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
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.