Verified Accuweather Forecasts vs. NHC - Ophelia

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
WeatherEmperor
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4806
Age: 40
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:54 pm
Location: South Florida

#21 Postby WeatherEmperor » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:44 pm

Just to be 100% safe, lets just leave it as it is and not mess around with anything. Not worth the legal trouble in my opinion.

<RICKY>
0 likes   

User avatar
Windspeed
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:38 am

#22 Postby Windspeed » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:46 pm

A tremendous amount of JB's videos and columns are speculative. He can look at model runs many days in advance and point out possible development; however, most of you are capable of this on your own. Folks needs to understand that speculating on features is not the same thing as making a weather forecast. Do not think the forecasters at the NHC are not also pouring over model runs and looking at many of the same features and speculating in their own right. But they are not allowed to post products that are nothing more than speculation! Sure, they may speculate on some thing in their products. But this is limited within the construct of the forecast product that must have verification and validity.

The NHC filters the lower % features from the higher % features and posts that information in their outlook and discussion packages. If the NHC speculated to the degree that JB does on every single kink in an isobar map, the majority of that information would end up being garbage. If you like reading someone's vomit, that's fine, but when it comes to a professional forecast package for an entire ocean basin, I think the NHC has enough validity in their products to indicate possible development from improbable development. Anybody with enough weather knowledge can look at a map or model run and say "watch out for here" and "watch out for there" at eight different locations in the same video update; however, what if you had to be held responsible for verification of everything you said? The NHC has to be efficient in its products. I would call JB's speculative products anything but efficient. Which is fine, his products do not have to be such.

I want to reinterate that I am not bashing JB for his work. He has an audience that is interested in his opinions. He does a fairly good job. The problem began when he started trying to compare himself and his own results to the NHC/NWS. When he started criticizing them and then basically saying he was the only meteorologist that was correct on a particular forecast track, he foolishly exposed himself. The reality is that even if he was great at speculating on tropical development many days in advance, this would still not make him a good tropical weather forecaster. I will go so far as to say if JB was required to sit down a write out just one forecast/analysis discussion at the NHC for any advisory package, which had to be later verified, he could not do it.
Last edited by Windspeed on Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
Recurve
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:59 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

#23 Postby Recurve » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:47 pm

On the copyright issue, one thing that would lean toward "fair use" is to post old forecasts months after the data comes out. It would be hard for a company to argue they are losing forecast revenue if you only post their data way after the fact. I think that is what x-y is talking about.

Because of the position they've put themselves in -- lobbying for handcuffing the NHC, criticizing NHC forecasts, implying inaccuracies that can only be debated by using their data -- they invite a high degree of scrutiny.
0 likes   

User avatar
Windy
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1628
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:13 pm

#24 Postby Windy » Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:09 pm

Agreed. There is no copyright issue in posting private forecasting data after the fact in order to do verification of accuracy.

It's illegal to reprint his column in whole. It's not illegal to say "Joe Bastardi forecasted XYZ" and then review that forecast.

On top of that, Accuweather makes product claims of being better than the NHC; doing that invites third-party verification.

Of course, I am not a lawyer and you should consult a lawyer for professional legal advice.
0 likes   

User avatar
jasons2k
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 8071
Age: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX

#25 Postby jasons2k » Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:00 pm

x-y-no wrote:
jschlitz wrote:
x-y-no wrote:They can say whatever they want. but they can't enforce it. Copying and publishing small portions of copyrighted material with added commentary or analysis is "fair use" and there's not a thing in the world they can do about it.


It depends. It's one thing if someone occasionally posts a snippet here or there with commentary, that would likely hold-up in court as "fair use". Such cases can be difficult to prove as violating the legal definition of "fair use" and would likely be never pursued.

However, if a paying subscriber posts his forecasts or points on a consistent or daily basis on a free site, that is legally considered abuse of "fair use". In that case, the burden of proof falls upon the defendant to prove they had substantive reason to do so (i.e., academic research, etc.). There are legal exceptions specifically for those cases but posting on an internet message board so people can "see" how accurate they are does not follow those guidelines. In that case, the offender would likely be fined if AccuWx pursued the issue.


I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the law is just plain wrong.

And even if one somehow managed to ignore the fact that this use fits squarely within the research exception, there's this additional point (again from the copyright office):

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.


