Follow up on Criticism of AGU Hurricane Assessment
July 21st, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Not long ago I criticized an AGU assessment of hurricane science for its demonstrably inaccurate treatment of seasonal climate forecasts. I hypothesized that the issue of seasonal hurricane forecasts had been caught up in the “hurricane-climate wars” between Bill Gray and Greg Holland. Holland and Peter Webster (who were both involved with preparing the AGU report) took serious issue with my even raising this hypothesis (how dare I!!), flatly denying any such relationship between the AGU report’s criticism of Gray’s seasonal forecasts and the global warming debate. However, In today’s hearing (that I participated in) Judy Curry’s testimony completely vindicates my raising this issue (Curry is a collaborator with Holland and Webster). Here is the relevant excerpt from her testimony (PDF):
It may take up to a decade for the observations to clarify the situation as to which explanation, natural variability or global warming, has better predictive ability. In the short term, evaluation of seasonal forecasts for the North Atlantic can provide some insights into the predictive capability of natural variability. Holland (2006) has conducted an assessment of statistical forecasts of North Atlantic tropical storm activity. Seasonal forecasts are based upon the statistics of North Atlantic tropical storms for the period since 1950. W. Gray commenced making seasonal forecasts in 1984. For the first decade (until 1994), Grays forecasts performed well (Figure 10), with a bias error of -0.2 storms per season for the June forecasts and a root mean square error of 1.8. In the period since 1998, Grays forecasts have performed much worse, with a notable low bias averaging -3.1 storms per season and a root mean square error of 5.2. NOAAs seasonal forecasts for the same period show little variation from Grays forecasts. It is argued here that the persistent low bias in the seasonal forecasts since 1995 indicates that the elevated activity in this period cannot be explained solely by natural variability seen in the historical data record since 1950.
July 21st, 2006 at 5:17 am
FWIW, Curry’s numbers differ marginally from those in Klotzbach’s spreadsheet that you posted before. I’m sure it is entirely coincidental that her version of the figures favours her and his version favours him
(I have no view on which version is correct.) Of course the “persistent” post-1998 bias and error is dominated by last year’s extraordinary figures in any case.
July 21st, 2006 at 5:23 am
Absurd statements are plentiful in this field, but this is bizarre in the extreme.
“Forecasts have underestimated horricane activity in recent years, ergo, there is increasing influence from “non-natural” factors”
Could I ask if anyone laughed out loud when Ms Curry made this comment?
July 21st, 2006 at 6:18 am
Roger,
These continued attacks on scientists (particularly myself, webster, holland, emanuel, anthes, trenberth) that are trying to do research and respond to public requests for information are inappropriate, unprofessional, and a waste of scientists time (I am not sure why I am wasting my time responding to this, but the record needs to be set straight). Look at the data and the science, and please stop attacking the scientists based on your erroneous assumptions about their personal motivations or scientific motivations. These aren’t relevant to the scientific arguments, nor should they play a role in how the science is evaluated.
Anyone who makes a forecast publicly available can expect to have it evaluated. As per the argument in my testimony, the seasonal hurricane forecasts and their performance is an issue that is relevant in in the hurricane/global warming debate. In fact I have been discussing this in my public lectures for about the past 8 months.
While I was aware that Holland was working on evaluating the seasonal forecasts, I had not seen any of his analyses until after your brouhaha about the AGU Workshop report. Since then, i have read and reviewed the paper that he has now submitted to GRL. I asked him if I could use one of the figures in my testimony, and he agreed.
In my testimony I have referenced the one paper that to my knowledge has been submitted to a refereed journal on this that includes the most recent data and does not simply compare with the previous 50 year average. In a relatively short record, one bad forecast can have a substantial impact on the statistics, but even if 2005 is eliminated, the period 1995-2004 shows much poorer performance than the previous decade. Also, a useful forecast scheme is one that can predict the largest deviations from the average (the users of such forecasts are presumably not much worried by an average year). So anyone that is trying to evaluate the forecast in terms of its usefulness (such as the AGU group concerned about planning for New Orleans) should find Holland’s figure presented in my testimony to be useful.
