NHC Scientist played by: Graham Chapman
Reporter Played by: John Cleese


Sounds like a great Monty Python skit doesn't it? But sadly this is what this season and some hurricane seasons turn out to be at the NHC. I mean if I make a bet on a football game and halfway through the game the team I bet on is losing can I change my bet to the winning team, thus 'revising' my bet? HA

Questions for debate:

Should there be an allowance for a revision of hurricane prediction numbers?

If so, then when does it not become a prediction and just merely documenting the already named storms of the season?

Should there be an allowance for a revision of hurricane prediction numbers?


Sure, why not? Of course, that limits the usefulness of the "prediction". If I predict who is going to the Superbowl today and then revise it in January, how useful is that?

I think what it this particular incident displays is just how unpredictable the weather and the climate are. Last year, after a very active storm season, who didn't expect a nasty season this year? We have a predicted hotter temperature season following on a volatile storm season. Surface water temperatures seem to drive storm strength, don't they? (Caution answering this one).

These types of predictions just show how little even the experts in this area are able to predict. That in itself is a useful thing to keep in mind.

If so, then when does it not become a prediction and just merely documenting the already named storms of the season?

November 30? The real date is likely to be sometime in December.

Seriously, the season is a little over half over. We could still have a major hurricane make landfall. Hurricane Helene is a big storm. Luckily, it is about 1500 miles from the US.

To be fair to the forecasters, they revise their forecasts every year as new data becomes available. In 2005, for instance, CSU revised its forecast six times (seven forecasts in all) and only the final report even got the number of storms correct (23!). link to 2005 forecasts

It's funny I have a friend who's fairly liberal and he almost seems upset this hurricane season isn't more active because he wants to link it to global warming(Phone calls with him are always fun).

Also what else is funny AMLord is that they took credit for 'predicting' the season so accurately last year. Last night I told my friend the Jaguars were going to win the game with 2 minutes to go, and he said, "Man you really nailed that one".

Questions for debate:

Should there be an allowance for a revision of hurricane prediction numbers?
Sure – predictions are just that and the experts say we are in a more “active cycle” which does not mean that every year has to be a record. I do reject the attempted tie into “Global Warming” that some have made – they are equally mum these days regarding hurricanes.

If so, then when does it not become a prediction and just merely documenting the already named storms of the season?

At the end of the season. Predictions use advanced computer models that are updated as the year goes on. My understanding of what happened this year is that a shift in the upper “steering winds” moved the storms away from the US coast.

Well it looks like they "revised" their predictions yet again. I find this almost comical now as they almost seem to be taking credit for being "accurate".



Why would this bring a wave of relief? The hurricane season is more than half over and it's like these people are giving credit for accurate predictions.

I wonder if any of these scientists are involved in the global warming/cooling predictions.

Sure you can, its called betting on the second half. Happens all the time. When I worked for a computerized sports line service, we would go home on Thanksgiving as soon as the second half of the second (Dallas or Detroit) game started. Why? Because UNTIL the kickoff, the 2nd half numbers could keep moving. Once the ball was booted, there was nothing left to bet on...., just a game to watch for the outcome.

*******************************************************************************

Questions for debate:

Should there be an allowance for a revision of hurricane prediction numbers?
Of course, as the weather is a highly dynamic system.

If so, then when does it not become a prediction and just merely documenting the already named storms of the season?
At the end of the season. Obviously, as the season comes to a close the "prediction window" is also shortening, so the predictive and factoid balance shifts.

I'm not talking about second half or quarter bets here bikerdad. I am talking straight up line bets where you want to change you original bet in the middle of them game. It doesn't work that way

As to your analogy to the prediction window shortening... If I say that so and so team is going to win and early in the 4th quarter they lead 38 to 0 are you going to tell me wow you were good and made a very accurate prediction?

Of course it doesn't work that way, but you make your second half bets in order to cover bad 1st half and/or game bets. Trust me, according to a lot of bookies that I've spoken with, it does work that way. As for "wow, good prediction", no, I'm not going to tell you that. Of course, if you stand by with your original assertion that the team now holding the Big GooseEgg is going to win, in spite of the current score, then I'm going to assume that you are either a) a moron, a true fan, or c) a & b. So it seems as though not revising one's estimates in light of more accurate information would be kinda silly, eh?

I don't have much to contribute to this discussion because I believe it is another thinly-veiled attempt to dismiss the science of science as a whole; and I detest those with every rational neuron I posess. However, this point needs redressing:

The study of weather and climate are entirely different. Different science, different scientists, different models, different results... are you getting what I'm saying here? The two are not the same; and this rather infantile attempt to lump them together (to undermine the scientific credibility of the field of climatology) is surprising coming from a veteran poster like Amlord. Climate is the word used to describe the composite atmospheric and meteorological conditions of a large area in their entirety over a span of years. How, I ask, does this story demonstrate the unpredictability of climate, when there are no climatological conditions described, and no predictions regarding climate are made? Answer me that, and maybe I might regain some of my lost respect, and some interest in this otherwise childish "Nyah Nyah, look at those stupid scientists" discussion.