All I am asking for is the raw numbers (i.e. factual information or ideas) embodied in the specific forecast points and times. Nothing more.

There is simply not the slightest question this is allowed under copyright law.


How is the interpretation "plain wrong"?? Because you don't see it that way?

It is one thing to post something after the fact to do a comparitive analysis; it is quite another to post something daily from a revenue generating site and that IS an abuse of "fair use" no matter how you interpret it.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#26 Postby x-y-no » Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:33 am

jschlitz wrote:How is the interpretation "plain wrong"?? Because you don't see it that way?


I explained my reasoning in detail, supported by specific quotes from the US Copyright Office supporting what I said. I can only conclude that you persist in this line of argument because you desire to shield JB from scrutiny, given that such scrutiny will make him look bad (as Mike's Ophelia verification comparison above did, for example).

It is one thing to post something after the fact to do a comparitive analysis; it is quite another to post something daily from a revenue generating site and that IS an abuse of "fair use" no matter how you interpret it.


I don't recall that I ever insisted that this data must be posted on the day he released it, so I really don't see the relevance of this particular objection.

I think you're wrong in your interpretation, but at the very least can we agree that Katrina and Phillipe and Rita have all run their course, and there can be no harm in now examining JB's forcast tracks for verification? Would you do us the favor of posting all his forecasts for those storms so we can do that?
0 likes   

User avatar
jasons2k
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 8071
Age: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX

#27 Postby jasons2k » Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:37 am

x-y-no wrote:
jschlitz wrote:How is the interpretation "plain wrong"?? Because you don't see it that way?


I explained my reasoning in detail, supported by specific quotes from the US Copyright Office supporting what I said. I can only conclude that you persist in this line of argument because you desire to shield JB from scrutiny, given that such scrutiny will make him look bad (as Mike's Ophelia verification comparison above did, for example).

It is one thing to post something after the fact to do a comparitive analysis; it is quite another to post something daily from a revenue generating site and that IS an abuse of "fair use" no matter how you interpret it.


I don't recall that I ever insisted that this data must be posted on the day he released it, so I really don't see the relevance of this particular objection.

I think you're wrong in your interpretation, but at the very least can we agree that Katrina and Phillipe and Rita have all run their course, and there can be no harm in now examining JB's forcast tracks for verification? Would you do us the favor of posting all his forecasts for those storms so we can do that?


FWIW it was me who sent the points to Mike for verification. I'm not in the business of defending AccuWx; I just wanted to see the numbers for myself. I tried to pull up the numbers for Katrina - as I know they were much closer than Ophelia, but the archives they have on their site appear to be down. I didn't send in Rita's numbers b/c Rita was in my own back yard and I was a bit busy last week. I will try and see if Rita's numbers are still online and send them in.

From a legal standpoint we might be splitting hairs. As you know, law can be interpreted in a number of ways. Being a conservative, I tend to interpret it with little leniency. In practice, I doubt they would actually sue somebody for posting points, but I can assure you they would at least cancel my subscription.
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

#28 Postby Jim Hughes » Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:58 am

I guess my only question .... from a neutral standpoint....with no caring about who is better.... would be why was Ophelia chosen as the yardstick?

I seem to recall some members talking about JB possibly forecasting her turning back to the GOM. It's obvious that he blew this one early on.

I wish that someone would do a research on the NHC's/JB INTENSITY level forecasting. This is where one is needed....I remember Irene being forecasted by the NHC to become a hurricane and she barely held on to depression status during that time frame. She was then forecasted to weaken or stay below hurricane strength and I think she intensified to a CAT 2 briefly.

I believe the majors may have shown that the models have had trouble with the intensification forecasts. The time tables do not exactly line up with the outlooks. They may have been calling for it to eventually reach a certain level but that is not the same.

I remember Emily intensifying right before she made landfall over Cuba and she was stronger than anticipated. I do not recall how much though.


Jim
0 likes   

MWatkins
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2574
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 7:51 pm
Location: SE Florida
Contact:

#29 Postby MWatkins » Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:12 am

Jim Hughes wrote:I guess my only question .... from a neutral standpoint....with no caring about who is better.... would be why was Ophelia chosen as the yardstick?

I seem to recall some members talking about JB possibly forecasting her turning back to the GOM. It's obvious that he blew this one early on.