It is my understanding that Greg Holland began evaluating the seasonal hurricane forecasts well over a year ago, prior to the Webster et al. (2005) paper. In the AGU Workshop that Holland was invited to participate in, he presented his research that was of relevance to the workshop. The emphasis of this workshop was on disaster management and future planning for New Orleans. In the context of this meeting, and based upon the data, the statement in the AGU Workshop report was entirely appropriate.
The connection between greenhouse warming and the performance of the seasonal forecasts is something that I have been arguing, and was not the motivation for Greg Holland’s analysis. In fact, in his GRL paper, he does not even draw the conclusion that I am drawing re the connection with global warming.
So Roger, please stick to the scientific arguments and the data that supports them. It is unprofessional for you to continue to attack (your fabricated) motives of scientists that are working hard in this incredibly challenging environment. At the end of the day, it is not our motives that matter, it is the science. It is particularly disturbing that such accusations on your blog are being picked up by the media (which is presumably your motivation?) to discredit our research by the fallacious “appeal to motive” argument.
Your website purports to examine the nexus between policy and science. Instead, i find you to be personally politicizing the science. On the hurricanes and global warming issue, you rank #2 on my list in terms of people that are politicizing the science and distracting the media and public from the real scientific issues. This is not the behaviour of an “honest broker”.
Judy
July 21st, 2006 at 8:11 am
Hi, Judith – I share you assessment “At the end of the day, it is not our motives that matter, it is the science. ” – but you have to admit that the day can be very long. During all morning and even throughout the afternoon, it may be that the science is not dominating; I heard on Wednesday during a hearing a congresswoman asking a scientist if he had thought about what damage his results may cause for instituting a reasonable climate policy.
We have to keep in mind, when we look at ourselves, that science is a cultural practice done by social actors – us. We need to do this practice in a sustainable manner, and I think that Roger is doing a vey good service in helping this. (But I do not want to take sides in the specifics of your dispute.)
Who is your #1?
Hans
July 21st, 2006 at 8:14 am
Judy-
Thanks for your comments. A few replies:
1. The AGU assessment for policy makers included erroneous scientific conclusions. It turns out that they conclusions were based on an analysis that has yet to go through peer review. This is a clear failure of the AGU’s assessment process and its authors. This is indeed a matter of science and policy.
2. While you were quick to use Holland’s unpublished analysis in your testimony, you ignored other analyses showing a different perspective, as well as relevant peer-reviewed science that has evaluated seasonal forecasts. Such selectivity is called cherry-picking. I’d urge some caution in cherry-picking non-peer reviewed/unpublished science in a political setting. This approach is traditionally more characteriztic of the skeptics, and has appropriately led to criticisms of their motives. It suggests that you were either willfully misleading (or uninformed) in trying to discredit other scientists in a politicl setting. This game rarely works.
3. You write, “It is unprofessional for you to continue to attack (your fabricated) motives of scientists that are working hard in this incredibly challenging environment.” I find this incredibly hypocritical given your written testimony yesterday in which you characterized people who disagree with you as, “. . . global warming deniers, consisting of a small group of scientists plus others that are motivated to deny global warming owing to the implications associated with any policy to control greenhouse gas emissions.” You made even stronger comments in your oral remarks in reply to questions.
So let me get this straight — it is OK for you to strongly criticize the motives of those who disagree with you. But the motives of you and your colleagues are off limits for discussion? Gotcha.
4. As you know I think that the entire debate about global warming and hurricanes is a distraction to implementing effective responses to to the risks of hurricanes. I also think that energy policies (while important for other reasons) cannot be an effective means of addressing future hurricane losses. So I’d be interested in how you think these policy recommendations would be different under the “real scientific issues” (whatever those are).
Thanks for commenting!
July 21st, 2006 at 8:19 am
Judith,
rethinking this – “It is argued here that the persistent low bias in the seasonal forecasts since 1995 indicates that the elevated activity in this period cannot be explained solely by natural variability seen in the historical data record since 1950.” — I have to admit that this is a rather sweeping statement. Maybe, you have additional arguments, but if this sentence is really the ky argument then I would say we have case of rather limited understanding of climate statistics and little familiarity with detection & attribution arguments. There is (natural) interdecadal variability which may affect predictability.
