| adios |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 12/01/07 05:24 PM |
|
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
|
Quote:
# If this post was inspired by some resource such as a think tank or blog please share it with us.
It wasn't and I enumerated my points in other posts.
Quote:
# Please email NOAA (or find a hard and specific link) and prove me wrong about their forecast methodology or admit you are wrong.
Wrong about what? That NOAA uses/accesses climate model output and makes predictions using that information. Ok will do. Let's say I'm wrong though. Why is that relevant to the points I made that far you've failed to address specifically? It's a side show. Again those points are:
In their current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven.
The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years.
Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting.
Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas.
Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research.
Quote:
# Please find one single Ph.D. level climate change skeptic posted in this forum that I've not picked apart their arguments with supporting evidence from refereed journals and/or technical data. If you can't, please apologize for making a false accusation.
I addressed this in another post.
Let's get your cross examination out of the way here:
Quote:
*Climate models aren't made to model hurricanes yet their predictive ability is better than traditional statistical forcasts.
From what I've seen yes. Does this contradict any of my points above?
Quote:
*The climate change skeptics (e.g. Bill Gray) are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to predicting hurricanes.
I'd like to abandon the word "skeptic." I've asked you to define skeptic in another post as well as other questions so I'll just address Gray. From what I've seen Gray has not been as accurate in his predictions. Does this contradict any of the points I've made above?
Quote:
*Climate model coupled forecasting is the best tool we have for predicting hurricanes.
Don't know for sure but I would think so. Does this contradict any point that I've made above?
Quote:
*Climate model coupled forecasting methods correctly predicted hurricanes in areas where Bill Gray thought was "impossible".
Yes I believe so. Does this contradict any points I've made above?
Quote:
*The predictions that beat the old-school methods were made at course resolution (>200km) and current models have nearly double the resolution at ~125 km.
Probably true. Does this contradict any points I've made above?
Quote:
*Many top modeling experts believe a resolution of 45km is needed to successfully simulate intensity and tracks. Despite this, 200km resoltion was enough to beat old-school predictive methods.
Does this contradict any points I've made above?
The answer for all of these is that it doesn't contradict the points I've made that so far you've side stepped and again they are:
In their current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven.
The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years.
Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting.
Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas.
Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research.