Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Predicting the weather

The hurricane season in the Gulf and Atlantic region has come to an end with the quietest such period in ten years. For this I am thankful, being a resident of coastal Florida, and glad that I did not put too much stock in the predictions of the weather prognosticators who forecast a gloom and doom scenario. It turns out that they don't have any better of an idea than the man in the moon about what's going to happen.

Here I present an article about the upcoming 2006 hurricane season that was published back on March 20th of this year:

http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promotion.asp?dir=aw&page=nehurr

My attitude towards these false prophets, as with global warming doomsayers, is that what shall be---shall be. Our job is to prepare as best we can to face God's will, on His terms not ours. It is foolish to think that these forces, which are far beyond the limited abilities of human intelligence to adequately understand, could ever be predicted with any degree of accuracy. These same weather prophets should try getting the three-day forecast right first! Truth be told they are only correct about 40% of the time predicting that particular outcome.

I wish Al Gore would exclusively focus his very limited intellect on trying to stop brutal and bloody war, something we CAN control, and let the heavens do what they will. His work, in my humble estimation, would be a whole lot more meaningful. We are too small to ever know the inner workings of such systems of might and magnitude. Let's stick to things we can actually have a real effect on.

So whatever you do----try not to put too much of your faith in these earthly prophets of gloom and doom. They just want to scare you into being controlled.

They prophesy falsely unto you in My name: I have not sent them, saith the Lord. Jeremiah 29:9

A short article about the actual outcome of the 2006 hurricane season: http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=44469

4 comments:

Audie said...

Judging by this post, I assumed that these "earthly prophets of doom" must have made some definitive predictions about this past summer's weather, justifying your tone. Having taken the time to read the article you've referred us to, however, I find such statements as:

"The northeast U.S. coast could be the target of a major hurricane, perhaps as early as this season...."

Of course it could. Perhaps.

"...the likelihood of a major hurricane making landfall in the Northeast is not a question of if but when."

Yeah. A question of when.

"The current cycle and above-normal water temperatures are reminiscent of the pattern that eventually produced the 1938 hurricane that struck Providence, R.I...."

Interesting information, perhaps, if you live in Providence, or just give a shit about the weather in general, as some people do (you've met my dad).

"The worry is that it will be sooner, rather than later, for this region to be blasted again."

I would imagine there are some people with a legitimate preference in that regard -- just as our newly relocated Floridian is "thankful" that the storm season turned out to be a quiet one. I don't see anything odd about either feeling.

But there's no mention of global warming in the article, no mention of Al Gore, no "here's what's going to happen this summer, weather-wise, and we're certain about it!" -- all things that I assumed, based on your post, I would find there. Smells a bit like another straw man argument, sir.

For, though you have frequent posts claiming to discredit the current concerns about climate change amongst the scientific community, so far you seem to be aiming at something other than the actual issue -- perhaps a (mis)understanding gleaned from pop journalism or from some right-wing or libertarian mouthpieces who are themselves invested in constructing straw men because they are worried someone might start trying to restrict their Hummer driving (which someone very well might -- but that doesn't justify trying to smudge the facts).

Is the offense you take at the fact that burning fossil fuels emits gases that help trap heat, warming the oceans and causing whatever other effects said trapping might lead to, similar to the offense other Bible-quoters took at what Galileo was telling them about their world? And is your position different from the preacher who pounds the pulpit and says, to much applause, that, by god, his grandparents weren't monkeys! -- and thinks he's refuted natural selection by saying so?

I hope.....

Anyway.... Love ua, Beamis!

aud

P.S. "They just want to scare you into being controlled."

And Beamis just wants to scare you into believing that every time someone says something, it's part of a conspiracy to control you. Who's the doomsayer here, huh?

:-)

Devastatin' Dave said...

It could be that vague terms,such as couldand perhaps, are used precisely because they are uncertain and it's a great way to hedge a bet. My problem is with comments such as "The Northeast is staring down the barrel of a gun" concerning a major hurricane hitting there. Or Al Gore saying we have 10 years to do something or we're all in big trouble.(not in particular article cited) Thatis fear-mongering and doesn't help the debate.

