AccuWX Paints...

[Derek Ortt]

<i>the unpredictable is what makes life interesting. if we knew the weather 100% in advance, it would be rather dull i think</i>

Not only would it be dull, I'd be out of a job if we could predict it 100% in advance. There would be no need for research (and I really dont want to go into forecasting full time) if we completely understood the atmosphere

[Derek Ortt]

from some talking to rs that I've done AWAY from s2k, she is actually very understanding and seems quite imtelligent

[Guest]

well I dont think the flooding thing was a good reasoning. Whether you thought Charley was going to pass up I-95 or west of it or along the coast ALL the data and models clearly showed he would be booking. The rapid speed implied less rainfall and that should of been seen.

IMO JB does shows good seasonal skill... but some of it is not as amazing as it seems. Picking FL and NC 3 months ago is not that unusual.... Yes the cat 3 call for SW FL is a great one but again it cuts both ways. IF Charley had stayed a strong 2... given that this was a 3 months ... it still would of been a good forecast...

YES I did Blow LIlly last year.... Or was it 2002.... I blew the winter forecast of 2001-02 .... (many did ) and the the March 4 1001 media hype noreaster.

What I do is... use those blown forecasts as lessons as to what I did wrong. There was a whole page on my web site on the March 2001 super busts on what I did wrong.... and on my hurricane page on Lilli...
The fact is that when you bust a Major forecast in a big way.... the weather gods are actually giving you the chance to learn something you did NOT knoe before.

Well DT....I'll quote you about the intesity. Looking at the way the upper level winds were setting up and the water temps...that didn't take a genious either. The point there was simply "they said it." But...for the record...they also said it Wednesday ...not 24 hours after you did. It was illuded to Wed. morning and they came right out and said it Wed. afternoon.

The flooding thing was a bust. The reasoning was good. The cold air...etc. But...the system was moving WAY too fast by then. Had the system not moved as fast as it did...this would have also panned out.

The part about being an active season or not...well...that is not what he is saying just now...but he was saying it months ago. Again...maybe we need to look into not only posting numbers but areas. Here in the office we have a competition and we post Texas landfalls and GOM storms. At least they are trying to do something. Given that the numbers for the W coast of Florida were so high...and it was his number one spot before the season becan...I don't think that is something to say "it's NOT hard to see." That may have been luck...maybe skill or a combo. But...I certainly didn't see anyone else post pre-season cat 3 numbers for the SW coast of Florida.

But...again...the point is: No met is perfect. I can remember you blowing a forecast or two...especially a couple of years ago on a big hurricane in the GOM (I think it was you). But you know what...and this is my point...you have earned the right to make judgments on these things because at least you put your ideas out there. Those who don't put their ideas out there should not be putting out the criticism. AND...we all need to remember that if we are going to give condemnation when it is due...we need to also give credit where credit is due...without trying to minimize it. That's petty. Heck if we are going to go down that route I'll start pointing out all the errors...even if the alternatives were just possibilities and then we will all have to be perfect.

By what manner you judge a man...that manner shall you be judged. I don't have a problem doing that. So...accubashers...be ready. I'm coming to revive your blown forecast posts

[Guest]

I cannot do that. I dont see howe nayone can. I did not mean my comment as a bust on religious folks ....

but to assert that its all just LUCKY guess work is rather offensive

Religious people can still be in the field of science. I am VERY religious, its just that at work, I know that I have to prove things based upon science and not based upon the Bible. it is actually very easy to set my religious beliefs aside while doing my job

[Guest]

Not neccessarily,there are people out there that get paid good $$$ to criticize movies.Many of those critics don't make any movies.The same can be said for music,sports,books,etc...Why should weather be any different.Who says that you have to be such & such in order to criticize it.

Oh brother. Well...you go right ahead and be a critic about a forecast. It if makes you happy to come on to a board and complain about forecasts without ever offering up anything constructive in return. Go for it. I'm sure your value to the discussion and learning curve will be without measure.

