NOAA hurricane forecast : 14-23 named storms

[Jam151]

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.

Idk....I think the chances of 13 or less are slim to none given what we've been reading.

[cycloneye]

I expect for other forecasts to go up by Phil Klotzbach / Dr Gray and by TSR next week.

[tolakram]

I think their mistake was the numbers, because the media loves numbers. To arrive at those numbers they simply looks at corresponding seasons, did a little math, and spit out a range. IMO the forecast is sound and numbers ALWAYS fail so no one should use them. In the end the numbers are all about a disturbance being in the right place at the right time. In seasons like 2005 there were a whole lot of right places and right times, but the end result still left a lot to chance.

Numbers are fun though.

[KWT]

I'd be doubtful as well (I'd put it no higher then 5%), that being said you can't totally rule out this season being one of those with a high Hurriane/MH numbers but the NS numbers aren't as high, that tends to be what occurs in top end weak/mod La Ninas...ACE results tend to be very high regardless in those seasons...

As I said if we are already upto 3-4 storms by the end of July, then the 20+ punts are very much do-able IMO, as I expect something like 15-16 NS in the rest of the season given the La Nina development.

[Chacor]

Between a rock and a hard place. RL3AO's suggestion's probably the best way forward if they want to avoid all this nonsense, but you know the public and media would never buy that. Simply saying there's over X% chance of having more than Y storms is not as good compared to saying there's an X% chance of Y-Z number of storms.

[thetruesms]

I'm of two minds on the big range.

On the one hand, I can appreciate that it's a way to highlight the likelihood of a busier than normal season with the potential to be extremely active, but surely there must be a better way of doing it than a forecast with ranges so large as to be practically meaningless

[Air Force Met]

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.

Well...in all honesty...people need to prepare regardless of the forecast. 1983 had 4 named storms and one of them was Alicia.

So...what if NOAA was putting out forecasts back then and what if they were accurate? They would have said "There is a 70% chance of between 3-5 storms." Would that have been the signal not prepare for hurricane season in Houston-Galveston? Certianly not.

I look at forecasting and preperatory education as two different things. See...IMNSHO...if you try to drive preparation THROUGH forecasts...then folks when be less inclined to prepare due to your busted forecasts (which are a certainty).

If our goal is for people to prepare for hurricane season (and if that is what NOAA is trying to do here)...then they should just forecast 20-23 storms every year. Don't even bother being accurate...just scream real loud that's its going to be bad and you must get ready.

Preparation MUST be independant of your forecasts. You cannot allow the public...your customer...anyone...to confuse the two. The minute they do...then they will take your non-event forecast as an excuse to do nothing and remain unprepared. They will take your busted call as crying wolf. It works this way with hurricanes...tornadoes...flight operations...you name it. It's human nature.

Education and preparation are on one side...forecasting is on the other. When you start to blend the two...you are going down a road you do not wish to travel.

[RL3AO]

You can see why there is a big range though. If they want the 70% skill rate, they need a big range this season since it could be a busy season (15 to 17 storms) or it could be a very active season (20 to 22 storms). That should cover about (or a little more than 70%) if they replayed this season 100 times. The other 30% would be a more normal season (12 to 13 storms) and near record seasons (23+).

Also, I was reading some of the comments on the CNN and Fox News articles online (and they are hilarious). Lost count of how many times I read "they said the same thing last season", which of course they didn't. Oh well, most people are idiots.

[KWT]

Its not really skill though IMO, as others have said I bet most on this forum would come out with a range similar to what NOAA has come out with.

I think most who have objections to the forecast just want to see them try and cut down thier ranges somewhat, 4-5 NS is fine for this sort of season, I suppose this season is a little trickier to call because of how high it could in theory go, but still 9 NS range is mental...thats almost the same as an average season would have!

[wx247]

What I am curious to watch unfold over the next day or so is what the media does with this. I truly anticipate the media to turn this into something like the following:

"NOAA predicts as many as 23 tropical systems could form and threaten the United States."

While that is NOT what the release is saying, the media will shoot for the high number and will work to make the number relevant to the public by mentioning potential US impacts. It is possible (though not likely) that you could have 23 names systems in a year and NOT have a single one impact the US. This isn't how the media will play the release. I am sure they will be salivating to get their reporters on the coastline to wait for the approach of the first tropical storm of the season.

[HURAKAN]

What we need to take from the forecast is that it will be active or hyperactive. Like we always say, doesn't matter how many storm there are, the only ones that matter are the ones that make landfall. I wish to see in my life a season of just 30 fish storms. In a season like that, many people would say that the season was inactive because the regular folks only care about the ones that affect them. People need to get ready and that's it.