I wish that someone would do a research on the NHC's/JB INTENSITY level forecasting. This is where one is needed....I remember Irene being forecasted by the NHC to become a hurricane and she barely held on to depression status during that time frame. She was then forecasted to weaken or stay below hurricane strength and I think she intensified to a CAT 2 briefly.

I believe the majors may have shown that the models have had trouble with the intensification forecasts. The time tables do not exactly line up with the outlooks. They may have been calling for it to eventually reach a certain level but that is not the same.

I remember Emily intensifying right before she made landfall over Cuba and she was stronger than anticipated. I do not recall how much though.


Jim


Jim,

The main issue is that as it stands right now, this is the only storm I can get data for. I'll gladly and happily verify any forecast he's ever made if someone can get the data for me (thanks JShlitz for the other data by the way...I would have credited you but I wasn't sure you wanted me to).

The intensity forecasts for Ophelia aren't verifiable in terms of comparison to the NHC. The noted forecaster...for some reason...uses pressure most of the time to communicate intensity...the NHC does not...so no comparison can be made there.

He only included knots in a couple of his overall forecasts...so while verifiable, there are all sorts of problems in terms of validity if I compared the forecasts where he chose to include knots in the data set. It's not a clean enough sample to run for this set of forecasts since the NHC included intensity for knots in every forecast in the sample, but the noted forecaster only included some.

Finally, human nature dictates that we remember the big forecasts that go right...but often times forget about the hum-drum stuff which ends up being way off the mark. So while there are going to be times where this said forecaster got the intensity trend right with deepening storms...at least in terms of the verification...it will likely wash out over time...and I would guess that there is a strong positive intensity bias for the forecasts actually made.

Complicating this even more is that most intensity predictions made by said forecaster are not in verifiable form...and consist of prose in the middle of a long discussion...which does not meet any criteria for a verifiable forecast.

MW
0 likes   
Updating on the twitter now: http://www.twitter.com/@watkinstrack

User avatar
jasons2k
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 8071
Age: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX

#30 Postby jasons2k » Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:14 am

Jim Hughes wrote:I guess my only question .... from a neutral standpoint....with no caring about who is better.... would be why was Ophelia chosen as the yardstick?

I seem to recall some members talking about JB possibly forecasting her turning back to the GOM. It's obvious that he blew this one early on.

I wish that someone would do a research on the NHC's/JB INTENSITY level forecasting. This is where one is needed....I remember Irene being forecasted by the NHC to become a hurricane and she barely held on to depression status during that time frame. She was then forecasted to weaken or stay below hurricane strength and I think she intensified to a CAT 2 briefly.

I believe the majors may have shown that the models have had trouble with the intensification forecasts. The time tables do not exactly line up with the outlooks. They may have been calling for it to eventually reach a certain level but that is not the same.

I remember Emily intensifying right before she made landfall over Cuba and she was stronger than anticipated. I do not recall how much though.


Jim


Ophelia was the first storm in which he actually posted points on and that's when I started sending them to Mike. Yes you are correct; not the best yarsdstick as he did have it going into the GOM at first.

I was too busy with Rita and Katrina to capture them. He did very good with Katrina, Rita was OK he had it further east long before the NHC but he failed to move it east of High Island when it was clearly going east of there.
0 likes   

Derecho
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 3:15 pm

#31 Postby Derecho » Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:12 pm

Windspeed wrote:A tremendous amount of JB's videos and columns are speculative. He can look at model runs many days in advance and point out possible development; however, most of you are capable of this on your own.


His main "forecast" modus operandi now is "fearing" or being "concerned" about things. He "Feared" Dennis would hit New Orleans, "Feared" that Ophelia would enter the GOM, etc. He'll be "concerned" tropical development in various places.

It's a way of making a forecast without making a forecast. If it doesn't happen he didn't "forecast" it he was just concerned or fearful of it. If it does happen, well he "called" it because it was mentioned.

You bring up an excellent point in that what he's doing is something that pretty much anybody can do in a few minutes looking at the models; when he talks about possible development, it's basically always just a list of where various models are developing a storm, something even a non-meterologist with 2-3 different links and 5 minutes (less time than it takes to decipher a rambling JB column) could view.

However his predictions of tropical development are typically couched in the standard "I'm-a-pattern-recognition-genius-this-will-happen-because-of-teleconnections-from-a-typhoon-off-China" that the fact JB is just model-hugging gets totally obscured.

