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.
We are having particular problems with the type of model, which is rare. It was the wrong kind of snow.
That’s right, it was the wrong kind of snow.
I’m pretty sure he was poking fun at the forecasters. His Wiki page says he is “… known for his versatility and deft humor.”
He belongs to a group known as NCAS – National Capital Area Skeptics. Their web page states: “NCAS was founded in 1987 in the Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia area. We are advocates for science and reason, actively promoting the scientific method, rational inquiry, and education.”
Certainly not every group making such claims actively practice what they preach. But on the face of it Joel Achenbach may be more of an ally, and who knows, maybe he’s a regular reader of WUWT.
“2013 Snow Job”
I got my morning chuckles. Now I am good for the day.
Oh well, I guess I should have looked below the surface before giving Joel the benefit of the doubt. Forget what I said about him possibly being a open to contemplating an alternative to the “consensus”.
In August last year he blogged:
…”It’s not climate change that worries me. It’s climate change denialism, and all other forms of anti-scientific thinking, and solution-deferring, and the covering of the eyes in hopes that it will create invisibility.”…
Sorry, I don’t know how to link the blog entry, but it pretty much the same language used by journalists with BA degrees in politics that end up writing about science.
I am at a loss here, I cannot believe someone said that. Must have an IQ of 100 or less.
It’s Ok, all this snow is but a side-show (or should that be a side-snow?) to the main warming event … the BBC are reporting:
“The glaciers of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago will undergo a dramatic retreat this century if warming projections hold true.
A new study suggests the region’s ice fields could lose perhaps as much as a fifth of their volume.
Such a melt would add 3.5cm to the height of the world’s oceans. Only the ice of Greenland and Antarctica is expected to contribute more.”
(If you can see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21699115 )
So we are still doomed!
Sad-But-True-Its-You says:
March 7, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Nicht sogar falsch. XD
…which should be “nicht einmal falsch”. Don’t trust translatorbots to sort ambiguity correctly.
Sorry: just trying to maintain the Kraut reputation for such things. 😉
Fantasy is right, reality is wrong.
Isn’t that something that a “hookah smoking caterpillar” would have said?
The stupidity of these people still shocks me. After reading much on science in my life I find it remarkable that so many scientists throw out the scientific method, a method that they hold in such high regard, is thrown out the window when belief takes over. It is so scary coming from people who have such influence on society & people like me are accused of being stupid or having an agenda when quoting evidence, actual evidence that they have themsevles measured.
“Nature” is not a god, or even a proper noun.
I think we need to give the guy a break. Maybe he was just being facetious.
>> Ryan says:
>> March 8, 2013 at 2:14 am
>> One day we will invent a computer so powerful that people will be able to download the
>> contents of their entire brain into it and their simulated selves will live in a fabricated universe
>> that will last forever
Read Arthur C. Clarke’s “The City and the Stars”
JohnB
GS writes: “Chaos in weather systems is technically deterministic – it happens even without introducing random elements.”
First, isn’t climate, not just weather, proababilistic rather than deterministic? Which is why forecasts and Scenarios have % points? And chaos, does it not have undeterminable outcomes based on unexpected interactions of known and unknown factors, which in laymen’s terms would be “random elements”?
Twitter, at 144 “elements”, is limited in its ability to expess complex thoughts. But the above one of GS sounds like intellectual bafflegab, a term I could probably explain in a tweet, but won’t.
I am suspicious that within the body of climate models there is a deterministic backbone. Determinism requires you to know all relevant parameters but allows you solid predictions. It is this hidden backbone that drives the modellers to insist they can perform better than observation, and claim that the world is screwing with them, not the other way around.
What system other than determinism allows you to predict the long-term from a study of the short-term? Is this the basis of climate model failure, a basis of determinism in a probabistic and chaotic world even on the 100 year level?
“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.””
This is an indication that Gavin Schmidt actually KNOWS that he is a charlatan.
Re: 15 years of no global warming: I blame climate more than I blame the computer models. The models are pretty good. It’s climate that messed this up
Chuck L:
Creative fusion: Still, I blame the readers more than I blame the Washington Post. The reporter is pretty good. It’s the readership that messed this up.
Honestly, I can’t believe any reporter with an IQ over 50 would have seriously made such a comment–it has to be us.
William McClenney says:
March 7, 2013 at 11:16 pm
Yeah, well, that’s late end extreme interglacial climate for ya……..
—————————–
Yeah, it is.
cn
The best thing about earth’s climate is that it can’t, won’t and doesn’t listen to the modelers–not in the least.
The Warmistas need to occupy a row of chairs placed next to the ocean at low tide to test their ability to “command and control”, and they must remain there until their noses disappear.
It would only be fitting.
I think guys like Schmidt just throw technical words around because it makes him seem smart to his target audience. The “chaos, deterministic and random elements” statement is shear lunacy.
Paul Coppin says:
March 8, 2013 at 3:32 am
” Michel says:
March 7, 2013 at 11:52 pm
as a general rule: never be ironic in the media, you’ll be misunderstood and misquoted”
And its derivative corollary: “As a general rule, never be in the media, you’ll misunderstand and misquote…”
———–
still laughing!
cn
Computer models telling Mother Nature how to perform? Guess who will win this battle? At least I know I’m in good company as a “denier”. Having Mother Nature as a fellow denier makes me feel better. When I am next accused of being a “D” I will state that I am in an exclusive group. Thanks Eugene.
John B. – IMO, one of Arthur C Clarke’s best novels!
Achenbach’s writing is in the style of satirical humor. By the bookful, for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satirists_and_satires
He’s laughing at the weather forecasters.
REPLY: That may well be, but for people who have never read him (including me) how would you know. That’s why WUWT has a satire and humor category that we tag posts with, to make sure the reader knows. I think the onus is on the writer, not the reader, to communicate the intent. – Anthony
Joel, I’ll grant you your wish: I’m calling you crazy.