Every year, I could predict that the "big one" is gonna hit NE and I'll get it right, sooner or later, but so what? That is just the law of averages, not any brilliance on my part. If all I can expect from the "experts" is "could," "perhaps," "may," and "possibly" then tell me why I should listen to them? I'm betting Farmer's Almanac is more accurate than the stellar predictions we're getting from the experts.

According to proponents of human-caused global warming, the warmer temps are gonna spur more and larger hurricanes. And, supposedly, 2006 was the year that all this would come to fruition. Well, it didn't happen. From what I've read, a strengthening El NiƱo in the Pacific and increased Saharan dust in the atmosphere tempered the hurricane season. You mean these things weren't factored into the precious weather forecasting models?

Aud-man - I'd like to know why it always seems to be the right-wing and libertarian factions that are constructing strawman arguments to refute human-caused global warming? It seems as though we can only accept arguments from "approved sources," whatever that may be. Are you implying that the left-wing and liberals and socialists would never stoop to such tactics? And, if it's out of some supposed concern of losing the privilege to drive an SUV, then shouldn't Gore be concerned as he and his entourage travel around on private jets and in SUV caravans? And shouldn't Al be unloading his oil and tobacco holdings as a show of good faith for The Cause?

Maybe the right-wing and libertarians are in oppostition because it seems that erstwhile socialists, having their social theory discredited in both theory and practice, have migrated to Environmentalism. Thus, Beamis' contention that,ultimately, it is a matter of controlling the populace.

Hugs and kisses back at both of you recalcitrant SOBs. :-)

Audie said...

DD said: "It could be that vague terms,such as could and perhaps, are used precisely because they are uncertain and it's a great way to hedge a bet."

Exactly.

And exactly why I'm baffled when Beamis goes on about how they're so wrong. That was one of my points.

How can weather forecasters be wrong 60% of the time (as Beamis claims) if they're couching their predictions in terms of probabilities (or words such as could and perhaps)? If you say there's a 99% chance of something happening, and it doesn't happen, you weren't necessarily "wrong."

But if you use language such as "The Northeast is looking down the barrel of a gun," then you are just being sensationalistic -- so I agree with you about the silliness of such a comment. But (my other point was precisely that:) you won't find that kind of language in the scientific literature on global climate change. This uncredited article in question features a guy being interviewed (allegedly) by the very company he works for, on said company's own website (most likely, he wrote the article himself, and quoted himself in the third person to make the article read like some urgent press release) -- a company that is in the business of selling short-term weather forecasts to media outlets. And it is you and Beamis who continue to set such people up as the "experts" on the science of global climate change.

I understand that we might disagree on the credibility of peer-reviewed scientific journals, but if you're going to argue against a scientific position (as Beamis especially is wont to do in this case), you/he should refer to the source material, not some pop media outlet's (or even environmental group's) condensed and oversimplified and misrepresented version of it.

And I don't mean to pick on the right-wingers and the Libertarians -- I agree with a lot of what they say.... OK, with the Libertarians anyway... -- but on this issue they seem to latch onto any straw man they can find, and run it out there as the "expert" view on global warming, thereby claiming to call the entire science into question. But no, they don't have a monopoly on that tactic.

DD said: "According to proponents of human-caused global warming, the warmer temps are gonna spur more and larger hurricanes. And, supposedly, 2006 was the year that all this would come to fruition."

Well, you don't provide a source here, but even the supposedly "expert" article supplied by Beamis specifically says: "the 2006 hurricane season will again be more active than normal, but less active than last summer's historic storm season." So, sounds like, actually, 2005 was the year it would all come to fruition. And... do you dispute that the 2005 storms were "more and larger"?

Thanks for the debate, boyz...............

aud

P.S. DD, your grandparents were monkeys.

Steve said...

As judge, I say all three of you are partly right and partly wrong, but I don't want to go into details at this time. My one contribution is in regard to the "peer review" issue. We could legitimately say, I think, that there WAS a peer review process in Galileo's time, and it was the Catholic Church. Today, the process is better, but it can still tend towards discouraging creativity and bold new ideas. Orthodoxical fervor can blind scientists as well as bishops. The peer review establishment is itself in need of review. Steve D.