Hurricane Alley 2008 Forecast

[Ivanhater]

http://www.hurricanealley.net/FRCSTMTHD.htm

[JonathanBelles]

The only thing that sticks out to me is the high risk area of Cuba, but a mod risk in Jamaica. I wonder if they expect a TC to come from the due S. Also odd that they have the Upper Bahamas in a high risk, but the EC of FL in a low risk.

[Ivanhater]

The only thing that sticks out to me is the high risk area of Cuba, but a mod risk in Jamaica. I wonder if they expect a TC to come from the due S. Also odd that they have the Upper Bahamas in a high risk, but the EC of FL in a low risk.

I noticed the same thing...Western Cuba and the yucatan has a high risk but everywhere in the Gulf is mostly low to moderate...One would assume if Western Cuba and the Yucatan were at a high risk, it would have to move in the gulf...

[Ed Mahmoud]

I guess I should read the link, but how the heck on a pre-season forecast can they pin down the immediate Houston area as 'moderate' when the surrounding Gulf Coast South and North/East is 'low'?



I still think Florida and the East Coast are the most likely areas, but obviously anywhere can hit. IIRC, in past years, Hurricane Alley only made forecasts for what they considered 'true' tropical cyclones, purely tropical cyclones and only those of purely tropical origin. Any stalled polar front that develops into a cyclone (last borderline major to come near Houston, 1983's Alicia, had non-tropical origin) wouldn't even count.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Methodology


Well, it is about 15 more factors than the sunspot activity that somebody's forecast used. I don't know enough, not do they go into CSU style Klozbach-Gray detail in their methodology, to know what they are doing and how valid it really is.


They come up with a list of analog years from all their factors.

The analog years for this season are 1974, 1984, 1989, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001

[cycloneye]

Also,when you look at the Lesser Antilles,they put the high risk from Guadeloupe northward but leave Dominica,Martinique ans ST Lucie in the moderate area,to then have Barbados,ST Vincent and Grenada on high risk.

[Opal storm]

LOL At the Bahamas under high risk and East coast of FL low risk.

Yeah.....next.

[Cyclone1]

[RL3AO]

150 miles ??? separating the high risk (northern Bahamas) and low risk (east Florida).

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Much like Joe B's landfall forecast; I do not think that this one has any greater a chance of being right, than one based upon your average pre seaon coin toss does.

[CYCLONE MIKE]

They should not even be allowed to post this junk for the general public to see. IMO all this is for is to get hype for these sites. Look at how ridiculous this map is. High risk areas then less than 100 miles low risk areas. Makes no sense.

[Ptarmigan]

Methodology


Well, it is about 15 more factors than the sunspot activity that somebody's forecast used. I don't know enough, not do they go into CSU style Klozbach-Gray detail in their methodology, to know what they are doing and how valid it really is.


They come up with a list of analog years from all their factors.

The analog years for this season are 1974, 1984, 1989, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001

1989 was not a good year for the Upper Texas Coast. Tropical Storm Allison and Hurricane Chantal and Jerry made landfall on us. Yes, they were not major hurricanes, but they did a lot of damage. Allison and Chantal were huge rainmakers. Allison dumped up to 30 inches of rain in Central Louisiana, while Southeast Texas got 15 to 20 inches of rain. Chantal dumped 8 to 12 inches of rain, while some got up to 20 inches. I remember Chantal well. It was very windy and rainy that time.

[Steve]

>>They should not even be allowed to post this junk for the general public to see. IMO all this is for is to get hype for these sites.



Steve

[Ed Mahmoud]

Methodology


Well, it is about 15 more factors than the sunspot activity that somebody's forecast used. I don't know enough, not do they go into CSU style Klozbach-Gray detail in their methodology, to know what they are doing and how valid it really is.


They come up with a list of analog years from all their factors.

The analog years for this season are 1974, 1984, 1989, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001

1989 was not a good year for the Upper Texas Coast. Tropical Storm Allison and Hurricane Chantal and Jerry made landfall on us. Yes, they were not major hurricanes, but they did a lot of damage. Allison and Chantal were huge rainmakers. Allison dumped up to 30 inches of rain in Central Louisiana, while Southeast Texas got 15 to 20 inches of rain. Chantal dumped 8 to 12 inches of rain, while some got up to 20 inches. I remember Chantal well. It was very windy and rainy that time.

1989 was Hugo as well, IIRC.


I think maybe they just took the analog years, added up all the landfalls and divided by the number of years, allowing a non-intuitive appearing risk map with high risk areas immediately adjacent to low risk areas. I suspect that kind of methodology is 'over precise'.


In college, you'd lose points for an answer that had more significant figures or lower uncertainty than the factor that had the least accuracy and/or significant figures.

[Brent]

LOL At the Bahamas under high risk and East coast of FL low risk.

Yeah.....next.

[Derek Ortt]

a question I am having is how can the south coast of Cuba be a high risk and the north a low risk, OR are they talking about direct landfalls and not direct impacts?

[JonathanBelles]

a question I am having is how can the south coast of Cuba be a high risk and the north a low risk, OR are they talking about direct landfalls and not direct impacts?

I thought about that myself. Im guessing its just landfalls.

[Ivanhater]

a question I am having is how can the south coast of Cuba be a high risk and the north a low risk, OR are they talking about direct landfalls and not direct impacts?

I Don't Know what logic they are using, but it doesnt make any sense to me. The only thing I can figure out is Ed's idea that they are using the given analog years and using the average of that for the risk zones.

[Cyclone1]

a question I am having is how can the south coast of Cuba be a high risk and the north a low risk, OR are they talking about direct landfalls and not direct impacts?

I Don't Know what logic they are using, but it doesnt make any sense to me. The only thing I can figure out is Ed's idea that they are using the given analog years and using the average of that for the risk zones.

They're using the "take some crayons and color with your eyes closed" logic.

[Ivanhater]

a question I am having is how can the south coast of Cuba be a high risk and the north a low risk, OR are they talking about direct landfalls and not direct impacts?

I Don't Know what logic they are using, but it doesnt make any sense to me. The only thing I can figure out is Ed's idea that they are using the given analog years and using the average of that for the risk zones.

They're using the "take some crayons and color with your eyes closed" logic.

Haaa..I wouldnt doubt it!