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.
This article smacks of liberal spin. My recommendation to the newly minted Ph.D. are: 1. When you attack someone who is engaged in satire and you know it’s satire it makes you look stupid if not completely confirming it. 2. When you clearly misrepresent what they say, you engage in false accusation. The press release clearly states: “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. ”
[RyanM: liberal spin, lol — you should read all of my posts on WUWT before labeling me as such.]
The green behind the ears “doctor” is spinning the article to attack conservatives in general. In fact, had the “doctor” done his research and fully comprehended the two links he provided he would have noticed the following: ““NOAA’s forecasts have been wrong not because of a lack of dedication or competence of its forecast team, but because climate science is really still its infancy,” said Amy Ridenour, president of The National Center for Public Policy Research. “We should remember this as we consider whether to adopt economically-ruinous caps on energy. If we can’t rely on 6-month forecasts, how can rely on forecasts of what rising carbon concentrations will do to our climate 25, 50 or even 100 years out?” Explain to me why an apology is needed other than by Mr. Maue to the WUWT readers.
It appears that Mr. Maue doesn’t understand the phrase “falsely conflates”. The term is widely used by liberal AGW activists to accuse people of lying. The proper description is “incorrectly conflates”. The author’s disdain for AGW critics is obvious.
Mr. Maue believes that there are numerous “professional manners” with which to conduct oneself if you’re a NOAA scientist. Interesting point and accurate based on what I’ve observed at NOAA websites. Congratulations, Mr. Maue, you got something right.
Mr. Maue also doesn’t understand that when NOAA puts out a prediction of 7-9 hurricanes and 15 occur (2005) or a prediction of 8-10 and only 5 appear (2006) that a certain amount of “mocking” is appropriate. ( There’s a reason that the folks in Pennsylvania put the responsibility for the Ground Hog’s day spring prognostication on the shoulders of “Punxsutawney Phil”. ) The huge hurricane prognostication “FAIL”s should have served as a prod to get NOAA to work on their product. Clearly their models were wrong and they didn’t fully understand the system. The good news is that Mother Nature, in the span of two years, gave them a lower and higher end excursion with respect to their prediction to help NOAA refine their models.
As others have stated, preparedness is not the key to saving lives with respect to hurricanes. Early detection and accurate predictive movement of hurricanes are the key to saving lives.
It’s truly sad that this disaster of an attack will become part of your permanent record, Dr. Maue. If you perform your research in the same manner you prepared this public attack, you’ll end up being deservedly mocked. You’re engaging in activism and you’re an idiot for doing so at this point in your career. Your work product is forever tainted based on your inherent bias. You have, however, succeeded in demonstrating your shoddy approach to public attacks and successfully demonstrated your lack of wisdom. We “sanitation engineers” use the following to describe this type of article: Fail. I’d vote a negative star if that were available.
[RyanM: Several commenters understood the point of my posting, which is obviously still beyond your comprehension. You can attack my credentials and ridicule my research, but honestly, you don’t know what you are talking about.]
An apology, Dr. Maue? For warning the public? Better we should apologize if we HAD NOT used all the tools at hand, given the immense cost to the economy and to liberty of taking climate alarmist scientists and their allies at face value, just because, as the media constantly tells us, they are “scientists.”
I do agree with most of the commenters.
Corrupt science has cost us billions and will continue to do so as long as scientists continue to place money, fame, power and/or a political ideology that promotes government control over individual liberty over accuracy and the search for truth.
The tough lesson is that those in the front lines of protecting the public from the economic harm done by corrupt scientists and their exploitive business and political handmaidens (sometimes one and the same) cannot overcome the corrupt climate change-related machine (among others) without communications tools more attractive to the public than policy papers abandoned in obscure websites.
Humor videos are just one of these tools.
Making fun of Al Gore is another. Have you never…?
Heck, we all have. Turns out, even Tipper does.
And as for the notion that predicting weather and predicting climate are different, well, duh! But at the end of the day to the average person just trying to make ends meet in an atmosphere (pun intended) in which gas prices are higher and job creation imperiled by greenhouse gas reduction strategies and regulations, with more coming with or without Congressional approval, it is a distinction WITH NO DIFFERENCE.
