Accuracy of last year's April forecast

[phantom power]

Interesting comment about Dr. Gray. He is a "vocal opponent of theories connecting global warming with intense hurricane activity." In other news, his predictions for last year were off by a factor of two. In still other news, he is apparently doing research relating to these theories which he is a vocal opponent of.

How did last year's early April hurricane forecast verify? The CSU team did forecast an above-normal year, but did not foresee the extraordinary season that would ultimately unfold. They forecasted 13 named storms (average is 9.6), 7 hurricanes (6 is average), and 3 major hurricanes (2.3 is average. In reality, there were 27 named storms, 14 hurricanes, and 7 major hurricanes. However, they did mention that a continued Atlantic Ocean warming would cause them to raise their forecast numbers for their May 31 and August 5 forecasts, which is what happened.

With this forecast, Dr. Gray hands over leadership of the forecast team to Phil Klotzbach. While Gray, 76, is at the older end of the spectrum of hurricane scientists, Klotzbach, 26, is definitely at the younger end. He earned his Bachelor's degree at age 18 from Bridgewater State College in Massachusetts, then picked up a Masters degree in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University four years later. He has been a research associate working with Bill Gray since 2001. Dr. Gray will continue to be very involved in working on these forecasts, but prefers to concentrate on researching the connection between hurricane activity and global warming. He is a vocal opponent of theories connecting recent increases in intense hurricane activity with global warming.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=333&tstamp=200604

[NNadir]

1. You're a regular reader. What's Master's thinking on this matter?

[phantom power]

2. I think...

Masters is trying to avoid having an official opinion on the subject. My intuition is that he wants to be guided by the science. And the science is still ambiguous. I think the main reason that the science is ambiguous is that they are all looking for a conclusion like "We have demonstrated a causation between temperature and hurricane activity with a p-value of 10^(-5000), thus utterly eliminating the null-hypothesis that there is no causation."

This approach is, in fact, responsible classic science. But it won't "handle" the scenario where we've recently entered some new kind of climate regime, where fast changes have ensued. To these people, the 2005 season has to be treated as an outlyer, because it's a singular event. No statistics can be applied to it. If we see more seasons like 2005, then they will be able to treat them statistically, and so it enters back into the realm where they can do responsible classic science(tm).

Anyway, that's what I see Masters more or less doing. He's treating 2005 like a statistical outlier. If he has any different private opinions, he's keeping them to himself. I don't exactly blame him, or the others. If they go out on a limb unsupported by p-values, and they're wrong, their professional reputations take a big hit.

Then there's the more general problem that reliable hurricane measurements only go back about 30 years, in some cases not even that long. And we all know that 30 data points is right at the lower bound of what you usually need for a statistically strong conclusion. Especially for something as complicated and noisy as weather.

They're all trying to get a slam-dunk from the p-values, and we just don't have the data history for it. By the time we do, of course, our journey to the new climate will be well under way.

[NNadir]

3. That was my impression too.

I don't follow him as regularly as you do, which is why I appreciate your links and references.

I actually think that if there was ever a time to stake your reputation by stepping a little bit out on a limb, this would be it.

The World Meteorological Organization issued a statement, IIRC, back in 2001 noting that the world's climate was very unstable. As I recall the statement was unprecedented.

Clearly something is happening. It's hardly a time to be conservative.

[phantom power]

4. I partially hope that the next 3-5 years are bad as 2005...

bad enough to convince a majority of citizens and governments that big, revolutionary measures must be taken. Clearly, warnings of disaster are too abstract. So the best I can hope for is actual disaster that arrives soon enough to cause a reaction, in time to avert the worst possible planetary outcomes.

Go Forthe, And Saddle Up Ye Tigre...

[NNadir]

5. No amount of real events can effect our world leaders.

They are all in over their heads, as are the people who elected them.

[Boomer]

6. New paradigms are always a hard sell

Science history is littered with the bodies of conventional scientists who were so mired in the theories of their time that they could not let go and embrace a new paradigm.

In part it's generational. And elderly Gray is part of a generation that will probably die off before accepting that the science data of their time cannot predict our present climate events, much less the future.