Comments on: Behind the hurricane hype

By: Dijeta

Dijeta — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:13:57 +0000

It’s simple, as the WORLD is warming (and please, it’s not on account of co2, but solar activity), the difference in temperatures is muted. Hence, fewer huricanes due to temperature differentials.

By: pregnancy

pregnancy — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:02:14 +0000

Read the entire post. There’s some genuinely insightful details here.

By: fancy nancy

fancy nancy — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:51:10 +0000

off spirit infertile accepted quiet here there tommorow yesterday presume me

By: JCO

JCO — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:05:05 +0000

So….still thinking that forecast was wrong? Fifth fastest to 11 named storms out of any season in recorded history. This is why you never judge a seasonal forecast before the season is over, Mr. Easterbrook, as you end up looking silly quite often.

I also find it amusing you wouldn’t post the comment I made that pointed out that in making your case, you were disingenuous with the numbers. NOAA’s hurricane season forecasts never give a single number, they give a range, and in some of the cases you claimed they were way off, they were either within the range or much closer.

Sorry, if you don’t want your honesty to be called into question, then be honest, Mr. Easterbrook.

By: HeissonRob

HeissonRob — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 04:22:17 +0000

Instead of taking the upper bounds for NOAA, I would have taken the median of their ranges, expecting they were giving something like the one-standard-deviation points of a bell curve, with their real prediction in the center. Don’t know if that changes the scoring at all.

Nonetheless, I agree fully with your conclusion – there’s a lot more news to present if there’s a sense of foreboding, which I think drives some of the hype of climate change. I also think that the sun (currently showing signs of becoming less active) has more impact on our ecosystem than most anything us humans can do, and this is often overlooked in many of the doomsday-predictive stories.

By: Peaceblove

Peaceblove — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 03:07:28 +0000

SanPa: but the experts account for el niño and la Nina and still got it wrong. Also, if we can predict a multiyear, cyclical pattern like el niño and la nina, why do we all of the sudden have the ability to forecast out decades to predict the 2030 or 2050 temps? The experts were freaking out about global cooling during the 1960s and 1970s when we were supposedly warming from 1900 to present, so it is harder and less precise -wait, hyperprecise but less accurate – than we give ourselves credit for…

By: 7zebras

7zebras — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:53:43 +0000

GE,
Love that you are on Reuters now. I have been a longtime TMQ reader and always found your non-football content unbelievably interesting. Journalist should be more then just recorders, they should be skeptics seeking truth. Glad to see that you aptly fill that roll here.

By: JCO

JCO — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:48:28 +0000

Speaking of sneak, Mr. Easterbrook, you are being not exactly honest here…for starters the National Hurricane Center does not make forecasts for exact numbers of hurricanes. They give ranges. Interesting you use the high end number that makes your point look best.

For example, the 2007 season the forecast was for the following:

13-17 named storms, 7-10 hurricanes, 3-5 intense. Actual was 17 named storms, 6 hurricanes, 2 intense. Not complete and total bust you are portraying here. 2009, it was 9-14 storms, 4-7 hurricanes, 1-3 intense. Actual was 9/3/2, correct on the named storms, slightly lower on hurricanes, correct on intense.

As for this year, “mild” Hurricane Danielle was forecasted to become a major hurricane, including while you were writing that, and guess what – they were right. “Mild” must mean a category 4 hurricane in your thinking, because that’s what it was. I am sure the next time a similar storm approaches land, they will be comforted with your thinking that it’s just “mild.”

As for the rest of the season, we are currently above normal. Normally, we wouldn’t see our sixth storm form until Sept. 8. Yesterday Fiona formed. We wouldn’t normally see our third hurricane until Sept. 9, Earl was the third. We wouldn’t normally see our second “intense” or major hurricane until Oct. 3. We already got that with Earl.

Yes, the media overhypes things, but that’s not the fault of NOAA. And you can’t judge a forecast until the season’s over, even if you falsely believe it’s a “quiet” season. You are one of two things here, Mr. Easterbrook – mistaken or dishonest. I hope it’s the former.

Don’t get mad at me, get mad at reality.

By: flyinbayou

flyinbayou — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:25:16 +0000

Thanks for pointing this out, Gregg. I have been saying the same thing for many years. Dr. Gray rolls out his storm prediction every year and those that that are old enough to remember Hurricane Betsy, Camille, etc. start their hand wringing and worrying, most of it unnecessarily. And then midway through the season when the predicted number of storms don’t materialize the experts revise their numbers downward. Much like predicting the score of a game and revising it at half-time. (Along those lines, I think Vegas odds makers would do a much better job of predicting hurricanes than any of these so-called experts!) As a resident of New Orleans I find this type of reporting to be extremely irresponsible and dangerous. I recall when TS Bonnie was forming in the Atlantic the media went into over-drive causing panic in the region. Locals had visions of oil-laced rain being dumped upon them and washing up on shore. The Coast Guard, against the wishes of local experts and leaders, evacuated the clean-up crews and moved equipment and booms out of “harms” way, exposing our wetlands to even more oil. If you remember correctly Bonnie ended up being a non-event, less powerful than the daily afternoon summertime thunderstorms, just as the local leaders predicted. I am sure she disappointed the media.

By: Freealonzo

Freealonzo — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:23:59 +0000

I read your article on hurricane predictions and generally thought it was well done. However I take issue with your examples of hurricanes that killed many thousands of people prior to global warming concerns.

Although your point is correct — there were killer hurricanes prior to global warming — it’s unfair to compare “kill counts” from 1780 or 1900 to today because in both those cases weather forecasting was nonexistent or rudimentary. The population in both those cases didn’t know that hurricanes were coming and didn’t relocate inland, like is commonly done today. Storm surges swept away thousands of people who were completely unaware that they were in any danger. I am sure that the number of people killed by Katrina would have been much higher if the Gulf coast population didn’t have several days warning that a huge hurricane was barreling down on them.

It may be a minor point and doesn’t detract from your the major theme of your article but if you are going to compare hurricane damage from 230 years ago to today you should tell the whole story.