CSU's Klotzbach and Gray Suspend December Hurricane Forecast

It’s the right thing to do. Now if only some other scientists would figure out their methods have no predictive value before they publish papers on a theory.

“We strongly believe that the increases in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the 20th century have had little or no significant effect on Atlantic basin …”
I quote: “Yeah Baby, Yeah!”

That’s the difference between a scientist and a politician.

“We strongly believe that the increases in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the 20th century have had little or no significant effect on Atlantic basin or global TC activity as extensively discussed in our many previous forecast write-ups and recently in Gray (2011). Global tropical cyclone activity has shown no significant trend over the past thirty years.”
It is refreshing to see such honesty. Lets hope that more of those involved in using models to predict things will follow suit.

wow . . . a moment of clarity and honesty from the Climate Scientology world.
Most refreshing.
Next up, true confessions from the Climate Modelers.

When is the last time you can recall any scientist suspending a highly visible public work because they decided it just didn’t have any predictive skill?
The UK met. office suspended their long range forcasts not long ago for the same reason Anthony.

Looks like a reasonable approach. Now if climate scientists would stop their hysterical forecasts of impending doom, based on models and non-accelerating trends, we could put our efforts and resources into solving real problems.

Global tropical cyclone activity has shown no significant trend over the past thirty years.

Despite global warming since the 1970s and the recent ‘hottest’ decade on the record we have just seen a 30 year record low ACE index.

Anthony Watt asks: When is the last time you can recall any scientist suspending a highly visible public work because they decided it just didn’t have any predictive skill?

In medicine it very commonly happens that high-profile trials of diagnostic methods are terminated for lack of clinical efficacy.
More broadly, it commonly happens in science an initially high-profile scientific trial becomes steadily lower-and-lower profile as the trial’s lack of efficacy becomes apparent, until the trial is quietly terminated, noticed by few and mourned by none.
Trials of earthquake prediction methods have historically followed this scientific arc, for example.
In summary, Klotzbach and Gray were following common-and-accepted scientific practice. For which, good on them.
An example of likely future importance for climate change research will be predictions of Antarctic ice flow rates, which now can be observed with high accuracy, and which in coming decades will provide a key test-bed for climate prediction science.

Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill. Reasons for this unexpected lack of skill are discussed.
Newsflash: Our models are crap. Details at 11.
11: When we tune our models to the past, they can predict the past. But they do diddly-squat about predicting the future. It’s possible we don’t know enough about everything that influences weather and climate to make models with predicative skill about the future. But we still kicked butt on foretelling what the weather used to be.

This concerns me in much the same way as a pharmaceutical company that says it will fall back on “a qualitative discussion of the factors” in drug safety because the quantitative data were not useful.

I assume they will still be issuing forecasts as we get closer to spring. It appears to only be the December forecasts that are discontinued. And speaking of hurricanes, I haven’t seen a post or comment from Dr. Ryan Maue in quite a while.

I was intrigued by the phrase “siege of time.” Via Google I found an article: “Teleconnections and the siege of time” by C. S. Ramaoe published in the Journal of Climatology in 1983. The abstract explains nicely; you can find it here: .

Even though a model can explain the past data, it says almost nothing about the predictive value of the model. Predictions must be tested with future data. But, nobody wants to wait around for their grant money.

These gentlemen are demonstrating what science is supposed to be about. You do the best you can with what you have and modify the procedures and hypotheses, as a function of results. It works or it does not. If it works you try and make it better, if not you find a different method. We humans may not like risk and it may be desirable to eliminate or moderate as much of it as we can, however, that is not the role of science. Science is only a tool a way of thinking and nothing else.

These guys are true American heros. For giving us the truth, they will be ostracized and discredited by their own “scientific” community and become Ishmael.
If projections a few month out are worthless, then projections 20-years out are equally worthless. Where is the main stream media on this one? Don’t they think that all those Americans who spent billions of dollars on related insurance policies would like to know?
The big HOAX is dying an ugly death. And it can’t come fast enough.

Joe Bastardi says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:13 am
==============================
Joe, doesn’t naming more small storms also contribute to ACE?

“increases in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the 20th century have had little or no significant effect on Atlantic basin or global TC activity as extensively discussed in our many previous forecast write-ups and recently in Gray (2011)”
Really? They have mentioned CO2 having no effect many times in past reports and nobody has noticed this intriguing piece of information until they admit they can’t forecast?
Why would that be, I wonder? Was it because they forecast bigger and better hurricanes (just as the warming / CO2 crowd required) so, the lack of CO2 connection was ignored and buried?
Have they really said this in earlier reports, one has to ask?
And, is it just me or are the excellent results of hindcast modelling in any way influenced by having actual empirical data included in a model? I mean, it’s already happened, how could that not influence a model of the same timeframe? Or am I confused?
I could hindcast the Second World War (with dead on accuracy at that!) but, I don’t think that will help me in predicting the outcome of the next one!

Kelvin Vaughan says…
‘When is the last time you can recall any scientist suspending a highly visible public work because they decided it just didn’t have any predictive skill?
The UK met. office suspended their long range forcasts not long ago for the same reason Anthony.’
I really don’t think the Met Office ‘suspended’ their forecasts
for the ‘same reason’. Their motive was downright embarrassment and public humiliation.
Slightly different, in my perception
Duncan (UK)

So that’s Klotzbach and Gray off Mann’s, Jones’ and Trenberth’s Christmas recycled-card list.

Relationships between predictors and predictands which once seemed quite strong may fail to work in future years due to a phenomenon known as the ‘siege of time’.
Of course, that sort of problem can be corrected using a phenomenon known as “Mike’s Nature Trick”.
Don’t these guys know that? They must not be REAL climate scientists.

Duncan Binks says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:52 am
“I really don’t think the Met Office ‘suspended’ their forecasts
for the ‘same reason’. Their motive was downright embarrassment and public humiliation.Slightly different, in my perception.”
I agree. The Met Office “fessed up” to absolutely nothing. Gray and Klotzbach stated quite clearly that perfect hindcast does not mean that the model is predictive. That point is a huge concession to skeptics.

This study is deeply flawed and is likely outside of the unanimous consensus. As all of you should know by now beyond reasonable doubt, the new null hypothesis is it may be worse than we thought. If you are not able to positively demonstrate it can’t be the case under any circumstances, the precautionary principle requires you to transfer all the money you have in your possession and some more to our bank account or else 10:10
And now /sarc off

Latitude says:
December 13, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Yes. Because I am not intimately familiar with the model used by Gray and Klotzbach, I took the conservative approach of referring to extreme events.

Joe Bastardi is the one to watch. He predicted early most of the paths of last seasons hurricanes. He may not be perfect ,but show me 1 person or group who is better.

Being on the east coast of the US I follow the Atlantic storms. There is a much cooling of the sea temps behind the storms.
Has anyone considered that as the number of named storms increases that the overall power may be reduced as multiple storms remove heat from the oceans to space and therefore would be less energy for the next. Kind of like a self regulating atmospheric/ocean relationship. I would guess that the ACE would be the best indicator but would simply reflect surface temps. I would think that fewer storms would produce stronger ones.
I made a personal prediction that Irene would be a washout (collaspe) as far as wind once it began moving north along the Gulf Stream at about the same speed as the Gulf Stream. It pulled the heat from the sea and as it moved at the same rate there was basically no source of additional energy except at the rear or southern portion of the storm when it slowed. That was confirmed by satilite views showing the eye wall behind the main cloud/storm body. The track it followed and the speed would seem to be able to only produce a tropical storm. It was a big tropical storm but far from a hurricane at landfall.
I believe that Irene was some politician’s fantasy maneuver. The media sure has been quiet since with regards to the big scare along the east coast and a few inches of rain in New England. I can still see that film clip of the covered bridge washing away after it was broadcast over and over and over.
Did New England get any rain from any systems approaching from the west or Gulf of Mexico? I don’t believe I heard about any on the news.

To provide some context here, we do attempt to leave years out when we develop our statistical modeling on historical data. For example, in one of our early August forecast schemes, I built the forecast model on data from 1949-1989 and then tested it on data from 1900-1948 and 1990-2005. The model showed similar levels of skill on both “independent” data sets.
For all of our models, we at least check to make sure that the correlations between predictors and hurricane activity remain statistically significant over various periods of time. For those interested, check out our forecasts at http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu or in our various peer-reviewed publications for how we go about developing a statistical forecast model.
Our forecasts in June and August have shown promising levels of skill since they started being issued in the mid 1980s, while our early April forecast has shown improved skill in recent years. As longer-period historical datasets come on line, we hope to improve the skill of all of our statistical models. I think the primary challenge with the December outlook is that there has been no proven model (either statistical or dynamical) with skill at predicting ENSO at this extended range.
Obviously, as one goes back further in time, there is more uncertainty, both in historical datasets of atmospheric and oceanic parameters (such as sea surface temperature, sea level pressure, etc.), as well as in historical calculations of hurricane statistics. Prior to the mid 1960s, there was no satellite data, and prior to the mid 1940s, no aircraft reconnaissance, so certainly systems in the open Atlantic were either underestimated or perhaps missed completely.
Hopefully, this adds a little clarity to our decision to suspend quantitative guidance for the time being for this early December outlook.

@Ron Cram December 13, 2011 at 7:11 am:

It is nice to see scientists admitting that models with terrific hindcast skill have absolutely no predictive skill. I’ve been saying this for years. Orrin Pilkey and his daughter wrote a book about it titled “Useless Arithmetic.”

Please. This would be nice if true. But I am not disagreeing with your sentiment, only the hindcasting aspect. If you’ve seen even ONE climate model that can hindcast terrifically, point me at it. Over 10 years ago a meteorological friend pointed out that not one then could, and I haven’t heard of one since.
So far there is no 20/20 hindsight in climate models.
The next one will be the first one.

Phil Klotzbach says:
December 13, 2011 at 6:13 pm

Phil;
Your effort to limit data snooping is commendable. What do you consider to be “significant”; i.e., how many sigmas? Climatology currently has the lowest standards of any purported science, it would seem.