I guess everyone needs something to boast their self estime by critizing things they know nothing about or can't do themselves. Sounds like a lonely existance to me...but whatever makes ya happy. Of course...people will place the same value on your critique as they will your forecast: Nothing.

Just because it does not say professional met under my handle does not mean that I dont know nothing about weather!!! I know plenty!!! I regret not taking the subject of meteorology more serious when I was younger.The point is that if I feel like criticizing anyone or anything I will happily do so.Also I dont give a rats behind what people think of me...This is a message board & for a professional met you sure spend alot of time on it speaking of a lonley existence.

[Air Force Met]

This is a message board & for a professional met you sure spend alot of time on it speaking of a lonley existence.

Well...let's see...585 posts since 8 Jul 2003...compaired to 290 posts since march 2004. That's my 1.44 posts per day compaired to your 1.86 (30% more per day). I hardly think that either is speaking of a lonely existence. But...you are entitled to your opinion...so that is where we can leave it. Critique if you want...if you just want to do that without offering up a forecast yourself...then that is your right. Have fun. We can agree to disagree.

[Air Force Met]

Religious people can still be in the field of science. I am VERY religious, its just that at work, I know that I have to prove things based upon science and not based upon the Bible. it is actually very easy to set my religious beliefs aside while doing my job

I am very religious as well, Derek. Here is a pic of me that kinda shows how much

http://home.comcast.net/~wedgphotoss/Nelson.htm

So there...now everyone can see...that I'm going BALD! BUt I've still got my nice military haircut that they make me keep

[USAwx1]

Just because it does not say professional met under my handle does not mean that I dont know nothing about weather!!! I know plenty!!! I regret not taking the subject of meteorology more serious when I was younger.The point is that if I feel like criticizing anyone or anything I will happily do so.Also I dont give a rats behind what people think of me...This is a message board & for a professional met you sure spend alot of time on it speaking of a lonley existence.

Whatever floats your boat MIA, but I must say that your outlook on things is not a very positive one.

There is a FINE line between Constructive criticism, and antagonistic criticism. This does not just apply to forecasting, its also true for virtually every aspect of ones actions and behavior in life.

No one will like (or have much respect for) a person that consistently has nothing good to say about others. Admittedly I recognize the fact that I can be VERY argumentative at times (IMO my temper is one of my largest downfalls, and I am making every effort to control it) but I do not go and purposefully look for a hostile confrontation with someone else--just for kicks. There is no need (for anyone) to do that.

Getting to the point here, if you are critiquing someone in a positive way, with the goal of helping them with something, there is NOTHING wrong with that—but if you are doing so to be calculatedly cruel, then perhaps you need to re-think what your doing and whether its actually worth it. Don’t get the wrong idea, im not attacking you here. I just want you to see what the effect of constant, and deliberate---unconstructive criticism of others will reflect back on one’s interpretation of YOUR character.

As far as you “not giving a rat’s arse what anyone else thinks about you” I think you need to re-consider that as well. Let me give you a situation. Let’s say (hypothetically speaking) someone pays you a nice compliment about a forecast which you issued that preformed very well. Under your philosophy, you would not be able to accept that compliment simply because you “don’t give a rat’s ass what others think about you—or your work”.

Be grateful for the compliments which you receive, but also know how to spot and block out the negative stuff. That’s all im saying.

When it comes to the number of posts one has, I really fail to understand how that has any relevance to a particular aspect of this discussion. For the record, I don’t think it matters one bit whether someone has 5 posts or 5 thousand over a given amount of time. It says nothing about them as a person, and it is senseless to try and imply that.

[Guest]

as I dont believe in god, religion plays no importance in my interest in weather, however, I think we should stop mixing up weather and religion.

[donsutherland1]

I strongly agree with USAwx1 that there is a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. There is also a difference between well-founded and largely unfounded criticism.

