.
While I know and appreciate the work this team is doing, the perception is still there in the back of many people’s minds, one more thing blamed on “Global Warming”. What I do not know is how long it will take to repair this damage, for you see, long term forecasts to an average person looks just like the climate scientists predictions of snowless winters, New York being flooded by sea level rise, or Katrina like hurricanes and even “Hypercanes” (a History Channel show). And, when they see forecast after forecast that does not meet what they experience, the confidence in those products decrease.
What is the solution? Given the current atmosphere where whenever a significant weather event occurs some researcher claims “Global Warming”, it will be difficult. A possible start may be to provide with your prediction some of the reasoning, obviously simplified, to show that your are looking at the current and projected conditions of the oceans in your forecast. Provide data that shows how well your prognostications have been, and how you plan on improving them. Don’t demand a retraction form the NCPP, but use the spotlight to show what you are doing is real science, and not some random number generation system as they contend. You will not get a retraction, and sound much like the East Anglia researchers in want to silence the critics. While you may be right in your complaints, what has preceded your assertion has limited your available responses and their effectiveness. People take notice when a person retires and that now they can speak the truth since nothing can be done to them. This is why good science needs to be protected and the charlatans exposed. Yet many times in climate science just the opposite happens.
Lastly, I do question the usefulness of a product that has such a wide range of prediction. Some of the criticism that this prediction’s error bands include the climatic normal levels of hurricane occurrence has some validity. This is the perception thing again, and while from your vantage point this is valid, from another perspective it would seem to be of little use. It is a difficult line to tow, and I wouldn’t want your job. However, you cannot ignore the perspective of the general public, valid or not. You see it in this blog, in politics, coffee houses, and in opinion polls, very few people trust the long term weather prediction establishment, be it climatological, or meteorological. And that is the sad state of affairs.
savethesharks says:
“That is a simplistic overstatement.”
Hey, I am master of the simplistic overstatement.☺ I’m a black and white kinda guy, too – no post-normal science for me. I wear my heart on my sleeve.
You may be right, and I might be wrong. But I still don’t see much value in predicting the number of hurricanes. They’re going to happen, whether there are 15 or 19 in any given year. And with hurricanes there is plenty of warning, so the important thing is being prepared. Just my 2¢.
Very useful post Dr Maue and the comments have been illuminating – if not just for the range of views from a reasonably well-informed readership.
The take-away for me is that this is a good example of the impact of agenda-driven climate scientists to actual scientists working in the field. Entire organizations and scientific fields of endeavor get painted with the same brush by both the uninformed AND well-informed.
Dear Dr. Maue,
Now you see the skeptic camp followers just as confused as the general public (GP). The GP hears ‘officialdom’ parroting ‘hurricanes are increasing due to global warming’ over-and-over. So now when NOAA’s National Hurricane Center issues a forecast for a ‘more active hurricane season’ they confuse this with the political AGW message from ‘officialdom’.
It just goes to show that most people, even those who agree with our view on AGW, aren’t listening very closely and have the same kind of critical thinking issues.
[RyanM: ditto, I think a cleansing is needed on the right…]
LearDog says:
May 28, 2011 at 6:40 am
“The take-away for me is that this is a good example of the impact of agenda-driven climate scientists to actual scientists working in the field. Entire organizations and scientific fields of endeavor get painted with the same brush by both the uninformed AND well-informed.”
Well said, Sir. Meteorologists and all others in that vaguely defined field have two motivations to make it clear to the public that they do not practice science and do not make scientific predictions. One motivation is self-interest. If they continue to suggest that they practice science then they have joined the liars such as Phil Jones. Another motivation is self-respect. If you believe that you are a scientist rather than a propagandist, entertainer, or “weatherman” then you will be quick to display your understanding of science. The bottom line in understanding science is clear as a bell: no physical hypotheses which can be used to explain and predict the phenomena in question means no science. There is no science of hurricane formation or landfall, whether we are talking about a particular hurricane or a North Atlantic hurricane season. There are a lot of good hunches based on meticulously collected historical records, but there is no science. Grow a bit of humility, folks.
Theo Goodwin says:
May 27, 2011 at 8:21 pm
“In addition, there are no natural regularities that contribute to the behavior of hurricanes and whose characteristics have been specified in a set of physical hypotheses that are rigorously formulated and that have been reasonably well confirmed. Given that no one has described such natural regularities, how could someone make predictions about them?”
“[Ryan: your final paragraph is nonsense.]”
What a fine debater you are. Is this the quality of all your work?
Obviously, the paragraph is nonsense to you. You believe that extrapolating from old charts is science. (Extrapolation is what we do on the Sea Ice Page here at WUWT. None of us have ever claimed it to be science.) I have quite politely put down a challenge. If you have physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict hurricane behavior in the North Atlantic this season then, for God’s sake, publish them here. What you have are meticulously developed hunches based on extrapolations from historical data. Those hunches are not unimportant and are not to be sniffed at. But they are not science. No physical hypotheses, no science.
[Ryan: there are literally hundreds of papers on North Atlantic hurricane activity. Your paragraph is still nonsense b/c scientists have indeed identified natural mechanisms, which are obviously beyond your grasp, at the moment.]
Post by Dr. Ryan N. Maue
“you will find the scientific reasoning for the upcoming “above-normal” hurricane season.”
====================================================
“above-normal” from what Ryan?
Define normal.
Every indication is that hurricanes are decreasing.
[ryanm: we are in an active period since 1995 in the North Atlantic — normal would be the average of the past 15-years — 11-14 storms and 4-6 hurricanes.]
All govt funded science is currently suspect in my world and as others have said get over it. The overreach of CAWG will be playing out for sometime to come. And in this case the baby does not appear to very useful to we who pay the bill. I recognise that research of hurricanes is necessary but the estimate of #s/ year is of what utility?
Chris Landsea has my respect because he acted. What have you done other than bellyache about how your specialty is percieved? You did not foresee this reaction when/if you read the CRU emails or the IPCC FAR? What is science? is now an international discussion brought on by these and other absuses of our trust and of course serious scientists will suffer most in this process. So scientists police yourselves or face the consequences, some of which are occurring here. And it may already be too little too late, for the perception of dishonesty runs deep.
Richard Percifield says:
May 28, 2011 at 12:22 am
Excellent suggestions, Sir.
There is another reason for claiming that hurricane forecasts are not science. No matter what the outcome of the hurricane season, no matter how large the divergence between forecast and fact, the people making the forecasts cannot identify one statement in their belief system that they will reject. If the facts and false predictions do not provide reason enough to reject some element of belief, then surely we must all agree that the forecasters are not practicing science.
In genuine science, scientists can set forth several scenarios regarding their predictions and they can tell you which of their beliefs would be rejected for each scenario. No one in climate science, meteorology, or whatever one wants to include in that hugely amorphous field can do any such thing at this time. The fact that genuine science can set forth such scenarios shows the power of its critical component. No hypothesis is ever put forward without serious criticism accompanying it. The Climategaters and their heirs, all of existing government funded climate “science,” have shown conclusively that they do not have this instinct for criticism and self-criticism that has always been at the heart of science.