View Article & Comments

A 'miss' is an event that occurs without being forecast.

An event that is forecast but does not occur is a 'false alarm'

A 'hit' is obviously a forecast event that does occur.

All three must be considered in say a measure of the equitable threat score which all reputable forecasters use to measure objectively their skill.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make Tom - you seem to be stating the 'bleedin' obvious, but I am not sure why, unless this is a cheap shot at Piers?


That solar disk image is only of one part of the spectrum - images from other parts of the spectrum show a slightly different story, e.g.

AIA193 SDO http://www.spaceweather.sflorg.com/current/aia_193.html

AIA171 SDO http://www.spaceweather.sflorg.com/current/aia_171.html

So I am not saying Piers's prediction is hit or miss, but without considering the whole picture your comment looks like a cheap shot.

The point I was making that it is the wrong terminology to call a 'MISS' an event that was forecast to occur but does not. In his assessment of skill, Piers does not include real misses which means that it is not a true measure.

For example, say Piers predicts 5 hurricanes and 4 occur then he will say he is 80% correct (4/5). If however there were another 10 that occured which he did not forecast he would still claim he was 80% correct (as he only measures his skill on events that he issues forecasts on) but is he really 80% correct, I think not.

Interestingly, we have a blank sun and a 8.9 quake occurs this morning. What was the cause?

Piers got the HIT....

Just in Earthquake 8.7 (one day late, but this is done on a one day each way forecast as mentioned before)

Not certain if this location is correct - will follow up soon

Hi Tom

Piers will mention links from "magnetic connections", this is an area that can also change's La Nina to El Nino and also Jet stream locations. I will let him talk some more about this later

Tom - again you are stating the obvious, but I don't ever recall Piers ever providing total global coverage for every weather event on this planet. As far as I can see he is predicting certain categories of events and seems to be enjoying a level of sucess that is better than chance.

Given his predictions are made a lot longer in advance than 'traditional' forecasting, he might be forgiven if his prediction is a day out or not right in the exact place. Let's not forget he is not using a super computer either, so he maybe on to something with his technique? Would you agree to this point?

As for your "blank" sun, well it is only blank in one part of the visible spectrum - that was the point I was making.

Again I am not defending Piers or his predictive success/failures(and I am sure he is more than capable of doing that for himself) - his technique is certainly interesting and I would guess it clearly has the potential to be refined.

If I were Piers I am sure I would would be disappointed if I did not get something exactly spot on. Piers seems to be following the tried and tested scientific method - keep refining until you either get it completely right (or change tact if it clearly looks like it is wrong). The best scientists in history followed this method without the use of super computers too. I do not know of any scientist in history who got it right first time. Theories of how things work always take time and refinement to get to a point where they become right.

Comment edited by Splatz (forum) on Wednesday April 11, 2012 at 8:29 AM EDT