Unfortunately, in recent weeks, it appears that fault-finding has become almost an Olympic sport of sorts. Some examples:

1) AccuWeather has been portrayed as being almost incompetent. While AccuWeather might make errors, as can happen with any private or public forecasters, if it were so bad, it would not have grown as it did nor would it be able to retain its clients.

2) JB has been depicted almost as a buffoon at times. If he were so bad, AccuWeather would not retain his services nor would he appear so widely on television nor be quoted so widely by the print media. Clearly, mid- and long-range forecasting has a much higher level of inherent error than short-range forecasting. JB demonstrates more than enough skill so as to be in high demand.

3) The ECMWF Model has been criticized as receiving "undeserved" praise. If the model were so bad, meteorologists would not use it. If it does so poorly, there would be a wide base of objective data that shows such a poor performance. Any model can miss a storm track in a run from time to time. But it is overall performance that determines the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a given model.

4) During the progress of Hurricane Charley, DT was cast in a very negative light in some posts on a few message boards. Yet, DT nailed the idea that Charley had potential for explosive intensification well before it happened, moreover his post Florida idea of a more easterly track was a good one. Credit should also be given where credit is due.

5) After Hurricane Charley had made landfall, some attempted to advance the idea that TPC had failed miserably in predicting the landfall and the intensity of the hurricane. Yet, TPC had warned that Charley would likely become a major hurricane and the area in which Charley made landfall was in the hurricane warning well in advance of such landfall. The forecast was not perfect and TPC was slow to upgrade the intensity of Charley, but its overall performance was far from a failure. Moreover, the idea that TPC failed to upgrade Charley by a few hours is wholly irrelevant to whether affected residents had sufficient time to prepare. The area where Charley made landfall was expected to be impacted by a major hurricane well in advance--warnings were up--therefore this delay in confirming that Charley had become a major hurricane should have had no impact whatsoever on preparations for the hurricane's arrival. Those preparations should have been made in advance, not when the hurricane's landfall was imminent or taking place.

When it comes to constructive criticism, it is all right to point out a bad forecast. However, when a bad forecast is cited as "proving" that AccuWeather is incompetent or the ECMWF Model is a bad model and all the evidence to the contrary is ignored, that's not constructive criticism. Instead, that's destructive criticism.

When it comes to well-founded and unfounded criticism, it is well-founded to point out that one of AccuWeather's earlier tracks pertaining to Charley was off. However, to declare that AccuWeather is incompetent, one needs to provide a large base of evidence that shows far more failure than success. That evidence has not been presented moreover AccuWeather's growth demonstrates that the marketplace accepts a very different reality. Hence, the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that the overly general observation that AccuWeather is "AccuBlunder" is largely without merit.

When some gratuitously engage in destructive criticism--criticism that aims to do little more than undermine the reputation of those criticized--Theodore Roosevelt's observation in his famous Sorbonnes speech is perhaps most relevant, and I believe this destructive criticism is what AirForce Met had in mind when he spoke about some of the critics' actions, even as those very same critics would not offer any ideas/forecasts of their own; I don't believe he ever meant to argue that all criticism should be off limits.

In that speech, Roosevelt declared, "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

AccuWeather, TPC, JB, DT, etc., are striving in a difficult and demanding arena. They may err from time to time. But they also provide much value. Otherwise, in a free market where consumers have substantial choice, their services would not be in demand and others would have replaced them in providing those services.

[x-y-no]

...

AccuWeather, TPC, JB, DT, etc., are striving in a difficult and demanding arena. They may err from time to time. But they also provide much value. Otherwise, in a free market where consumers have substantial choice, their services would not be in demand and others would have replaced them in providing those services.

Very well said.