And of course as I documented last year, during the entire tropical season he will put out enough tropical predictions that for any given week, every climatologically possible area of development is covered, such that's it's basically impossible for anything anywhere to develop without him having mentioned it.
0 likes   

Frank2
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4061
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:47 pm

#32 Postby Frank2 » Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:36 pm

Re: temujin's post

True - I still boil when thinking about Joe Bastardi's erroneous public claim that Ophelia would follow Katrina's track across southeast Louisana, much to the likely dismay of thousands of viewers - even though he probably knew (as did most everyone else) that this was a remote possibiliity, at best.

Even though AccuWeather has been functioning since the late '60s, I must admit that I wish they would quietly go out of business, before they give the science of meteorology a bad name...

Frank
0 likes   

User avatar
jasons2k
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 8071
Age: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX

#33 Postby jasons2k » Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:45 pm

FYI: Rita points have been sent in.
0 likes   

User avatar
smerby
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: state college, pa
Contact:

hello there

#34 Postby smerby » Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:25 am

If you are verifying or going to verify JB's forecasts againts the NHC then come out and say it. His forecasts are not the official Accuweather forecast. His ideas are factored into the official Accuweather consensus forecast. It says so right in his column.

Smerby
http://www.accuweather.com
0 likes   

MWatkins
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2574
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 7:51 pm
Location: SE Florida
Contact:

Re: hello there

#35 Postby MWatkins » Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:06 am

smerby wrote:If you are verifying or going to verify JB's forecasts againts the NHC then come out and say it. His forecasts are not the official Accuweather forecast. His ideas are factored into the official Accuweather consensus forecast. It says so right in his column.

Smerby
http://www.accuweather.com


Thank you for the offer...I will be happy to take you up on that...a couple of notes:

1. If you would like me to verify "official" accuwx forecast points...I will be happy to do so. All I need is the data...and some confirmation that the points were published at some sort of verifiable time. I have some maps of Ophelia being projected into New Orleans...but nothing I can run through a database. I know of no publically available datapoints other than the ones you mention...so I will use what I can get in this regard.

2. I am trying to avoid any specific forecasters name as I would like to not get sued at some point in time for any sort of copyright violation or slander etc. I am not playing games...and specifically...I am just trying not to get into trouble by verifying forecast points against the NHC preliminary best track.

As I think about it...I should have no fear from any specific entity for verifying out an objective forecast. But...stranger and more disturbing things happen in this country every day.

MW
0 likes   
Updating on the twitter now: http://www.twitter.com/@watkinstrack

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

#36 Postby Jim Hughes » Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:11 am

MWatkins wrote:
Jim,

The main issue is that as it stands right now, this is the only storm I can get data for. I'll gladly and happily verify any forecast he's ever made if someone can get the data for me (thanks JShlitz for the other data by the way...I would have credited you but I wasn't sure you wanted me to).

The intensity forecasts for Ophelia aren't verifiable in terms of comparison to the NHC. The noted forecaster...for some reason...uses pressure most of the time to communicate intensity...the NHC does not...so no comparison can be made there.

He only included knots in a couple of his overall forecasts...so while verifiable, there are all sorts of problems in terms of validity if I compared the forecasts where he chose to include knots in the data set. It's not a clean enough sample to run for this set of forecasts since the NHC included intensity for knots in every forecast in the sample, but the noted forecaster only included some.

Finally, human nature dictates that we remember the big forecasts that go right...but often times forget about the hum-drum stuff which ends up being way off the mark. So while there are going to be times where this said forecaster got the intensity trend right with deepening storms...at least in terms of the verification...it will likely wash out over time...and I would guess that there is a strong positive intensity bias for the forecasts actually made.

Complicating this even more is that most intensity predictions made by said forecaster are not in verifiable form...and consist of prose in the middle of a long discussion...which does not meet any criteria for a verifiable forecast.

MW



Thanks Mike but I really am not worried about the NHC / JB scorecard. The activity level has picked up the past several years and this has lead to more intense hurricanes. This increases the likelihood of catastrophic damage if they make landfall.

So I thought it might be nice to know how the intensity level part of their forecasting did....The NHC...JB has a following but NHC is more important since the public follows their forecasts more. Plus you have access to their data........Also know this takes allot of time...No big deal if you can not do it from my end.


Jim
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: duilaslol, Emmett_Brown, Google Adsense [Bot], ljmac75 and 64 guests