Important headlines - Accuracy of the CSU hurricane forecast

posted by Brian Mudd - 

Important headlines for April 6th - The accuracy of the CSU hurricane forecast 

Bottom Line: These are stories you don't want to miss and my hot takes on them...   

  • Oh no!: This forecast predicts an active 2018 hurricane season - Palm Beach Post

Hot Take: So, what did CSU actually predict 

  • 14 named storms against an average of 12

  • 7 Hurricanes (average) 

  • 3 majors (compared to 2) 

So yeah, a little above average but isn't the bigger question if we'll have to deal with something? Digging a little deeper in CSU's research here's the rest of the story: 

  • 63 percent for the entire U.S. coastline (average for the last century is 52 percent) 

  • 39 percent for the U.S. East Coast, including the Florida peninsula (average for the last century is 31 percent) 

  • 38 percent for the Gulf Coast from the Florida panhandle westward to Brownsville (average for the last century is 30 percent) 

So, here's what I'm good for. I tore through 34 years of data...and found the following...  

CSU's forecast accuracy against named storms: 

  • Accurate: 5 years (15%)  
  • Overestimated: 11 years (32%) 
  • Underestimated: 18 years (53%) 

And for the years that aren't accurate the miss averaged 33%. So, put this altogether and here are your takeaways. 

The CSU model is most likely to underestimate activity. If that were the case this year and the average miss of 33% occurred, we'd actually be looking at 19 named storms. A highly above average season and the last thing we want to contend with. Let's hope the CSU averages don't hold true this year.  

Excerpt: The census should not be a partisan issue. Mandated under the U.S. Constitution, the census requires the actual enumeration of all persons in the United States, not simply all citizens. In fact, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld this system of counting everyone in 2016.

Hot Take: All of this is true. And all of this would be a moot point if only our laws were otherwise upheld. Let's start here - with the actual language of whom should be counted. Constitutionally the language cited all "persons" should be counted. It didn't specify all citizens. For that reason, it can be argued, and is that there shouldn't be any challenge to the notion that we should cast the widest net possible to accountable for all people in the country regardless of status. There's a huge problem with that notion when you have states that are defiant in complying with federal law and thus the constitution. It encourages bad behavior at the literal expense of all other Americans.  

It hypocritical and it's wrong to cite one constitutional provision (the Census clause) without adhering to others (like the Supremacy clause). California is literally doing this right now with their "Sanctuary state" status which is in defiance of the Supremacy Clause. Why does this matter? One would imagine that founders constructed the Census language with the understanding that states would also be heeding the other amendments and thus wouldn't allow illegal immigrants to cloud the picture. Given the implications of the Census, a state would have every reason to encourage illegal immigrant to flock to their state to be counted to increase representation in Congress and federal funding and the state's influence in the Electoral College. No one will be able to convince me, or I'd imagine any reasonable person, that was the intent of the census or is acceptable for those funds and influence to literally be stolen from all other Americans. 

Until Monday...     

title

Content Goes Here