Regards, Hans
July 21st, 2006 at 10:48 am
When I put on my verification hat, I think the claim that “persistent low bias in the seasonal forecasts since 1995 indicates that the elevated activity in this period cannot be explained solely by natural variability seen in the historical data record since 1950″ is weak. If I approach the problem without knowing what variable is being forecast, what I see is a forecast system that has a slightly low bias, but has a conditional bias on top of that. For now, if we ignore the 2005 forecast, the mean forecasts from 1984-2004 were 1 below the mean observed number.
More importantly, of the lowest 7 observed years in the 1984-2004 record, 6 were overforecast, and one was forecast correctly. The highest 9 observed years were underforecast. The middle 5 (associated with either 11 or 12 observed events, with the 1984-2004 mean of 11.6) had a correct forecast, two underforecast by 1, and one other error of each sign.
This is not an uncommon forecast system performance. The forecasts underestimate the variability on both sides of the mean. Events with a below average number are overforecast and above average events are underforecast. It’s the same thing that’s seen in the temperature forecasts from the NWS. The underforecasts of the above average events are larger in magnitude than the overforecasts of below average events because of the existence of a “practical” floor, associated with the skew in the distribution of number of events.
Given that background, I would expect the _really_ extreme event of 2005 to be underforecast significantly. I also would expect this year’s forecast to be an underforecast.
July 21st, 2006 at 11:20 am
In my testimony, I went to extreme pains to establish skepticism as an essential element of the scientific process. I consider the published contributions from Klotzback, Landsea, Michaels and Chan to be constructive elements of the scientific debate and clearly recognize them as such in my testimony.
In my discussion of the divergence between the scientific and public debate, I am not referring to scientists that are actively engaging in the scientific debate. I am referring to TV meteorologists with at best a B.S. in meteorology, lawyers from organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc. that are publicly denying greenhouse warming. These people do not offer anything to the scientific debate other than their opinions. I do not say anything about the motives of people making such statements; I only say that they have been misleading the public debate.
The figure from Holland simply plots the data: observations and forecasts that are publicly available. The aspect of this comparison that is relative to my argument is the low bias in the last decade. This is evident from eyeballing the figure. I am not interested in whatever skill scores are used to evaluate these forecasts, it is only the low bias that is relevant to my argument.
My arguments have been grossly misinterpreted by Paul and also by Hans (i encourage them to read the entire statement). The argument that I make is that the avaialable observations cannot by used, based upon a natural variability argument, to refute our hypothesis that greenhouse warming is contributing to an increase in hurricane activity. I make no attempt to claim that this low bias in the forecast supports the greenhouse warming idea; only that it weakens the natural variability argument.
In terms of criticizing people, at this point I am only criticizing you for attacking the motives of other scientists. I am not attacking you for disagreeing with me or with anyone else in terms of our science (although I have found your published statements and then your defense of them when misinterpreted leaving me unclear whether you disagree with my scientific arguments or not).
I went to extreme pains to present the major evidence on both sides of the gobal warming and hurricane debate, rather than merely to promote my own research. This selection of material and the arguments used to evaluate this material reflects my best effort to untangle the evidence and present a clear statement of the uncertainties. Others might write a different statement, but surely there are more important things in that statement to be discussed than a straightforward plot of observations and forecasts of named storms.
Judy
July 21st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Thanks Judy for these further comments. A few replies …
1. I have offered a plausible explanation for why the AGU assessment for policy makers reported incorrect science related to the skill of seasonal forecasts. Perhaps you have another explanation for why misleading science was included, and when pointed out to contributors, it has not been corrected? Assessments for policy makers are simply not the place to advance new, unpublished hypotheses or views.
