Having once done weather on television (in another career), I know how hard it is to predict what the weather is going to do. Having said that, the weathercasters where I live are actually very reliable. In addition, my point wasn't that they are reliable predictors of the future but that they were the ones examining and analyzing the existing (i.e., present, not future) data, not the government.Pizzasgood wrote:I feel guilty for saying this, but I have gotten some good laughs out of this topic.
C. Calling weathermen reliable
If you actually look at the definition, you'll see they aren't divided into sizes, per se; rather, they are divided into five ranges, each of which has its own range (not specific value) of wind speeds and tidal surges associated with it. The classifications make it easier to talk about hurricanes but do not tie storms into a "one size fits all" scheme. In the sense that they help people to get a better sense of what is being discussed, these classifications are useful and meaningful.pizzagood wrote: And hurricane classes really mean very little. They are written by humans, thus highly prone for errors, and are not written in stone. You can't just say, "This can handle a class 3 hurricane." It doesn't work that way. Hurricanes are analog, not digital, if you get my drift. They can't be divided into a couple sizes, because there are so many in-betweens and charictaristics.
I believe I tried to say this, although at some point, questions will need to be asked and answered about what went wrong. For instance, local, state, and federal officials staged an exercise earlier this year involving a mock hurricane in New Orleans ("Pam" it was called). That exercise assumed the levees would be damaged and assumed a significant number of deaths. At some point, it will be interesting and may be important to know what, if any recommendations came out of that exercise and the extent to which they were implemented.pizzagood wrote:Instead of trying to blame people, we should try helping.