Think-Tank Says Trained Chimp Can Predict Hurricanes Better Than NOAA.

[Gatekeeper]

This, I find is funny, Now I know Gore should have used chimps in his studies instead of those 'other' scientists so he could have increased his accuracy of the 'GW' debate.

Dr. Hansimian's Hurricane Forecast Center

Think-Tank Says Trained Chimp Can Predict Hurricanes Better Than NOAA

 

[konradv]

They're basing their outlook on political leanings. That doesn't bode well for their scientific analysis of the situation. It's becoming more and more clear that the deniers don't care about the science. They've basically lost the argument and are basing their objections on political considerations and only use scientific jargon to confuse the unsophisticated.

 

[Gatekeeper]

They're basing their outlook on political leanings. That doesn't bode well for their scientific analysis of the situation. It's becoming more and more clear that the deniers don't care about the science. They've basically lost the argument and are basing their objections on political considerations and only use scientific jargon to confuse the unsophisticated.

Millions now can see that their 'scientific analysis' has been influenced more by political agendas than anything else. The "Rep Points" in the scientific communities are in the RED and unlikely to recover for a long period of time. People are fed up with being misled and bamboozled by these carnies.

 

[westwall]

They're basing their outlook on political leanings. That doesn't bode well for their scientific analysis of the situation. It's becoming more and more clear that the deniers don't care about the science. They've basically lost the argument and are basing their objections on political considerations and only use scientific jargon to confuse the unsophisticated.

Well when you consider just how bad the "scientific" community (especially the AGW drones) has failed I think it might be close! Remember this? Arctic warmer than ever in it's history in 2009....WRONG, it was actually warmer in 2002. Remkember the british "scientist" who predicted a mere two years ago that "children in the UK would not know what snow is, just before the UK was slammed by its worst winter in decades....and the clowns still tried to make people believe it was the warmest winter ever...what tools!

Oh yes and just to make it real simple for you...they are mocking your side...it is called sarcasm, but you wouldn't understand that.

The Antarctic Sun: News about Antarctica - Highs and Lows

 

[jason83]

This, I find is funny, Now I know Gore should have used chimps in his studies instead of those 'other' scientists so he could have increased his accuracy of the 'GW' debate.

Dr. Hansimian's Hurricane Forecast Center

Think-Tank Says Trained Chimp Can Predict Hurricanes Better Than NOAA

Ok, since your human and obviously smarter then a chimp...Why don't you give us your forecast? The number of tropical storms, hurricanes, major hurricanes, landfalls, and major landfalls. Then compare them to the NHC's forecast and see how accurate pure chance is..compared to actual science. I highly doubt the NHC is injecting GW politics into their hurricane forecast but if you think they are then prove it.

 

[westwall]

The NHC for the most part has kept itself out of the politics of AGW "theory". The group using monkeys is poking fun at all of the alarmists who pervert or ignore what the NHC says. An example of a NHC report that was ignored is below.


NHC Downplays Study On Global Warming & Storms - cbs3.com

 

[jason83]

The NHC for the most part has kept itself out of the politics of AGW "theory". The group using monkeys is poking fun at all of the alarmists who pervert or ignore what the NHC says. An example of a NHC report that was ignored is below.


NHC Downplays Study On Global Warming & Storms - cbs3.com

You used a conservative think tank article to call the NHC forecast basically the same as a monkey forecast. You know how the average conservative that reads that article is going to react. It was wrong when Al Gore did it with climatology, it is wrong here. Disenfranchising scientist for political gain is ridiculous. By the way I do understand your response and I agree that people misinterpret this forecast to gratify their doomsday theories. However the majority of the scientists that are involved with the NHC and the broader NOAA..are in the business of saving peoples lives.

 

[westwall]

The NHC for the most part has kept itself out of the politics of AGW "theory". The group using monkeys is poking fun at all of the alarmists who pervert or ignore what the NHC says. An example of a NHC report that was ignored is below.


NHC Downplays Study On Global Warming & Storms - cbs3.com

You used a conservative think tank article to call the NHC forecast basically the same as a monkey forecast. You know how the average conservative that reads that article is going to react. It was wrong when Al Gore did it with climatology, it is wrong here. Disenfranchising scientist for political gain is ridiculous. By the way I do understand your response and I agree that people misinterpret this forecast to gratify their doomsday theories. However the majority of the scientists that are involved with the NHC and the broader NOAA..are in the business of saving peoples lives.

Uhhhh, Jason,

You might wish to look at who initiated the thread....'cause...it wasn't me and if you would care to read my followup I said the NHC is actually keeping out of the whole mess for the most part. I actually like the NHC. I don't like the fraudsters who pervert what they say and that is who is being picked on.

NOAA on the other hand have been up to their eyeballs in the AGW fraud and have actively been deleting weather stations for years to perpetuate the fraud so NOAA needs a major airing out. Currently anything they publish about anything is suspect.

 

[code1211]

They're basing their outlook on political leanings. That doesn't bode well for their scientific analysis of the situation. It's becoming more and more clear that the deniers don't care about the science. They've basically lost the argument and are basing their objections on political considerations and only use scientific jargon to confuse the unsophisticated.

What you say may be true. What definitely is true is that NOAA stopped predicting the number ofg hurricanes a few years back. Their track record in the immediate past prior to stopping their prediction was 50%.

Without their satelites, buoys, stations, scientists, models and expertise, they could have come up with the same results flipping a coin.

Valid science provides a platform for prediction. Climate science provides a platform for the Democrat Party.

 

[konradv]

CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

If you can't find the flaw in this logical syllogism, Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , but still think AGW is a crock, then you're basing your opinion totally on politics and NOT the science, proving my point.

 

[geauxtohell]

"Think-tank says...."

I stopped reading after that.

 

[jason83]

The NHC for the most part has kept itself out of the politics of AGW "theory". The group using monkeys is poking fun at all of the alarmists who pervert or ignore what the NHC says. An example of a NHC report that was ignored is below.


NHC Downplays Study On Global Warming & Storms - cbs3.com

You used a conservative think tank article to call the NHC forecast basically the same as a monkey forecast. You know how the average conservative that reads that article is going to react. It was wrong when Al Gore did it with climatology, it is wrong here. Disenfranchising scientist for political gain is ridiculous. By the way I do understand your response and I agree that people misinterpret this forecast to gratify their doomsday theories. However the majority of the scientists that are involved with the NHC and the broader NOAA..are in the business of saving peoples lives.

Uhhhh, Jason,

You might wish to look at who initiated the thread....'cause...it wasn't me and if you would care to read my followup I said the NHC is actually keeping out of the whole mess for the most part. I actually like the NHC. I don't like the fraudsters who pervert what they say and that is who is being picked on.

NOAA on the other hand have been up to their eyeballs in the AGW fraud and have actively been deleting weather stations for years to perpetuate the fraud so NOAA needs a major airing out. Currently anything they publish about anything is suspect.

I apologize and I appreciate any fellow weather fan. We lost our local NWS office a few years back. I am not too sure about this fraud you talk about but if you have any links I am willing to read. Everything I look at with NOAA which is pretty much everyday and every hour..is pretty factual. That is why I love meteorology. Even climatology is interesting and is a valid science. There is always a business aspect when it comes to research in any field and I understand that there is incentive to manipulate the data for monetary gain. I think we should hold these scientist accountable for their actions but don't destroy the whole field of study because of some bad apples.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, these boys beleive that some ding-bat political pundit carries equal scientific weight to all the scientists in NOAA and NASA.

There are a number of independent private, as in for profit, weather forecasting companies out there, and all of them are predicting a more active year for 2010.

 

[Old Rocks]

AccuWeather.com Hurricane Center meteorologists, led by Chief Long-Range Meteorologist and Hurricane Forecaster Joe Bastardi, are calling for a much more active 2010 season with above-normal threats on the U.S. coastline.

"This year has the chance to be an extreme season," said Bastardi. "It is certainly much more like 2008 than 2009 as far as the overall threat to the United States' East and Gulf coasts."
AccuWeather.com - Weather News | 2010 Hurricane Season Will Be More Active, Joe Bastardi Predicts

 

[Old Rocks]

NEW YORK, April 20 (Reuters) - Private weather forecaster WSI on Tuesday raised its forecast for the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, calling for 16 named storms, nine hurricanes and five intense hurricanes of Category 3 or greater.

"The primary drivers for tropical activity have reversed course this year and the stage appears to be set for a very busy season in 2010," WSI seasonal forecaster Todd Crawford said.
WSI raises 2010 Atlantic hurricane season forecast | Reuters

 

[editec]

Long range predctions of the weather (or the climate) are, I think at least, fools science.

I based my skepticism mostly on what little I understand of Chaos theory.

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behaviour is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as the weather.[4] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.

source

 

[konradv]

Long range predctions of the weather (or the climate) are, I think at least, fools science.
------------------------------

What's foolish about this?

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, including some not found in nature, has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

What's foolish about that?

 

[jason83]

Editc, here is a quote from near the beginning of the wiki you posted. "Chaos theory is applied in many scientific disciplines: mathematics, programming, microbiology, biology, computer science, economics,[5][6][7] engineering,[8] finance,[9][10] philosophy, physics, politics, population dynamics, psychology, and robotics." So those are fool's sciences correct? From what I am getting from what you are saying...is that it is foolish to try to forecast chaos..that we should stop trying to use modeling for forecasting in these fields?

 

[westwall]

CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

If you can't find the flaw in this logical syllogism, Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , but still think AGW is a crock, then you're basing your opinion totally on politics and NOT the science, proving my point.

The flaw for the bazillionth time is that IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IN A LAB SETTING. Warming is inevitable because it is NATURAL. It has been going on for BILLIONS OF YEARS.
Man has had NO EFFECT for BILLIONS OF YEARS, so WHY DOES MAN HAVE AN EFFECT NOW? ANSWER, HE DOESN'T. THIS IS ALL DRIVEN BY A SMALL GROUP OF POLITICIANS AND BAD SCIENTISTS WHO WANT TO GET VERY RICH BY STEALING YOUR MONEY. THAT IS OCCAM'S RAZOR IN THIS CASE konradv. I hope that you will realise the simple fact that you have been lied to and act accordingly.

BTW here is the original NOAA webpage that dealt with atmospheric CO2 that they then removed prior to the Copenhagen meetings.


JetStream - An Online Weather School Learning Lesson: Go with the Flow


Here is the relevant section and this is FROM NOAA
"It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures."

 

[code1211]

CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

If you can't find the flaw in this logical syllogism, Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , but still think AGW is a crock, then you're basing your opinion totally on politics and NOT the science, proving my point.

The flaw does not exist in what you present. However, the warming trend that we are currently enjoying started 50 to 100 before the Industrial Revolution.

If it is your contention that the increase in CO2 from the Industrial Revolution caused the warming, then your contention is that the future causes the past.

What has science to say about that contention?