Re: Arguing with the Bob's

hot-ham-and-cheese@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 13, 12:34 pm, Robert Sturgeon <rstu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:25:16 -0700, Winston_Smith





<not_r...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:12:53 -0500, Li RM <li_rm35m4...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:50:34 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_r...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
As does references to "worry warts" and nebulous "predictions" with no
cites, not even a bit of a clue who that might be or what they
actually said. If you mean me, no I never made any such prediction.
If you mean NOAA, they never made any such prediction.
Little Stewie keeps saying "someone" made those predictions but he
uses it as a blanket indictment of anyone he doesn't like at the
moment, so he is very non-specific.
Who are these "worry warts" you keep quoting as Gospel?
Dan, Bob and Winston have been going on and on for months about how
active this hurricane season was and now Winston denies doing exactly
that.
Talking with any of the Bobs - be it ESK, Dan or Winston feels exactly
like this a majority of the time:
Little Stewie started the thread in June. It died after a few posts.
Little Stewie restarted the same thread with a new post in October.
Fellow sock puppet LiRM, starts another thread with a quote from the
original one in November.
And now in classic revisionist history, he tells us "the bobs" are
going on and on.
Sorry Charlie, when Little Stewie regurgitates some more of his
nonsense, people with half a regard for the truth have to step up and
complete his intentional mis-truths.
The worry warts warned us of bad hurricane seasons to come
after the 2005 season. You wanted cites (as though you had
somehow slept through the entire time) and so I have finally
fetched up your cites:

http://www.accuweather.com/promo-ad.asp?dir=aw&page=hurr2006

A LOCAL Pennsylvania TV station???

"For the 2006 Hurricane Season-which traditionally runs from
June 1 through November 30-Bastardi and his team are
forecasting that six tropical cyclones will make landfall in
the U.S. Five of these landfalling storms are likely to be
hurricanes, with three being major hurricanes of Category 3
or greater."

http://www.pianet.com/IssuesOfFocus/HotIssues/naturaldisaster/5-9-06-...

An insurance industry page (now THAT's the liberals, for sure...).

"With the hurricane season about to start on June 1,
forecasters are out with their predictions - and they don't
sound good.

Colorado State University's chief hurricane guru William
Gray is predicting another very active hurricane season in
2006 -- 17 named tropical storms, nine hurricanes and five
intense hurricanes, or storms ranging from Category 3 to
Category 5. In all categories, that's about double the
average. That's far fewer than 2005, which saw 28 named
storms and 15 hurricanes, seven of which were Category 3 or
higher. But it's still above average. What is especially
troubling are the strike probabilities of those 17 named
storms.

Gray says the probability of at least one intense hurricane
making landfall during hurricane season, which begins June 1
and ends Nov. 30, is 81 percent for the entire U.S.
coastline. The average is 52 percent.

And we were in the 19% part. The problem?

But, let's look at the predictions vs. reality.

The prediction [2006] was for approximately twice the average number of tropical cyclones, including twice the number of named storms and hurricanes.

The reality was essentially AVERAGE numbers of both...

Prediction was off (reasons given), but the season was not significantly less violent than normal. Claims have been made by the cheese brothers that 2006 was a very mild year, and that not only was 2007 a remarkably mild year, the 'nutcases' predicted a horrible season and then no hurricanes came ashore on the US.

I have shown that of these statements, ONLY the one about 2006 being poorly predicted was true.

Now, who is the alarmist here, the ones making rational statements based on published facts, or the ones making outrageous statements based on, at best, questionable sources...

The probability of a major strike on the eastern U.S. coast,
including the Florida peninsula, is 64 percent, while the
average is 31 percent. And the Gulf Coast, from the Florida
panhandle to Brownsville, Texas, has a 47 percent chance of
seeing a major hurricane make landfall, well above the
average 30 percent chance. "

And about the 2007 season:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070601-hurricanes_2.html

"When salinity is higher, as it is now, the water is warmer
and more storms form.

But forecasters don't think the early formation of Tropical
Storm Andrea three weeks ago off the Georgia coast offers
any indications for the season ahead.

"May, June, and July don't usually say much about the
overall season," Klotzbach, of CSU, said. "If you see early
activity in the Caribbean or tropical Atlantic, however,
that means it's going to be a very active season."

The 2007 forecast is nearly identical to last summer's
pre-season predictions. But coastal residents got an
unexpected breather last year when the formation of a
Pacific weather phenomenon known as El Niño helped put a
damper on Atlantic hurricanes.

None of the NOAA forecasts published were "nearly identical to last summer's pre-season predictions," so I don't know what these people are talking about...

Only nine tropical storms formed in 2006, with just five
becoming hurricanes. And the season saw two major
hurricanes, compared to the five that were forecast.

The El Niño has vanished, however, and forecasters say
another Pacific phenomenon called La Niña could form in its
place. If this happens, conditions in the Atlantic could
become more favorable for hurricane formation."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/254638/researchers_grasp_the...

"In April, North Carolina State University researchers
released their own predictions. Estimating 12-14 named
storms for this year's hurricane season, NCSU scientists
also predict 8-9 may become hurricanes, with 4-5 major
hurricanes. Additionally, the group of researchers predicted
1-3 named storms affecting the southeastern United States
coast, alone."

And those were the more or less sane people.

They made a prediction in 2006 that was, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong. Weather prediction is like that.

Now, why do you call THEM "worry warts." Conditions change, their predictions changed accordingly.

Now we get to the real nutcases:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rGUoBvECOE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FVZSUsT-Ws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsFbsAlKBF8

I'll take your word for it that these are nutcases, since I do not watch youtube videos.

Now you can go back to pretending that there were no
alarmist warnings about the horrible hurricane season that
2006 was going to be. I don't have any idea why you'd do
that, but if that's what floats your boat...

Point out where any of us said there were 'no alarmists.' In fact, to my knowledge, we all used NOAA predictions, and were discussing 2007, which fit closely to the predictions.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stop it, Robert. It just isn't PC to rub their noses in it. Behave
yourself.

Where exactly did he rub anyone's nose "in it?" 2006 was a bad year for predictions. So it goes. I know I always wrote about 2007, as did most of my detractors.

Dan
.