[Stormcenter]

Let the media hype begin. As if the people along the Gulf Coast need something else to be worried about right now. Anyway as I've state before I'm not and never have been into the numbers game. I mean let's face it if we all knew for sure that we would just have 1 "Katrina" type hurricane in 2010 but we didn't know where it was going to make landfall then I bet that would have everyone living anywhere prepared for this hurricane season. So my point is if it's 1 or 20 all that matters is how strong they are and where they end up. All the numbers do stress people more they need to be. Hey just my 2 cents.

[Stormcenter]

Good post.....it sounds like mine.

What we need to take from the forecast is that it will be active or hyperactive. Like we always say, doesn't matter how many storm there are, the only ones that matter are the ones that make landfall. I wish to see in my life a season of just 30 fish storms. In a season like that, many people would say that the season was inactive because the regular folks only care about the ones that affect them. People need to get ready and that's it.

[thetruesms]

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.

Well...in all honesty...people need to prepare regardless of the forecast. 1983 had 4 named storms and one of them was Alicia.

So...what if NOAA was putting out forecasts back then and what if they were accurate? They would have said "There is a 70% chance of between 3-5 storms." Would that have been the signal not prepare for hurricane season in Houston-Galveston? Certianly not.

I look at forecasting and preperatory education as two different things. See...IMNSHO...if you try to drive preparation THROUGH forecasts...then folks when be less inclined to prepare due to your busted forecasts (which are a certainty).

If our goal is for people to prepare for hurricane season (and if that is what NOAA is trying to do here)...then they should just forecast 20-23 storms every year. Don't even bother being accurate...just scream real loud that's its going to be bad and you must get ready.

Preparation MUST be independant of your forecasts. You cannot allow the public...your customer...anyone...to confuse the two. The minute they do...then they will take your non-event forecast as an excuse to do nothing and remain unprepared. They will take your busted call as crying wolf. It works this way with hurricanes...tornadoes...flight operations...you name it. It's human nature.

Education and preparation are on one side...forecasting is on the other. When you start to blend the two...you are going down a road you do not wish to travel.

I don't think that they're trying to encourage preparation through forecasting, though if they are, I think you're right about that strategy being a big mistake.

I think what's happening here is that rather than taking a useful range and finding the most likely set that fits that range, they're doing it backwards - taking a set probability that they want to end up with and finding a range that will give them that probability. On the plus side (for them), it certainly makes it easier to be "right". But it really makes one ask what value there is in being right with such a large range.

[bvigal]

Well, it is disappointing to me to see such a huge range. I'd love to know what the hurricane experts at NHC really expect for this season. This product should be based upon science, not public relations. It's a shame the media has skewed reality to the point where people want to hold our national weather service responsible for any misunderstanding by the public, any failure to properly prepare or evacuate, even when in such cases the actual information released by NHC was accurate and timely. It also shouldn't be a competition to see who does the best forecast. Once you get the higher-up policy-makers dictating how things should be done to avoid criticism, science goes out the window.

[HURAKAN]

Just heard one of the Spanish news staions (Univisión) say that NOAA was predicting 23 tropical storms and 14 hurricanes. Let the panic reign.

[jasons2k]

But they're not predicting "23 storms and 14 hurricanes." That's the top end of a range that has a predicted 70% chance of verifying.

This is why people laugh when these "forecasts" never verify. It just goes to show you can no longer trust the media to accurately report on the news. People will see numbers and cling to them and reports it as fact. *shrug*

[Cainer]

While I understand NOAA's approach of using a set probability to determine the range of storms, I think it would make more sense to have a set range instead, i.e. 6 for storms, 4 for hurricanes and 2 for majors, and then base the probabilities on this range instead. While their forecasts may not always be as accurate, it's pretty hard NOT to be accurate when your range is as high as 9 named storms. Anyway, it's still a pretty reasonable forecast, so I digress...

Just thought I'd point out that the higher end of the prediction would bring us back into the Greek alphabet, pretty impressive!

[HURAKAN]

But they're not predicting "23 storms and 14 hurricanes." That's the top end of a range that has a predicted 70% chance of verifying.

Exactly. That's the problem with the numbers. People use them as they please.

[JonathanBelles]

Holy Crap!! I just got home and saw the forecast. A range of 9 TS's from top to bottom is unacceptable!! Thats an entire season! I am quite shocked that Noaa is going for 23 storms in its highest forecast. I think they should have went for 17-20 or something like that.