In 2011, NOAA issued a series of forecasts for Hurricane Irene. Every state on the East Coast was targeted for landfall at some point. When she did finally make landfall in New York as a tropical storm, they declared victory – after betting on every horse in the race.
 | Jeff L. on Analyzing The Western Water Cr… |
 | Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Approaching 100% I… |
| Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Set Another Spring… |
 | gelcarrion0t on New Visitech Features |
 | saveenergy on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 |
| gelcarrion0t on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 |
| gelcarrion0t on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast |
| gelcarrion0t on Seventeen Years Of Fun |
 | Barbara Stockwell on Nuclear Safety In The US |
| saveenergy on 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV… |
Like covering every number on the roulette table. You will still lose.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they blame the unpredictability on “climate change”, despite their “success” rate not having changed much.
Back in the dim dark ages when humans had trouble understanding something they’d attribute it to the “gods”, or “witchcraft”. Now in the case of climate, they attribute everything to “evil” CO2 “caused” by humans; so pretty much aligning it with witchcraft.
Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.
If your point in this post was weather models aren’t perfect, you are right. But when you do not give the forecast error probability distribution, you mislead and give ammo to,warmunists. please do not do that. For example, the Katrina forecast path was spot on. Do not complain about cherry picking when doing it oneself. Really weakens your credibility, as on the gridding thingy.
The problem for both ‘sides’ is that truth will out. Tip from a researched and published lukewarmer who thinks the conversation should be elsewhere than CAGW.
The forecast error probability distribution is right in the pictures. Lines with shaded area that increases in area the further out in time you go.
And these scientists can project climate 10, 20 or 50 years in the future?
Gee, they have my trust.
Rud, I thought the point was that they constantly changed the predicted path to match new observations. In other words they predicted hurricane force landing on every state on the eastern sea board. The declared victory, even though they got a tropical storm on the northern most target.
In climate science they would adjust the data to fit the most alarming prediction after the fact.
Your CAGW point is well taken.
They don’t bet the track, they bet the cone. Certainty is for people who say 2014 was the warmest year on record.