“No major storms have occurred in the Atlantic since mid-August, the quietest hurricane season in 56 years.” So much for the predictions that this year was going to be more active than normal. Has anyone other than me correlated the predictions of NOAH and the major universities who predict storm intensities with what actually happened that same year? Do you know what you get as a correlation coefficient when you compare predictions vs. realities?
Of course not! The fact is that the correlation coefficient is high, but it is NEGATIVE meaning that you have pretty good odds betting against these predictions! Now, don’t jump on me just yet … but do ask the natural questions this raises. Why were the predictions wrong? Were the models fed data that was estimated, and actual data would correct the predictions? Or were the predictions just wrong in all cases for “no reason?”
Plus, when you do look at the few positive correlation examples of weather over the last few decades, you see very low levels of correlation. For example, ice out contests are very common around the world where people bet on when rivers or lakes will be free of ice. So, accurate records are kept. And, when you correlate them over time you do see a small level of correlation indicating earlier ice outs in the last four decades or so have occurred slightly earlier. But it is about the same correlation coefficient as the stork population and birth rate in England. I hope I am not going too fast, but storks do not bring babies. People who do weather correlations also conveniently stop using data during the 1950s when the fear was a coming ice age. Let that one go.
My point is that the correlation coefficient being low tells you something: you haven’t found the key variable that explains variation! Nobody looks at the correlation of all this with the cleanliness of our atmosphere because of pollution controls and emission reductions resulting from the 1970 Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. You never hear this mentioned in the media that reports on the alleged climate crisis. What do you think might happen if they did look at this parameter that we cleaned up the air? Isn’t it obvious that a cleaner atmosphere lets more light and heat hit the surface of the planet? Hmmm.
The root problem here is summarized in what is called confirmation bias. According to the online version of Britannica: confirmation bias is people’s tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional, and it results in a person ignoring information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. These beliefs can include a person’s expectations in a given situation and their predictions about a particular outcome. People are especially likely to process information to support their own beliefs when an issue is highly important or self-relevant.
I still remember my business planning course professor’s statement called the Seer Sucker Theory: For every theory there is at least one sucker. And the number of people who want to profit from a belief that climate change is an existential threat are looking for confirmation that they are correct.
Well, they just got a wakeup call based on the fact we have had no major storms in the Atlantic since mid-August in a year predicted to be more active than normal.
