[Storm tracks, 2007 Atlantic hurricane season.]
Well, it's April, and the earliest of the pre-season Atlantic hurricane forecasts have appeared. My latest Daily Green entry parses two sets of predictions that are really quite similar:
Colorado State University: 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, 4 intense hurricanes, heightened U.S. intense hurricane landfall risk
Tropical Storm Risk: 14.8 named storms, 7.8 hurricanes, 3.5 intense hurricanes, heightened U.S. intense hurricane landfall risk
In both 2006 and 2007, the big U.S. landfall didn't happen. But we won't keep on getting lucky....and remember, there have been a staggering 8 Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes in the last 5 years.
Read the full Daily Green item here.
More like this
There has not been much hurricane activity in the Atlantic for a while now, so unsurprisingly the reporting is starting to slip again. This post goes out to all you reporters at CNN and Reuters and Yahoo and everywhere else.
Odile was the strongest hurricane to strike the Baja Peninsula during the period of available data, roughly similar to Hurrican Olivia (1967). The storm reached Category 4 strength but was then weakened because of interaction with the effects of a prior hurricane in the area (Norbert).
Last Saturday night, party animals that we are, some friends and I went on
Joel Mathis asks:
Anybody know the actual mathematical odds of experiencing a hurricane and an earthquake in the same week?
May I quibble - not about something you said, but - about that second prediction. Since there is no such thing as a partial hurricane, what is the point of predicting 7.8 hurricanes? In addition to just being silly, it implies far greater precision in the accuracy of the prediction than is borne out by the inaccuracy of the predictions of the past. Why don't they just say "8" like the other prediction? After all that is an approximation already, it (probably) means 7 or 8 or 9, maybe even means 6 to 10. I hope that Mark CC comments about that.
you wrote:
"Now, having been at that meeting myself, I know that a lot of researchers disagree with Holland about whether you can use a mere eight storms, however extreme, to say anything scientifically defensible. Nevertheless, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that there have been eight Category 5s in the Atlantic in 5 years, people!"
wow.
On the one hand, you say: there's no science behind there being 8 category-5 storms in the last five years.
On the other hand, you make a direct appeal to the emotions: `8 in 5 years, people!' Be afraid! Be very afraid! Even if there's no scientific reason to be afraid.
You even note at the beginning of your article that thes predictions are very inaccurate.
This article strikes me as fear-mongering.
Bill -- You have hit upon the journalistic technique known as the "Mooneyism," which involves the following two-step:
First, make a nod in the direction of scientific uncertainty to buy some "sci cred," and so that you can later cite your own "balanced" journalism if challenged. Then, ignore said uncertainty with a propagandistic appeal to the ignorant emotionalism of your (presumably left-leaning) audience.
Unfortunately, I have to deduct a few points from your score for difficulty, Bill. This one was way too easy. Usually, Chris separates his self-contradictory statements by at least a sentence or two.
Chris,
Have you read Kerry Emanuel's latest study? It doesn't seem to corroborate his earlier work very well. He is to be commended for admitting that the likelihood that global warming is going to significantly increase tropical cyclone strength is much lower than he previously hypothesized.