I don’t know how to take you seriously anymore.

Thanks for your comments. The following statement in the AGU report means negative skill: “Predictions by statistical methods that are widely distributed also show little skill, being more often wrong than right.”

I have provided links to 3 peer-reviewed papers that demostrate statistical skill in seasonal hurricane forecasting. There are none that I am aware of that support the AGU statement. The claim is a minority view in the relevant scientific community. Though if you ahve evidence, data, or information to the contrary please do provide it.

Thanks.

Puh-leese, Roger. You might also have observed that the report spent a lot of time on recommendations for improving skill. Of course.

“As it turns out the claim by the AGU is incorrect, or at a minimum, is a minority view among the relevant expert community.”

And this claim is based on…?

Just because “a” causes “b” doesn’t mean that all of “b” was caused by “a”. E.G. summer deaths from excessive heat are followed by a decrease in the death rate, indicating many of those who die of heat are on the verge anyway. Cold takes pretty much anybody, and there is not an equivalent decrease in the death rate after a cold snap.

“One suggestion, with regards to our skill, I think it would be better to post our seasonal skill as opposed to the skill of our monthly forecasts, since our monthly forecasts have only been issued for six, four and three years respectively for August, September and October. Our seasonal forecasts from June and August have been issued since 1984, so they probably are a better evaluation of our true skill. With regards to the same metric (mean-squared error with respect to the five-year previous mean), here is the skill of our seasonal forecasts:

>From 1 June:

Named Storms: 28%
Named Storm Days: 26%
Hurricanes: 23%
Hurricane Days: 37%

>From 1 August:

Named Storms: 63%
Named Storm Days: 38%
Hurricanes: 49%
Hurricane Days: 43%”