Chimp vs. NOAA in Hurricane Prediction Contest
BY: NCViking
The earth’s climate is arguably the most complex system on the planet, yet many would have you believe that humans can predict what it will do with certainty. Take Global Warming Climate Change theory, for example.
Some scientists claim that they can foretell the timing and severity of impending world catastrophe from anthropogenic CO2 emissions using computer models with inputs of grossly inadequate and often corrupted data. Enough so to conclude it fact and/or settled science, when in reality we have little more than a neophyte’s understanding of this chaotic system at the very best. This, in my humble opinion, is absurd thinking. As absurd as a chimp predicting how many hurricanes we will have this year? One organization thinks so.
The National Center for Public Policy and Research has made a video using a chimp to make 2010 hurricane predictions (randomly) and has challenged NOAA to see who will be more accurate (to make a point). I am not posting the below video to offend experts at NOAA (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), but more as a light-hearted jab to those who put certainty into climate modeling. I’m curious to find out who’s prediction turns out right … my bet’s on the chimp.
VIDEO: Chimp vs. NOAA in Hurricane Prediction Contest.
- Why Are We Still Listening to Ben Bernanke? - August 31st, 2010
- Favre Returns for One More Year - August 18th, 2010
- Mosque at Ground Zero and the First Amendment - August 18th, 2010
- NFL Predictions 2010 - August 10th, 2010
- Basil Marceaux ... Magnificent! - July 23rd, 2010
I smell a follow-up story after Hurricane season!
I personally find this story offensive… to chimps.
By the way, what was the predicted number from NOAA?
Just a minor twit. You are confusing hurricane predictions by NOAA with climate change science. You are also confusing named storms with hurricanes. You weren’t clear.
NOAA – measures ocean temperatures, uses other factors to predict named storms and hurricanes. In 2009 it predicted 13 named storms and 6 hurricanes. There were 9 named storms and 6 hurricanes.
Climate Scientists – use data collected over decades to study the effect of CO2 accumulation on global temperature.
Windy: NOAA hasn’t released its predictions yet. Colorado State has, and they predict 15 named storms and eight major ones.
Mike: Not confusing anything. Its about predicting the climate, whether it is seasonal hurricanes or total climate warming to catastrophe over time, and claiming certainty in such a chaotic and uncertain (and barely understood) system. That’s absurd.
This chimp?
Certainty? You added that. No Scientist would.
Every prediction is essentially a bell curve. The key factor is the standard deviation. If they predict 11 storms, the first thing I want to know is what probability distribution. Maybe the distribution is 2, meaning 9 – 13. Scientists know that, you should also, if you are going to blog about it.
Climate change science isn’t about predicting 1C raise in 100 years. No body cares if that was the only fact. Temperatures vary much larger on a day to day basis.
The CC work performed in the 80s and 90s created a framework for measuring whether those changes are occurring now, 20 and 30 years later. As trends they fit quite nicely.
To dispute CC, you will have to find an alternative plausible explanation for the rise in specific carbon compounds and of ocean acidification.
There has been a significant drop off in the last 5 years of climate change skeptics. These reason is that very specific compounds have only a single emission source. It can’t be volcanoes, it can’t be the sun, etc….
It goes back to this argument – fact vs. theory, settled science vs. very debatable conclusions, certainty vs. uncertainty. The National Center for Public Policy and Research was using an unserious and humorous goof to make a point. One that I agree with. Related to CC, in reality, we have little more than a neophyte’s understanding of this insanely complex and chaotic system (our climate) at the very best. Barely enough to accurately predict hurricanes, and definitely not enough to predict man-made climate change catastrophe with certainty and/or for politicians to make far-reaching policy decisions.
We’ve covered this before. Scientists would never say science is settled.
The whole science is settled nonsense comes from the media, maybe the left or maybe the right. It’s all crap. You guys are better and smarter than to argue that.
Another media crap is the idea that science is evenly divided between tens of thousands of scientists who believe in CC and tens of thousands of scientists who don’t. That statement is automatically in error. Scientists of what? Climatologists, biologists, paleo-climate experts? Among climate researchers, the overwhelming majority believe that the data shows concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean to be traceable to human activity.
Some things in science are very well known. I think that most scientists would say they know generally where climate change is going. They know much of the chemistry and physics of it. They can measure the acidification of the ocean and make general predictions.
Will there be a magic bullet down the road and the ocean magically clean up the atmosphere? sure. Until then its a pretty lousy bet.
In order to make world-changing decisions regarding ‘Climate Change’, there must be certainty.
Is the earth warming? Yes/No
If so, is that warming natural cycle? Yes/No
If so, is that warming man-influenced? Yes/No
If it is warming, will it lead to catastrophe? Yes/No
If it is man-influenced, can we reverse it by our actions? Yes/No
Yes must be the answer to all of these questions (except the natural cycle one) to commit to the kind of dramatic action being proposed on ‘Climate Change’. Certainty. The post is about an organization demonstrating through humor that any certainty regarding the chaotic and hugely complex system of our climate is foolish.
Viking, you are forgetting a few other critical questions…
If there is global warming, is it net harmful benefit?
If it is harmful, what are the potential solutions?
If there more than one solution, which one makes the most sense to implement from a cost/benefit?
The CC Alarmists tend to say that there is warming, that it is prima facie harmful, and therefore they need to act to reverse it because man did it and it is all our fault. They are single solution driven.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/
Well … there are a few other solutions. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084
… or ACK!
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all
Can’t imagine how any of that could turn out bad.
If we are 80% certain pumping CO2 into the air is harming the planet, such a skilling the fish (ocean acidification), would we not move to other sources of fuel?
Regarding the article Amy Ridenour states
“NOAA’s forecasts have been wrong not because of a lack of dedication or competence of its forecast team, but because climate science is really still its infancy,” said Amy Ridenour, president of The National Center for Public Policy Research……..If we can’t rely on 6-month forecasts, how can rely on forecasts of what rising carbon concentrations will do to our climate 25, 50 or even 100 years out?”
FYI:
Hi People could you please pass this fact onto Amy Ridenour so she can stop displaying how ignorant she is regarding weather and climate (hint hint they aren’t the same thing and she’s confusing the two).
A hurricane is a weather condition. Weather is the state of the atmosphere as measured at any given time point.
The atmosphere is a chaotic system, so small changes to one part of the system can grow to have large effects on the system as a whole. It is theoretically impossible to make useful day-to-day predictions more than about two weeks ahead, imposing an upper limit to potential for improved prediction skill.
Climate is”average weather,” or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time usually 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The variables which determine climate are numerous and the interactions complex, but they are stable over the long term and there is general agreement that the broad outlines are understood, at least insofar as the determinants of historical climate change are concerned. Climate is predictable.
Nobody can predict the Weather in Las Vegas for August 6, 2010 but I bet you million dollars the Las Vegas Climate will be hot and dry that month. I bet you another million the Atlantic Climate supports hurricane formation this year and Europe’s Climate does not.
Climate not predictable ? Wanna bet?
*skilling = killing
Every year I hear about these predictions, I would just like to know how often these hurricane predictions are right? Is there a way to check past predictions?
Trackbacks
Zoo wants smoking chimp to kick the habit |
Age-Old Question: How Deep Is the Ocean? | TodaysNews
Bill Clinton has evolved into Obama’s Mr. Fix-It – Washington Post | Midterm Vote
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 26 months, 0 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 50 minutes, 26 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags