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

[code1211]

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

How'd these guys make out with their prediction last year?

 

[dilloduck]

Having been to several hurricane preparedness conferences I can damn well assure you that a chimp can prepare for one better.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, fellows. A number of companies and agencies with scientists are predicting an active hurricane season, you are stating that they don't know what they are talking about.

About November, we will see who is more accurate.

 

[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.

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?

I don't know what science has to say, but historians would say that's BS. 50-100 years before the IR we were still in the Little Ice Age. You have not done a thing to my syllogism.

 

[konradv]

The flaw for the bazillionth time is that IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IN A LAB SETTING.
--------------------------

For the bazillionth time, you're being dishonest. It's easy to prove in a laboratory setting that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. I'm sorry but you've done NOTHING to prove my logic wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Walleyed is dishonest, to be sure. Doesn't matter in that most here that are in denial will never admit they are mistaken, even when the Arctic is clear of ice in the summer, and Glacier National Park ceases to have any glaciers at all.

It is only worth posting the real information from scientists for those who have yet to study the issue. We cannot let the willfully ignorant idealogues inform the public with their pseudoscience and outright lies.

 

[westwall]

Ol' Walleyed is dishonest, to be sure. Doesn't matter in that most here that are in denial will never admit they are mistaken, even when the Arctic is clear of ice in the summer, and Glacier National Park ceases to have any glaciers at all.

It is only worth posting the real information from scientists for those who have yet to study the issue. We cannot let the willfully ignorant idealogues inform the public with their pseudoscience and outright lies.

Care to explain this little tid bit old fraud?JetStream - An Online Weather School Learning Lesson: Go with the Flow

 

[jason83]

Ol' Walleyed is dishonest, to be sure. Doesn't matter in that most here that are in denial will never admit they are mistaken, even when the Arctic is clear of ice in the summer, and Glacier National Park ceases to have any glaciers at all.

It is only worth posting the real information from scientists for those who have yet to study the issue. We cannot let the willfully ignorant idealogues inform the public with their pseudoscience and outright lies.

Care to explain this little tid bit old fraud?JetStream - An Online Weather School Learning Lesson: Go with the Flow

You do admit that the earth is warming right?

 

[konradv]

Looks like that little tid bit is biased. How can that be an actual teaching tool, when you've already told the students what to think, i.e. that there's been no observable warming? The nice thing about my logical syllogism is that it does not require that we see any actual temperature rise. We know that CO2 absorbs energy and that its been going up. So, unless you've found an "out" in the principle of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable, if the trend continues.

 

[westwall]

Looks like that little tid bit is biased. How can that be an actual teaching tool, when you've already told the students what to think, i.e. that there's been no observable warming? The nice thing about my logical syllogism is that it does not require that we see any actual temperature rise. We know that CO2 absorbs energy and that its been going up. So, unless you've found an "out" in the principle of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable, if the trend continues.

Take it up with NOAA konradv, you did say that you would believe anything they said over what anybody else said about it didn't you?

 

[westwall]

Ol' Walleyed is dishonest, to be sure. Doesn't matter in that most here that are in denial will never admit they are mistaken, even when the Arctic is clear of ice in the summer, and Glacier National Park ceases to have any glaciers at all.

It is only worth posting the real information from scientists for those who have yet to study the issue. We cannot let the willfully ignorant idealogues inform the public with their pseudoscience and outright lies.

Care to explain this little tid bit old fraud?JetStream - An Online Weather School Learning Lesson: Go with the Flow

You do admit that the earth is warming right?

Not right now it isn't. According to Phil Jones of the CRU the earths temp has not risen since 1998 and has in fact dropped. Do I believe that the earth warms and cools? Absolutely but you folks seem to think that what happens on a year to year basis matters when that is in fact not true. We have known about multiple climate cycles for centuries....farmers use them to plant their crops. There is a 13 year, a 50 year, a 100 year, a 900 year, and a 10,000 year cycle that have been identified. AGW proponents IGNORE these well known cycles. And claim that normal warming cycles are the cause of man. Of course these same researchers back in the 1970's were warning us of the coming Ice Age too so one day they will get it right.

 

[editec]

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?

Thinking that one can predict the long term consequences in highly dynamic systems generally.

It's counter intuitive when you're isolating just one variable, that I understand.

But the math just keeps proving that in such a system as the climate there's too many vaiables, and too much uncertainty, and far too many impossible to compute random outcomes for making accurate long term predictions.

What choas theory keeps showing us is that this is not the Newtonian determative world we're been taught (and our intuition keeps telling us) to think it is.

All that said, I still think dumping shit into the ocean, or the air, or the soil is stupid to the extreme, just as you do.

Do I doubt that CO2 causes warming? Not one bit. All other things being equal you could plot the effects with enormous precision. Except CO2 is but one variable effecting climate, and all other things are never equal.


Even minor differences in highly complex systems (differences we might not even know are relevant) have surprising, sometimes enormously surprising consequences over time.

 

[jason83]

Care to explain this little tid bit old fraud?JetStream - An Online Weather School Learning Lesson: Go with the Flow

You do admit that the earth is warming right?

Not right now it isn't. According to Phil Jones of the CRU the earths temp has not risen since 1998 and has in fact dropped. Do I believe that the earth warms and cools? Absolutely but you folks seem to think that what happens on a year to year basis matters when that is in fact not true. We have known about multiple climate cycles for centuries....farmers use them to plant their crops. There is a 13 year, a 50 year, a 100 year, a 900 year, and a 10,000 year cycle that have been identified. AGW proponents IGNORE these well known cycles. And claim that normal warming cycles are the cause of man. Of course these same researchers back in the 1970's were warning us of the coming Ice Age too so one day they will get it right.

I agree that the earth warms and cools in cycles. That is scientific fact and there is no argument from either side on that issue. However lets not group me into the "you folks" crowd just yet. My question is what evidence would change your mind about this issue? Whose data do you personally trust? We need to find an agreement on factual information. If either side just spouts conspiracy theories or doomsday theories without any scientific backing then that accomplishes nothing. We have scientist that have recently said that we have had the warmest April on record since 1880(way more instrumentation now though). We both know there is many things that can cause global warming not just mankind. We have a negative NAO right now which is causing a very quick switch from El Nino to La Nina conditions. You can tell by the Atlantic water temps running way above normal. In some spots above 2005 conditions which is unnerving consider our issues in the Gulf right now. There is already an Invest out on possible subtropical storm formation near the Bahamas before the season has officially even started. How can you explain this irregular warming that we have seen in the past decade in the Atlantic Basin?

 

[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?

Thinking that one can predict the long term consequences in highly dynamic systems generally.

It's counter intuitive when you're isolating just one variable, that I understand.

But the math just keeps proving that in such a system as the climate there's too many vaiables, and too much uncertainty, and far too many impossible to compute random outcomes for making accurate long term predictions.

What choas theory keeps showing us is that this is not the Newtonian determative world we're been taught (and our intuition keeps telling us) to think it is.

All that said, I still think dumping shit into the ocean, or the air, or the soil is stupid to the extreme, just as you do.

Do I doubt that CO2 causes warming? Not one bit. All other things being equal you could plot the effects with enormous precision. Except CO2 is but one variable effecting climate, and all other things are never equal.


Even minor differences in highly complex systems (differences we might not even know are relevant) have surprising, sometimes enormously surprising consequences over time.

I agree that CO2 is only one variable, but that's why you have to use statistical "tricks" to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. While there may be many variables, if one keeps going up, its eventually going to have an effect.

 

[westwall]

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?

Thinking that one can predict the long term consequences in highly dynamic systems generally.

It's counter intuitive when you're isolating just one variable, that I understand.

But the math just keeps proving that in such a system as the climate there's too many vaiables, and too much uncertainty, and far too many impossible to compute random outcomes for making accurate long term predictions.

What choas theory keeps showing us is that this is not the Newtonian determative world we're been taught (and our intuition keeps telling us) to think it is.

All that said, I still think dumping shit into the ocean, or the air, or the soil is stupid to the extreme, just as you do.

Do I doubt that CO2 causes warming? Not one bit. All other things being equal you could plot the effects with enormous precision. Except CO2 is but one variable effecting climate, and all other things are never equal.


Even minor differences in highly complex systems (differences we might not even know are relevant) have surprising, sometimes enormously surprising consequences over time.

I agree that CO2 is only one variable, but that's why you have to use statistical "tricks" to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. While there may be many variables, if one keeps going up, its eventually going to have an effect.

konrad,

You amuse me, claiming we are manipulating data when it is MANN, Jones, Hansen, and the rest of the AGW drones who have been caught red handed doing that very thing. Wow, you would have made a good Einsatztruppen.