Hurricane Season Forecast Above Average: Can We Trust It?

[Cookie]

http://news.discovery.com/earth/hurrica ... st-it.html

Seasonal hurricane forecasts have something in common with successful rain dances: timing is everything.

The problem with hurricane forecasts is that a lot of people get up and start dancing before there is a cloud in the sky -- before the ocean and atmospheric conditions that make one season more active or dangerous than another are in place.


So every year in March and April, forecasters begin issuing predictions about the character of the upcoming hurricane season. And the media spreads the word as if these prognostications are credible, official -- or at least, semi-official --estimates of what the large, exposed populations along the Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard can expect in the months ahead.

There is an air of unreality about all of this, because year-in and year-out, these long range early forecasts of the June-to-November hurricane seasons notoriously miss their marks. Here's what Philip J. Klotzbach and William M. Gray had to say about their widely publicized seasonal forecast issued this week: "Everyone should realize that it is impossible to precisely predict this season’s hurricane activity in early April." They could have added that it is also impossible to imprecisely predict this season's hurricane activity in early April, and let it go at that.

Instead, they went on for 43 pages, satisfying what they describe as "much curiosity as to how global ocean and atmosphere features are presently arranged as regards to the probability of an active or inactive hurricane season for the coming season."

For what it is worth, Klotzbach and Gray predicted a significantly above average 2010 season, which begins June 1 and runs through November. There will 15 named tropical storms, including 8 hurricanes, including 4 major hurricanes, they predict, and a 69 percent chance that one of the big ones will hit somewhere along the US coastline.

Among the chorus of early prognosticators, you won't find the people you might expect to hear from -- the scientists and other specialists at the National Weather Service, the National Hurricane Center or, for that matter, the Climate Prediction Center, which does not issue a seasonal outlook until May 20.

"A number of the variables that would influence the development of tropical cyclones for the season do not show themselves until April and early May," observed Dennis Feltgen, a National Hurricane Center spokesman. In a nutshell, that comment describes what scientists call "the spring barrier" -- a time of unstable transition when important meteorological factors are largely unknown and evidently unknowable.

Maybe these early forecasts, however inaccurate, are harmless diversions from the worries of the day, but you have to ask yourself: Is it a good idea for all of us to become accustomed to discounting the credibility of warnings about impending hurricanes? And even if they are perfectly accurate, what exactly is the value of this information to someone inhabiting this big hurricane-exposed coastline?

Feltgen wasn't asked these questions, but it is fair to say that the subject has come up behind closed doors at the National Hurricane Center and elsewhere. "Our message at NHC is that, while the seasonal outlook does have some skill in the overview of the season, it should not be used as a guide for preparation plans by those living along the vulnerable coastal areas," he said. "It only takes one storm hitting your area to make it a bad year, regardless of the number of storms that are forecast in the seasonal outlook."

[jinftl]

I am not sure 'trust' is the right word...or even a necessary one....for a pre-season forecast. Instead, perhaps 'understanding' or 'acknowledging' would be more appropriate. The pre-season forecasts have enumerated the reasons why the forecast is for an above-average season. There is science behind the general views. That said, there are so many factors that can make development more or less likely, it is really just possible at this point to understand why the forecasts are what they are, and if nothing else, acknowledge that busy or not, hurricane season is approaching. For everyone living on the coast, the arrival of any hurricane season should spark a return to a storm ready and storm savvy frame of mind.

A busy season could mean 20 fish storms, not necessarily 20 landfalling systems. Similarly, a slow season with a below average number of storms could still go down as one of the most memorable and damaging ever (i.e., 1992 with Andrew).

What we can trust is that there will be systems to watch, systems for some of us to prepare for, and unfortunately, the possibility of systems to recover from.

[cycloneye]

It only takes one to do havoc on an area so be prepared for the worse case scenario but hope for the best no matter if in this 2010 season for example 20 systems form,is where they go the most important thing.

[jinftl]

Excerpt from discussion on 2010 'high risk locations' put out by Crown Weather Services, a private weather service, based on an analysis of patterns and tracks for the forecast analog years being forecasted:


"There are several hurricane seasons that are a close match to what this hurricane season may be like. They are 1958, 1964, 1966, 1969, 1995, 1998 and 2005. As for potential risk areas, I have attached a map outlining all of the tracks during the 7 analog years. A few areas stand out for higher concentration of landfalls during those 7 analog seasons. These areas include eastern North Carolina and the outer banks of North Carolina, south Florida and the northwest Bahamas, the central Gulf coast (from Louisiana to the Florida Panhandle), the Leeward Islands and Virgin Islands and finally the northwest Caribbean, including the Yucatan Peninsula, western Cuba and the Cayman Islands. Elsewhere, along the US coastline and in the Caribbean, don’t let your guard down as you are also at risk this season of a tropical storm or hurricane."

Highest Threat Areas For 2010 Hurricane Season:

http://www.crownweather.com/?page_id=2113

[Blown Away]

If you live along the NGOM or SFL those analog years are scary! When 1969 & 2005 are used together, yikes!

[jinftl]

Looking at that map, i see two 2005 type scenarios: 1) katrina forming in the nw bahamas, tracking across south florida, and hitting the NGOM and/or 2) a wilma-type scenario potential with the yucatan/nw carribean and south florida in the 'highest risk area' per the forecaster. Ugh.

And for the folks on the LA-MS-AL coast....1969 is instantly recognized as the year Camille hit. 1998 brings back memories of Georges...a long trakker with many landfalls.



What analog years!!!

:uarrow: If you live along the NGOM or SFL those analog years are scary! When 1969 & 2005 are used together, yikes!

[MGC]

1969 (Camille) and 2005 (Katrina) is about as bad as it gets for the Mississippi Coast. Hope the analog years are wrong.....MGC

[bvigal]

This article by Mr. Cox for Discovery Channel makes me wonder if he has comprehensively researched the topic, or just started out with a supposition and made a phone interview to gather what would seem to support that supposition. (But then, I often wonder the same when I watch "science" shows on Discovery.) His statement "...year-in and year-out, these long range early forecasts of the June-to-November hurricane seasons notoriously miss their marks" is unsubstantiated. The article almost reads as if NWS/NHC are scientists, and the rest are witch doctors. Certainly Grey/Klotsbach, the only authors he singles out, are respected in the scientific community.

Certain climatic conditions enhance formation/strengthening of cyclones. Some of those conditions change slowly, over a period of months. So it's possible to make predictions in a broad sense, and many of those forecasts are more accurate than mere chance would permit.

"Can we trust it?" I say yes, we can look at PERFORMANCE of certain season forecasters and make an informed judgement as to whether we give it any credibility. I certainly don't need Mr. Cox to tell me what to believe.

If the news media chooses to take those predictions and translate it to their local area, insinuating that a high season prediction means it's time to panic, or conversely, a low predictor means don't worry, that is their error. They should "inform" more accurately. If retailers use it to hype sales, that is marketing, and as old as time.

In respect to at least some hurricane season forecasts, the old saying "don't shoot the messenger" should perhaps be changed to "don't shoot the author". The messenger (media & other commercial interests) might very well need 'shooting'.

[TYNI]

I say we can trust it.

Why would mankind bother to gather and analyze such data, spend billions of dollars over the years on number crunching computing mechanisms, then ignore the analysis? These men and women have dedicated their lives to help save lives. Regardless of whether they are off by a storm or two, when they say conditions are right, it's time to get the preparations going.

One wonders if the same amount of time and effort is placed in detecting that one rogue space entity hurtling out there in space towards earth, and whether people would take THAT forecast as seriously? Heck, we can forecast meteor showers and comets years in advance!

[KWT]

When a season so obviously has so many favourable aspects to it, an above average season is IMO probably just about as likely as you can get...

[Trader Ron]

Just suppose we do away with all the Hurricane forecasts

and we have 2004/05 type years. The handwringers-of-

the -world will be out screaming...why weren't we warned!

IMO the discovery channel article is doing a disservice to those in hurricane-prone areas

[jasons2k]

100 years ago, a 3-day forecast wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

You have to start somewhere.

Yes, these seasonal forecasts should be taken for what they are and the margin for error is huge, but they will only get better over time. I don't think we should knock this important area of ongoing research.

[george_r_1961]

The major indicators are now pointing to an above average to possibly even a very busy season. This isnt like last year where there were pros and cons to be weighed. I see a lot of pros and no cons.

Trust it. Believe it. And above all, prepare for it.

[Downdraft]

There is a fine line between raising public awareness and raising public alarm. Early season forecasts are very useful in getting people to start thinking about the coming season, however, John. Q. Public seldom gets excited until the storm is almost on his doorstep. Educated folks I think take them with a grain of salt and the public probably sees them as an interesting tidbit on the nightly news. We may look at ENSO, SST's and the SAL but I don't think the general public really cares until the storm has a name and they go to check the hurricane deductible on their insurance policy.

[Stormcenter]

I'm sorry but I'm not into the numbers things in reference to predicting how many tropicals storms will form each season. I still believe as many have already pointed out before on this board it only takes one major storm in a any given season to cause havoc for many and we should all be prepared "every" Hurricane season for the worse. Especially if you live anywhere where hurricanes are a possible threat no matter what the experts are predicting. Though I will say I personally don't expect anything close to a 2005 type season.

[thetruesms]

I'm sorry but I'm not into the numbers things in reference to predicting how many tropicals storms will form each season. I still believe as many have already pointed out before on this board it only takes one major storm in a any given season to cause havoc for many and we should all be prepared "every" Hurricane season for the worse. Especially if you live anywhere where hurricanes are a possible threat no matter what the experts are predicting. Though I will say I personally don't expect anything close to a 2005 type season.

I'm going to disagree with you in part and argue that it depends entirely on your perspective. Yes, from a casually observing resident's standpoint, the "it only takes one" view is a valid one. But the activity of a hurricane season and the causes behind that have significant scientific ramifications that impact our understanding of meteorology. Yes, the media overhypes the bejeezus out of the numbers, but that doesn't nullify the validity of the effort.

[StormClouds63]

1969 was a "fishy" season except for the big one in mid-August. Ironically, the next storm was Debbie, which was one of the few successes of Project Stormfury.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/098 ... 4-0293.pdf
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_ ... %281969%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury