<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>You may recall this thread originated in predicting Atlantic accumulated cyclonic energy using Kalman filters.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have been watching the NOAA site where they update four times a day. They had identified two areas which had the potential to become named storms, but in this latest update, both have fizzled.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The one on the left they now say 0% chance, and the one on the right they say about 10% chance of becoming a contenduh. (It coulda been somebody.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We are now 6 days from 2022 moving into second place for the quietest storm year since 1966.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><img width=579 height=584 style='width:6.0312in;height:6.0833in' id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D8B975.7B22CCA0"><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Spike, why do you care, me lad? Well because I know how Kalman filters work, so I know that this unexpected quiet year when Atlantic sea surface temperatures are at or near a record high reduces the correlation coefficient between those two variables, resulting in a lower confidence or larger interval in the predicted ACE in any given year.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But… on the other hand… the correlation I have long suspected, quiet Atlantic year is linked to droughts in Europe, gets stronger.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If so, and we theorize that global warming causes more hurricanes, then global warming is (at least in that way) a good thing because it reduces the risk of drought in Europe.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If so, well hell we can build stuff that holds up to hurricanes. That isn’t nearly as hard as dealing with severe drought in Europe, ja?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>