Our videos are not being submitted anywhere for, ahem, peer review.
Bottom line: BOTH weather and climate sciences are in their infancies in the sense that neither one is presently capable of making reliable predictions, yet BOTH are continuously being exploited in means that enrich some with fame, money or power while the public unnecessarily suffers.
And although I believe we are winning this particular battle, after decades of sustained effort, the war itself may yet be lost.
Yes, I am aware that some scientists have ethics even in the face of great temptation and some even have both ethics and the courage to speak out. It is regrettable that the absolutely necessary message to the public and lawmakers DO NOT BLINDLY TRUST THE MESSAGE OF EVERYONE WITH A PHD when it comes to the enactment of law necessarily tars the relatively few scientists who have stood up for truth, sometimes at tremendous personal cost.
But we must also remember that those who stood up for truth will be among the first to benefit directly, even personally, if the corruption can be cast out. So let’s win at that, shall we?
In the meantime, Dr. Maue, I suggest a thicker skin. If science is to regain its reputation, and the public protected, scientists must be able to handle the criticism of genuine peer-review, much less the comparatively mild criticism of a satire video merely making the incontestable point that climate science is still in its infancy, and suggesting to the public that it keep this fact in mind when faced with policy choices.
P.S. Might as well cover these three points to get them over with. 1) We do know that chimps have opposable thumbs. We just thought the line was funny. 2) We do know the hurricane in the opening of last year’s chimp video was spinning in the wrong direction. Satire, you know.
[RyanM: since your IP confirms your identity — I will respond to your comment in a followup post.]
For me, as a common lay-person who comes here to learn a few things now and then, … if weather forecasters can not get their 7 day “weather” forecast right, then how can scientists know what will happen 6 months from now? If we can’t get 6 months down pat, let alone 7 days, then how the heck can we know what will happen 100 years from now? Let alone 250.
They say the sun will explode in 4 quadratrillion googleflop years. Ok, I’ll buy that. They say that there will be 10-20 hurricanes in the Atlantic this season. Ummmm.. well, ummm. Will there be hurricanes? Yeah. Sure. Aren’t there almost always hurricanes? And, isn’t the “prediction” a 50/50 shot anyway?
I too see the futility of making hurricane predictions 6 months out. Wait till about 2 months out when you start seeing the on-the-ground data. That to a common man might make a bit more sense.
As for this being science, from every scientific literature I have read, there are error bars and confidence percentages. How confident are these 10-20 hurricane predictions? Are those numbers within 5, 10, 50% of confidence? It would make more sense if you gave us a value, say 15, and then gave us your confidence in those numbers. And in that confidence, we would know how accurate your predictions have been in the past.
For example, “We predict that there will be 35 hurricanes (10%), 5 major or severe (20%) and 4 of the 35 hurricanes will make landfall somewhere (35%), sometime, at some point.”
That, we might be able to grasp and understand… and forgive.
[Ryan: the seasonal forecast does exactly that, gives a range, and a level of certainty]
Amy Ridenour says:
May 28, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Are you married? I would just love to hear you say those words, or similar words, daily.
Thanks for having backbone and thanks for recognizing that there are criteria for good science. We must squeeze everyone who has advocated AGW or given a pass to AGW, especially through their own self-promotion, until the last drop of illusion has been squeezed from them. It is going to hurt like hell but it is necessary for the good of science, of the USA, and the world.
jorgekafkazar,
Thanx for the correction. I was abbreviating; I did mean Wankapedia.
And my apologies to Ms Ridenour. When I first scanned the article I assumed she was proposing that hurricanes resulted from human activity. On reading the article more thoroughly I realize I was wrong.
*Sheesh!* Twice in one thread! No doubt both of my regular readers are as astounded as I am.
Amy Ridenour thinks that weather sciences are incapable of making reliable predictions? She has no credibility when she makes this statement. Numerical Weather Prediction has shown great skill at 5-days for global weather forecasts. Come on, you can’t just shoot from the hip with these nonsensical statements — you make such an easy target for the left to shoot at.
