Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions

[wacki]

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.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Uh no.

Global Warming and Hurricanes

The GFDL hurricane prediction model used for the study is currently the operational hurricane prediction model at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction and has been used successfully to predict tropical storm tracks for the last several hurricane seasons. The GFDL climate model is one of the leading models used by climate researchers to project possible effects of greenhouse gases on future climate.



and

NOAA: 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook Update

NOAA is predicting a very high likelihood (85% chance) of an above-normal 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, a 10% chance of a near-normal season, and only a 5% chance of a below-normal season, according to a consensus of scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center, National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Research Division, and Hydrometeorological Prediction Center.



[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

From your link:

Predictions of hurricane paths have improved markedly due to dedicated research efforts and advances in numerical forecast models, but predictions of hurricane intensity and detailed structure have made very little progress. Despite the urgency of the problems faced, there has been an alarming decay in the resources provided for hurricane research and development in the past decade. Urgent action is needed to reverse this trend and increase support for multidisciplinary approaches to ameliorating the impact of these dangerous systems.

IMO one of the dangers of overstating the predictive value of the climate models in their current state is that they're quite likely to not meet peoples expectations. For long term funding this is a disaster. When have I ever said that research should be abandoned? In fact I've said quite the opposite. I can't remember you once acknowlegdeing that I've endorsed research into climate science and climate modeling.

[ QUOTE ]
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...


[/ QUOTE ]

No when I've stated that the predictive value of climate models is unproven, you've taken the position that I'm being too harsh. I think the description of climate models as being useful is an apt description. Sorry claiming that climate models are better than the tools "skeptics" use doesn't prove their predictive value. I think you're the person that's been doing the misrepresentation. I've stated I don't know how many times that I believe the models will improve greatly over time. From my point of view all you've done is disparage my points because I don't agree with you about the significance of what the results of the finding of the models are.

[ QUOTE ]
I highly encourage you to keep reading and applaud your drive to stay informed.

[/ QUOTE ]

A display of your typical arrogance displayed when someone doesn't share your all of your views. Also the typical disingenous tactics of trying to disparage people that you disagree with. It's exactly the tactic you use when you accuse someone of being an oil company tool. Instead of actually addressing the arguments and points someone makes, you disparage the person instead. It shows a distinct lack of intellectual honesty.

[BluffTHIS!]

wacki,

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have a question since the debate seems to center around both the predictive value of current models and what expense/measures should be taken in view of same. Implicitly this question is one of whether "best we have" is enough to justify certain responses and the expense of same.

To be more explicit, if the equation involves the following variables:

X: the degree of certainty as the accuracy of current models

Y: the severity of the consequences if those models were 100% accurate

Z: the cost of measures required to prevent those consequences

then what degree of certainty, X, as to the accuracy of current models do you believe is required to justify the expense, Z, of preventing the worst case scenario, Y?

[adios]

Excellent post. I'd just like to point out that Congress is certainly contemplating measures that will impact the bottom line of US taxpayers, consummers and what have you. When I read stuff like Harry Reid blaming the wild fires in California on man mad global warming (he backed away quickly though) and/or the Secretary General of the UN blaming Darfur on man made global warming I smell a rat, a big fat stinking rat. Then I see offers from my electric company making me an offer to supply me with electricity that is 90 percent generated by wind power for 10 percent more and I'm almost certain the fix is in. IMO politicians in this country are set to embark on programs like carbon taxes, cap and trade policies, international agreements pledging to reduce carbon emissions, etc. where they have no clue whatsover that it will do a friggen thing except line someone's pocket book. It's all based on what the most dire predictions of the climate models are. We've discussed climate models more than a few times. Having a fair amount of experience with developing models for things IMO orders of magnitude less complicated than the climate, it seems absolutely ridiculous to base policy on such output. End of rant and apologies if I muddied this subthread up.

Democrats reach deal on energy bill

Hope people aren't driving around in too many "beer cans" when the more stringent CAFE standards get implemented:

While details of those provisions were still being worked out, aides said the ethanol provision was expected to mirror Senate requirements for use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase over today's productions.

Power companies would have to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy, aides close to the discussions said.

Right on queue.

[wacki]

Adios, you keep pointing to the GFDL and that's fine but all of the people listed on your forecast are NOT from the GFDL. All of the people you listed on the forecast are Meteorologists which is a field that many claim 'needs to drastically change or face becoming obsolete'. A claim some meteorologists agree with and others are very bitter about. On top of this I know some of the people listed. Chris Landsea is not a modeler and does all of his predictions with statistical forecasts. The forecast itself doesn't mention the GFDL or climate models. No climate model paper is referenced in the "REFERENCES" section but Bill Gray, a statistical modeler, is. Just because NOAA is working with climate models that does not mean their official and publicly released forecasts are climate models. Whether or not climate model forecasts are the best tool for the job is irrelevant in this highly political age. Again, where did you find this argument? You never answered that question.

