Like NOAA, they have been wrong the last two years and are trying to put on their best face.

No one seems to be able to predict anything about the weather more than a few days out.

Well I don't know about the accuracy of predicting hurricanes, but I do know that the temps in the midwest are well below average. Last week northern counties received considerable snowfall and are expecting the same this weekend. We are expecting about 4 inches - maybe. I heard the farm report this morning that talked about where we are regarding spring planting. Apparently there is so little this year they can't say it is measurable. This does not bode well for corn prices that are already very high.

While it is true, two cold years a trend it does not make, if they had been warmer than normal it would only boost the idea that the planet it warming. See that seems unfair. I remember when it was colder, and I remember when it was warmer. I see no particular trend at all, but I assure all of you that here in the Midwest tundra we are crossing our fingers for global warming but not seeing any sign of that this year. Depression is really setting in. No sun - cloudy and cold.

Can someone explain to me the point of making these absurdly inaccurate predictions? Is he doing somebody a service? Is he just trying to get funding? Last year he and his "experts" had to revise their estimate downward TWICE after their original estimates didn't hold water. I have an outdoor family reunion on Aug 17th of this year. Perhaps he can tell me if it's going to rain or not.

GISS data continues on a trajectory into upper orbit.

GISS shows March, 2008 as warmer than 2007 and the third warmest March ever.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

In contrast, RSS and UAH show March as much colder than 2007 and the coldest since at least 2000. They both show March as the second coldest ever in the southern hemisphere.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_1.txt

The discrepancy between GISS and the non-political data sources has grown huge, to the point where GISS data is completely unreliable and showing trends in the opposite direction from what the planet is actually doing.

"the very large increase in major hurricanes in the Atlantic basin between 1995-2007 was not directly related to global temperature increase."

Did everybody get that?

"Gray has been starting to focus more of his time arguing against global warming concerns."

Good. It's nice to see more people refuting these crackpots who think that 0.0087% CO2 is "significantly" driving our climate.

0.0087% CO2 has NO negative effects on HUMANS, therefore has NO negative effects on the rest of our BIOSPHERE. So don't worry, the fish will not go deaf, the frogs will not die off, and the polar bears wil not commit suicide because of trace amounts of CO2.

What the heck is wrong with you people? So many smart people who blog here. Yet your thought process is a little crazy.

Have a nice day :) I'm going golfing.

The Washington State Climatologist lost his job a couple years ago for disputing the Mayor of Seattle's claim that snowfall was way down in the Cascades.

The Cascades set their all time record for most snowfall this winter.
http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080409/NEWS0107/804090427

This story is a huge scandal, and I am sure that the major news outlets will be all over it. Because all they care about is the truth.

Looks like they're reading the bones again......at the very least give these guys a hand for courage to make predictions in what is increasingly, where weather/climate is concerned, a purveyance of fools.

2007, for comparison, had 14 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 intense ones.

These guys underestimated the dramatic 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and overestimated 2006. For 2007, they were actually pretty close in December � they said 14 named storms, 7 hurricanes, and 3 intense ones, when the reality, again, was 14, 6, and 2 � however they upped the forecast as the season approached, rather than sticking with their initial prediction.

We were lectured by AGW Hysterics after Katrina that the projected continually rising sea temperatures would make for more hurricanes and more intense ones than normal in the future. The exact opposite happened the following year. Ocean temperatures have shown no rise and the seasons of late have been fairly average. Obviously we simply have to wait until the 'inevitable' warming returns to see the fruits.

The chief factor that seems to influence activity levels for Atlantic hurricanes is whether or not there's an El Nino situation in the Pacific ocean. El Nino tends to suppress Atlantic storm activity, while its opposite, La Nina, tends to enhance it. We're in a moderate La Nina now, but there is no accurate forecast, nor is it possible to create an accurate forecast, as to where we'll be around June this year, much less where we'll be during the peak months of August and September.

Fact of the matter is there is really nothing at all 'normal' about the earth's climate and the soothsayers will always be confounded, now and in the future. If one wants to 'predict' they still have to get it correct, 'close' is only applicable in horseshoes and this is applicable to Both sides of the AGW debate.

Being always incorrect would normally make for a tremendous loss of credibility, but as we all understand weathermen and weather, we give them that slack. Looks like lately we have erred with this slack, as the arrogance weathermen, er, well, 'climatologists', have shown in pushing policy decisions per AGW with their conjecture is going through the stratosphere.

For 2008, scientists are throwing out the same conjecture right and left as to when the current La Nina will end, so until we can accurately forecast what a La Nina or El Nino is going to do 4-6 months in advance, we are doing just that: reading the bones.

Didn't they also admit that their above average predictions for the past few years were way wrong?

People in the weather and ocean sciences have as much credibility as any of the other fields concerning the causes of our modern warming, despite what Bloom, Mark and the other alarmists would like you to think. Be very wary of those who would choose to use force to make you comply with how they think the world should be. If their ideas have any merit, force is unecessary.

"they are calling for a well above-average tropical season and a higher than normal probability of a major hurricane landfall in the United States."

Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah the past two years! It's getting to be like the boy who cried wolf. They are calling for an active season but everyone including me is not going to fall for it this year... until ofcourse, their guess of an active season comes true, then it's too late, and catches everyone off guard... note how I said "guess" cause thats all it is.

Once again, I won't believe it until the time comes and pass. I'm not saying that their wrong, I'm just saying that the prediction of the past two years has rattled my confidence...

Looks like hadcrut has decided to follow the scientific method and represent the hard data temps (as distinct to GISS)
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
I think they are seeing the light so they come out pretty unscathed in 2-3 years time. My prediction for March = about +.20 C

Just a few observations:

1)Tropical forecasting is a crapshoot. Not enough data.

2)Ultimately, a tropical or storm forecaster has to fall back on what he/she knows (SST info, general wind data, the stated of the major teleconnections). The forecasters attempt to figure out how much potential energy is available in the lower atmosphere, and if the conditions are ripe for a mechanism that will release that energy (Organized, deep convection).

3)There are 100 things that can inhibit a tropical depression from maturing. Why forecasters would put thier reputations on the line with such early forecasts in beyond me.

Brett,

Do you know of anybody who forecasts the Western Pacific typhoon season? I'm going to Japan and Okinawa in September/October and would like to know if my umbrella is going to hold up. It seemed like every few days a new typhoon was forming and headed toward my son's place in Okinawa.

Your best bet is the Joint Typhoon warning center.....
https://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc.php

Being a Floridian, I watch the tropics closely. Whats been bothering me the past few seasons, is NOAA has been giving almost any clump of clouds over the ocean a name. This makes the numbers seem higher than they really are which only further distorts the truth. I've even heard my local veteran meteorologists make on-air comments about them not understanding how a group of clouds on the satellite can be a depression yet alone a storm. After 2004, we get jumpy whenever a name is giving. NOAA needs to stop their hyping.

And than theres the dreaded SUB-tropical storms that never used to get names but now do. We had at least 3 of them last year. If it has any cold core characteristics than its NOT a tropical system!

Dr. Gray has been consistently more accurate than the GCMs, so having him devoting more time to challenging AGW is a welcome addition to the debate (if the AGW censors will let us have one...)

Dr. William Gray from the Colorado State University is one of the biggest global warming deniers.

Patrick you know this. He is from your neck of the woods.

Gray doesn't trust computers. He dislikes not being the go-to guy for global warming as he was for hurricanes. Name calls everyone he disagrees with. Is the source for silly stuff like the global grant conspiracy against deniers (his grants for global warming were sometimes rejected because he wasn't up to date on the subject.

So we praise him when he denies but go all crazy on him when he projects hurricanes?

Have any of you guys hear what the New Jersey Nets are doing to in the fight against global warming? Not only are there games now cabon-neutral, but they traded Jason Kidd to the Dallas Maveriks for the a �better enviroment� also. Julianne Waldron explained to the media that Kidd was giving off to much Carbon dioxcide. �Jason Kidd always hustles when he is on the basketball court, and we all admire that greatly. But all of that running up and down the court, pushing the team out on fastbreaks, expending extra energy just to make a few extra points and possibly win a game, caused all of the players to breathe a great deal more heavily and thereby expel extra amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, and we all know that is bad for the environment. We made the difficult decision to trade Kidd in order to save the planet.� Check out this article I found on it �Environmental Activism is the Key to the Current Success of the New Jersey Nets�

It seems that no one identified the cause of the change in the THC. Is not GW melting freshwater glaciers leading to a major change in the THC? Has not the ice been there thousand's of years, and is just now melting? Cm'on, lets have some CAUSE & Effect...not just the usual scientific obversation...it happened this way guys??

