Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider the problem of using “black-box” methods to forecast catastrophe events, and illustrate the value of independent peer review. Design/methodology/approach – The problem with black-box catastrophe forecasts is the absence of both extensive validation data and impartial peer review. These issues may be addressed by comparing black-box forecasts with a set of naïve alternative forecasts provided by an independent party. To illustrate this approach, the historical hurricane forecasts of Dr William M. Gray, professor at Colorado State University, are considered and a simple ARIMA analysis is offered as a naïve alternative. Findings – The analysis shows that Dr Gray's complex forecasting methodology does in fact provide reasonable forecasts, and may indeed offer value beyond a naïve alternative model. Originality/value – The editorial identifies a major problem in catastrophe forecasting, and suggests one way to address this problem.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 7 (2006) Issue (Month): 5 (November) Pages: 458-462 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF