The criticism as not as much over the forecast - but the way it was played up. I don't see _any_ of the headlines that AW generated. And AW didn't say that odds were 1 in 11. I think if you review JB's forecast, the percentage is MUCH higher. And I didn't get a press release from Dr Gray.
[/b]
The press release that Colorado State University sent to the world is available online at:
http://newsinfo.colostate.edu/index.asp?pa...em_id=114210869
So CSU did exactly the same thing AW did. As of the time of this posting, Google News has 159 organizations publishing their story. I would certainly call this "playing it up."
The press release sent out by NOAA about their seasonal hurricane forecast is available online at:
www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2634.htm . NOAA also had a press conference, the video of which is also available at their web site.
So far, 71 organizations have printed (checking Google) the headline from the NOAA press release. Again, I would call this "playing it up."
I have no problem with AW, CSU or NOAA. What is the point of making a forecast if you are not going to distribute it? And please do not tell me it is more "noble" for academia or government to make these forecasts. You don't think NOAA hopes the favorable publicity will help them get more funding from Congress? You don't think CSU hopes the publicity will help get more favorable funding from the Colorado legislature?
Of course AW hopes the publicity will help them get more business. What is the problem with that? At least they are spending their own money to gain the publicity. NOAA is spending OUR money. CSU is spending the money of the taxpayers of Colorado.
As to the differing forecasts, this happens all the time. At this moment, the NWS forecast for Russell Springs, KS is calling for "Tonight: Showers and thunderstorms likely, mainly before 1am. Partly cloudy, with a low near 56. North wind between 5 and 10 mph. Chance of precipitation is 60%." However, the county containing Russell Springs is under a severe thunderstorm warning calling for "DESTRUCTIVE WINDS IN EXCESS OF 70 MPH." Two types of forecasts, differing information.
My point is simple: No one has to like AW, NWS, WeatherData, WSI, CSU or anyone else. That is a matter of personal preference. But consider the following quotes from this thread:
I mean seriously, what value do these forecasts add to anything? To me the just serve to instill more fear into the already fearful American public. Buy, Buy, Buy your hurricane supplies and insurance policies all you good little Americans in preparation for a big bad hurricane season!
[/b]
There's little science behind Accu-Weather's forecasts. They like to use weather analogs. They are convinced that what happened in the past directly relates to what happens in the future. Which may be the case, but with only a few sample years to test their theories its a reach.
where's the accountability?
[/b]
and on and on.
My purpose is not to pick on any individual post or person. Here is my point: If we consider ourselves scientists and this is supposed to be a science-based board, then where is equal criticism regarding the self-promotion of CSU and NOAA and where is the criticism of NWS and Dr. Gray's long range forecast methods (the latter uses a form of analogs)?
Meteorology needs all three: NOAA and other federal agencies, academia and the private sector. The private sector (through its generation of tax dollars) makes possible the other two, along with every other taxpayer. We don't expect gratitude for the tax dollars we pay (it is part of doing business). It is great we (along with every other taxpayer) have access to government data and academic research. But one sector is not automatically superior to the other.
All I ask is consistency: If making a long range hurricane forecast and publicizing it is wrong for the private sector, it follows it is wrong for the other two sectors. If it is wrong for AW to say the Northeast is "overdue" it is wrong for the NWS to say it is "overdue."
Thank you for reading this long post.
Mike
