NOAA Predicts Hardest Hurricane Season in Many Years (death, dollars, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're both right and wrong. The previous person you responded to was right in that so few hurricanes hit USA. You were right in the naming of storms even though they didn't hit USA and many just fizzled out. The naming of storms only goes back to the 1950s so to say it's the most active means only in the past 60 years.
The thread is about NOAA predictions, they do NOT predict how many will make landfall, they predict how "active" the Atlantic Basin will be. They are not inaccurate in their predictions of hurricane activity at all.
Pretending that they are massively inaccurate because you do not know what they are actually prediction is your mistake, not theirs. Second, major hurricanes have been given names as early as the 1800s with San Felipe and Santa Ana, as it was the norm in the North Atlantic and Caribbean to name hurricanes after the St. Day closest to them. The current system may only date to 1953, but that is by no means the first system.
Regardless of when naming conventions, multiple posters have tried to posit that the last decade has seen minimal hurricane activity but that is just not true.
Did you look at "his" maps? Nearly all of them are NOAA products.
How would he acquire his own products? NOAA has a monopoly on that end of it. Interpreting the data is where he consistently outperforms NOAA. Businesses pay to subscribe to his information because he is accurate. NOAA is just a government entity. Whether they get it right or not does not change their funding.
Regardless of when naming conventions, multiple posters have tried to posit that the last decade has seen minimal hurricane activity but that is just not true.
They are operating from the Insane Clown Posse "F**king Magnets, How do they work? Checkmate, scientists!" school of thought.
How would he acquire his own products? NOAA has a monopoly on that end of it. Interpreting the data is where he consistently outperforms NOAA. Businesses pay to subscribe to his information because he is accurate. NOAA is just a government entity. Whether they get it right or not does not change their funding.
Ok, do you have any actual evidence proving he is more accurate at predicting anything? All you did was post to a website where he posted a bunch of other people's info, and had literally nothing showing how his predictions actually turned out.
Oh, one more thing, you can absolutely access the raw data and process it yourself. My students do it all the time in a program called panopoly. He doesn't even do that.
The thread is about NOAA predictions, they do NOT predict how many will make landfall, they predict how "active" the Atlantic Basin will be. They are not inaccurate in their predictions of hurricane activity at all.
Pretending that they are massively inaccurate because you do not know what they are actually prediction is your mistake, not theirs. Second, major hurricanes have been given names as early as the 1800s with San Felipe and Santa Ana, as it was the norm in the North Atlantic and Caribbean to name hurricanes after the St. Day closest to them. The current system may only date to 1953, but that is by no means the first system.
Regardless of when naming conventions, multiple posters have tried to posit that the last decade has seen minimal hurricane activity but that is just not true.
This decade with 19 major hurricanes to date is typical of other decades in number of major hurricanes at this point. We have been lucky that less of them have made landfall in the US. The decade of the 2000's was much more active and by far the most active we have seen.
Seriously, these stupid climate change predictions consistently fail and you can only cry wolf so many times before people ignore you.
Eventually we may have a strong season, but we have had little to no activity for years.
If you bet on a specific number, eventually that number will come up. It isn't predictive, it is simply the odds.
The NOAA is a political focused agency for activists. They are as bad as the EPA.
The article didn't say anything about climate change or global warming, but posters here want to make it a referendum on Al Gore or something. So what is the point? That NOAA forecasts are not accurate? Granted, long-term predictions are difficult. The National Weather Service predicts a good chance of rain tomorrow. It might not rain. Does that make NWS also "a political focused agency"?
predictions are interesting. trends are far more value. this is a great repository of Hurricane information both related to frequency and intensity. if you aren't familiar with ACE, you should study up on that it helps understanding any data discussion on the subject of hurricane activity. (Accumulated Cyclone Energy)
The article didn't say anything about climate change or global warming, but posters here want to make it a referendum on Al Gore or something. So what is the point? That NOAA forecasts are not accurate? Granted, long-term predictions are difficult. The National Weather Service predicts a good chance of rain tomorrow. It might not rain. Does that make NWS also "a political focused agency"?
NOAA has great information. I like looking at a lot of their information. Their predictive value is about equal to that of all such.... its rarely accurate.
This decade with 19 major hurricanes to date is typical of other decades in number of major hurricanes at this point. We have been lucky that less of them have made landfall in the US. The decade of the 2000's was much more active and by far the most active we have seen.
The last decade would go back into the 2000s as it is only 2017, so that would be 2007-2017.
Second, strawmen are pointless. Deciding that "major" hurricanes is more meaningful a measure than all hurricanes is arbitrary. Additionally, there is no statistical difference in major hurricanes in the 2000s vs 2010s From 2000-2009 there was an average of 3.6 +/-1.8 major hurricanes. From 2010-2015 there were 2.5+/-1.7. That is called statistically significantly NOT different.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecasts more hurricanes this coming season in the Atlantic and a couple of very large ones. The administrators of NOAA should be aware that this is not the kind of information that will further their standing in Trump World. Will Trump's response be to try to cut their funding, to eliminate such pesky reminders of Global Warming?
He's already proposed making heavy cuts in their programs and those of other agencies involved in environmental and natural-disaster research.
Or is it that there is no such thing as global warming? And rabid lefty wonks just want to spout off more insane dribble to highlight imaginary slights to their commie agenda?
NOAA is making a prediction, like they do every year. They usually are not very accurate.
I'll make a prediction right now.......Hurricane season will come and go, and no matter what happens, it will be spun as something negative, and blamed on the right and Trump.
How much do you wish to wager that my prediction is far more accurate than NOAA's, CBS's, or anyone else that predicts the weather??
CN
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.