The protective wind shear has died down AND moved considerably north
over night.

The Weather service has a lot more instrumentation, including radar,
multiple barometer and wind speed stations. Their tracking skills are
far above mine and I bow to them.

It is not in their job description to make risky early predictions, and
they don't do it because it leads to injured confidence when storms
stunt of fail to grow into something, but I have no doubt that there
are plenty of seasoned weather watchers who could call storms earlier
than I have demonstrated.

The point I have tried to make is this: Climate is nothing more than
the aggregate of weather averaged over a 20-year or longer period of
time. There is plenty of variability year-by-year. People who
understand weather are more likely to understand climate.

People who don't understand how basic weather works probably cannot
judge when they are being butt-screwed by science frauds and hoaxers.

There's too high a noise-level over future climate by people who don't
know how a single storm evolves. They claim to predict future climate
but cannot predict NATE until AFTER the weather service reports it
already exists. The weather service no doubt could have predicted NATE
back when the top of this thread was posted and date & time-stamped,
but their rules do not allow them to do that. No such rules apply here,
where you can easily seperate the wheat from the chaff by asking people
to demonstrate that they understand basic weather forces enough to
predict which fluffy clouds will grow into mean destruction machines
following the laws of physics.

If you can't predict NATE, why should anybody believe your
under-educated opinion that you know enough to read the science right
or understand what you are reading?

That's why a few more people ought to post their predictions and beat
the laws of coincidence. So far I have posted three that got named, and
the latest ain't looking so good right now at 17N, 63W. That's the
risk of predictions -- you might be falsified by experiment -- see what
happens. If your knowledge is solid, your predictions beat coincidence.

Let's call this #17 -- I still say this is the one to watch that will
grow into worse than what's on the screen right now. It is barely big
enough, but it's in a sheltered part of the ocean away from wind shear.
It's drinking the heated waters whether it goes north or or south. It's
not moving fast, so it has time to suck up that heat. This is based on
instrumentation. It's reliable. The water was recently hot enough to
gestate four storms all around this area, and it is doubtful that
enough heat got dissipated so that the bathtub is still full of hot
water. This is science: explain & predict. More instruments would be
better, but I feel there are enough right now to make a way early
guess, and I keep making this farther and farther into the risky zone
of of "maybe". If I keep on getting farther and farther away from from
real actual signs of storm I am bound to fail.

I'm in California and none of this impacts me in a physical weather
way. I don't care that much because I have my plate full of projects
that need more than 24 hours in every day. The point I have been
wanting to make is science can predict the future -- it predicts
individual weather, and individual weather aggregates into climate.

People capable of making weather predictions are capable of making
climate predictions and they are predicting more storms, more
frequently, of more power and violence, all based on physical laws
which are known. Climate will be changing as weather aggregates.