2. You acknowledge that uncertainty on this issue will persist for some time when you write, “It may take up to a decade for the observations to clarify the situation as to which explanation, natural variability or global warming, has better predictive ability.” This would seem to be a clear acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the debate. But then you also assert that the debate “made it very difficult [for Jeb Bush] to assess the actual risk” facing Florida. This suggests that the debate is somehow improper or creating obtsacles to effective policy. If there is a legitimate debate, what alternative is there for Jeb Bush other than to recognize that risks are high, amply proven the past 2 years, vulnerabilities are huge, and scientific certainty on the exact nature of the future is not immediately forthcoming.
My view, which I strongly emphasize once again, is that the global warming/hurricane debate is completely irrelevant to policies relates to preparing for hurricanes in Florida and elsewhere. The same policies make sense if you are proven right in 10 years or Landsea is proven right. By asserting that short-term policies depend upon resolving this debate, it is you who is misleading policymakers.
But perhaps I have missd something — how would Florida’s hurricane policies differ under your science versus that of Landsea/Chan? I don’t think it would, but maybe you do. (?)
3. As far as my own views, here are two peer reviewed papers in which I and colleagues clearly describe our views on the subject of hurricanes/global warming science and policy:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch, 2005. Hurricanes and global warming, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86:1571-1575.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1766-2005.36.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R. A., C.W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, R. Pasch, 2006. Reply to Hurricanes and Global Warming Potential Linkages and Consequences, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 87, pp. 628-631.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2458-2006.06.pdf
If you have questions about the views therein, just let me know.
Thanks!
July 21st, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Judy – you write: “I make no attempt to claim that this low bias in the forecast supports the greenhouse warming idea; only that it weakens the natural variability argument.” I thought an argument, which indicates that natural variability is too low to explain a phenomeon would be a kind of proof that it is not natural thus (partially) man-made. Do you mean a weakening of the “natural variability argument” would not strengthen the non-natural variability (= human signal) argument? Possibly, I mix something up, please help me to sort it out.
You use the term bias – could you be a bit more precise with that term? In statistical terms, “bias” is well defined term; it is not something you would detemine by eyeballing, if you have not defined the low-frequency variability structure you are talking about. What are the time scales of variability? Hurricanes characteristics have marked decadal variability, right? Thus, the error in predicting such a phenomenon would have a similar low-frequency characteristics.
You may want to reconsider this statement: “I am not interested in whatever skill scores are used to evaluate these forecasts, it is only the low bias that is relevant to my argument.” – the “bias” is one type of measure of success, something some people name “skill”. I do not know who “Paul” is, but I guess we share the view that it may definitely be helful to engage some statistical reasoning.
The comment made by Harold Brooks is most useful. You should consider it.
I appreciate that you openly participate in this debate.
Good evening,
Hans von Storch
July 21st, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Hi Harold,
You write, “More importantly, of the lowest 7 observed years in the 1984-2004 record, 6 were overforecast, and one was forecast correctly. The highest 9 observed years were underforecast. The middle 5 (associated with either 11 or 12 observed events, with the 1984-2004 mean of 11.6) had a correct forecast, two underforecast by 1, and one other error of each sign.”
Wow! Interesting observation! Can you take the data back even further? (I’m sure I, or anyone with Internet access, could probably do so if the data go back before 1984, but you seem to have the data right in front of you.)
One thing I have have a question on, though. In your last comment, you write: “I also would expect this year’s forecast to be an underforecast.”
Doesn’t this statement include an assumption that this year will be more active than most?
Wouldn’t the more general prediction be: “I also would expect this year’s forecast to be an underforecast if the season is active, but an overforecast if the season is inactive”?
Best wishes,
Mark
July 21st, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Hi,
I see from this article that Bill Gray has “only” been doing predictions since 1984:
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/051206_hurricane_forecast_2006.html
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:24 am
I could not agree more with Roger’s argument that the global warming/hurricane debate is irrelevant to policy. Communities in hurricane prone areas need to be prepared whether man-made global warming is happening or not.
For example, the probability of any specific spot alone the coast experiencing category 4 or 5 hurricane force winds in a given year is less than 5%, even for the most active areas. Now lets say that man-made global warming increases that risk per year to a maximum of 6% (which I believe is a lot more than any of the models currently predict). Would anyone opposed to strengthening building codes at a 5% risk decide that a 6% risk is a call to immediate action? Would a change in the estimate of 100-year storm surge from 18 feet to 18.5 feet cause communities to rethink development plans?
