Poll: Which hurricane prediction will be more reliable?
Chimp (Dr. Hansimian)
NOAA
[Show Results]
 
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Chimpanzee challenges NOAA´s hurricane forecast
#1
A bit of good humour from the author of "The Banana Curve: No Tricks Needed" (The National Center for Public Policy Research)

http://www.nationalcenter.org/HurricaneForecast.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR_Hurrica...51810.html

EXCERPT:

The video isn't intended to needle NOAA for its erroneous forecasts, but to make a larger point about our current understanding of climate.

"If, at the end of the hurricane season, Dr. Hansimian's forecast turns out to be more accurate than NOAA's, we challenge the agency to make him an honorary member of NOAA's hurricane specialists unit"



(Copyright: Permission to use video on-air or online is granted so long as appropriate attribution to the National Center for Public Policy Research is included and the National Center is informed of its use. Please use the telephone, fax or email contact information at the top for all inquiries.)
Ni cien conejos hacen un caballo, ni cien conjeturas una evidencia (F. Dostoyevski)
Reply
#2
The chimp will probably win, by chance alone.
NOAA is going down the wrong track, so it will be wrong - we just don't know by how much yet.

It is only a matter of chance if the chimp will be more wrong or more right than NOAA.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#3
I don't know, Derek -

NOAA has become very good at "monkeying" around with their climate projections.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#4
I really have become very aware you do not know JohnWho especially recently.
Partly because of your answers, and partly because of your apparent refusal to answer.

In the end you have to look around and then try to express an opinion, from your best understanding.
Constantly "I do not know" is not very constructive.

With reference to this post I have just had a quick look around and found this
http://www.tampabay.com/news/weather/hur...ap/1060165
Some excerpts,
So, back in December 2009, NOAA
" The 2010 Atlantic season doesn't look good. Anticipate an above-average probability of major hurricane landfall,
with 11 to 16 named storms, six to nine hurricanes and as many as five that could become major hurricanes.
"

but it should be noted that,

" The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, perhaps the world's top source for hurricane information,
also issues early forecasts in May. But meteorologists there prefer to downplay the preseason reports and
instead point to forecasts in August — halfway into the season — as examples of NOAA's accuracy.


Dr. Hansimian's video director, is a well informed man, Dr. Phil Klotzbach.
And working with Dr. Bill Gray - NOAA should be very worried.

" Colorado State University's Dr. Bill Gray and Dr. Phil Klotzbach, who put out the December forecast,
admit it's impossible to predict potential hurricane activity this early.
"

So, why did they do this video at a time they themselves say it is too early to predict what will happen. ?

" But it's not too early to guess based on what has happened in past seasons,
which is how Gray and Klotzbach come up with what they call "hindcasts."

"We basically assume the future will turn out like the past," Klotzbach said.

And that involves going deep in the past and seeing patterns of cycles that last 25 to 40 years.


If I've understood this correctly Gray and Klotzbach are using a very similar technique to the one that Piers Corbyn of weather action uses.

It would seem therefore that NOAA is stuck with AGW's increasing hurricanes scenario, as we keep emitting CO2,
and I'd assume they will have to issue a higher figure than Dr. Hansimian.
(or a wider prediction - that could save their bacon)

I'll guess NOAA will predict 9 to 14 tomorrow.
* I am assuming that these numbers refer to named storms per season.
That way if there are more than 14 they can appear to have been being cautious, rather than alarmist.
If Dr. Hansimian is correct and there are between 6 and 8, then NOAA can claim there were "extenuating" circumstances - damned ocean currents...

I do not know either JohnWho in all honesty,
but explaining why, or my reasoning is helpful is it not.
Vague answers are just that vague, and in the end meaningless.
Why bother being vague. ?
Justifying / illustrating your doubts / reasons / thinking is a totally different and more constructive approach.

Some however just take being arguementative for the sake of it too far,
and soon will hopefully get back to "Q".
It is the hieght of disrespect in my opinion to join a thread someone else started and
then try and change it's subject before the original subject is discussed meaningfully.
Not admitting to understanding what the thread was about is
no excuse or reason, it is just ignorant, in it's worst form.
That's at best, I suspect some deliberately highjack threads to make points they want to make,
on the back of (and whilst stifling) someone elses effort, rather than start their own thread.
That's even lower in my opinion.

That all said, it will be interesting to see the NOAA 2010 season prediction tomorrow.
Will it be lower than the December 2009 prediction of 11 to 16. ?
I think it will be, if for no other reason, Dr Hansimian's 6 to 8 prediction.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#5
Uh, the entire response with the "monkeying around" line was supposed to be a funny response to "Chimpanzee challenges NOAA´s hurricane forecast".

Sorry it didn't work.

Sad
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#6
Sometimes more than a quip is required.

Just to expand a little on the Hindcasts mentioned above.
Piers Corbyn uses a very similar / the same technique.
If I have understood his method (never actually released as such),
then it is, look back and see when a similar pattern over a short time period occurred.
This gives a hindcast of what may happen this time going forwards, as it did happen last time.
I believe Piers Corbyn then mixes in space weather with the hindcast to produce his forecast.

There are numerous weaknesses in the technique, (ie which previous period was the same..) but it has one enourmous advantage,
cyclicity. The natural harmonics of the factors involved.
Harmonics + changes this time if you prefer type of forecasting.

IF - Gray / Klotzbach are working on such a method for Atlantic storms, ie oceans / climate,
then this could be very exciting.
If in the longer run it could be meshed with Piers Corbyn's methods for climate / sun,
then indeed it could herald a whole new era in forecasting,
by hindcasting at a completely new level.

Yes the monkey video is done very jokingly, but there is serious matter behind it.
As I said earlier, if Gray / klotzbach are behind this video (and they are),
then NOAA should be very, very worried.
The chimp HAS substance.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#7
Thank you, Derek. I would have never been able to put it the way you do.

Although when posting this “funny” thing I was not aware of it all and I just was testing BB´s software, you rise an important issue.

I´m not able to find a post of Mike Davis where he blamed “scientists” of not being aware of what was going on and said now it was “their” business to mend it all. This one touched me so much (sorry, Mike). I´ve been dealing lately with vultures and wild dogs and had not so much time to think about CO2. I came back to “civilitation” only to find that CO2 heat properties are under doubt. Cannot express it other way, maybe I´m not a scientist. But I´m not able to “explain” how CO2 behaves out of “our” labs.

Science is dead, isn´t it?. I´m just concerned. Cannot find a way out of my basics.

Of course I´ll have to go back to forests. And I´ll conciously seek Dr. Hansimian´s company. He´s a genious, isn´t he?

I do not trust NOAA´s results (data). And I´m not the only one.

Just thinking of it....
Ni cien conejos hacen un caballo, ni cien conjeturas una evidencia (F. Dostoyevski)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  WeatherAction dot com Feb 2010 forecast. Derek 3 2,782 02-12-2010, 06:20 AM
Last Post: Derek
  NOAA scientist Questioning_Climate 1 1,760 08-01-2009, 05:26 AM
Last Post: Mike Davis



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)