OT, damned cold OT

Actually a particular version called "yellow journalism".

--
 JosephKK
 Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
  --Schiller

We have been having a rather minor El Nino. Those tend to cause blown seasonal forecasts, especially for precipitation and storm tracks.

In number of named storms and number of hurricanes, the 2006 "Atlantic Basin" hurricane season exceeded the 1950-2000 average.

I am not expecting anyone to know whether the winter of 2060-2061 will have an El Nino or a La Nina or neither. However, I am expecting some positive correlation between predicted results and actual results in terms of long term trends (longer than a decade) from increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere by 50-100% or whatever.

- Don Klipstein (Jr) ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Thus spake Joerg:

"You can tell the tourists in San Francisco by their blue legs." - annon

"The coldest winter I ever experienced was a summer in San Francisco." - Mark Twain

Sparky

rote:

ich

gned

Indeed, El Ni=F1o has been mild, which was my point: that existing models, even with such extensive real-time real-world input, and all the study of El Ni=F1o, can't accurately predict even this micro- feature, not even half a year in advance. IOW, the thing is not well understood.

I should've been more specific. The season had 0.4 more named storms than average, as you say, but 0.9 fewer hurricanes and 0.6 fewer major hurricanes. It was, however, the limitations of the predictive models I was highlighting, and I should've emphasized instead that "the 2006 season fell well short of predictions."

Let's look at the actual numbers...

According to Wikipedia[1], 2006 had: o 10 "named storms," compared to a 1950-2000 average of 9.6, o 5 hurricanes, compared to the 1950-2000 average of 5.9, and o 2 "major hurricanes," compared to the 1950-2000 average of 2.6.

So, strictly speaking, 2006 had 0.4 named storms over the historical average, with fewer than average hurricanes and major hurricanes.

Back to the limitations of forecasts, at the outset of the 2005 hurricane season (August 2005), NOAA substantially underpredicted the season's activity. NOAA predicted[2]: o 18-21 tropical storms (actual was 28), o 9-11 hurricanes (actual: 15), and o 5-7 major hurricanes (actual: 7)

At the onset of the 2006 season (August 2006), NOAA predicted as follows[1]: o 12-15 tropical storms (actual: 10) o 7-9 hurricanes (actual: 5) o 3-4 major hurricanes (actual: 2)

So, that's a factual review of the actual numbers vis-=E0-vis the reliability of predictions three months into the future.

Nor would I expect it. However, this isn't which I was trying to convey. Namely, that even well-studied, well-instrumented subsets of the climate presently defy prediction. Given the model and current state info, we still can't say what's coming next.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." --Yogi Berra

So am I, but I don't think it really matters much. Consider:

If a) the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is really measured in centuries (I found estimates from 50 (US govmnt) to 450 years (Wikipedia)), and b) one assumes that we've already warmed the Earth by it, then c) even if we (the world) immediately cut emissions to zero, the trend would continue for centuries.

Don't get me wrong--it _always_ makes sense to use the least energy and materials possible, to reduce, reuse, and recycle, and to leave the planet better than we found it--but there are two billion people in China and India who'd love to have cars, will soon be able to afford it, and we have precious little power or place to dissuade them.

So, if the Earth's warming, it looks like we're just going to have to get used to it, and adapt.

Best wishes, James Arthur

[1] [2]

[stuff]

Correction: I just noticed hurricane season is from June 1 to Nov. 30, so the NOAA predictions I quoted--issued in August--were made when the hurricane season was well under way, not at the onset.

James Arthur

Hurricane predictions are normally issued well before June. The August issue was an update.

They do updates within the "early season", which extends into early August, since the "peak season" is second half of August to maybe 2 weeks into October.

The 2006 season is notable for the forecast to have at least two downgrades after the season started, with the last downgrade being in or close to early October, and for the final tally of the season to be below the forecast after all of these downgrades. However, the

2006 season final tally still has quantity of both named storms and hurricanes exceeding the 1950-2000 average of these.