Ryan Maue says:
May 28, 2011 at 3:44 pm
“Amy Ridenour thinks that weather sciences are incapable of making reliable predictions? She has no credibility when she makes this statement.”
Sir, you are the one who has no credibility. You have been given every opportunity to produce the physical hypotheses that are used to make the predictions that you uphold. You refuse to produce them. You are behaving exactly like a Phil Jones. If you have the hypotheses and the confirming data, put them out and let’s have the debate. If you do not understand that scientists have the duty to supply the confirming predictions that support the hypotheses that they (claim to) have then you are clueless about science and scientific method.
Smokey says: “…*Sheesh!* Twice in one thread! No doubt both of my regular readers are as astounded as I am.”
Yes, I’ve just managed to get my jaw back into place, Smokey.
Theo Goodwin says:
May 28, 2011 at 9:00 am
“[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.]”
This is a debate. Engage in it or not. Do not assign homework. Assigning homework is the same as refraining from debate. (I almost wrote “quitting the debate,” but since you have been too fearful to join it, I can hardly say that you quit.) If you know of natural mechanisms which enable you to predict the behavior of individual hurricanes or the “hurricane environment” of the North Atlantic for the coming season, then present some of them and defend them.
The only thing that is beyond my grasp at this point is why you show up on this forum to defend “hurricane science” and present not one hypothesis from your so-called science. Unlike all other websites dealing with climate, on WUWT there is no free lunch, no free passes, no Al Gorish self-celebration. If you show up here to defend climate science, present your physical hypotheses and the evidence that shows them to be reasonably well confirmed. And expect to be examined fully. To a real scientist, one who has the instincts of a scientist, the very idea of such an encounter is exhilirating. Why does it depress you to the level of non-activity?
savethesharks says:
May 27, 2011 at 11:35 pm
“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.”
A surgeon cannot apply the scalpel if there is no patient. Ryan showed up, said Ridenour is an idiot, NOAA “hurricane science” is great, and then receded into the background. He left us surgeons with no patient. He has to make a scientific claim and defend it if he wants to support the position that NOAA “hurricane science” is genuine science. He adamantly refuses to do so. Analyze that behavior by Ryan, would you please?
Ryan Maue says:
May 27, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Roy UK, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I understood what Roy was saying. Comments like the above and you come across as a smart alec.
[restored comment] Smokey says: [May 27, 2011 at 6:47 pm] “It seems Ms Ridenour has long been familiar with the global warming debate. From Wiki: [yatta-yatta]…”
“A wiki is a Web site that allows users to add and update content on the site using their own Web browser. This is made possible by Wiki software that runs on the Web server. Wikis end up being created mainly by a collaborative effort of the site visitors…” –http://www.techterms.com/definition/wiki
I believe you meant Wankapedia, Smokey. Wiki is a generic term. : )
Jorge
[The comment above was inadvertently deleted by me earlier in the day. Now maybe Smokey’s reply at 3:20 above makes sense. ~dbs, mod.]
Theo,
I am indeed married, but as it is to the guy who wrote all of last year’s video script and most of this year’s, you can come visit, and hear words like those from both of us.
Amy
Theo Goodwin says:
May 28, 2011 at 5:57 pm
savethesharks says:
May 27, 2011 at 11:35 pm
“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.”
A surgeon cannot apply the scalpel if there is no patient. Ryan showed up, said Ridenour is an idiot, NOAA “hurricane science” is great, and then receded into the background. He left us surgeons with no patient. He has to make a scientific claim and defend it if he wants to support the position that NOAA “hurricane science” is genuine science. He adamantly refuses to do so. Analyze that behavior by Ryan, would you please?
===================
NO.
I will analyze yours.
In more accurate terms, to carry on your metaphor, you are being a complete logic bulldozer (its called sophistry), but with no true bulldozer…and no property to bulldoze.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Theo Goodwin says:
May 28, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Theo Goodwin says:
May 28, 2011 at 9:00 am
“[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.]”
