How Do We Do What We Do? What Is Our ‘Hit’ Rate Accuracy?
Technology has allowed many advances … and if you know WHAT to concentrate on … and if you know by HOW MUCH each parameter accounts for, then progress forward can be swift. But if a group (other than AFC) instead concentrates on carbon dioxide instead of solar output in developing climate change computer modeling, then the understanding as well as solutions and achievements in weather risk is going to be much reduced.
Accuracy requires careful development combining research, ‘big picture’ science, business understanding, statistics, and other think-tank collections of intelligence, and a very open mind. All these are key.
Think-tank intelligence… specifically … artificial intelligence threat modeling, climate change “stochastic” computations (proprietary blend of historical intelligence, consensus programming, and genetic algorithms) is also a key part of improving the accuracy we hold true for our clientele.
We see much in the course of a week. Some of our famous words are, “How about the “’Galileo Analogy’”? That is, too much of present-day climate change “understanding” is equivalent to saying the Sun spins around the Earth.
Humbly-speaking, let’s wake-up and look at this from a bigger view: humans do make a difference in climate, but we are not the be-all-and-end-all. We can prove this by seeing that past climate, only 1,000 years ago, was warmer than it is now. We start with solar and magnetic drivers.
Accuracy of AFC’s planetary / weather risk predictions
AFC range offers an 81% to 98% accuracy for 87 out of 100 forecast hits with average ‘hit’ rate of a good forecast being at 89%. Yes, we’ll be the first to admit some of our forecasts are ‘dead’ wrong (and we might be in the minority to admit we are human in this field) but some forecasts are very near 100% too.