“The environment is as non-conducive for hurricanes as we’ve ever seen,” research scientist Klotzbach told a crowd of about 150 actuaries at a session titled “Predicting Hurricanes” at the Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) Spring Meeting in Colorado Springs.
If he said this before the hurricane lull, I would have given him credit for knowing what he’s talking about. However, saying it 10 years into the lull is like telling me that Toronto shouldn’t have traded Syndergaard and d’Arnaud for Dickey. It’s just Monday morning QBing with an advanced degree.
There is a distinction between the recent ten years and the statement by the researcher that the current environment doesn’t foretell a change in the prior & current, non-conducive environment. That is the way I read the article. But the actual wording could be interpreted as being vague and non-distinguishing.
Dave, when has Colorado State gotten anything right in the past several years? I think they have been hopped up on that weed and have been bloviating in error.
I think this whole thing is just a way for the professor to get a bunch of insurance company actuaries to pay him money for his opinion. It doesn’t seem to matter that he is dead wrong most of the time. This is like being an economist where you give an educated opinion on what caused what has already happened. I don’t blame him for wanting to milk the industry for all he can but they are dumb for paying attention to him. But, they have to base their worthless models on something, right or wrong.
Pedro, you have it exactly right. Worthless models on algorithms are all they operate on and it has been proven wrong for years. They were probably thinking that the law of averages would catch up sooner or later.
“The environment is as non-conducive for hurricanes as we’ve ever seen,” research scientist Klotzbach told a crowd of about 150 actuaries at a session titled “Predicting Hurricanes” at the Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) Spring Meeting in Colorado Springs.
If he said this before the hurricane lull, I would have given him credit for knowing what he’s talking about. However, saying it 10 years into the lull is like telling me that Toronto shouldn’t have traded Syndergaard and d’Arnaud for Dickey. It’s just Monday morning QBing with an advanced degree.
There is a distinction between the recent ten years and the statement by the researcher that the current environment doesn’t foretell a change in the prior & current, non-conducive environment. That is the way I read the article. But the actual wording could be interpreted as being vague and non-distinguishing.
jaybar, back to the drawing boards for the actuaries and their predictive modeling schemes.
Must be global warming. Cooler North Atlantic and all.
Dave, when has Colorado State gotten anything right in the past several years? I think they have been hopped up on that weed and have been bloviating in error.
I think this whole thing is just a way for the professor to get a bunch of insurance company actuaries to pay him money for his opinion. It doesn’t seem to matter that he is dead wrong most of the time. This is like being an economist where you give an educated opinion on what caused what has already happened. I don’t blame him for wanting to milk the industry for all he can but they are dumb for paying attention to him. But, they have to base their worthless models on something, right or wrong.
Pedro, you have it exactly right. Worthless models on algorithms are all they operate on and it has been proven wrong for years. They were probably thinking that the law of averages would catch up sooner or later.