1 See: NOAA's response to Weather Hazards -- Has Nature Gone Mad? House Committee on Science Space, and Technology, Report No. 103:55, 69-70.
2 The cost-loss problem is based on the presumption of some sort of forecast, even if it is a simple one, such as climatology or persistence. There is another aspect of the problem that needs to be considered: the benefit-cost problem associated with providing a forecast beyond that of some "baseline" method, like climatology. This issue comes up within the context of our examples.
3 If there is to be some benefit to weather forecasts, it is reasonable to assume that C is less than L ; perhaps much less. When the protection costs exceed the potential losses, then there is clearly no reason to protect.
4 Not even when combining POD and FAR into a single measure, such as the so-called Threat Score [or Critical Success Index, defined as x/(x+y+z) ], can that single measure account for all aspects of forecast accuracy.
5 This telephone survey was commissioned by the NWS, with about 1300 respondents, aged 18 and older. It was carried out by M.S. I. Services Incorporated in 1981 and Chapman cites a report entitled "Public Requirements for Weather Information and Attitudes Concerning Weather Services," apparently provided to the NWS.
6 This workshop was held in April 1997 and has a World Wide Web homepage at: <http://www.dir.ucar.edu/esig/socasp/weather1>. A summary of a May 1996 workshop is also available online at: <http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/uswrp/PDT/PDT6.html>.
7 During the study, such an event did not happen, but the potential costs for such an incident certainly would be considerable.