[BartSimpson]

mixedfarmer wrote:

When applied to the past twenty-five years data, it is a startling confirmation of his findings of three years ago; hurricane power has increased by about 50% over the last thirty years.

Has it occured to you that we simply have better data than before?

One of the guys who wrote Freakonomics discussed this at a Commonwealth Club lecture I attended. He noted how in some cities the perception of crime was worse than so many years ago while the crime rates had actually declined significantly.

He then pointed out that what had increased was the reporting of crime.

Likewise, with hurricanes prior to the 1960's hurricane wind speeds were measured by surface ships who directly observed and recorded the strength. Most sensible ship captains avoided these storms and the few who experienced them didn't live to tell about them in prior years. Consequently, many hurricanes of notable strength were never measured to determine their actual strength.

Now since the late 1960's we're able to safely make accurate measurements with aircraft, buoys, Doppler radar, satellites, and etc. so MORE of these measurements are being made than ever before.

Consequently, the observed increase in Category 5 storms is at least partially due to better and more measurements of storms that no one would have measured in previous decades.

For instance, during the 1940's almost no hurricanes were measured although plenty of them were observed - some of them have been estimated to be C5 hurricanes or typhoons. But the military kept all of this information classified for strategic reasons and there was virtually no civilian weather reporting during this period.

The lack of accurate measurements did not mean nothing happened in the 1940's, it just meant that the info was either not gathered or kept secret.

So what I am saying and what the fellow who wrote the book is saying is that an increase in information does not necessarily correspond to an increase in the reported phenomena.

[mixedfarmer]

Likewise, with hurricanes prior to the 1960's hurricane wind speeds were measured by surface ships who directly observed and recorded the strength. Most sensible ship captains avoided these storms and the few who experienced them didn't live to tell about them in prior years. Consequently, many hurricanes of notable strength were never measured to determine their actual strength.


yes that is possible and is a good point

[sasquatch2]

I can recall a major breakthrough in hurricane study was the use of B29's (hurricane hunters) to fly into hurricanes. They lost a few aircraft in that scary activity. I recall shows on "The 20th century" with Walter Cronkite about that.

[Blue_Nose]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

That's what I always thought too, but apparently, according to Kevin Trenberth, and also the red scourge over at RealClimate the definition has changed. Here's what RealClimate says now.

Quote:

“A scenario only illustrates the climatic effect of the specified forcing - this is why it is called a scenario, not a forecast. To be sure, the first IPCC report did talk about “prediction” - in many respects the first report was not nearly as sophisticated as the more recent ones, including in its terminology. “

“One should not mix up a scenario with a forecast - I cannot easily compare a scenario for the effects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data, because I cannot easily isolate the effect of the greenhouse gases in these data, given that other forcings are also at play in the real world.”

From that paragraph, they're not saying the intent of models have changed at all - what they're saying there is that the particular results they're referring to (I have no idea what those are) do not necessarily represent the most probable scenario. If my report says, "If these conditions were to exist, my model predicts this outcome," it certainly shouldn't be assumed that that outcome is a "prediction," in that it is the outcome most likely to occur.

It goes back to what mentioned in the beginning - models, along with their input and output, must be taken in as a package - you can't talk about one without clearly discussing the others.

No doubt, though, someone saw "predict" in a report and ran with it - classic case of scientific terminology clashing with layman terminology. It's like people who cite a biologist referring to "evolutionary theory" and take "theory" to mean "estimate" or "best guess".

[Freakinoldguy]

BartSimpson wrote:

I bet that his retraction won't stop them from insisting that AGW will make hurricanes more powerful just to keep scaring people.

Of course they can't stop scaring people, it's big business.

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back".
Carl Sagan

[sasquatch2]

Blue_Nose

Quote:

No doubt, though, someone saw "predict" in a report and ran with it - classic case of scientific terminology clashing with layman terminology. It's like people who cite a biologist referring to "evolutionary theory" and take "theory" to mean "estimate" or "best guess".

And yet it these "Realclimate", self appointed experts, that ran with the prediction thing the longest. Remember the ringleaders Hansen and Mann both got caught making, obvious "errors" to further their cause

This no epiphany on their part but a simple admission that time and nature has trashed their idiology.

[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose wrote:

No doubt, though, someone saw "predict" in a report and ran with it - classic case of scientific terminology clashing with layman terminology.

Do you see the inherent flaw to the premise that laymen who are ignorant of scientific terminology are taking exception to a computer model's prediction?

Sorry, but scientists don't get to weasel out of this so easily by saying their terminology was misunderstood and that their computer models were not really 'predicitions'.

Because we've all been told, loudly and forcefully, that the science is in.

We've further been told that those who question these predictions should be treated to Nuremburg trials for AGW Denial - and bear in mind the Nuremburg Tribunals handed out death sentences.

Some very extreme positions have been taken on the basis of these computer models.

Conclusions have been made and we're right now changing people's lives and spending hundreds of billions of dollars to deal with a predicted threat.

To back off when it's convenient and to say that everyone misunderstood what was meant by the prognostication that the world as we know it is coming to an end unless we end industrial civilization is disingenuous in the extreme.

[sasquatch2]

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson wrote:

Sorry, but scientists don't get to weasel out of this so easily by saying their terminology was misunderstood and that their computer models were not really 'predicitions'.

I was discussing a particular scenario mentioned by N_Fiddledog - someone cited a particular scenario included in the IPCC report, apparently without putting it in proper context.

If I said, "I predict that if I don't get something to eat soon, I'm going to starve to death," that would be a "prediction". However, nothing about that statement addresses whether or not I will get something to eat, and it's still a perfectly valid prediction even if I end up getting something to eat and not starving to death. It's a predicted outcome (starving) based on a specific set of circumstances (not getting something to eat soon).

From what I gather, someone (this Pielke person, I assume) has presented one of the IPCC predictions, but cut out the specific circumstances. It's like if someone else came along and stated, "Blue_Nose just predicted he's going to starve to death." - you'd get a false sense of what I was actually saying, and claim my prediction was false when it turns out I didn't starve.

[N_Fiddledog]

Blue_Nose wrote:

If I said, "I predict that if I don't get something to eat soon, I'm going to starve to death," that would be a "prediction". However, nothing about that statement addresses whether or not I will get something to eat, and it's still a perfectly valid prediction even if I end up getting something to eat and not starving to death.

What if you're fed Intravenously?

[stemmer]

But this simply can't be true...!!!! I mean I watched Al Gore's movie

[BartSimpson]

Al Gore's movie had what? 35 serious flaws?

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's a fun little video clip.

Dr. Gray versus Computer Modeler

Crotchety old hurricane expert, William M. Gray goes after an arrogant, young, pup computer modeler at a recent climate conference.