The fact is that most communities in hurricane prone areas have been woefully unprepared for hurricanes for decades, and the problem gets worse as populations continue to increase. If we look at effective solutions to this problem, augmenting global CO2 emissions does not even make the list. I would be disappointed in my Governor (Jeb Bush) if he really thinks that CO2 emissions should factor into the states hurricane preparadness and policies.
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:12 am
The main problem with Judith Curry’s analysis (along with others who tie hurricanes to AGW) is the way in which historical data is handled. She readily admits that the older the records are, the less reliable they become, yet she uses them to make many of her points anyway. This would be fine if the ‘unreliability’ went both ways, but it doesn’t. A more accurate way of stating the data problem would be that the older the record, the more under sampled it is likely to be! In other words, there is no way for the record of tropical storms from 1904, to have more storms than actually existed that year. It is highly unlikely that the records from 1904 would have a hurricane at a higher category than it actually was. There is, however, a near certainty that the record may not contain all the storms that developed, or at least has underreported the maximum strength of some of the storms.
This under-reporting in the historical record is true for the number of storms, the duration of hurricane season and particularly for the intensity of storms! If the exact same season as 2005 occurred in 1930, as many as 6 to 8 of the named storms may not have been named. More amazingly, if the 2005 hurricane season had occurred in 2004, we would have had one less hurricane. (Cindy was upgraded from a tropical storm to a hurricane months after the end of the season, based on the reanalysis of data obtained from a recently installed, state-of-the-art Doppler radar in a Hurricane Hunter Aircraft. If ‘Cindy’ happened in 2004, she would forever be in the record books as a tropical storm.)
The increase in ‘observational technology’ has been marked by such major changes as aircraft observations (1944 to present), weather radar (1950s to present), satellite observations (1960s to present) and Doppler radar (1980s to present), but has been steadily improving long before, during and after these big leaps. Increasing populations along the coast and in the number of ships at sea is one factor, along with the improving observational skills of these populations since the 1800s. Aircraft observers have steadily increased their abilities to detect the intensity of storms over the years. Satellites have steadily improved as well, but are still the least accurate way of determining peak hurricane intensity.
Not only has the technology improved, but the methodology at the National Hurricane Center has changed, resulting in storms being upgraded more readily. Dr. Neil Frank, Director of the National Hurricane center from 1973-1987, commented that during his tenure, they would typically wait for verifying data to confirm that a storm had intensified. Now, they often make the call on a single observation. Dr. Frank claims that if the old standards were still used today, there would be fewer storms of each category in the record books.
Stating that the older records are ‘unreliable’ when they are actually ‘under-reported’ seems a bit disingenuous to me, particularly when so much of ones work depends on showing an upward trend that would likely go away or be reversed if the data was handled realistically.
With this in mind, the only graph of Atlantic Storm activity in Ms. Curry’s presentation that still has validity, is the graph of US landfalling storms. While there still is a slight chance that a landfalling tropical storm or hurricane could have gone unreported in the 1800’s, it is less likely to be under reported than the other variables. The interesting thing about this graph is that it clearly shows a general decline in the number of landfalling hurricanes from the beginning of the industrial revolution to about 1994! The large spike at the end data is no doubt the result of the last few seasons and could (and likely will) be reduced be a couple of years with perhaps only two to four landfalling storms factored into the 11-year running mean.
On other issues, she sites the studies which indicate no increase in the number of storms globally in recent decades, but an increase in the intensity of the storms. (Again, all questionable based on the above argument.) This supposed increase in intensity is tied to the increase in tropical sea surface temperatures around the globe. Later in her presentation, she states that the Atlantic Basin will see, on average, 5 more tropical systems per year because of warmer sea surface temperatures. If the warmer water temperatures around the globe have not resulted in more storms, were is the data that supports such a statement for the Atlantic Basin?
