NOAA hurricane forecast : 14-23 named storms

[wxman57]

I'll believe it when I see it. I'd say the low end is more realistic. I don't see 2005-like conditions out there.

I'd say that the conditions out in the tropics are very much like 2005. Out of curiosity, I went back to an analysis from late May of 2005. It's fascinating that the analysis below is so close to today's. Storm forming in East Pacific (A-storm) with a low off the SE U.S. Coast. Weak Bermuda High displaced well east. First storm didn't form in 2005 until the 2nd week of June in the NW Caribbean.

[Chacor]

What everyone has missed is the full Climate Prediction Center outlook, which includes a forecast that says there is also a 70% chance of having an ACE range of 155%-270% of the median. That is remarkable.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outloo ... cane.shtml

[KWT]

I wouldn't go to the extreme of 2005, that had multiple factors that came into play whih just can't be forecasted still at this range.

That being said conditions out there merit a mean of 18-19 storms IMO. I personally won't go quite so high even now beause mod La Ninas tend to take a little while to really take off typically but if we get a good 3-4 storms in the first 2 months, then that mean will probably be a good punt.

ps, wxman57, yeah thats impressive, tohugh 2005 didn't relaly take-off until July, but after that it was nearly non stop other then a brief break in mid August!

Chacor, thats more impressive then the numbers IMO, 155 for example is higher then 2008 and thats the bottom end...the top end would even beat 2005 by a fairly decent margin!

[Aquawind]

Well, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Exactly.. I am sure they are having a hard time with those big numbers being so rare. I am glad they are affirming the data points to a incredible year. Kudos to them for being honest with what they see. Conservative forecasting does no good and I really don't want to see any forecaster be so conservative just to keep from being so wrong. There is competition to verify and politics does come into play.

[Chacor]

Chacor, thats more impressive then the numbers IMO, 155 for example is higher then 2008 and thats the bottom end...the top end would even beat 2005 by a fairly decent margin!

For the record, 270% of the 1950-2000 median would place the season 3rd in ACE behind 2005 and 1950.

[KWT]

Ah I was talking those for face value not percentage!

Still those are pretty extreme numbers!

[Air Force Met]

WOW, just wow:

We estimate a 70% probability for each of the following ranges of activity this season:

14-23 Named Storms,
8-14 Hurricanes
3-7 Major Hurricanes
An ACE range of 155%-270% of the median.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml

Downright scary.

That's scary alright. It's scary that THIS passes as a forecast.

Way to go NOAA...you really know how to stick your necks out.

What an embarrassment.

[cycloneye]

The media outlets are diseminating the information about the NOAA forecast.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/ ... cientists/

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/27/hu ... index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100527/us_ ... e_forecast

[apocalypt-flyer]

You know, I don't think the 14-23 prediction is THAT awful, really.

It just indicates it's going to be an active season with a strong possibility of it being a hyperactive one. The knowledge regarding set-ups this uncommon and explosive isn't high enough to bang out a 18-21 prediction even if something along that lines is their best guess. I don't think you can really fault them for that. It's probably going to be rectified at some point in July to a more precise prediction.

I'd rather people in coastal areas to be overcautious this summer. That 23 is going whip up a LOT of media coverage and it will be played up a lot or maybe even too much but at least people are warned what this season might have in store and it should have them on their toes on a regular basis.

[Trader Ron]

AFM,

You have a very valid point, with regard to the spread in the forecast.

[Air Force Met]

Seriously though, how awful have these predictions been the last few years?

Not all that awful, actually.

2008 May forecast: 80% chance of 12-16/6-9/2-5
2008 actual: 16 named storms, 8 hurricanes, 5 majors - right on the dot

2009 May forecast: 70% of 9-14/4-7/1-3
2009 actual: 9 named storms, 3 hurricanes, 2 majors - not all that shabby

I beg to differ. When you give yourself a 50% margin of error...it's pretty easy.

An example: Lets say I am forecasting the high temp for next November 10th in Houston. Using this same standard...I could say "there is a 70% chance of a high temp between 55 and 86." Chances are very good I would be right...even without having looked at any data. Every year...we routinely have forecasters in our office that nail the storm totals.



Given that we all know the conditions are ripe...a 9 storm margin of error is pretty worthless. I am friends with the forecaster who works for DHS and briefed this to Janet Napolitano...and I assure you...he is about to get a good razzing when I get back into the office (and he will of course agree that it is well deserved).

[clfenwi]

Doctor Masters has posted his summary the NOAA Forecast

He also has a paragraph discussing the accuracy of past forecasts. He references a paper(PDF) presented at the AMS conference this year. Skimming through the paper, I found an interesting passage that probably explains the wider spread (besides the possibility of greater uncertainty compared to past May forecasts):

In addition, it was found that the May and
August NOAA outlooks ranges are similar, which was not
expected due to the higher uncertainties involved in the
May outlook. Future NOAA outlooks will probably have
larger May ranges to account for higher uncertainties at
that time to meet the 70% target verification rate.

[Aquawind]

While the spread may be disturbing to Mets. They still are making a point to the public in that this could be an incredible year and the media will pick up on that. That is the whole point to the forecast. The only people calculating and verifying forecasts are forecasters themselves. This is about public perception this year..not numbers or some perception that they are "crying wolf" and people won't believe them next year if they were wrong imo.

[Jam151]

The best part is that if this season performs just under 2005, their gigantic range may still bust.

[Air Force Met]

You know, I don't think the 14-23 prediction is THAT awful, really.

I think that's because you are looking at it from an amateur enthusiasts POV...and not a forecasters. As a forecaster...this leaves a rotten taste in my mouth. There are better ways to verify your data...warn the public...and to try and be accurate.

One of my forecasters summed it up like this: "This is like saying:'We predict we will have either a slighty above normal year [short term climo...not long term average] or come close to setting a record for the number of storms."

Its also like saying: "the Cowboys will either go 9-7 and miss the playoffs...or have the second best record in NFL history..."

Those aren't real good forecasts in my opinion (and for the record...I hope the Cowboys have the best record ever...AND win the SuperBowl...AT HOME!).

[Aquawind]

The best part is that if this season performs just under 2005, their gigantic range may still bust.

I see absolutely nothing good about that..

[cycloneye]

The real message by NOAA regardless of the ranges,is that it will be a very active season and the people have to be prepared for it.

[Jam151]

The best part is that if this season performs just under 2005, their gigantic range may still bust.

I see absolutely nothing good about that..

Neither do I.....but that quote expresses my sentiment about how poor of a forecast I believe this is.

[KWT]

Yeah I did think that myself AFM, its a bit pointless to have such a big range, just to cover thier backs...

I almost want the range to bust either side

That being said I'd be shocked if the forecast busted on the high side, and surprised if it busts low.

[RL3AO]

I hate the numbers forecast.

I'd prefer a forecast more like this.

>95% above normal season (10.6 named storms)
70% chance of more than 15 named storms

then repeat for hurricanes and major hurricanes.

Or, just issue the number forecasts for hurricanes and major hurricanes since historically those have been more accurate I believe. When trying to forecast # of tropical storms, you leave yourself open to the guys at NHC deciding to or not to name those spin-ups in the Central Atlantic and if they name or don't name storms like Arthur (2008).