How is this a childish debate question? Are you saying this as a moderator?

I noticed you didn't even address the debate questions. This must have hit a nerve somewhere for you to respond in such a negative manner.

And yes I can tie this to the Global warming fiasco, because the global warming crowd was trying to link the increased formation of hurricanes to global warming... Hmmmmm they sure are silent this year.

I never said weather and climate are the same and never claimed their study was the same. I made the same observation about two different (although related) topics. I don't know where your indignation is coming from.

Weather is unpredictable. That doesn't stop meterologists from trying, however. They do try to take into considerations all the variables, but their track record is highly dubious. I would think that by now, these local conditions that make weather so unpredictable would be better understood. After all, local geography doesn't change all that radically from year to year. However, the effects of local geography remains a

Climate is likewise not been proven to be predictable. Show me the 20 year climate forecast that has been accurate.

Would you say that seasonal temperature predictions (it will be a cold winter) are more accurately described as weather or climate predictions? What about seasonal predictions of hurricane activity? Perhaps they are neither and there is some intermediate category.

If I was responding as a moderator, my response would look like It doesn't, and I'm not.

As a general rule, if "hitting a nerve" is one of your goals, you're not participating in an intelligent debate... And yes, you did hit a nerve... then again, when someone says "they detest something" that's usually a pretty dead giveaway. You are right though, I am remiss in adressing the questions in particular. To answer both questions briefly:

Weather-forecasters should offer the best possible information, whenever they have it. Assigning arbitrary deadlines and criticizing the accuracy of said predictions accomplishes nothing... so they were wrong. The information is put out there for people to plan as best they can; sometimes the information is right, and other times it's not. It still beats a ouija-board as far as forecasting goes.

As for your misologistic "link" to the global warming "fiasco"... I'd love for you to divulge further. What report/scientists said that hurricanes would increase this year because of global warming? Which study says that hurricanes will increase consistently on a yearly basis because of global warming? I've never come across one. I can't find any record of one here on AD.

These links don't exist because you are either woefully ignorant of climatology, or disingenuous. Climatology (as I said before while I was excoriating Amlord) examines trends over a span of years. There's not a scientist on the planet that would use climatological trends to provide specific meteorological predictions for a specific area for a specific set of months, pertaining to something as complex to hurricane formations. They may offer probabilities, and illustrate broad trends, but the sort of specificity and accuracy that you're assigning to climatology (and subsequently ridiculing) is at odds with actual climatology. Rather, you're essentially saying "If they can't tell me if it will rain tomorrow with absolute certainty, they can't tell me if global warming is man made..." and hoping nobody notices.

I will let the links speak for themselves.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...anewarming.html


And this


from here: http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html


Many of these people are some of the same people who "predict" hurricane season forecasts.

You put the quote out of context. This is what it actually says.



Out of all the links you provided one person said that it "could" cause more hurricanes but no one said that it will or should because of global warming -- mainly that the intensity of them has increased which is backed up by a study.



Your confusing intensity with frequency.

The links speak for themselves just fine... I looked through all three, and not a single one predicts or even suggests that hurricanes will increase in frequency in 2006. Not a single mention of it. Thank you for proving my point for me. The government link posits that hurricane frequency will increase towards the end of the 21st century... but again, all you've done is proven my point: climatologists did not predict an increase in hurricanes. Were you hoping that we wouldn't bother reading the links?



You sure about that? Lets look at the three links you've posted in order.

National Geographic. The author is a journalist named John Roach. I couldn't find a single prediction attributed to him. He talks with a meteorologist (note, NOT a climatologist) named Kerry Emanuel, and I've been unable to find a single prediction regarding hurricane frequency from him either.

Pew Center The author of this FAQ is not named... which makes me wonder how it is you can attribute predictions to him/her. The article itself does say that hurricane frequency could increase in the future... but if that's a prediction then I'm Batman.

Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory This one is written by Tom Knutson. I can't find a single prediction for this hurricane season (or any for that matter) from him either.

Again, I am forced to ask, did you hope that we wouldn't bother reading your links, or did you not bother yourself? I couldn't find a single forecast anywhere in your links, or a single forecast written by the authors of said articles. A quick perusal of the staff at the National Hurricane Center reveals that not ONE of the people you've linked to is employed by the NHC or contributed to their forecasts.

Added on edit... because you're making it easy for me... I just checked on a hunch, and not a single person from the Pew Center is on the NHA staff either. Similarly, none of the "forecasting" staff of the NHA is affiliated with the GFDL that you linked to either. Were you consciously trying to deceive us?

Sounds like you are arguing against global warming Ultimatejoe. Great Job

No it wasn't the forecasters but it is scientists who made these claims. And the fiasco of hurricane predictions being wrong can also prove "other' scientists can be wrong as well. Sure we are going through a warming cycle just like we went through a cooling cycle before and a warming cycle before that.

Oh by the way do you have a response to the debate question or were you just being acerbic in your initial response to this thread?

I answered the debate questions, directly, in a previous post. Did you neglect to read those as well?