• 0 Posts
  • 91 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 15th, 2023

help-circle


  • Sorry, did you mean to reply to another comment? There is no reflection whatsoever to the comment you are replying to.

    Edit: As this comment has whooshed at least 6 people:

    it is very very very obvious that the article tries to manufacture outrage over one prediction model that is not publicised but avalable to the agency.

    I pointed out that there is one other, equally good model unrestricted and there are about 20 other models that are equally not listed as restricted. Again, the restriction refers to publicising, not to government usage.

    I hope this helps the understanding of crapwittyname@lemm.ee and his friends as I don’t think it makes sense to break this down simpler.


  • Sorry, what a shit, rage bait article is this?

    … it was deemed in a National Hurricane Center (NHC) report [PDF] to be one of the two “best performers,” the other being a model called IVCN (Intensity Variable Consensus).

    OK, what about IVCN? Is this available? We can assume it is as is not mentioned any more in the article. Also skimming the report it’s not like the other reports are wildly inaccurate/unusable.

    Asked whether the NOAA deal affected the release of information about Hurricane Helene, Buchanan said, “HCCA is one of many computer models that forecasters use at the National Hurricane Center. NHC forecasters use a variety of model guidance, observations, and expert knowledge to develop the best and most consistent forecast, along with watches, warnings and other hazard information for use by the emergency management community, the public, and other core partners and decision makers.”

    So the outrage is hot air over nothing. Got it.