I'm glad you endorse continued research and funding. The current political pressure in this area is a nightmare to those who are getting the best results thanks to Bush 'n co. Hopefully things will change soon. This is one situation where Europe is better than us by a wide margin.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry claiming that climate models are better than the tools "skeptics" use doesn't prove their predictive value.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this thread I didn't bring up Bill Gray, a climate change skeptic, so I use this argument to help show that these skeptics just aren't credible even in their own specialty. You are correct when it doesn't prove anything (good or bad) when assessing the independent credibility of the models.

[ QUOTE ]
From my point of view all you've done is disparage my points because I don't agree with you about the significance of what the results of the finding of the models are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had plenty of people strongly disagree with me that I respect and treat fairly, listen to and respect. In this thread I've given you some simple requirements (like linking the GFDL to that specific forecast) otherwise I will have to believe the AGU over you. Right now all you've done is link the GFDL's to NOAA as a whole and not any specific reports. If that is "disparaging" your points well then I guess you are just going to have to get used to being offended. Empirical falsifiability is not something to get emotional about. Especially not with stuff this easy to prove.





[ QUOTE ]
A display of your typical arrogance displayed when someone doesn't share your all of your views. Also the typical disingenous tactics of trying to disparage people that you disagree with. It's exactly the tactic you use when you accuse someone of being an oil company tool. Instead of actually addressing the arguments and points someone makes, you disparage the person instead. It shows a distinct lack of intellectual honesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a load of [censored] and you know it. I've posted more links, more graphs, more peer review journals than anyone of the tens of thousands of people on this forum. I've even written a website and blog with thousands of links to and reviews of peer review journals. You've even read my website and posted replies to this link:
http://tinyurl.com/y3hmrz
among others. My eleemosynary didacticism on this subject is almost masochistic.

If you truly believe this then I challenge you to 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 do that then apologize. I've given you another chance to falsify a statement of mine. This time all you have to do is mention a name.

BTW my encouragement for you to keep reading was meant as a compliment and was not derisive. This is why I used the term "applaud". Although this thread has gotten way out of hand I generally respect your posts and I've repeatedly said so in the past. I'm not sure how I could have made it sound better. Any help on this aspect would be appreciated.

I'm tired and will continue this tomorrow.

Questions in review (quotin cuz I'm lazy):
#1 Again, where did you find this argument? You never answered that question.
#2In this thread I've given you some simple requirements (like linking the GFDL to that specific forecast) otherwise I will have to believe the AGU over you.
#I challenge you to 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. or appologize
#In my previous post I posted a bunch of bulleted points which were from a previous thread. Do you agree that those bulleted points accurately represent the models?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a load of [censored] and you know it. I've posted more links, more graphs, more peer review journals than anyone of the tens of thousands of people on this forum. I've even written a website and blog with thousands of links to and reviews of peer review journals. You've even read my website and posted replies to this link:
http://tinyurl.com/y3hmrz
among others. My eleemosynary didacticism on this subject is almost masochistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about a load of [censored]. Are you honestly trying to state that you've never disparaged anyone's argument by stating that it stems from a tool of oil company and thus shouldn't be considered? What does an association with an oil company have to do with the merits of an argument?

[ QUOTE ]
Questions in review (quotin cuz I'm lazy):
#1 Again, where did you find this argument? You never answered that question.

[/ QUOTE ]

What argument? That the predictive value of climate models is unproven? That's one argument I'm making and you know that's what it is. Let me modify that argument which may be the main problem you have with it:

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 ]
#2In this thread I've given you some simple requirements (like linking the GFDL to that specific forecast) otherwise I will have to believe the AGU over you.

[/ QUOTE ]

????? Believe who ever you want.

[ QUOTE ]
#I challenge you to 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. or appologize
#In my previous post I posted a bunch of bulleted points which were from a previous thread. Do you agree that those bulleted points accurately represent the models?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's something for you, why don't you refrain from making the accusation that someone is nothing more than an oil company tool (as if working for an oil company is evil) or give us your best shot at proving to us how oil companys are in bed together and purposely spreading disinformation. I mean if the arguments are so easy to trash no need to mention who someone is paid by. Also I hope you don't hold the position that skeptics have an agenda and are paid shills of oil companys while all of the non skeptics have pure motives i.e. they don't have agendas and/or arent' shills for someone.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Talk about a load of [censored]. Are you honestly trying to state that you've never disparaged anyone's argument by stating that it stems from a tool of oil company and thus shouldn't be considered? What does an association with an oil company have to do with the merits of an argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I do it plenty of times, however I always state that I point out the oil link as merely a trend that is extremely prevalent among skeptics. It does not, in itself, prove anything. This is something I've made clear numerous times. Your argument I objected to was this:

Instead of actually addressing the arguments and points someone makes, you disparage the person instead.