The initial forecast for 2006 was to be impressive, but significantly below what happened in 2005. 2005 was freakish, and I give some chance that all of the records set in 2005 (except for dollar damage) will stand through 2029, and I give a good chance that a majority of 2005's records (except for dollar damage) will stand through 2035.

This is for "Atlantic Basin" hurricane seasons.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

That even same-season predictions must be constantly corrected/ updated--and still miss--underscores my concerns about the reliability of a) longer-term predictions of b) systems orders of magnitude larger, c) more complicated, and d) with poorer knowledge of initial state.

I don't understand this statement. The historical average is 5.9 hurricanes, but the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season had only 5. Hurricane-wise, then, 2006 was below average. Have I missed a hurricane, or should the average number be lower? I took the

1950-2000 figure directly from:

[...]

Understood.

Cheers, James Arthur

A source I quoted a couple months ago,

said that the 1950-2000 average is 4.5 hurricanes and 7.5 named storms.

However, I am willing to take that back since I consider Colorado State University more credible in this area than Weather Channel.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Thanks for tracking that down. The discrepancy was bugging me, since the data are public record and not controversial.

That Weather Channel link you gave cites these same Colorado State University authors as one of their sources so, somebody goofed.

Best wishes, James Arthur

"'It is now clear that Al Gore is insane,' John Podhoretz wrote in his New York Post column..." ---

There was also a substantial article in last Friday's (Feb. 23, '07) Orange County Register, but I haven't found it on their site yet....

Ah! Here it is:

Cheers! Rich

designed

is:

Al Gore warns of global warming, advocates conservation as a cure, yet is himself a very conspicuous energy consumer. He's got three houses. He uses 18MWH / month for just one of them.

That bothers me. A lot.

Best, James Arthur

rich

designed

is:

I don't know why you are surprised. Leftist weenies are the biggest hypocrites on the face of the earth.

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.

I'm not surprised. I regard his Global Warming campaign as insincere, a way to divert attention from more important issues. What surprises me is that he's so lauded.

I've held Mr. Gore in low esteem since his "no controlling legal authority" days. I had the distinctly unpleasant experience of watching him tergiversate about the matter real-time, on television. I thought he should and surely would be imprisoned for it. He wasn't, which also surprised me.

Best, James Arthur

Heh. I had to look up "tergiversate", and interestingly, it's exactly what the neocons and their sympathizers do whenever Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" or George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" ask them a direct question.

I guess brain lock and weasley evasion isn't exclusive to the lefties. ;-)

But hell, all politicians belong at the end of a rope, twisting in the wind. >:-(

Cheers! Rich

question.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

Gee, I would've said "crawfish," but few non-Cajuns would've gotten it (an he ain' in no dictionary you gonna fine, cher).

I should clarify that by "a way to divert attention from more important issues" I did not mean that the possible end of all life on the planet is unimportant, but rather that it's a convenient excuse to avoid discussing more immediate social issues. ("A Convenient Excuse" == new documentary title?)

Lastly, here's a "no controlling legal authority" reprise for those who've forgotten:

The short version is that Mr. Gore used his government-issued office premises for fund-raising in the 1996 elections, an election-tainting activity proscribed by Title 18 Section 607 of the United States Criminal Code--a felony.

As I recall first came denials, then, cornered, he admitted the activity, but insinuated that, since the law didn't identify which agency should've arrested him, it was no offense.

It wasn't pretty.

Best regards, James Arthur

Exactly how many Americans died as a result of HIS mistakes?

And how many as a result of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld clusterfuck?

--
.

Mistakes?

Best, James Arthur

The point is, who cares? Give him a traffic ticket or whatever. HE hasn't pissed away $2 trillion and the lives of tens of thousands like President DumbFuck.

--
.

I, naively, thought election-rigging serious. Apparently you don't. Why nothing was done about it, I don't know. I remember a bunch of bleating from the Clintons, and the nation being weary of their scandals. Maybe that was why.

Or ... maybe ... there was a penalty. Maybe 2000 ... was karma.

Ironic, isn't it?

Best, James Arthur