There’s not much I can say about this quote from the Washington Post’s Joel Achenbach as it stands on its own quite well.
The context of this quote is article on the bust of a forecast that was to be “snowquester”. You can cut the disappointment in the air with a steak knife. Achenbach muses:
Still, I blame the storm more than I blame the computer models. The models are pretty good. It’s Nature that messed this up.
I hope he escapes from his alternate reality soon, people must be looking for him.
Full story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2013/03/07/forecasts-and-probabilities/
h/t to Willis E.
UPDATE: Some people think he was being sarcastic or humorous. For example, from this part:
“I thought the forecast for Snowquester was pretty good, as total busts and epic fiascos go.” is clear as day, but I’ll translate for you: The forecasters gave it a good shot, but it wasn’t good enough. It was a total bust.
But there is also this:
The models in this case predicted serious snow in the I-95 corridor, but the storm “underperformed,” and didn’t drop snow intensely enough and consistently enough to cool down the warm layer of the atmosphere and the warm ground in the urban areas.
The storm “underperformed”.
I read the entire essay, but I didn’t get the sense that he was joking. I considered the possibility he might be before I wrote this post. The clincher for me was this update:
Update 2: I’m told via Twitter that my chaos line is incorrect. Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) writes: “Chaos in weather systems is technically deterministic – it happens even without introducing random elements.”
If this was a humor piece, somehow I don’t think he’s be worrying about details like that.
YMMV – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks Anthony: And the opening paragraph is a nice lead-in too!:
++++++
“Call me crazy, but I thought the forecast for Snowquester was pretty good, as total busts and epic fiascos go. The models in this case predicted serious snow in the I-95 corridor, but the storm “underperformed,” and didn’t drop snow intensely enough and consistently enough…”
1. Quid pro quote:
“People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful.” – John Mitchell, Chief Scientist UK Met Office & IPCC
Perhaps Achenbach should write IPCC reports, and replace some of the current crew. He’s of the same mindset, but is more fun to read.
2. Methinks Achenbach was being ironic, but I don’t read him enough to know his style.
3. Storm names of late have become too cute by two. I’ll stick to names like “Blizzard of 88”, “Big Snow”, and “Palm Sunday Tornadoes”.
I have spent a lot of this winter watching snow fall and lie on the ground. I’d better book an appointment at the opticians!!
Apparently they have realized that mother nature is a denier of global warming and are turning on her.
Eugene WR Gallun
“And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made…”
“Call me crazy, but I thought the forecast for Snowquester was pretty good, as total busts and epic fiascos go.”
OK. You’re crazy! 🙂
“Still, I blame the storm more than I blame the computer models. The models are pretty good. It’s Nature that messed this up.”
“Call me crazy,”
Yup we agree with your own sentiment. And I would guess that even the CAGW folk would as well. Time for the men in the white coats to make a house call I think
The models are right. The storm got it wrong!
/sarc
“The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men … gang aft agley” };-)
Just another example of, the “Arctic ocean will be ice free by summer 2010”.
Nicht sogar falsch. XD
And the dead populate the earth … already.
Achenbach (who is generally level-headed) was probably joking. To be fair, predicting snowfall in the DC area is a dodgy proposition. The heaviest precipitation often is pushed east over Maryland’s Eastern Shore and the Delmarva Peninsula.
Darn, why did I have to follow that link..
Alvin Lee is dead 🙁
Still love his guitar work !!
BBC: 5% more ice in the Antarctic then previously thought; however that makes the world more vulnerable if all of it is to melt due to the climate change.
Yeah, well, that’s late end extreme interglacial climate for ya……..
Oh, the poor boy!
Nature 1, Achenbach 0.
Words fail me…
Well, they tweak the historical data (nature) to make the models look better, it’s not to difficult to see how he can come to such an outlandish conclusion.
Imagine me as an economist saying something like this. “The economic models were correct, but the people didn’t spend the way they were supposed to spend”. Yeah, that’d be pretty embarrassing.
Mocking where mocking is due, good natured ribbing when mocking is not due. The weather models really are quite good, although their accuracy will always depend on the accuracy of the measured starting conditions. Over the last week we’ve had two storms come through dropping significant snow (Calgary) and for each there was a very accurate forecast some days in advance. That’s impressive.
Climate models, however, are essentially useless with a lower accuracy rate than mere chance would even allow for… obviously due to the fact that they are built on unfounded and fundamentally flawed premises.
as a general rule: never be ironic in the media, you’ll be misunderstood and misquoted
Interesting quote; I was thinking coming in on the tube this morning, having glimpsed a headline suggesting people continue to believe in “Climate Change”; “what if the models are correct and the climate is wrong”.
“We are doomed if we do and doomed if we don’t”
It gets better
In an update to the original article, there is the following:
‘ Update 2: I’m told via Twitter that my chaos line is incorrect. Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) writes: “Chaos in weather systems is technically deterministic – it happens even without introducing random elements.” ‘
Even the IPCC acknowledges ‘ … we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore … the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible’
Speecless……….I will leave the humour to others.
With ref to the above….I can’t even spell speechless….laughing too much!!!
It’s the sort of thing I might say but then again I love savage, ironic satire.
The gap between model predictions and what nature does is not insurmountable. The obvious solution is to use geoengineering to make nature behave in the way that it is supposed to.