[Steve]

Excellent points all around. I really appreciate your comments Dr. Lee as I was unsure whether or not you were being sarcastic at first on the thread where I called out Derecho for his accubash when he himself had the storm farther west than their free-site did on the same day (took a lot of searching to even find that). You stated then that if anyone wanted to be critical (and we're talking donsutherland1's 'destructive criticism'), then they themselves should have to have put out a forecast (e.g. hold themselves to a reasonable standard) else their words were meaningless. That was a great idea. Funny thing was, Derecho never answered on EITHER of the threads I exposed his comments on (both threads he was an author of fwiw).

In reality, I was only holding him to the standard I was holding myself. As one who doesn't automatically discount the ECMWF (having seen it perform against the grain so many times and being ahead of the other modelling and ultimately close to the final solution) it's hard to just blow it off. But I was in league with a likely Mexico landfall as I thought Charley would slow in relation to Bonnie and the first trof, that it would weaken somewhat at that point, a ridge would build in south of Bonnie's landfall, and Charlie would be steered westward as a weaker system at first. I had some constructive arguments with John (Josephine96) over our disagreements. However, as soon as it was obvious that I was wrong, I immediately posted a thread to his credit.

That's the difference in being a blowhard and being intellectually honest. With most of you guys on this particular thread (despite the divergence of opinion on various subjects contained herein), I feel like you guys (specifically the mets and forecasters) have all earned your merits as critics and forecasters sans all the b.s.

Steve

[Guest]

Just because it does not say professional met under my handle does not mean that I dont know nothing about weather!!! I know plenty!!! I regret not taking the subject of meteorology more serious when I was younger.The point is that if I feel like criticizing anyone or anything I will happily do so.Also I dont give a rats behind what people think of me...This is a message board & for a professional met you sure spend alot of time on it speaking of a lonley existence.

Whatever floats your boat MIA, but I must say that your outlook on things is not a very positive one.

There is a FINE line between Constructive criticism, and antagonistic criticism. This does not just apply to forecasting, its also true for virtually every aspect of ones actions and behavior in life.

No one will like (or have much respect for) a person that consistently has nothing good to say about others. Admittedly I recognize the fact that I can be VERY argumentative at times (IMO my temper is one of my largest downfalls, and I am making every effort to control it) but I do not go and purposefully look for a hostile confrontation with someone else--just for kicks. There is no need (for anyone) to do that.

Getting to the point here, if you are critiquing someone in a positive way, with the goal of helping them with something, there is NOTHING wrong with that—but if you are doing so to be calculatedly cruel, then perhaps you need to re-think what your doing and whether its actually worth it. Don’t get the wrong idea, im not attacking you here. I just want you to see what the effect of constant, and deliberate---unconstructive criticism of others will reflect back on one’s interpretation of YOUR character.

As far as you “not giving a rat’s arse what anyone else thinks about you” I think you need to re-consider that as well. Let me give you a situation. Let’s say (hypothetically speaking) someone pays you a nice compliment about a forecast which you issued that preformed very well. Under your philosophy, you would not be able to accept that compliment simply because you “don’t give a rat’s arse what others think about you—or your work”.

Be grateful for the compliments which you receive, but also know how to spot and block out the negative stuff. That’s all im saying.

When it comes to the number of posts one has, I really fail to understand how that has any relevance to a particular aspect of this discussion. For the record, I don’t think it matters one bit whether someone has 5 posts or 5 thousand over a given amount of time. It says nothing about them as a person, and it is senseless to try and imply that.

I make a comment & not a mean one at that about peoples right to criticize regardless of whether they are in the field or not & suddenly I am the bad guy.Well he attacked 1st when he says "I guess everyone needs something to boast their self estime by critizing things they know nothing about or can't do themselves. Sounds like a lonely existance to me...but whatever makes ya happy. Of course...people will place the same value on your critique as they will your forecast: Nothing."..

