In stark contrast to the global warming alarmists, hurricane forecasters have now become almost comically vague in their forecasts. The problem for the hurricane forecasters is that their predictions can be checked for accuracy just months after the initial forecast. While global warming alarmists feel free to predict disaster years into the future, hurricane forecasters are now forced to be very very cautious, especially in light of their highly inaccurate 2006 hurricane season predictions.
On the heels of the very active 2005 hurricane season which many blamed on global warming, forecasters didn't even wait for 2006 to begin before issuing a forecast in early December 2005 which predicted a very active hurricane season:
Just days after the official close of the busiest Atlantic hurricane season on record and with one hurricane still churning in the Atlantic, the first 2006 forecast is out already. To the surprise of no one it predicts an active season.
The 2006 forecast calls for:
- 17 named tropical storms; an average season has 9.6.
- 9 hurricanes compared to the average of 5.9.
- 5 major hurricanes with winds exceeding 110 mph; average is 2.3.
The reality? Here is the description of the rather lame 2006 hurricane season in Wikipedia which was something of a disappointment to many in the media who eagerly accepted the "inevitability" of global warming causing worse hurricane seasons in the future:
The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season was a fairly inactive Atlantic hurricane season compared to the 2005 season. It was also unusual in that no hurricanes made landfall in the United States of America, something which had not happened since 2001.
So now that the hurricane forecasters ended up with egg on their faces, their predictions have become exceedingly cautious. In fact you could read almost anything into their deliberately vague 2008 hurricane season forecast (emphasis mine):
...Conceding such long-term outlooks can be off the mark, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the first time hedged its bets when issuing a seasonal projection. There is a 65 percent probability of an above normal season, but also a 25 percent chance of a near normal one, NOAA said.
...The rather cautious forecast follows mounting criticism that such seasonal predictions don't hold much value. Notably, hurricane specialists at the National Hurricane Center in Miami-Dade County have warned such outlooks can confuse and frighten people and, if the numbers are low, lull them into unwarranted complacency.
And how about dire global warming forecasts many years into the future? How much value do they hold? Of course, many of the global warming alarmists won't even be around if their doom and gloom forecasts fail to materialize. They can feel free now to toss around predictions without worrying about looking as foolish as the hurricane forecasters whose prognostications can be double-checked for accuracy just months after their initial forecasts. Meanwhile the hurricane forecasters are now showing proper humility after Mother Nature has proved much more difficult to forecast than they expected:
Bill Read, the center's new director, had recommended NOAA issue its seasonal forecast with little fanfare.
If only the global warming alarmists would show such humility over their ability to predict the planetary climate many years, not just months, into the future.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Global... umm... er...
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 08:22 ET by FoolicanI posted a question on this at Wikipedia's science desk, asking who's right in stating the effects of global warming - more hurricanes or fewer hurricanes.
This was my most in-depth response:
"It's tricky - we can predict 'climate' but we can't predict 'weather'.
We know for 100% sure that CO2 traps sunlight. We have a reasonable
estimate of how much - so we can say with an amazing degree of
certainty that the earth will get hotter if there is more CO2 up there
than there should be. But then we get into the ugly details. We know
(for example) that increasing temperatures will melt polar ice. But
know exactly how much is tricky because it depends on how the extra
heat is distributed - will it get a lot hotter at the equator - but
hardly any hotter at the poles - or will it be the other way around?
It's tough to figure out because it depends on wind patterns, ocean
currents and deep ocean currents - and once things get hotter, those
will move around. If we don't know accurately how the heat will be
distributed, we can't easily calculate the rate of polar ice melting.
But worse still, as the polar ice does melt, it makes the planet less
'shiney' so yet more energy from the sun is absorbed by the dark oceans
- and now you have solar heat intake going up much faster than you'd
predict from CO2 levels alone. These lesser details get harder and
harder to predict. We constantly hear about how the polar ice sheets
are retreating much faster than scientists predicted...and that's
because this math is hard. We knew that they WOULD be melting - that
much was for sure - but exactly how much is almost impossible to know.
The situation with hurricanes is even worse - those depend on even more
subtle things - and there are numerically so few of them each year that
randomness can easily overwhelm the underlying trend of increase or
decrease. If there were (say) 15 of them last year and 18 this year -
is that a 20% increase in one year - or is it just luck? So scientists
make their computer models and run them to figure out what might happen
- but if someone misses a key factor (like maybe the amount of salinity
brought up from deep ocean super-haline layers by the change in ocean
currents due to some yet other effect) - then their model won't predict
things accurately. So it's true to say that science doesn't have a
DETAILED picture of what will happen. However, we can be absolutely
certain of the basic fact - which is that more CO2 means more heat
being absorbed - which MUST mean that the planet will heat up. Exactly
how fast and with what measure of impact on human society and
biodiversity...those are open to debate."
