Stimulating weather forecasting?
From the USA Today:
|
We’re spending more than a trillion to “stimulate” things. Jobs. Car sales. Real estate. Even to prop up an ungovernable Afghanistan.
Short-term forecasts, like the predicted early hit of winter last week, generally are helpful although often inaccurate. Long-term forecasts usually are more harmful than helpful. . . Last week, the often quoted Colorado State University Hurricane Forecast Team, now in its 27th year, made these predictions for 2010: • Six to eight hurricanes. • At least one to hit the USA. Last year, the same forecasters predicted this: • Seven hurricanes. There were only three. • At least one to hit the USA. None did. Such preseason forecasts do triple damage. They give insurance companies an extra argument for raising rates. They have many of us spend money for unnecessary preparations. . . [AO: The problem with throwing money at long-term weather forecasts is that it is not clear that this is possible. Indeed, based on years of research and what we have to show for that research, one might conclude that spending valuable currency on long-term weather forecasting is a waste of resources in light of other immediate needs. Just because we can't do something well doesn't mean that what it needs is a stimulus. Moreover, the “damage” the writer, Al Neuharth, identifies is not enevitable. That is because insurers know, and we also know, that long-term weather forecasting is unreliable. As a result, anyone who takes specific actions in response to such forecasts should do so knowing that those actions may be entirely unnecessary. In other words, whatever actions are taken, those action should be discounted by the probability that the expected outcome will come to pass. This is what we humans do in our daily activities. For example, we are willing to drive cars without excessive protection because even though driving is dangerous and can lead to injury, the probability of significant injury is low. Race car drivers, on the other hand, because of the likelihood of crashes usually wear special protection when they race. Note that the protection is not necessarily worn because of the high speeds at which racers drive. Driving at a high speed alone without an accident will not result in injury. Similarly, insurers and individuals must consider the likelihood of damage when taking action in response to long-term weather forecasts. Such consideration can limit any resulting damage. ] |
We could spend a tiny fraction of that to fix one of the things most important to most of us everyday — weather forecasts. Read the full opinion HERE.