adios, I think you've been duped. Would you mind telling me where you first read this argument? American Thinker again or somewhere else? The bold text below should explain why I think you've been duped.
[ QUOTE ]
On 1 May 2005, the Meteo-France model predicted 22 named tropical storms and hurricanes for the 2005 hurricane season in the North Atlantic. On 1 June the ECMWF and the UK Met Office integrations were showing similar results. What was extraordinary about these forecasts was that their predictions, some months in advance of the hurricanes, were two standard deviations above the already elevated 1995–2004 mean. These models also forecast a reduced number of storms for the northwestern Pacific during the same period. In hindcast mode these three models have outperformed statistical forecasts over the previous 10-year period of elevated storm activity. Yet despite these successes and the clear promise of the techniques,
no operational model within NOAA is making extended range forecasts with climate models.
[/ QUOTE ] - Published June 2006
http://www.agu.org/report/hurricanes/hurricanes.html
Please note that this AGU article was published 1 month AFTER the forecast you linked to. If Jack is wrong that doesn't mean Chris screwed up too. Again, I'm willing to bet some think tank played 3 card monte with your head.
BTW, Lautenbacher is was politically appointed by Bush and has been in violation of several laws for nearly half a decade. Despite his position, he's not the best source of information.
You are also grossly misunderstanding my position on climate models and hurricanes. My position is:
*Even though they weren't designed for hurricane forecasts and aren't even being fed data in high enough resolution to do *local* (e.g. hurricane) forecasts correctly they are still the best tools available, much better than climate change skeptics (e.g. loons like Bill Gray)
*What the climate change skeptics said was impossible (like hurricanes forming in certain regions of the globe) they correctly predicted as being possible years in advance
*etc...
I stated my position a while back here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&vc=1
and asked for your response. I will copy and paste again with the hope that you reply:
[ QUOTE ]
Well I missed the words in italics. The models certainly aren't gospel. But this isn't personal this is about facts. The following statements are either true or false:
*Climate models aren't made to model hurricanes yet their predictive ability is better than traditional statistical forcasts.
*The climate change skeptics (e.g. Bill Gray) are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to predicting hurricanes.
*Climate model coupled forecasting is the best tool we have for predicting hurricanes.
*Climate model coupled forecasting methods correctly predicted hurricanes in areas where Bill Gray thought was "impossible".
*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.
*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.
It's not personal. Either these statements are true or they aren't true. If we can't agree on these statements then we have a real problem.
Now if we can agree on these statements then I'm a bit confused why you would so harshly criticize the models. Sure there is uncertainty, and sure some people (like Al Gore) try to claim there is no uncertainty, but to use such harsh language is a bit much.
[/ QUOTE ]
I highly encourage you to keep reading and applaud your drive to stay informed.