I say quasi verifiable...because while lat/long pairs were forecast...sometimes intensity was expressd in knots, sometimes in pressure (MB), sometimes both and sometimes neither.
So while there additional data points, they couldn't be used to verify intensity.
However...I did go back and collect this data, import it into a database, and run verification statistics for same-forecast period forecasts from the NHC...thereby comparing apples to apples.
Here are the 2 data sets...the NHC vs. A specific Accuweather forecaster tracks from the same initial time and same verufy time for all Ophelia forecasts from Accuweather from 9/6/2005 to 9/16/2005.
I will let the numbers...speak...for...themselves.
Code: Select all
Model Name V Time Cases Avg Error
NHC official forecast 024 hours 10 cases 42.05 nm
NHC official forecast 048 hours 9 cases 81.99 nm
NHC official forecast 072 hours 8 cases 99.90 nm
NHC official forecast 096 hours 7 cases 153.97 nm
NHC official forecast 120 hours 6 cases 189.62 nm
Accuwx 024 hours 10 cases 46.36 nm -10.26% skill vs NHC
Accuwx 048 hours 9 cases 106.22 nm -29.54% skill vs NHC
Accuwx 072 hours 8 cases 177.32 nm -77.50% skill vs NHC
Accuwx 096 hours 6 cases 266.20 nm -72.89% skill vs NHC
Accuwx 120 hours 5 cases 385.77 nm -103.44% skill vs NHC
I have a pretty good feeling Rita's numbers will be similar.
There is of course...some margin for error here since I had to grab data from files that are less than clean. But the forecast error verification vs. best track should be good within a couple of nautical miles.
Data files are available upon request...