Well I dont care who you are,what you do,I don't care if you're a preist,rabbi or an air force met.You don't talk down to me in anyway,shape or form & then expect me to lie there & take it...Thats just not in my nature & I won't put up with it..If the guy is so religious he should know to treat people with respect because my 1st comment to him about critics was not disrespectful in the least.Him being religious & mean spirited does'nt surprize me @ all because in my life some of the the biggest hypocrite backstabbers I have come across have been so called religious people.Also I see that some here are beginning to believe that if you're not a pro met than you have no opinion..Sorry thats not the way it goes..My call on Charley was just as good as any of yours & NHC combined!!! BTW this is not against all of you who are pro mets,some of you are actually very nice down to earth people & all of you are very knowledgable but dont talk down to me or I'll give you my 2 & 3 cents worth about the issue @ hand.

[Josephine96]

Please don't send us another hurricane yet.. We need to clean up from Charley 1st

[rainstorm]

jb was very bullish on the rest of the season on the radio this morning

[Air Force Met]

Hey MIA...my comments to you were not meant to be mean...just honest. If that hurts your feelings then I am sorry (sincerely). If you will go back and read my posts again...you will see I have no problem with critics. You are also saying that I have a problem with people who aren't pro-mets. That is another false assumption you have made. I also never said that. My original point was and still is that on this message board, if you want to criticiae a forecast...it's probably better if you put one out yourself. It's easy to criticize when you don't have any accountability. I never said anything about needing to be a pro-met. Not once. I don't care if you are one or not. There are some good tropical forecasters on this board that are not pro-mets...and I value their opinion. But...what I am saying is that there is not much to value when there is no opinion...only criticizm.

Matter of fact...my original comments were not even addressed to you. You jumped in with "why should weather be any different.Who says that you have to be such & such in order to criticize it." when I said I agreed with "Pretty easy to play the critic when one doesn't leave themselves open to be critiqued because they don't put anything out there to be critiqued."

So...if you think that was talking down to you...then I apologize. I was not. I was meerly pointing out that people don't listen to those who only have negative things to say. If you don't want to put out forecasts yourself and only want to ctiticize...then be prepared for people to not listen to you.

AND...if you don't think there are people out there who live to boost their self-estimes by knocking down others...then you are sadley mistaken. Again...I was addressing the same people there I was before: Those who want to knock everything but not offer anything themselves.

I will weather your personal attacks...because that doesn't concern me. I posted later that we can agree to disagree. I agree I was frustrated with the "why should weather be any different" comment. Why? Because that is silly. If someone wants to be a pro-wx critic then go for it...but I doubt anyone will listen to it or pay any money for it. Do you? Didn't think so.

So, I apologize to you for getting testy. I stick by my original premise and that is this: Those who don't ever offer up anything themselves should not be constantly commenting on the failures (or percieved failures) of others. I tried to address this by "But...you are entitled to your opinion...so that is where we can leave it. Critique if you want...if you just want to do that without offering up a forecast yourself...then that is your right. Have fun. We can agree to disagree."

So...one more time...if that is your opinion...then great. Matter of fact...I suggest you (or anyone who holds that opinion) try it. I think you will see after a while that nobody will listen...and that is the whole point of this.

So...again...I am sorry I offended you and "can't we agree to disgree?"

[USAwx1]

I make a comment & not a mean one at that about peoples right to criticize regardless of whether they are in the field or not & suddenly I am the bad guy.Well he attacked 1st when he says "I guess everyone needs something to boast their self estime by critizing things they know nothing about or can't do themselves. Sounds like a lonely existance to me...but whatever makes ya happy. Of course...people will place the same value on your critique as they will your forecast: Nothing."..

CALM DOWN!! No one is attacking anyone here, so don’t TRY to turn this into a “he said she said” type of back and forth blame game about who has attacked who first, or whatever it is your thinking. I can promise you that will get old very quickly, and in the instance of this conversation has no merit as it is. Like I said before, if its your whole-hearted desire to non-constructively criticize someone for whatever reason (be it the forecasts they issue, car they drive, jeans they wear, color of the socks on their feet, etc…) that’s your business. While I do not agree with your philosophy--and quite evidently have failed at trying to break you away from that train of thought, I suppose your mind is made up.

