I cannot predict the precise field positions and life totals of any given Street Fighter set between me and Daigo Umehara; this does not mean that I don’t have any way of predicting that the set will end as a quick 2:0 in Daigo’s favor. While the system may be chaotic, it tends to average out. We see this all over the place, from quantum fluctuations (one atom may randomly tunnel through another, but a car will never tunnel through a brick wall) to sports and games (I might land a random stray hit, but overall I will not get enough of those to win) to, yes, the weather (just because the weather of any individual day is chaotic and unpredictable does not mean that the overall trends of climate are).
The longer time interval we take our averages from, the more of these “chaotic” changes will average out. We just have to keep in mind that fluctuations will still occur, and these are a part of the climate. For example a 0ºF reading in Atlanta is normal within a 100 year climatic time interval. Global warming changes the probability of this happening in any given year, hard to say what that change will be exactly.
I don’t think the NYT is disputing that Sandy had gone post-tropical before landfall. They wanted the NHC to continue the warnings for socio-economic reasons, they’d sell more newspapers that way. I don’t remember any problems with the hand-off of reporting responsibilities to the local weather offices.
Hurricanes make landfall on New Jersey and New York, getting clobbered by a remnant storm should be a wake-up call.
That was brilliant. 
They might as well claim that the global temp will get colder AND claim that global temps will get warmer. They can always claim later that their prediction was correct.
If someone were asked to pick a number between 1 and 10, and their reply were to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, they could claim that they picked the right number.
Blaming drought and flooding on global warming/climate change is no different. Drought AND flooding will occur somewhere. Woohoo, their predictions came true. :rolleyes:
I think the reason the news (and a very large number of meteorologists) wanted to keep referring to Sandy as a Hurricane was two-fold: First, it was above hurricane level wind strength at landfall, and while everyone knows that a hurricane is a bad, bad thing to be avoided, an “extra tropical cyclone” makes people say "WTF is that?"Sandy probably was more damaging than if it remained a hurricane due the expansion of the damaging wind field and the sheer size it grew into after transitioning from a hurricane.
Nobody gets upset when New York gets a foot of snow and everyone calls it a blizzard, even though it technically doesn’t fit the meteorological definition of a blizzard.
If it keeps people off the streets, then calling it a “blizzard” is a good thing, even if it’s just a snow storm.
The UN’s IPCC has been around since 1988. Their original predictions of global temps all overshot actual global temps. Oops. Eventually, the IPCC predictions will come true, maybe. Maybe not.
You do understand the difference between weather and climate, don’t you?
Extreme weather events are happening more frequently, and more severely. If you don’t wish to believe that, that’s your choice.
I never knew so many people on this board worked for the oil companies and have some personal, vested interest in never addressing the catastrophe of global warming.
More a matter of tribal identity, I think.
City-dwellers rely on burning fossil fuels to transport their food in, the alternatives to this situation will take time to implement.
Doctors can’t predict the exact day a woman will go into labor, but they can still tell who’s pregnant and who isn’t.
And there very well could be legitimate reasons for the government to update their procedures for issuing advisories.
But it doesn’t do any good to state, three years after the fact, that “when that hurricane hit New York a few years ago it was a category 1 at landfall”, when it’s simply not true.
This has nothing to do with the fact that meteorology and climatology are not the same thing. And I’ll take your interpretations of what the IPCC has to say and how accurate they are with big grains of salt based on the fact that you think climatology and meteorology are the same thing.
I’m sure it is. Does this mean climatologists are in the business of making local weather forecasts?
But it does sound a lot like trying to make a big difference when there was little, and the hurricane did land, in Jamaica and Cuba as a hurricane.
Meteorology and climatology and doctoring, oh my. The IPCC’s predictions have been wrong. NOAA data has been flawed in the past. I’m sure the planet gets warmer every spring, and cooler every the fall.
Did I say that climatology and meteorology were the same thing? No? Little wonder you find climate change/global warming so confusing. You think you see things that aren’t there.
Climatologists would certainly do better business at forecasting than you and I would, and of course, the underlying physics is exactly the same. The only real difference is the time interval involved; the dynamic meteorologists work with the infinitely small time span (dt), climatologists a much much longer time span (∆t). (The math with ∆t isn’t as creepy IMIEO)