Why Couldn't Climatologists accurately predict the number of hurricanes this year?

Question

They weren't even close.

When JS says that Climatologists do not forecast weather or predict hurricane patterns, is he just being disengenuous or is he blatantly lying?
Or maybe it can be completely excused by ignorance. either way, he is completely wrong.

Looks like many here need an education

Answer 1

Not only were there very few storms, they were of lesser intensity.

Wrong on both fronts.

now WHO " sounded unlearned"?

Answer 2

It like this. Have you ever been in a row boat? When the oars are pulled through the water,whirlpools appear. Imagine now,that you're rowing in turbulent currents,those whirlpools ,if they form at all,don't last long. That is what happened to the tropical storms in the Atlantic Basin this year. All the storms were ripped to shreds by unusual,and powerful winds. All that heat energy still has to go somewhere. That could be why there were a record number of 'sub-tropical' storms. Those are basicly,tropical storms that form in the Northern Latitudes. This year the Northern Latitudes were the warmest on record! Now it's Winter,and New England is seeing record snowfall amounts. Wanna see what a Winter hurricane looks like? It won't be pretty!

Answer 3

You know, the thing the hurricane climate people said should be increasing was hurricane intensity, not frequency. Here is a plot of a simple surrogate for hurricane intensity, plotted for both typhoons (west. pac.) and atlantic hurricanes over the last 25 years or so:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-nMnyYyY2eKisMS8YBaQ-?cq=1

Note how both are increasing? What this shows is that just as climatologists have predicted, the strength of storms, on average, will be higher in a warming world. The frequency of storms is related to local meteorology and is not well-predicted. But the fact that if a storm does form, it will get very big, is a statistical thing and can be predicted.

This is a subtle difference but you would do well to understand it since it will keep you from sounding unlearned.

Answer 4

Climatologists deal with long term trends and records, not local weather or short term events. The comment "They weren't even close" reveals clear bias in the question, since climatologists do not forecast weather (including hurricane numbers). Reveal the source for the information, and the "climatologist" who was "wrong." It won't happen, because it's a blatent misprepresentation.

Meteorologists on the other hand, do work with weather:

"Klotzbach's team (formerly led by Dr. Gray) defined the average number of storms per season (1950 to 2000) as 9.6 tropical storms, 5.9 hurricanes, and 2.3 major hurricanes (storms exceeding Category 3 strength in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale). A normal season, as defined by NOAA, has 9 to 12 named storms, with 5 to 7 of those reaching hurricane strength, and 1 to 3 major hurricanes.

On December 8, 2006, Klotzbach's team issued its first extended-range forecast for the 2007 season, predicting above-average activity (14 named storms, 7 hurricanes, 3 of Category 3 or higher).

The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation. It officially started June 1, 2007, and ended November 30, 2007, dates that conventionally delimit the period when most tropical cyclones form in the Atlantic basin during the year. However, the formation of Subtropical Storm Andrea on May 9, 2007 marked an earlier beginning to the season, and the season extended past the official end of the season when Tropical Storm Olga developed on December 10. If another tropical or subtropical cyclone were to form before the end of December, it would also count as part of the 2007 season."

2007 "is the first post-season storm since Tropical Storm Zeta in the 2005 season, making this season one of the few with activity both before and after the official bounds of the hurricane season."

2007 has had 15 named storms so far, compared to the CSU 1950-2000 average of 9.6 per season, and the NOAA average of 11 from 1950-2005.

So the hurricane season was well above historical averages, and met 6 out of 9 of the forecasting institutions' forecasts. Meteorology is not accurate, but the climate trend towards warmer oceans, which drives more hurricanes on average over time, is still visible.

Does anyone really fall for these blatent misrepresentations?

So where did the incorrect and misleading information come from, and why is it being posted on Yahoo Answers?

Answer 5

How can they predict the number of hurricanes in a year???? This is impossible. Consider also that they can't even predict the weather for the next week correctly most of the time, so what makes you think they can predict the number of major storms for a year???

Sorry but weather prediction is a guessing game as nature does its thing. They can be close for short term (week or maybe two) but long term is anyones guess.

Answer 6

Once you see through the hoax, all becomes clear.

Note that the people who push AGW the most are the ones with the most to gain: politicians, environmental scientists, companies selling "carbon offsets" and others with a financial stake in this nonsense.

They all make money by keeping the myth alive. There's billions involved so it won't go away easily. I'm happy that the truth is revealing itself and most are seeing the hoax for what it really is, but it may be too late to stop the loss of freedoms.

Although the general public no longer believes this hoax, the politicians are still busy putting all the restrictions and taxes into place. So it's really too late for reason to take over.

Years from now when people wonder why their taxes are so high and they have so little freedom left, they'll blame this generation for falling for this ridiculous hoax.

Well, not everyone fell for it, that's for sure, but we'll all be paying dearly for it.

Answer 7

Well first off it's Meteorologists that are making the predictions, but they try to do it from what Climatologists' data is telling them. The Meteorologists tried to show that the Climatologists' data was correct by predicting that we'd have more hurricanes and that these hurricanes would be category 4 or higher, well so far for two years running they have been way off in their predictions.

Answer 8

You can see from the research being done a few years ago, how confident researchers were that there was a link between global warming and hurricanes.

Turned out they found one, but not by counting the number of catagory 4 & 5 storms, but by inventing a brand new index, they were able to make their predictions come true in retrospect. Still it's better that admitting they were wrong.

It wasn't long ago that this was considered science. Anyone who believes in the scientific consensus is going to have to change their beliefs quite often.

Answer 9

I have been watching the weather reports on TV for years. They can't get the weather correct for three days in a row. How in the world do you expect them to predict the number of hurricanes. And these are the same people that are warning us about global warming.

Answer 10

Because, they're trying to predict what something as complicated as global climate will be like months before it happens. It's not an easy thing to do, even with all the historical records and fancy technology that is beginning to come out.

Answer 11

If they could predict the weather even a couple days in advance it would be a miracle.

Ex. New Englands Blizzard of 2005
It started off as saying it was gonna be 3in... we got 3 1/2 ft.