The statement in bold is very true in many instances regarding SOME people and their actions. In life, those with a lower self esteem may resort to making tactless and unwarrantedly judgmental interpretations about another’s abilities, or even physical characteristics in order to feel as if they have a superior influence over the next guy. Those who practice this regularly are not only being ignorant and VERY disrespectful to the person unduly targeted, they are also showing that they have a significant lack of integrity. The credit belongs to the person, who tries his/her hardest to refrain from making blatantly insensitive and futilely disrespectful comments about others, while offering CONSTRUCTIVE ideas for how one may be able to improve, while still avoiding insulting them. One does not necessarily have to like the next person, but they should have at least SOME respect for them as an individual. I find that this lacks significantly in society today.

Well I dont care who you are,what you do,I don't care if you're a preist,rabbi or an air force met.You don't talk down to me in anyway,shape or form & then expect me to lie there & take it...Thats just not in my nature & I won't put up with it..

This, in my honest opinion is a defensively-whiney and juvenile statement. You need to get off the defensive here MIA--because I have breaking news for you--NO ONE IS ATTACKING YOU!

This statement (and in a large part the I don’t care attitude that you seem to boast) reminds me of the way a kid in junior highschool would act--in order to portray the image that he is a self-proclaimed “take no BS tough guy who is out there to mark is turf” or something along those lines. It’s time to break away from that.

Furthermore, I believe that those in all professions deserve credit…and for me this is a non-discriminating statement, as I will respect a person no matter what it is that they do, whether their a an astrophysicist or a janitor. They all deserve credit--and the professions themselves require respect also.

If the guy is so religious he should know to treat people with respect because my 1st comment to him about critics was not disrespectful in the least.Him being religious & mean spirited does'nt surprize me @ all because in my life some of the the biggest hypocrite backstabbers I have come across have been so called religious people.

There is also no need to stereotype those of faith as being hypocrites and backstabbers.

Granted I’m not the most religious person out there, but as a catholic man--who obviously DOES believe in God, I can tell you that I take serious offense to this statement as I do NOT fit your criteria you have listed above, nor do 99% of others who are faith-based. My beliefs are my beliefs--they were instilled in me since I was old enough to understand what the word God meant, and I will continue the tradition with my daughter also.

There are those out there who seek to profit from or abuse faith as a means for personal satisfaction; however from my point of view they are NOT the majority.

However IF this is what you believe, that’s fine.

Also I see that some here are beginning to believe that if you're not a pro met than you have no opinion..Sorry thats not the way it goes..My call on Charley was just as good as any of yours & NHC combined!!! BTW this is not against all of you who are pro mets,some of you are actually very nice down to earth people & all of you are very knowledgable but dont talk down to me or I'll give you my 2 & 3 cents worth about the issue @ hand.

You have this ALL wrong. But before I get to that, I would like to take the time to recognize Don Sutherland, SF (Stormsfury), Derek Ortt, Luis (Cycloneye), David (vbhoutex), Kingofweather, Mike Watkins, and barometerbob for their outstanding contribution to this board, and advanced understanding of meteorology. All I can say is that you represent (without a doubt) the finest group of amateur forecasters I have ever had the privilege of coming in contact with. Your work is second to none--and I hold you only in the highest regards.

The aforementioned individuals, MIA, represent the best amateur meteorologists this board has to offer, or for that matter any board. As you can see I have a great deal of respect and admiration for ALL of them. Going even beyond that, whether or not I particularly like someone, is a non-issue, as you should always have respect for them as a human being.

Finally, as I conclude my rant for the day, im going to reiterate the fact that I am not trying to insult you MIA--my ONLY intention is wanting you to see things from another’s point of view.

[Steve H.]

