"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. "
Yes, but that change originally occured in the 70s. Since then subtropical storms could have received either a name or a number. Since 2002, they all receive numbers, but regardless, they still meet the same wind speed requirements as a tropical storm, so I’m not sure what the difference is, in terms of supposedly politically trying to in crease the number of “dangerous” storms.
As someone mentioned (you maybe), it only takes one storm to really make it a memorable season. Andrew was in late August, and being an ‘A’ - it was the first of the season. Second worst natural disaster in US history and the most recent Cat 5 storm to hit the US.
**The National Hurricane Center is a federal government branch, but is independent when it comes to scientific research. **
Agreed. I am just busting Art’s chops.
He has held forth for years about how hurricane forecasting is voodoo and is not based on anything other than left wing global warming sympathizing pseudoscience, or, to use the proper right-wing brand name, “junk science”. This thread started as his annual rant about the poverty and politicization of the discipline. I’m pretty sure he had one going last summer as well when the early grim forecasts were scuttled (thankfully) by the season’s unexpected persistent upper level wind shear.
I was merely pointing out that a person wanting to yell “politics!” could spin it either way. Oil & gas futures are also tied to bets made in the light of hurricane forecasts (e.g., http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/13/ap4013721.html), and this tropical wave coming over from Africa this week is the first evidence I’ve seen this summer of the market taking a serious bet on storm development. A cynic from the left could say that the forecasting is all energy industry hysteria fanning up futures contracts on something that’ll never come to pass.
“He has held forth for years about how hurricane forecasting is voodoo and is not based on anything other than left wing global warming sympathizing pseudoscience, or, to use the proper right-wing brand name, “junk science”.”
Come on now, Trey. I never said that. In terms of forecasting particular storms, they do very well, though they do consistently overestimate intensity.
It doesn’t reflect well on them when this unknowledgeable, armchair forecaster predicts the seasonal intensity better than they do.
Of course, I knew the government budget deficit numbers would come in way under the “experts” forecasts for each of the last several years too. Every year, the “experts” are surprised. Tell me why such people are considered experts.
Not responding to you Trey, but I wanted to observe that it has been three weeks since the last cut in the hurricane forecaster “experts” predictions, so we must be about due. NOAA is still at 16 storms including nine hurricanes which is looking pretty unlikely. I am guessing they will be the next one to lower their estimates, with the “experts” being “surprised” about something or other. I am predicting this week, once they get back from their Labor Day festivities.
Most of the other big predictors are in with slightly lower estimates, so I am guessing they will let NOAA crumble first, then slip in behind them with their press release getting lost in the noise of the first one to jump.
Of course, this is all about the science.
I do have to report that I didn’t do the hurricane futures this year. People learn fast. The prices this year were much more rational, which is to say they were much lower than last year when all the futures expired worthless. No easy money this year. Bummer.
So Art, is your tact to basically say something undefensible, then wait three weeks, hope no one remembers, and start over again? Just wondering, since you made such a big deal out of the whole subtropical named storms issue last time, which turned out to be bullshit.
Also, if you’re going to bitch about numbers, how about you get them right. NOAA does not say 16 named storms. NOAA says 13-16 named storms. It also doesn’t say 9 hurricanes. It says 7-9 hurricanes with 3-5 possible majors (above Cat 3). I would say that doesn’t matter much, but with you, I expect you will claim they say 16, and then if it’s only 13, you’ll say they were wrong, even though that was their prediction all along.
As for where we are, we have already had 6 named storms and we’re not halfway through the season yet, so it looks like we’re just fine for the predictions. We’ve only had 2 hurricanes, but they both reached Cat 5, so we’re a little behind in hurricanes, but way ahead in “major” hurricanes, and this is only the 4th recorded season with two Cat 5 storms. But then, they probably just named Felix for political reasons, right?
“you made such a big deal out of the whole subtropical named storms issue last time, which turned out to be bullshit.”
Well, maybe not total bullshit. From Bill Grey, formerly the head of NHC, now in charge of producing Colorado States well regarded forecast:
“Sub-tropical storm Andrea formed off the southeastern coast of the United States on May 9. Since Andrea was never classified as a tropical storm by the National Hurricane Center, it will not be counted as a named storm in our seasonal statistics.”
Bill Grey is “formerly” of the NHC. He now works for Colorado State, and therefore, doesn’t really matter for the official named storms statistics. Besides which, your previous point seemed to be that including these subtropical storms has made it “comparing apples to oranges” when comparing modern storm counts to older counts. I assume you stand by that?
" Damn, another hurricane this morning. So now we’re at 7 named storms so far, and still right on track to make the predictions."
Sometimes this is just too easy. Ask your naval superiors to explain the distinction between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans to you. If they use real small words, maybe it will sink in.
You know, for a while I was just taking your word for it. Oddly enough, sometimes you have to look things up.
If the picture comes through, here’s NOAA’s prediction, including reference to their May prediction.
An honest person would look at this and recognize that they are predicting an 85% chance of higher than normal activity this year. The honest person would see that they predict a range of storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes. The honest person would also see that there has been barely any change in their prediction between May and August. The honest person might also recognize that the listing of major hurricanes is likely to be low this year, considering we’ve already hit the 2 they predicted. The honest person would also see that when the last prediction came out August 9, that we were slightly ahead of normal for named storms.
The dishonest, or politically motivated person would see the above and write, “NOAA is still at 16 storms including nine hurricanes which is looking pretty unlikely.”
I am curious if NOAA under predicts the major hurricanes, but over predicts the storms and hurricanes if you’ll still be crowing. It would appear that you have already discounted that prediction line since it doesn’t match with your paranoia about nefarious liberal plots.
Yes, and the honest person who relied strictly on news accounts and believed in their veracity wouldn’t feel compelled to go directly to the source and find that the NOAA estimate was actually a range, unlike Colorado State which is at 15, not counting the Andrea, down from 16 or WSI which is still at 14 down from 15. I don’t know if WSI counts Andrea or not.
I admit to being busted on the crime of believing the news reports, but at least I know the difference between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
As a result, I am probably going to be proven wrong about who crumbles next, but I made the prediction it would be NOAA, and I am going to stick with it.
No sooner do I stay with my forecast than Colorado State and Dr. Bill Gray step up to the plate. They are staying with their forecast of 15 named storms, but they have now gotten right thinking, reversing course, and now including Andrea in their count. They have decided to change policy for the future to count all subtropical storms. This is all about the science obviously, not about pumping the current and future counts so as to show increased activity compared to the unpumped historic statistics. Soon we will be naming severe thunderstorms in February if someone can document a 40 mph wind gust for a few seconds.
I am going to count this as a crumble from the original 17, to the previously current 15 excluding Andrea, to the now current 15 including Andrea. Yes, I was exactly on target with the timing of the revised estimate, the direction of the crumble, but completely and totally wrong about who would crumble first.
No wonder slowguy calls me stupid. Next thing I know, I will be looking for Caribbean cruises out of the port of San Francisco.
“I admit to being busted on the crime of believing the news reports, but at least I know the difference between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.”
On the latter, I am very proud of you. Really. But I have no idea how it relates to anything I wrote.
On the former, you’ll have to help me out on the news reports you’ve read. Most of the ones I’ve seen cover the range of predictions and estimates. Do yours only give you a high number and not explain further?
Man, you are one weird guy. I predict that Grey and company will next update their hurricane forecast again on October 2. In fact, I’ll bet you cash dollars that I’m right, within a two day window. Name the amount of the bet.
Oh, and the Reuters article to which you linked in your original post in this thread included a link to more information on the ranges of the NOAA estimates, so one didn’t have to look for primary sources to understand the numbers. Blame the media if you want, but it ain’t the forecasters providing you with your paranoia fodder.
Newspaper article today in the Boston Globe, people all over Florida dropping wind coverage because they can’t afford it and the risk to the state and federal government and yes the rest of the taxpayers becasue of that. People on Cape Cod, in MA, insurance premiums tripled because of hurricanes in southern U.S., my parents in Florida who are on a fixed income now go without insurance on their house because they can’t afford it. My insurance broker is telling me to pray for another year of no major storms in the U.S. so that maybe, just maybe, insurance rates can fall in other parts of the country.
Maybe some of you might look past your irrational irritation at Art and realize that he is making a decent point. You have all bought into the media hysteria around hurricane forecasting and because of that we all are getting royally screwed by the insurance companies. The only ones who aren’t are those in a position to reject insurance.
