“other than Hurricane Sandy, the American model outperformed the European model during the 2012 hurricane season — but if you look at a three-year period, the European model still comes out on top.”
I’m very skeptical that a conclusion about which model is “better” after only three years. More importantly is the talent that put the models together. Unless you can tell me that one team is that much more superior to the other, three years of 20 named storms per year isn’t a lot to go on.
If they know which models are the best overall, why don’t they just combine information from those models to their own based on that knowledge? Or is that too easy? Wouldn’t be to anyone’s benefit to work together, would it?
“other than Hurricane Sandy, the American model outperformed the European model during the 2012 hurricane season — but if you look at a three-year period, the European model still comes out on top.”
I’m very skeptical that a conclusion about which model is “better” after only three years. More importantly is the talent that put the models together. Unless you can tell me that one team is that much more superior to the other, three years of 20 named storms per year isn’t a lot to go on.
Maybe we should spend less on researching the mating habits of squirrels and such and more on weather predicting computers.
If they know which models are the best overall, why don’t they just combine information from those models to their own based on that knowledge? Or is that too easy? Wouldn’t be to anyone’s benefit to work together, would it?