OK, had to jump into here to clarify an issue on "religious" reasoning to "mother nature." Please direct me to a verse of scripture that cites "mother nature." If you find one you can send me a PM....happy diggingThanks

[jlauderdal]

this thread has more lives than morris the cat or that hurricane from a few years ago that had like 85 advisories. i suggest all the players involved go into a chatroom..take the gloves off and everyone can live happily ever after. either that or we get some real activity to kill off this thread. and there better not be any BUMPS...LOL.

[smerby]

Lots of good points
Smerby
http://www.accuweather.com

I strongly agree with USAwx1 that there is a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. There is also a difference between well-founded and largely unfounded criticism.

Unfortunately, in recent weeks, it appears that fault-finding has become almost an Olympic sport of sorts. Some examples:

1) AccuWeather has been portrayed as being almost incompetent. While AccuWeather might make errors, as can happen with any private or public forecasters, if it were so bad, it would not have grown as it did nor would it be able to retain its clients.

2) JB has been depicted almost as a buffoon at times. If he were so bad, AccuWeather would not retain his services nor would he appear so widely on television nor be quoted so widely by the print media. Clearly, mid- and long-range forecasting has a much higher level of inherent error than short-range forecasting. JB demonstrates more than enough skill so as to be in high demand.

3) The ECMWF Model has been criticized as receiving "undeserved" praise. If the model were so bad, meteorologists would not use it. If it does so poorly, there would be a wide base of objective data that shows such a poor performance. Any model can miss a storm track in a run from time to time. But it is overall performance that determines the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a given model.

4) During the progress of Hurricane Charley, DT was cast in a very negative light in some posts on a few message boards. Yet, DT nailed the idea that Charley had potential for explosive intensification well before it happened, moreover his post Florida idea of a more easterly track was a good one. Credit should also be given where credit is due.

5) After Hurricane Charley had made landfall, some attempted to advance the idea that TPC had failed miserably in predicting the landfall and the intensity of the hurricane. Yet, TPC had warned that Charley would likely become a major hurricane and the area in which Charley made landfall was in the hurricane warning well in advance of such landfall. The forecast was not perfect and TPC was slow to upgrade the intensity of Charley, but its overall performance was far from a failure. Moreover, the idea that TPC failed to upgrade Charley by a few hours is wholly irrelevant to whether affected residents had sufficient time to prepare. The area where Charley made landfall was expected to be impacted by a major hurricane well in advance--warnings were up--therefore this delay in confirming that Charley had become a major hurricane should have had no impact whatsoever on preparations for the hurricane's arrival. Those preparations should have been made in advance, not when the hurricane's landfall was imminent or taking place.

When it comes to constructive criticism, it is all right to point out a bad forecast. However, when a bad forecast is cited as "proving" that AccuWeather is incompetent or the ECMWF Model is a bad model and all the evidence to the contrary is ignored, that's not constructive criticism. Instead, that's destructive criticism.

When it comes to well-founded and unfounded criticism, it is well-founded to point out that one of AccuWeather's earlier tracks pertaining to Charley was off. However, to declare that AccuWeather is incompetent, one needs to provide a large base of evidence that shows far more failure than success. That evidence has not been presented moreover AccuWeather's growth demonstrates that the marketplace accepts a very different reality. Hence, the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that the overly general observation that AccuWeather is "AccuBlunder" is largely without merit.

When some gratuitously engage in destructive criticism--criticism that aims to do little more than undermine the reputation of those criticized--Theodore Roosevelt's observation in his famous Sorbonnes speech is perhaps most relevant, and I believe this destructive criticism is what AirForce Met had in mind when he spoke about some of the critics' actions, even as those very same critics would not offer any ideas/forecasts of their own; I don't believe he ever meant to argue that all criticism should be off limits.

In that speech, Roosevelt declared, "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

AccuWeather, TPC, JB, DT, etc., are striving in a difficult and demanding arena. They may err from time to time. But they also provide much value. Otherwise, in a free market where consumers have substantial choice, their services would not be in demand and others would have replaced them in providing those services.