Which is a totally different accusation. BTW you were the first person to bring up oil in this thread. You were the first person to bring up oil in this thread as well:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1
A thread where you called him an oil shill and I called him a 'TV personality without a relevant undergraduate education or a publishing record'.

Kind of ironic.


[ QUOTE ]
What argument? That the predictive value of climate models is unproven?

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument that NOAA's forecast is based off of climate models models. You may have come up with this argument on my own but experience tells me that people almost always pick up anti consensus arguments from some blog, newspaper or think tank.

[ QUOTE ]
????? Believe who ever you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adios, if the forecast was based off of climate models it should be SUPER easy to link that forecast to the GFDL. This really isn't that difficult of a request. If you have trouble figuring out how to do this you can always e-mail NOAA. They normally reply within 24-48 hours. If you can't accomplish this simple feat or admit you are wrong on this very specific issue then this conversation is going into absurdity. You are better than that adios. I know you are.

[ QUOTE ]


Here's something for you, why don't you refrain from making the accusation that someone is nothing more than an oil company tool (as if working for an oil company is evil) or give us your best shot at proving to us how oil companys are in bed together and purposely spreading disinformation.

[/ QUOTE ]

well here is one site of many:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

There was Philip Cooney, a former American Petroleum Institute oil lobbyist, who edited white house documents. Once he was forced to resign due to scandal he went over to Exxon.

There's an internal memo from API hosted on my website. You could go to realclimate and type in $100,000 to get another one from the IREA. You could go to sourcewatch and check every other skeptic and especially the websites like junkscience and CEI. Or you could read my websites skeptic profiles to see how some of these skeptics will admit they are wrong on scientific newsgroups and then go to the reporters and say the complete opposite. You can read up on Pat Michaels Ph.D. and how he takes tons of money from API and screws up highschool math to disprove climate change or edits NASAs graphs and lies to congress.

You could read rolling stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto...l_warming/print

You could read about the teachers association being bought off by API:
http://tinyurl.com/32g72n

The list is tremendous. Desmogblog tends to specialize in covering the oil link. Not all skeptics are oil shills. You will always have skeptics, heck they were debating whether the earth was flat on The View last week. But there is an enormous link between skeptics and skeptical media with oil companies. Heck many of the climate skeptic Ph.D's were former tobacco shills. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz are two ivy leaguers that fit the mold. I could go on. Do I really need to continue because this could end up being a book. But there is plenty on the web.

But my challenge still stands. What Ph.D. level skeptic on this forum have I ignored their arguments?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What argument? That the predictive value of climate models is unproven?

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument that NOAA's forecast is based off of climate models models. You may have come up with this argument on my own but experience tells me that people almost always pick up anti consensus arguments from some blog, newspaper or think tank.


[ QUOTE ]
????? Believe who ever you want.

[/ QUOTE ]


Adios, if the forecast was based off of climate models it should be SUPER easy to link that forecast to the GFDL. This really isn't that difficult of a request. If you have trouble figuring out how to do this you can always e-mail NOAA. They normally reply within 24-48 hours. If you can't accomplish this simple feat or admit you are wrong on this very specific issue then this conversation is going into absurdity. You are better than that adios. I know you are.



[/ QUOTE ]

The arguments I've made:

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.


Why don't you actually the arguments I'm making instead of ones you'd like to address. You're better than that wacki, I know you are.

[ QUOTE ]
But my challenge still stands. What Ph.D. level skeptic on this forum have I ignored their arguments?


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I claim you did? My claim is that accusing someone of being a tool for an oil company doesn't contribute any useful information to the debates and amounts to nothing more than a smear. That's why I get it out of the way as soon as possible. Let's just assume he's a tool of the oil companies and move on to the arguments/points that he's making. I know that you've answered my posts with that kind of an answer befoe and left it at that. I can't remember all of your posts and you may have used that reply instead of re-hashing your arguments. Fine, but that doesn't make my point invalid either. Instead of dismissing someone as an oil company tool just say you've shown the points to be invalid before in other posts. FWIW those tactics detract from your points.

On your stuff on oil companies, I don't think this is anywhere close to proving your apparent claim that oil companies are deliberately spreading disinformation.

A question for you is it all possible that disinfiormation is being used to promote agendas?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Y: the severity of the consequences if those models were 100% accurate

Z: the cost of measures required to prevent those consequences

[/ QUOTE ]

This question is highlighted in the Stern Report and several others. Every major report from mainstream science, the pentagon, army corps of engineers and retired generals and admirals claims it's cheaper to act. Add in peak oil and many other factors and the pressure to get off of fossil fuels just increases and in a big way.

[adios]

A non answer answer to a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question. Why?