A close runner-up:
"Scientist run weather models (see Numerical weather prediction)
But weather is such a complex, chaotic system that, as Tango says, you
can't be sure what happened or is going to happen. It's not like you
warm air here, it's going to get warm. The warm air may rise and change
some arctic flow pattern
and all of a sudden it gets a lot colder instead of a bit warmer. You
can look at lots of measurements but it's pretty much impossible to say
if A caused B and B then caused C or if A caused C directly and B just
happened at the same time. So it's not like one scientist fed the
correct data into his model and is right and the other made a mistake
and is wrong. Both models are probably "correct" and either one has a
bigger influence or they may even both apply in alternate years or
months. Forecasters have become pretty good at finding patterns and
coming to a conclusions about what might happen next that then actually
applies. But we can never be sure that it wasn't something else that
caused the observed results, or just coincidence."
Splunge!
One more thing:
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 08:36 ET by CrashThe one thing those two answers omitted is the fact that the earth is not a convection oven with a closed door. If it were, we'd have been cooked long before we discovered witchcraft.
There's a 50% chance of change ... or not.
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 08:27 ET by CrashWhich just goes to show, the weather cannot be predicted by model, an educated guess, a single greenhouse gas, meteorologist or by lofty politicians.
Vague Prediction
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 08:34 ET by P.J. GladnickYeah, that was my favorite part of the 2008 hurricane season prediction:
Or maybe NOT.
Ah the definitive answer
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 08:32 ET by expatriotWhy can't they report the two who state that there is no way to definitively forecast the weather even if they believe that greenhouse gases cause warming? Even then they both stated that they cannot say what is going to happen because there are too many variables.
Crash, right on.
Speaking as someone who
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 08:36 ET by ConservativeRexSpeaking as someone who lives in Galveston, I never have put much stock in any one's year out hurricane predictions. It does get our attention when one is in the Gulf at any point.
That to me is the best predictor they have come up with, the ability to see when one enters the Gulf. At that point, it's not a surprise, just a nagging problem to deal with. So I figure, let them make their silly predictions, I remember reading once how God must feel about mans plans.
Isaac's Storm
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 08:43 ET by P.J. GladnickI read the book "Isaac's Storm." Back in 1900 the weather bureau stated that it was IMPOSSIBLE for a hurricane to head Northwest to Texas after entering the Gulf of Mexico. Since you live in Galveston, you know how accurate that prediction proved to be. BTW, another fascinating part of the book is the insistence of the weather bureau back then to make predictions days into the future even though they had no any basis back then for making those predictions.
I believe that the 2006
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 08:39 ET by mister josephI believe that the 2006 hurricane season was God's little way of showing man who's who. Also goes to show God's got a wonderful sense of humor!
Going Out On A Limb Here
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 09:25 ET by JoelCTSo we know these facts:
Tropical storms; an average season has 9.6.
Hurricanes; an average season has 5.9.
Major hurricanes; an average season has 2.3.
And we know this: "There is a 65 percent probability of an above normal season, but also a 25 percent chance of a near normal one, NOAA said."
So they are predicting a 90% chance we'll have 9.6 tropicals, 5.9 hurricanes, and 2.3 majors, or more.
Gee, they are really sticking their necks out there. Give me a break.
"Well, this is largely as I
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 21:03 ET by Foolican"Well, this is largely as I predicted, except that the Silly Party won."
- Michael Palin as the BBC election newscaster, Monty Python
George Carlin's........
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 09:26 ET by zoro7957.....Hippy-Dippy weatherman; "tonight's forecast, dark, followed by daylight in the morning."
This year's Hurricane
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 10:09 ET by motherbeltThis year's Hurricane Forecast:
2 to 15 named storms; 3 to 8 of which will reach Hurricane strength.
Or not.
"2 to 15" My, aren't
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 21:02 ET by Foolican"2 to 15"
My, aren't we the gambling type? You should go to Kentucky and bet on the horses.
i'll save you all some time
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 20:15 ET by lunaticcringeradiothey will come back after the fact and blame whatever results we have with the weather on global warming. they will come up with cockamamie excuse to explain why they couldn't predict the season on global warming and whatever happens will also be blamed on global warming.
i'm super super serial here, remember this, if it's one thing i can do i can call how a liberal socialist global warmist will spin a story.
lunaticcringeradio
WIll it be three strikes for Global Warming Caused Hurricanes?
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 23:21 ET by PopularTech2006 - What Hurricane Season? (FOXNews)
2007 - Light Hurricane Season (American Thinker)
Even if this year is an above average year you have a clear history of two non-exciting years. This is enough to debunk the Global Warming caused hurricane hysteria.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource