August is not even here and the first of the hurricane forecasters has already cut his estimate for the season. I really enjoyed last season knowing the forecast would be cut over and over again. Once again, the experts are surprised. Tell me again why they are experts.
Forecasting the future is hazardous at best, but my money is on another cycle of repeated forecast cuts for this year.
"The 2007 hurricane season may be less severe than forecast due to cooler-than-expected water temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, private forecaster WSI Corp said on Tuesday.
The season will bring 14 named storms, of which six will become hurricanes and three will become major hurricanes, WSI said in its revised outlook. WSI had previously expected 15 named storms of which eight would become hurricanes and four would become major hurricanes."http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2442542020070725?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true
I just can’t figure out how there are any expectations that a storm count from late April can in any way be accurate in predicting what’s going to happen in late August and into September.
IMO, you can’t really forecast forward more than about two weeks because there are so many different variables involved in storm creation and where the storms will ultimately track if they do form.
The long range forecasts the last two years called for very active hurricane seasons. They are very hard to take seriously since water temperatures are not abnormally high. There are many factors in hurricane formation, but warm water is a biggie and it changes slowly so it is a pretty good indicator.
I think the forecasts are mostly political BS, about as meaningful as the internal management battles at the hurricane center this year.
You never know, and it only takes one storm to make for a really bad season, but I think we have a rerun of 2006 on tap with every decreasing forecasts.
There usually is a weather and ocean conditions pattern shift a week or two into August, and the weather geeks are saying we’re on the verge of that shift. If you look at the numbers, there are many seasons, including 2004, where we pretty much didn’t get an A storm until early August.
I don’t think it’s going to be a repeat of last year, but I wouldn’t be surprised with another year with significantly lower American mainland impact than 04/05.
That’s exactly it…they aren’t experts. They are more so trained, extensively I would tend to believe, to know how to read the intricate graphs, images and readings and then translate that into information that we can understand. Often times they are fairly accurate, which we imagine they should be, but as we all know the the weather changes unexpectedly all the time and that can’t always be accounted for.
I agree with you, they will change their forecast over and over because there’s no way the weather pattern will stay the same, especially with hurricanes.
The weather guy on the 9 PM news last night said this was so far the coolest summer with the lowest number of 90 degree days in 20 years. Then we also had the coldest winter in 30 years according to the same guy.
Makes you wonder if chicken little isn’t from Tennessee?
While Art and Fl. Jill are right about the bizarre nature of trying to predict the number of hurricanes in a year, the nation as a whole has experienced the second warmest 6 months on record. Local results may vary, hence the term “global” in “global warming”.
you may find the above link interesting. It’s the climate prediction center forecasts and summaries for 1999-2006. The estimates come out in may and august and a summary at the end of the season. I cut and paste a few numbers from the table. The numbers are based on above or below average activity for the last 50 years. Even the activity level predicted is a probability of activity not a concrete number. The probability is then turned into an activity level then into a number of storms. If you look at the centers predictions of above normal or below normal activity for the season you will see that they are correct much of the time and their error level has steadily decreased over the years. The ability to predict a storm’s path and intensity has also been improved by a factor of 4 over the last 35 years.
The 2005 season before last the forecast was increased in August and the actuals were even higher. How did you ‘know’ 2006 seasons forecast would be revised downwards? Crystal ball, conversations with God or your own super computer in your basement running a proprietary prediction model?
2006 may estimate was 13-16 named storms,8-10 hurricanes, 3-4 major hurricanes.
2006 Aug were reduced to 12-15,7-9 and 3-4.
2006 actual was 10 storms, 5 hurricanes and 2 major hurricanes.
2005 May 12-15 storms, 7-9 Hur., 3-5 major.
2005 AUg 18-21 Storms, 9-10 H , 5-7 Major
2005 actual 27 Storms, 15 H, 5 Major
You can look at climatology but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, no one couls realistically predict six months out how there would effectively be zero wind shear in the Gulf of Mexico, the consequently higher shear of 2006, or that steering currents and air pressures would set up in 2006 so that anything resembling a Cape Verde storm would recurve somewhere slightly to the east of Bermuda instead of getting anywhere close to the Carribean.
Digging out an old Hurricane Emily disco here:
THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE PREDICTOR IN THE LATEST SHIPS STATISTICAL MODEL RUN IS CLIMATOLOGY. SO FAR…THE 2005 HURRICANE SEASON SEEMS TO HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN CLIMATOLOGY.
Which came to sum up the rest of 2005 quite well, including a number of storms that behaved in ways they never should have (Vince, Epsilon). Incidentally, the published discussions for the NHC versus Hurricane Epsilon ended up being snarky as heck because that storm just would.not.die and the guys at the NHC were getting a little loopy after having to pull so many overnights that year.
Having said that, the NHC 3 day forecasts have generally been spot on in the past couple of years, and the 5 days have been much improved as well.
I am just shocked, shocked to see that the hurricane forecast cuts have continued. Who could have predicted such a thing?
"Government forecasters minimally reduced their prediction for the Atlantic hurricane season Thursday, saying up to nine hurricanes and up to 16 named storms are expected to form.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration maintained its estimate that three to five of the hurricanes would be strong. The original report forecast up to 17 tropical storms, with up to 10 becoming hurricanes.Last week, leading hurricane forecasters from Colorado State University’s Department of Atmospheric Science also lowered their estimate. But they say landfall probabilities remain above average.
They now estimate 15 total named storms, eight hurricanes, and four strong ones. The initial projection called for 17 named storms and nine hurricanes, five of them intense."It looks like they have decided to change their forecast change strategy. Lowering the forecast by two storms every month caused a lot of headlines last year, so it seems they have decided to make smaller changes this year hoping to get under the weather radar, pun intended.
