In article E1pff.119150$S4.64896@edtnps84,
"Coby Beck" wrote:
"Steve Schulin" wrote
Phil Hays wrote, in part:
wrote:
... the fact remains that
the Weather Action news release of Oct 21 described the NHC official
forecast of Nov 15 quite well.
That is a wild spin, that the astrology is forecasting what the NHC is
going to predict.
You don't seem to find anything worthwhile in having longer-term
forecast identical to state-of-the-art next day forecast. I'm not shy
about disagreeing with you on that.
C'mon, Steve. What's the value when they are both wrong? That's just a
coincidence. Unless you think we should disregard the NHC forecast whenever
it agrees with WeatherAction..? I will happily and non-judgementally say
"Corbyn was right" when that happens. There is nothing to be gained by
denying a failure.
LOL - if folks could have three week heads-up about the when and where
NHC was forecasting a hurricane, many would be happy to have it. I don't
think the dismissive characterizations of what transpired here do
justice to all the facts. Are any of the USA's and other nations'
billions in publicly funded climatology research going towards
evaluating the effects of solar particles on severe weather events, or
the predictability of major changes in particle flux? If not, why not?
The catcalls from the consensus crowd may be great for advancing their
pet theories and agenda, but they may be doing quite a disservice to the
advancement of the science.
Now, if you wanted to use the simple "failure" label on Roger's claim,
made about two weeks before Tropical Depression 27 formed, that it was a
sure thing or somesuch that major tropical storm or hurricane would form
in Carribbean during the around Nov 13-16 period, I would have no
trouble agreeing with you.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com