I was also somewhat confused by the story about the trip to the Arctic. The premise was that the Arctic was not as warm as the models said it should be, so they went there in search of negative feedbacks that might explain the observations. What they found was more positive feed backs than the expected! I would take this to mean that the theory was even more wrong than I thought! The temperature of the Arctic had a value. If you find more factors contributing to warming than you expected, than the warming potential of CO2 (or some other variables) had to be less than expected, or the value would have been greater! I don’t get how this trip bolstered the idea that CO2 was more of a problem than thought!
July 24th, 2006 at 5:07 am
Hans,
My style is somewhat more caustic than yours, but you would be correct in assuming that:
“it may definitely be helful to engage some statistical reasoning.”
July 24th, 2006 at 5:25 am
Re: Mark Bahner’s (July 21, 2006 10:42 PM) comment
There is an implicit assumption in the statement that this year’s season will be above average. The forecasts have shown reasonable skill in getting the sign of the departure from climatology right, so I’m using that information.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Hi Harold,
You’ve presented very interesting information on the history of actual Atlantic Basin storms versus predictions.
I just saw that NOAA does storm predictions for the East Pacific and Central Pacific:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2634.htm
Do you have similar historical data (predicted versus actual) for those areas?
Thanks,
Mark
July 24th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Mark-
This is the first I’ve heard of a Pacific outlook. NOAA only started doing Atlantic outlooks in ‘98-’99 and the earliest Pacific outlook I can find mentioned online is 2003. The format of the NOAA outlooks (a range of values) is sufficiently different from the CSU outlooks, and the record is short enough that there’s limited information available.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
In my previous post, I pointed out some important facts about the historical hurricane records that call in to question the conclusions of Judith Curry and others, concerning the connection between global warming and hurricanes. There was nothing at all personal in my comments. I did not suggest that Ms. Curry had questionable motives or wonder about her political affiliations. I do not care how she gets paid or how many journal publications bear her name. I do not question her I.Q. or her pedigree. My comments were strictly of a scientific nature. After reading her comments before congress, particularly the section marked ‘Mixing politics and science’ (see the .pdf file linked above in Roger’s original post), I don’t believe Ms. Curry is affording others the same consideration.
She claims that while the scientific debate is proceeding as it should, the public debate is being twisted by some questionable activities, and bullets four points in her presentation. The first is:
“The influence of global warming deniers, consisting of a small group of scientists plus others that are motivated to deny global warming owing to the implications associated with any policy to control greenhouse gas emissions.”
The use of the phrase ‘global warming deniers’ is inaccurate and generally considered derogatory, like the phrase ‘flat-Earthers’. I do not know of anyone who denies that the planet has warmed over the last 150 years or that increasing CO2 has a warming influence on the atmosphere. The scientific question has always been about the magnitude of this influence, not if it exists. She prefaced these points with a discussion of how carefully she considered the situation, so her choice of the phrase must be intentional and designed to carry a negative emotional message, not a factual one. Then she insinuates that part of this fictitious group is motivated by greed. I do not know what motivates Judith Curry and I would never be so bold as to speculate such things in front of Congress.
Number 2:
“The tendency of a large number of forecast meteorologists (including TV meteorologists) to deny global warming and in particular the possibility of a link between increasing hurricane intensity and global warming”
This statement smacks of a bias that begins in undergrad classes: “The real smart ones go into research; the dumber ones go into forecasting and the dumb ones with big egos become TV meteorologists.” The above statement is made without any supporting data. Who is denying global warming? (A crisis maybe, but not global warming.) Is it not possible that even a mere forecast meteorologist would have the ability to judge a scientific paper on its merits? If such things can only be understood by a handful of academic research scientists, why bother testifying before Congress? Aren’t they too stupid too?
Number 3:
“The public statements by NOAA administrators and National Weather Service scientists that neglect the published research and deny a link between hurricanes and global warming”
There is a big difference between neglecting something and disagreeing with it. I am quite sure that everyone Ms. Curry accuses of ‘neglecting’ the research is actually quite familiar with it, but not persuaded. Her accusation is false and unsupported!