For the contiguous United States, the average temperature for March was 42F (6C), which was 0.4F (0.2C) below the 20th century mean and ranked as the 52nd coolest March on record

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/national.html

Sorry, missed a good one -

NOAA says the entire state of Minnesota has been well below normal temperatures this year
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/mar/Last3mTDeptUS.png

NOAA says the state of Minnesota has been normal temperature this year
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/mar/01-03Statewidetrank_pg.gif

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/3month.html

NOAA somehow missed mentioning the minor detail that huge portions of the country from the west coast to the east coast broke their all-time snowfall records. Apparently that wasn't as interesting as the dry March in Sacramento.

http://www.skirebel.com/magazine/archives/1515
http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080409/NEWS0107/804090427
http://www.sandypost.com/news/story.php?story_id=120778528039273500
http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=8088276&nav=menu227_2
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/NEWS0201/262182891
http://bangornews.com/news/t/aroostook.aspx?articleid=161983&zoneid=175
http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20080317/RECREATION01/34483871

Seems as though alot of Global Warmers do not like when a man of Dr. Grays knowledge is putting in time an evidence that goes against their beliefs, to the hurricane part it also seems like they can predict fairly well for a season but the numbers part is not a big deal but the U.S landfalls is, really who cares if 100 35mph tropical storm forms in the middle of the atlantic and dies out, the big thing will be if the thermohaline circulation predictions play out as expected and see the possible side effects from that, then people may wish for global warming, even though they couldn't make it happen if they tried. If a scientist could prove 100% fact to some of you people that global warming does not exist, some would be mad, maybe a few glad{doubt it} some deniers, but most I think would be dissapointed because it is like you have your heart set on it happening and are almost like you are looking forward to it, and some just like the idea in their head that they are protecting the earth by following peoples leads like Al Gore {a.k.a Darth Vader}, Heidi Cullen { a.k.a _______}Ted Turner {a.k.a _____}, etc.etc... But you look past someone like Dr.Gray, Joe Bastardi, John Coleman, even read up on things you read here from Patrick Henry, listen to an afternoon of Rush Limbaugh, yeh some of you hate him but have no reason why just the fact you heard on T.V you are suppose to. Their is a reason its the right wing because it is right.

I feel a good way to really find out about supposed Global Warming(or lack thereof) is to actually get people from both sides to debate it out and let people decide once everything is layed on the table.

The problem with that is many of us are fed one side of the story and you don't have the opportunity to hear the rebuttal of those on the opposite side(those who deny Global Warming being caused by man).

I would like to see Al Gore to have a real debate face to face with someone like John Coleman, but some of us know what would happen, Gore would look like an utter fool so we'll probably never see it. But honestly, Al Gore seems pretty sure of himself...so if your that confident in your argument, what better way to show it then to debate face to face against one of your harshest critics?

Too difficult for you Al Gore? Yeah...I figured it would be!

There is no scientific link between hurricanes and AGW. Numerous studies have been conducted demonstarting this but the myth lives on.

World Climate Report has written extensively on this topic citing study after study and yet some still believe there is a cause-effect relationship. It's hard to kill a myth, just look at how some still believe that Mann's Hockey Stick graph is valid.

Their latest report cites two recent studies that debunk the mythtology, one published in The Journal of Climate and another in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Here is the link:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/08/another-hurricane-update/

It appears that the AGW crowd are champing at the bit for another major hurricane to strike so they can fire up their scare machine with photos and misinformation claiming that CO2 caused the warming which produced the hurricane and we must take drastic measures to "save the planet." Talk about beating a dead horse!

David Schneider;
Unfortunately these guys live in a vacuum. There is empirical evidence of Global Warming, from Greenland to the Arctic to the Alps, but we just watch the hurricane. Count the mice Lenny!
KIPP