Thursday, May 19, 2005
A doe and two Joes
Jason Samenow @ 12:00 AM
Forecast firstA frontal system approaches today, bringing increasing clouds, and some light rain showers by evening. High temperatures should approach 70. By the way, we've only hit 80 or higher twice this month. Last May at this time, it had already been at least 80 on 12 different days during the month.
Showers are likely overnight and on and off tomorrow, when high temperatures will be near 70 once again. The weekend still looks good -- more details on that in tomorrow's edition...
Pictured: A doe in the thick, spring undergrowth in Oakton, VA on Sunday. By CapitalWeather.com photographer Kevin Ambrose.
NatCast
Nationals vs. Brewers, 1:05pm, RFK
Expect mostly cloudy skies, but dry conditions. Temperatures will be comfortable, between 66 and 70 degrees.
Nationals vs. Brewers, 1:05pm, RFKExpect mostly cloudy skies, but dry conditions. Temperatures will be comfortable, between 66 and 70 degrees.
Joe Bastardi -- not as smart as he thinks
I admire AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi for the personality he conveys in his posts and for his knowledge of weather patterns. However, his arrogance sometimes rubs me the wrong way...particularly when he fails to be accountable for blown forecasts or goes on needless rants. His most recent promotional sample (free), while full of color, amounts to nothing more than a useless tirade. It is poorly written and lacking in substance. Frankly, I'm surprised AccuWeather featured it to lure new subscribers.
He bashes the NOAA press release from Monday that features the National Hurricane Center's forecast for the upcoming hurricane season. His beef is that a forecast for the number of the storms (predicted to be between 12-15, pictured on the left) provides "no added value" because it says nothing about if/where the storms will make landfall and what the damages will be. It takes him over 1300 words to say this. He alludes to AccuWeather's forecast and implicitly suggests it provides the "value-added" information NOAA does not. Let's evaluate what Bastardi and AccuWeather consider "value-added" information. Here are examples from the press release featuring AccuWeather's hurricane forecast:"Tropical activity in 2005 will again be above average," said Joe Bastardi, AccuWeather.com Hurricane Center Expert Senior Meteorologist and one of the world's leading hurricane forecasters. "The threat to interests on the U.S. mainland is greatest from North Carolina's Cape Hatteras to the mouth of the Rio Grande River."That sure tells me a lot, Joe. Your forecast encompasses a vast coastal zone where a huge percentage of the landfalls always occur.
"Property damage from 2005's storms is not expected to reach the magnitude of the devastating 2005 season. Bastardi projects total damage on the U.S. mainland to reach $6.5 billion in 2005."To attempt such a damage estimate is foolish. The amount of damage caused by a landfalling hurricane will depend heavily on exactly where it hits. For example, if one hurricane were to hit a major resort-area or city head-on during an inactive season, it could cause over $10 billion dollars in damage, easily. In an active season, if three hurricanes made landfall in sparsely populated areas, the damage may not exceed $5 billion. We cannot tell two or three days ahead of time whether a hurricane will hit within 100 miles of a given point. And 100 miles could make the difference between tremendous economic damages and relatively trival damages. So to make a damage estimate before the first storm has even formed is at best bad science, and at worst, irresponsible.
Joe Witte -- no dumby
Yesterday, Dan mentioned that Channel 7 weekend meteorologist Joe Witte had been named "Dumbest Weatherman" by Radar Magazine. Regardless of what you think about Joe's on-camera presentation -- let the record show he's a smart guy. He has undergraduate and graduate degrees in meteorology from University of Washington, which is one of the best programs in the country. Furthermore, this is a highly respected meteorologist who has risen to the top of his profession, landing gigs in major media markets (NYC and DC). If you wanna talk about dumb, look at the person on the left part of the cover in Radar's next issue (no comment on the person on the right). Can this rag be serious when it calls itself "your source for fresh intelligence"?
Comments are closed for this archived entry | Link | 
Email this post
Email this post