Secondly, one must consider who she is accusing of such behavior. In the first paragraph of her testimony she states that she has been a research scientist for the past 25 years “…and most recently (focused on) the impact of warming sea surface temperatures on the characteristics of tropical cyclones.” While she admits that she is a newcomer to the world of tropical climatology, she has no problem testifying before Congress that the leading tropical climatologists in the world are causing problems by not agreeing with her! How dare these individuals who have studied hurricane climatology all of their lives have issues with her relatively simple analysis of historical hurricane trends and the conclusions she draws!
While she may have earned some political points for such audaciousness, she lost some scientific ones.
Is it surprising that many TV meteorologists would side with NOAA and the National Hurricane Center’s Hurricane Specialists over some recent academic studies touting more doom and gloom? I don’t think so!
Number 4:
“The role of certain elements of the media in promoting divisiveness among the scientists, polarizing the debate, and legitimizing disinformation”
Welcome to the world of the media! The media loves to promote divisiveness, polarize debate and spread disinformation, but what exactly is implied here? Does ‘disinformation’ mean information that is not correct, or information that Ms. Curry disagrees with. From the context, I can only assume the latter, once again demonstrating a remarkable audaciousness. I disagree with many of the scientific arguments concerning AGW, but if they are expressed sincerely, I would never characterize them as ‘disinformation’.
While I have serious issues with Judith Curry’s testimony before Congress, finding it disturbingly judgmental and inflammatory, I commend her for signing on to Kerry Emanuel’s statement (detailed today on Prometheus and elsewhere) recognizing that the US Hurricane problem transcends the debate on human induced warming and tropical cyclones.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Not to pile on to Jim Clarke’s critique of Judith Curry’s recent Congressional testimony
, but now that I’ve read the testimony, I have an additional comment.
Dr. Curry testified that,
“Further, the draft IPCC 4th Assessment Report presents climate model simulations that are far
more sophisticated and accurate than were available in prior assessments, substantially increasing the credibility of such simulations and the associated projections.”
The simple scientific fact is that the “projections” in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) have zero credibility, as noted in the IPCC TAR itself:
“Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts.”
Since the “projections” are NOT “predictions nor forecasts,” they can’t be proven false. And falsifiability is the absolute cornerstone of legitimate science. (That is precisely why “Creation Science” is not science; the advocates of “Creation Science” will not acknowledge any conditions under which the actions they claim were done by God can be shown NOT to have been done by God.)
Unless the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) DOES have falsifiable predictions or forecasts of the future, it will be no more scientific than the IPCC TAR. (One thousand times zero is still zero.)
And if anyone would like to bet that AR4 has falsifiable predictions of the future, I’ll be happy to take that bet. (Note: I haven’t seen AR4, but I’ll be shocked if the IPCC decides, at this late date, that it actually should do science.)
Dr. Curry went on to testify, “The cautious conclusions of the large body of scientists contributing to these assessment reports by evaluating a large body of published research are extremely important in providing a balanced overview of the state of knowledge in the scientific research community. Based upon these assessments, our understanding of how the climate system works, while incomplete, is more than sufficiently robust to afford a basis for rational action.”
In other words, we now know enough to take “rational action.” Does this mean that, prior to obtaining this knowledge, “irrational action” was all we could manage?
Dr. Curry also doesn’t state what this “rational action” is, particularly regarding hurricanes. But there does seem to be some recent advice that’s relevant:
“We call upon leaders of government and industry to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of building practices, and insurance, land use, and disaster relief policies that currently serve to promote an ever-increasing vulnerability to hurricanes.”
October 18th, 2006 at 7:02 am
Interestingly, over at the Climate Audit blog Judy Curry now believes that the part of her congressional testimony cited above and Greg Holland’s analysis on which it is based is flawed.
She writes:
“Owing to the excellent work of Willis (Eschenbach – in the CA blog discussions], we have identified that Gray’s forecasts are skilfull relative to one of the metrics being used by Greg Holland (contrary to what Greg Holland has been reporting). The argument that I have been starting to develop re statistical forecast models performing more poorly the past decade is not supported by using Holland’s analysis of Gray’s actual forecasts (but there wasn’t much influence of the statistical model on these forecasts anyways).”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=857#comment-52441