Of course, these forecasts are all about science, never about politics.
Hurricane forecasting, like the war on terror and the war on drugs is another example of how fear sells in America.
Just this week we had someone here suggest torture is fine because he was afraid his wife and kids would be kidnapped by terrorists and have their heads cut off. The fear is working on some. I think some people actually waste a good part of their lives, living in fear because some government agency told them they are certainly doomed.
Last night, even way over here in Eastern Europe, I saw a show on CNN International about how L.A was sure to get an earthquake any moment, and they actually predicted the damage ($400 billion) and the number of deaths (thousands). The funny thing is that I remember hearing the same predictions about 20 years ago and they keep resurfacing every few years, when there are slow news days.
The hurricane one is my favorite though and after Katrina/Rita, knew that as soon as a gale is blowing, Anderson Cooper and the CNN disaster team will not be far behind. I keep watching, hoping he gets pummelled by some debris, but no such luck yet.
Each spring they talk about the record number coming and of course that gets front page news. When they downgrade AGAIN, it is usually relegated to the back pages.
The usual August weather patterns are starting to emerge, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a bunch of storm start to appear in about two weeks. So don’t call the season cancelled yet.
As for the hurricane journalists, the best summary I’ve seen of them came from Carl Hiaasen a few years back. It’s here:
"What to do when the hurricane actually strikes: Obviously the sensible move is to broadcast from the protected lee of a strong building, but for that you could get fired.
Your producer will instead order you to step into the teeth of the storm, where you risk being clobbered by flying glass, coconuts, shingles, patio furniture or surfboards.
This is an act of utter derangement, but it makes for amusing television. If you survive, your next mission will be to find and film a major piece of hurricane debris – the money shot.
Remember, your viewers’ expectations are high. They’ve watched that big slow mother whorling across the Doppler for a week, and they’ve been primed for devastation on a biblical scale.
Take no chances. Proceed immediately to the nearest trailer park, being extra careful not to crash into other TV crews on the way."
As we learned in 1992, it only takes one storm to make a bad year. Andrew was the first storm and at about this time in August.
In previous years, none of the three “tropical storms” we have had so far would likely have been counted. The first two were not tropical and the third one supposedly achieved 39 mph winds for about 20 minutes or so.
"I am just shocked, shocked to see that the hurricane forecast cuts have continued. Who could have predicted such a thing? "
I’m not sure why you’re making a big deal out of this. They predict for the season, and then, more than halfway through the season, they adjust based on what has happened so far. If we had already had a lot of hurricanes, they would adjust up. Since we’ve not had a lot, they adjusted down. This is how science works. You make a prediction, then you gather evidence, and then you adjust your prediction based on the evidence. Not sure why this “must” be politically motivated.
Not sure why this “must” be politically motivated.
Because after Katrina, all anyone ever said was “do you need any more proof that global warming is wreaking havoc on us?” I saw a bunch of burnouts trying to be do gooders riding their bikes, blocking traffic with signs that said, among other things “cars cause hurricanes.” Now, never mind that most of Katrina’s damage was due to lack of political action(fix the damn levees when you know they are weak, don’t be an idiot governor and refuse the help you need from the feds), but all we heard is how lobal warming caused whatever, and all of a sudden the hurricanes were worse now than they had been. Oil prices rose in 2006 based on a prediction of an even worse hurricane season than 2005.
As well, as Art said, the bar for a tropical stom has been lowered considerably it appears. Where is the science that bought that about?
" I saw a bunch of burnouts trying to be do gooders riding their bikes, blocking traffic with signs that said, among other things “cars cause hurricanes.”"
But that’s not who we’re talking about. We’re talking about the generally recognized hurricane experts and their predictions.
" Now, never mind that most of Katrina’s damage was due to lack of political action"
Obviously you weren’t there, because that is simply not true.
“but all we heard is how lobal warming caused whatever, and all of a sudden the hurricanes were worse now than they had been.”
Actually, what people said was that we were having more named storms than before. Not that the storms themselves were so much worse.
"As well, as Art said, the bar for a tropical stom has been lowered considerably it appears. Where is the science that bought that about? "
Hasn’t been lowered at all. A storm that has winds over 34kts is a Tropical Storm. Sorry if Art doesn’t personally think that the storm held those winds for long enough, but seeing as how he’s not a hurricane expert, I don’t guess that matters much.
Can I say how much I’ve come to hate the assunmption that Katrina damage=New Orleans. Poor Mississippi got half its coastal development wiped off the map, and isn’t even an afterthought in most people’s eyes, and that was entirely storm surge with no levees involved.
The tropical storm criteria talked about involve a recent change in NHC policy to give Subtropical storms a name off the official names list, instead of classifying them as numbers or leaving them to the Ocean Prediction Center to deal with. Wiki give a fairly decent summary of it all here:
This change in classification approach hasn’t been reflected in a reclassification of the historic number of storms in prior years. The result is we are comparing apples to oranges with the number of storms now compared to historical averages.
No politics here though, just science. Flexible yardsticks are really the best, scientifically speaking, don’t you think?
“Poor Mississippi got half its coastal development wiped off the map, and isn’t even an afterthought in most people’s eyes, and that was entirely storm surge with no levees involved.”
I agree. I was on the ground in Gulfport and Biloxi about 4 days after Katrina hit. It was unbelieveable. People who claim the damage from Katrina was all due to administrative bullcrap obviously think a politician can do something to keep a riverboat casino/building from being tossed a quarter mile ashore.