UPDATE: note to readers, Gray and Klotzbach are only discontinuing December forecasts for the season ahead due to limited predictive skill — for the time being. A main reason is the well-known “Spring barrier” in El Nino Southern Oscillation forecasts for the next year…
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?
This is refreshing.
From: http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2011/dec2011/dec2011.pdf
QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF ATLANTIC BASIN SEASONAL HURRICANE ACTIVITY FOR 2012
We are discontinuing our early December quantitative hurricane forecast for the next year and giving a more qualitative discussion of the factors which will determine next year’s Atlantic basin hurricane activity. 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.
…
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’. It is the failure of these once-promising relationships which requires the forecaster to demand as much understanding of linkages between predictors and predictands as possible.
…
We have developed a new way of assessing next year’s activity in terms of two primary physical parameters:
1. the strength of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC)
2. the phase of ENSO
…
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.
h/t to WUWT reader JohnD
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 often compare in my mind long-term weather/climate forecasts with comparable forecasts for the stock and bond markets. The financial markets are littered with forecasting algorithms that hindcast incredibly well but turn out to have absolutely no predictive value.
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.
The two take homes are…..
CO2 has had no effect….
…and the increase is only because of better detection of little storms
Something that was obvious to everyone else……
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: .
The other Tom wrote:
“That’s the difference between a scientist and a politician.”
He should have said: “That’s the difference between: i) a scientist, and ii) a ‘ciimate scientist’ and/or a politician.”
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.
Reading between the lines,
have they just had a change in head of department or a new marketing and media director ?
.
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.
NOAA upgrades storms that would have previously gone undetected
From:
Palm Beach Weather Matters
NOAA adds one tropical storm in end-of-season analysis
By: John Nelander | Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 09:04 AM
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/weather1/entries/2011/11/29/noaa_adds_one_tropical_storm_i.html
“Also gettting a post-storm upgrade was Tropical Storm Nate, which analysts now believe was actually a hurricane.
‘This unnamed storm, along with several other weak, short-lived named storms, could have gone undetected without modern satellite technology,’ NOAA said in a news release marking the end of the 2011 hurricane season.”
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.
We gotta get off the number game as its now something out of the control of nature and in the hands of people that can name whatever they want, when they want, and the further out at sea the more likely. The Ace index is the way to go and it shows this year was indeed much less of a year than last year, as was forecasted as far as total intensity, even though TPC managed to get another 19 name year. That also has to be considered.
So they should go to ace and we should all make an effort to use that as the measure of the season, as it would take the power out of the hands of those naming storms in the middle of nowhere, going nowhere. Either that, or have 2 separate naming areas, one comparable to where we could always see storms, the other to ramp up the numbers.
Given that we had a closed rotary circulation hit Cape Canaveral with hurricane winds, an eye
and a 10 mb pressure fall in October after undergoing a fast transition to a warm core over 83 degree water, and we have a whole slew of storms that get named in the middle of nowhere, ace is the place to go when objectively evaluating the measure of season.
For the record, next years ace should be close to normal ( within 15) as the amo continues to cool and the enso warms a bit. The “bad”news is that we are in a similar cycle to the 1950s and the normal ace for big east coast years is near normal. This year as active, but not by much ( I believe we ranked 21st)
and yes it is cyclical as the coming cooling is similar to the 60s and 70s.. as I said, the stage of the game now is closer to the 1950s.
And will someone please help Rush Limbaugh to understand what this story is really about, as he is making more of it, tying in computers and global warming. Since Gray is one of the most vehement anti AGW people on the planet and his method involves relatively little in the way of modeling, he is really not portraying this correctly. Perhaps Dr, Roy or Dr Ryan Maue should give him a call before it affects his accuracy rating
Interestingly enough he has an angle here that would suit him better, the willy nilly mega naming of storms in the middle of nowhere that pumps up numbers and forces Gray to have to adjust to human factors he has no control of ( and I am not talking about AGW)
Joe Bastardi says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:13 am
==============================
Joe, doesn’t naming more small storms also contribute to ACE?
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.
Will this result in an apology from Trenberth to Chris Lansea? Oops! Forgot. god does not apologise.
“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!
Ok. This pretty much goes hand-in-hand with the majority of beliefs (notice I say beliefs) here..but when we look at the real scientific study done here at the beginning of the 2011 hurricane season, how’d WE do in our collective skill in predicting the season?
I know I overestimated the number. So who won the pool?
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)
yes naming of these small storms does, but it does influence the total ace as it does the total number. A 40 kt storms for a day adds a number, but may add very little to the ace which is more sensitive to strong, long lasting storms. A storm like jose added over 5% to the total number, but less than .5% to the total ace. see what I mean.
So that’s Klotzbach and Gray off Mann’s, Jones’ and Trenberth’s Christmas recycled-card list.
Joe Bastardi says:
December 13, 2011 at 11:24 am
Which number will the MSM report?
Global tropical cyclone activity (or lack thereof) has continued at near historical lows. This is the “new normal”. An upward (or downward) trend may emerge in the next 30 to 50 years — but NOT now or for the foreseeable future.
From http://tropical.policlimate.com
Global hurricane and major hurricane numbers since 1979. No significant trend — up or down.
Joe Bastardi says:
December 13, 2011 at 11:24 am
yes naming of these small storms does, but it does influence the total ace as it does the total number. A 40 kt storms for a day adds a number, but may add very little to the ace which is more sensitive to strong, long lasting storms. A storm like jose added over 5% to the total number, but less than .5% to the total ace. see what I mean.
===========================================
Got it, thanks…..
….naming a bunch of storms, that would have never been even seen before, will throw off the historical ACE
I see Ryan just posted “historical lows” and “no significant trend”…and missed the obvious trend of recording/finding more small short lived cyclones…….
…
If there is no significant trend, and more storms are being “found”….
…
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.
Gray and Klotzbach write:
“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.”
Publication of this statement cannot be praised enough. It is an accurate statement about the use of models in forecasting extreme weather. The main conclusion to be taken from this is that “hindcast skill” has nothing to do with prediction or “forecast skill.” All that models can do is sophisticated extrapolation from graphs. You can create a model that is perfect in matching past graphs but that gives it no predictive value whatsoever. Using the model for predictions is simply a sophisticated extrapolation from past graphs. It is not possible to make predictions from graphs. You must have genuine physical hypotheses to make predictions. If you had those physical hypotheses you would need no models, except for efficiency of calculation. Attempting to use models as substitutes for physical hypotheses is sheer folly and always will be.
This publication will be forever recognized as a landmark in the climate wars. These scientists have demonstrated the good judgment and modesty that all scientists must possess. This publication will be recognized as the beginning of the return of good judgment and modesty to mainstream climate science.
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.