First NOAA can only make predictions based on the information at hand. Global warming has projected the possibility of more storms and worsening storms. So, they take this into considerations. A prediction is simply that, a prediction. It is not a guarantee and nobody is taking bets but predictions fail, models fail.
Your BS on 17 years no warming is based on a lie in an article Jan 19th 2012 by someone who lied about MET data in DailyMail But daily mail doesn't check facts and that is why they provide readers with bogus information The original article said 15 years but it has been changed to 16 and 17 years by other skeptics who continue to spread the lie
There are no AGW cultists There are however skeptic/denier cultists who spread lies like you have and misinformation without verifying the credibility of the source
James you ignore the truth The 17 warmest years globally have all been in the last 18 years. This not a guess, it is based on real time temperature measurements from over 1300 weather stations worldwide and satellite data This is not a coincidence it is fact that the planet is warming. Sorry if you still don't know jack
There are two issues here ... the reliability of forecasting for the year ahead (ie how bad the season will be) and the forecasting in the hours and days before a tropical storm hits. NOAA have a very good record of the latter which can be seen at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/ver...
As for the former, well that's a lot more difficult to do. Does our lack of predictive power year-to-year disprove AGW? No.
If you have a better theory than AGW to explain our observations, kindly post the links to the papers so us warmists can read them.
Gary F got it right. Hurricane forecasters look at historical data to find the closest match to the current conditions. El Nino/La Nina. PDO, AMO, projected SAL conditions are some of the entities that are looked at. Every hurricane forecasting service had predicted an active to hyper-active 2013 Atlantic Basin hurricane season. This would include the renown, long term weather forecaster Joe Bastardi. Even Joe Bastardi, a climate change denier that prefers to be called a "skeptic", was saying that the remainder of the 2013 Atlantic Basin hurricane season would be active even after the first half of the season proved to be unremarkable. So, if all the hurricane forecasters blew their predictions for the 2013 season, what has changed from the climatological norms that they use to make their forecasts? This is yet to be determined in the post season analysis. Stay tuned, weather fans.
They got all the seasons wrong . They predicted a Mild 2012/2013 Winter
It snowed and was cold .
They predicted a warm Spring . It was a cold Spring till the middle of April.
They predicted a Hot Summer It was a mild Summer.
They base it on Climate models and their accurate as a Fortune teller .
AGW should be based on Astrology
Here's what makes your argument incredibly stupid (you really should not be arguing about a subject that you're not informed on). Seasonal hurricane forecast techniques are all based on work originally by William Gray and his group. He is an AGW denier (he calls himself that). His group also failed miserably this year in forecasting hurricane number.
Sorry to point out that it's the deniers that are responsible for the terrible hurricane forecasts. Maybe you should learn something next time before opening your mouth.
Oh, wait, that's against the denier credo.
EDIT: By the way, I should have added that NOAA is the organization that has the reputation of saving thousands of lives.
Disclaimer: I DO NOT BELIEVE, ENDORSE, OR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY MY FOLLOWING ANSWER.
I simply want to address the poor logic of your argument.
>>Obviously NOAA is using data and projections provided by AGW cultists.<<
The are using the same historic hurricane data they have always used in their forecasts– which, according to you, were until recently more accurate.
If hurricane predictions for the recent decade or so have become less predictable that would suggest a possible change in the climate system (not in the historic data or forecasting methods) – and it would be just as reasonable (actually, more reasonable) to attribute the increase in perceived random variability to AGW – rather than to some mystery cause.
=======
edit --
>> AlGore, the father of AGW <<
Not in the world of science.
Atmospheric physics suggests that in the long run wet areas will become wetter and dry areas will become drier - and this is partly a function of an increase in the number of extreme events. AGW does not say it will happen every year or that it will increase lineally.
Do you have any scientific evidence that contradicts the physics?
They can't correctly predict tornadoes but they have the climate temperatures on lockdown. Sure they're not "correct" in the real sense but in the made up alarmist world they are scary accurate and precise. Alarmists live in Bizarro world where reality means nothing to them. Their reality is based on predictions and they believe the predictions overrule actual reality.
Skeptic: "We've had no significant warming for 17 years."
Alarmist with blank look on face: "The climate models predicted a 1 degree C increase in temperatures so it's getting really bad."
If they predicted that all was well, where would they be now. Out of work I think. So they fib a little and live to eat another day. What are a few little fibs when you are saving the whole planet. Global warming is not a science problem, it is pure politics, that is why it stinks so much.
Ignorance is bliss but it does not change reality.
I'll go with the experts on this one. I hope you go to a real doctor if you ever need surgery.
NOAA has failed to even come close to predicting with any kind of accuracy the hurricane season activity in the last 7 of 10 years.
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/12/noaa-should-get-out-of-the-hurricane-forecasting-business-2-2776768.html
Obviously NOAA is using data and projections provided by AGW cultists. This is the only reason a normal person can come up with to explain the failure of NOAA. Yet so many AGW cultist regulars here insist on using manipulated climate data from NOAA to base claims like the last dozen years of the last 15 or so were the hottest on record. Isn't it interesting that they can claim the 10 hottest years on record also occurred when the global mean temp hasn't risen any for the past 17 years?
With NOAA failing so miserably at projections can any sane person take any climate data and claims like "10 of the hottest years in recorded history occurred in the past 15 years" with any shred of credibility? With such a rate of inaccuracy and failure of the sources of their own data AGW cultists still push these consistent failures as proof of AGW.
Why should anyone believe NOAA's manipulated data? Why should any normal person believe the AGW cultists who use manipulated data from an entity with a dismal 70% failure rate in predicting hurricane seasons that their AGW claims have any credibility?
I know AGW cultists are going to claim that nobody can predict the weather or hurricane seasons accurately because nobody is god and all but these are the same people who are using data from this organization to claim that AGW is real. LOL!! Tell me that climate is not the same as weather because AGW cultists keep linking the 2 claiming that they are 2 sides of the same coin. There are just too many examples of this to post here.
Predictions are notoriously difficult, especially when the future is involved (I cant remember who said that)
Look it doesn't matter if you get it right, as long as you can get the fear factor in there.
it's a religion and a bad one at that, just look at the idiocy of the warmunists here