This is a debate. Engage in it or not. Do not assign homework. Assigning homework is the same as refraining from debate. (I almost wrote “quitting the debate,” but since you have been too fearful to join it, I can hardly say that you quit.) If you know of natural mechanisms which enable you to predict the behavior of individual hurricanes or the “hurricane environment” of the North Atlantic for the coming season, then present some of them and defend them.
The only thing that is beyond my grasp at this point is why you show up on this forum to defend “hurricane science” and present not one hypothesis from your so-called science. Unlike all other websites dealing with climate, on WUWT there is no free lunch, no free passes, no Al Gorish self-celebration. If you show up here to defend climate science, present your physical hypotheses and the evidence that shows them to be reasonably well confirmed. And expect to be examined fully. To a real scientist, one who has the instincts of a scientist, the very idea of such an encounter is exhilirating. Why does it depress you to the level of non-activity
===================
What in the hell is this guy talking about?
Not sure. One thing is for sure, Theo, you are spending WAY too much time behind the little fortress of your laptop making potshots.
Take a walk….enjoy the fresh air and the real world….maybe have a nice meal at an italian restaurant of your choice….spend a few moments meditating…do a few rounds at the punching bag….whatever.
You need to get out in the real world. Breathe.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Chris in Norfolk — it seems Theo, Roy, Amy all think I am some sort of global warming alarmist without any knowledge of hurricane activity.
FSU Climatologist Cites Noted Tropical Cyclone Expert El Rushbo
October 8, 2010
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Indeed, Ryan.
Ignorance is bliss.
I am pretty confident none of them (like me) could muster up to the advanced physics required for a PHD in hurricane forecasting and meteorology…so, I suppose…it is easier for them to just lash out in a so-called political debate (or attempt thereto).
As a registered republican who has always voted my party in presidential elections…I still have GREAT angst voting for any of them.
Right….left….they all seem to be scientific philistines.
That is why I will listen to the scientists first….the politicians last.
(And yes, James Hansen, you have officially disqualified yourself as a scientist, so your informed opinion has no weight.)
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Ryan Replies: [RyanM: Several commenters understood the point of my posting, which is obviously still beyond your comprehension. You can attack my credentials and ridicule my research, but honestly, you don’t know what you are talking about.]
Mr. Maue, you have no reply to the fact that you misled the readers? WUWT? The point of your post was well understood, I can assure you of that. You asked for an apology to specific forecasters because crap shoot results from these hard working scientists shouldn’t be mocked. You failed in your support of any arguments that you made. You also failed to counter any argument that I made. Your post makes no mention of the fact that both press releases clearly state the purpose of the exercise was not to impune the hard work of the individual scientist at NOAA. How did you miss that?? A simple understanding of this fact fully destroys the purpose of your post. Lastly, the quoted statement you bolded in your post clearly shows how you missed the boat.
“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.“
You ask for an apology to NOAA scientists based on “their”. It’s blatently obvious that in using”their” in the previous sentence, Ms. Ridenour was refering to the forecasts for rising temperatures, sea levels, and other AGW prognostications. If there were any doubt, surely you would have contacted Ms. Ridenour for clarification. But you didn’t. FAIL.
You, sir, in these documented and repeated failures, have made a mockery of your own work and your degree. It wasn’t me who did that.
[RyanM: i’ll prepare a follow-up post where i put Ms. Ridenour’s response and your challenges into context. Her whole satirical video and press release is in poor taste, mocking the wrong people, and doing a disservice to those seriously interested in advancing a sensible climate/energy policy. Again, the scientists that work at NOAA, both at NHC and the CPC that provide input into the seasonal hurricane forecasts are not connected to or invested in the current climate change debate. To conflate the two is unacceptable, and I will point it out every time. There is legitimate non-AGW climate science that deserves funding — something you should educate yourself about — perhaps by visiting Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog]
Ryan Maue says:
May 28, 2011 at 8:47 pm
“Chris in Norfolk — it seems Theo, Roy, Amy all think I am some sort of global warming alarmist without any knowledge of hurricane activity.”
Nope. My complaint is that you do not want to discuss hurricane science yet you are on this forum to protect NOAA from the claim that their so-called predictions are not genuine science. That is typical Warmista behavior. If we could get Warmista to discuss their “science” candidly everyone would see that it is in its infancy.
Also, you use the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. You want us to assume that you have the science and that we can take for granted the truth of everything you say. Such arguments are the last retreat of scoundrels. And, if you or anyone doubt that you are using an Appeal to Authority, just look at the post I am replying to. You got Rush to testify for you? What are you, a teenager?
Son, if you are going to come here to defend NOAA’s hurricane science, then do it. Lay out some hypotheses and the evidence for them. But do not defend them by appealing to Authority.
savethesharks says:
May 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm
You cannot understand what I am talking about. It is science.
Amy Ridenour says:
May 28, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Thanks, I will be visiting.
Latitude says:
May 28, 2011 at 9:18 am
> Every indication is that hurricanes are decreasing.
That’s globally, and much of my realization of that comes from Ryan. (And hence, technically not hurricanes, but tropical storms – hurricanes are primarily a North Atlantic phenomenon. Only those that cross Central America or form in the southern hemisphere, well, I don’t know if those are hurricanes or not….) We are still in the warm AMO regime which is one of the keys to having more active than average hurricane seasons (i.e. North Atlantic tropical storms).
Other factors, e.g. a developing El Nino or Saharan dust, can also cut way into Atlantic tropical storm production.
One last comment, Mr. Maue. I didn’t label you as a liberal. I said the post smacked of liberal spin. As in: this is the kind of crap I would expect of whiney liberal AGW proponent. Rest assured that had I wanted to call you a liberal (not that there’s anything wrong with that), I would have done so using direct address.
One of the themes in this thread seems to be that “hurricane predictions are always wrong, therefore it’s stupid to pay attention to them and even more stupid to pay for them.”
Fine, if you don’t need them, don’t use them. I like them, but I guess I don’t really need them myself. When Bill Gray et al started with their predictions, I first thought this was a completely stupid thing to do as hurricanes have far too much random input. However, as I learned more about their procedures, I began to appreciate their work.
Years where their predictions were way off were the most interesting, there are a lot of things where you can learn more from mistakes than successes, and Gray was refreshingly open about blown forecasts and what they learned from them.
From them I learned a lot about the linkage between El Nino and Atlantic wind shear, the impact of Saharan dust over the ocean, and the relation of the AMO to periods of high and low hurricane risk.
Here in New Hampshire, I testified to the Governor’s Task Force on Climate Change that their recommendation for better shutters on sea coast buildings was my first item critiqued in http://wermenh.com/climate/gccptf.html . “I will not be surprised if we find ourselves one week away from a repeat of 1938 and the realization that, like New Orleans and Galveston, we aren’t prepared either.”
In my not-so-humble-opinion, hurricane prediction is a relatively new field, and I’m thankful that so much is done in the open (as opposed to UEA’s climate research). The improvements in seasonal and track forecasts over the last couple of decades is remarkable – to me, if not the Ridenours.
Personally, I’m a heck of a lot more interested in the next CSU forecast (June 1) than figuring out why the Ridenours think the folks at the NHC and CSU have a fifth grade education. Of course, I’d really like to know why this round of a positive AMO hasn’t produced New England storms like 1938, Carol, and Donna. Frankly, I won’t be looking to chimpanzees, fifth graders, or publicity hounds for the answer for that.
But yeah, I’m 60+ miles from the New Hampshire coast. Even if we have a repeat of the 1938 storm it won’t be a big deal here unless the ground is already saturated. Sort of like how the Blizzard of 1978 wouldn’t have been a much important storm if it started four hours earlier and schools and businesses hadn’t opened. So hurricane seasons typically won’t have a big impact on me. I make no excuses for being interested in science or watching the developments in tropical storm prediction.
Rob Z says:
May 28, 2011 at 9:44 pm
One last comment, Mr. Maue. I didn’t label you as a liberal. I said the post smacked of liberal spin. As in: this is the kind of crap I would expect of whiney liberal AGW proponent. Rest assured that had I wanted to call you a liberal (not that there’s anything wrong with that), I would have done so using direct address.
===========================
You moron. Its Dr. Maue to you.
Or does your little pea brain allow you the conceptualization of such?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA