Texas and Florida stick out in this wxresearch outlook

[cycloneye]

http://www.wxresearch.com/outlook/2004hurpress.htm

Interesting to read about the probabilities for Texas and west Florida from this group that does annual outlooks.I find low their number of named storms 7 to form in the atlantic basin.

[Aquawind]

Soo few 7 total storms yet 4 canes and 3 landfalls..The OCSI theory with or without WRC's input seems rather odd.

[Guest]

1st of all 7 is way off,what is that about??

As far as landfalling storms go, I've heard everything from the east coast of Fla to the Carolinas to Texas & everywhere in between,seems like all these different people are throwing areas up kind of like rolling a dice & hoping that they're the ones that win the landfall prediction jackpot so they can have bragging rights some sort & claim that they are on to something ground breaking.

Like I have said many times, if you live in a area vulnerable to hurricanes where it has happened with frequency in the past, always prepare for the worst & hope for the best because it could happen again any season,but I still say that I don't care what track a hurricane took in '69, '78, '91, or last year..Every season is different & it is more or less impossible to say now where a hurricane will track & who will be hit this far in advance..Yes you can look at past weather patterns to try to get a general sense of what kind of #'s or where those past storms went under those patterns, but it is still a very difficult task to say now what is going to happen.Its still sometimes difficult to tell where storms are going when they are actually there,forget about MAY 14.

These wide range of so called predictions highlighting all these different areas illustrates what I am saying,maybe 1 day one of these people will break away from the pack & show some consistency & legitimacy.

Until then its a coin toss & I hope that # 7 is a typo for their sake.

[dixiebreeze]

http://www.wxresearch.com/outlook/2004hurpress.htm

Interesting to read about the probabilities for Texas and west Florida from this group that does annual outlooks.I find low their number of named storms 7 to form in the atlantic basin.

That is interesting Luis. Wonder if their percentage of accuracy is high. Florida's gulf coast sounds extremely vulnerable this year if they prove to be correct.

[*StOrmsPr*]

1st of all 7 is way off,what is that about??

As far as landfalling storms go, I've heard everything from the east coast of Fla to the Carolinas to Texas & everywhere in between,seems like all these different people are throwing areas up kind of like rolling a dice & hoping that they're the ones that win the landfall prediction jackpot so they can have bragging rights some sort & claim that they are on to something ground breaking.

Like I have said many times, if you live in a area vulnerable to hurricanes where it has happened with frequency in the past, always prepare for the worst & hope for the best because it could happen again any season,but I still say that I don't care what track a hurricane took in '69, '78, '91, or last year..Every season is different & it is more or less impossible to say now where a hurricane will track & who will be hit this far in advance..Yes you can look at past weather patterns to try to get a general sense of what kind of #'s or where those past storms went under those patterns, but it is still a very difficult task to say now what is going to happen.Its still sometimes difficult to tell where storms are going when they are actually there,forget about MAY 14.

These wide range of so called predictions highlighting all these different areas illustrates what I am saying,maybe 1 day one of these people will break away from the pack & show some consistency & legitimacy.

Until then its a coin toss & I hope that # 7 is a typo for their sake.

Also 7 storm and a season starting in may and ending in december ??

"According to the OCSI, the 2004 season could be long. There is a chance of a tropical storm or hurricane as early as May and June and the season could last through December.

Each year WRC meteorologists make secondary predictions so this model can be compared with other seasonal predictions. This year the OCSI predicts that there will be 7 named storms with 4 of these storms intensifying into hurricanes. "

[wxman57]

OCSI is a bunch of garbage. They have proven no link between orbital positions of the Sun/Earth, sunspots, and hurricane paths. As for their prediction of a Florida hit, didn't anyone notice that their predictions are LOWER than climatology? Last year they verified their big 73% chance that the Gulf would be affected by a storm. That's well below climo as well.

I'd like to point out that there verifications are EXTREMELY suspect. For example, they "verify" that Gordon (2000) was a landfall between LA-AL. Take a look at the track of Gordon, see any landfall except north of Tampa, FL?

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... /track.gif

And how was TS Allison a landfall in the GA-SC region?
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... /track.gif

I found numerous cases of such bogus "verifications" in their research.

If their method of predicting the number of storms is so good, how come they've been off 6, 6, 9, and 6 storms (all too low) the previous 4 years? And now they say 7 storms this season? As Dr. Gray said, they are charlatans.

We waited for Jill to present her paper at last week's AMS meeting but she was a no-show. Dr. Gray, Chris Landsea, and all the top researchers were there waiting to pose their questions.

[cycloneye]

OCSI is a bunch of garbage. They have proven no link between orbital positions of the Sun/Earth, sunspots, and hurricane paths. As for their prediction of a Florida hit, didn't anyone notice that their predictions are LOWER than climatology? Last year they verified their big 73% chance that the Gulf would be affected by a storm. That's well below climo as well.

I'd like to point out that there verifications are EXTREMELY suspect. For example, they "verify" that Gordon (2000) was a landfall between LA-AL. Take a look at the track of Gordon, see any landfall except north of Tampa, FL?

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... /track.gif

And how was TS Allison a landfall in the GA-SC region?
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... /track.gif

I found numerous cases of such bogus "verifications" in their research.

If their method of predicting the number of storms is so good, how come they've been off 6, 6, 9, and 6 storms (all too low) the previous 4 years? And now they say 7 storms this season? As Dr. Gray said, they are charlatans.

We waited for Jill to present her paper at last week's AMS meeting but she was a no-show. Dr. Gray, Chris Landsea, and all the top researchers were there waiting to pose their questions.

So in other words Chris this group is not credible when forecasting is concerned?

[wxman57]

OCSI is a bunch of garbage. They have proven no link between orbital positions of the Sun/Earth, sunspots, and hurricane paths. As for their prediction of a Florida hit, didn't anyone notice that their predictions are LOWER than climatology? Last year they verified their big 73% chance that the Gulf would be affected by a storm. That's well below climo as well.

I'd like to point out that there verifications are EXTREMELY suspect. For example, they "verify" that Gordon (2000) was a landfall between LA-AL. Take a look at the track of Gordon, see any landfall except north of Tampa, FL?

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... /track.gif

And how was TS Allison a landfall in the GA-SC region?
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... /track.gif

I found numerous cases of such bogus "verifications" in their research.

If their method of predicting the number of storms is so good, how come they've been off 6, 6, 9, and 6 storms (all too low) the previous 4 years? And now they say 7 storms this season? As Dr. Gray said, they are charlatans.

We waited for Jill to present her paper at last week's AMS meeting but she was a no-show. Dr. Gray, Chris Landsea, and all the top researchers were there waiting to pose their questions.

So in other words Chris this group is not credible when forecasting is concerned?

No, not in other words - those are the words. They're charlatans as Dr. Gray said. The OCSI theory is a joke. Think of it like astrology. Flawed theory, flawed verification. The Weather Research Center now consists of about 4 people - two fresh out of college forecasters, Dr. Freeman and his daughter Jill. They'll likely be out of business within the next year or so.

[AussieMark]

How could 7 named storms be any where near accurate.

1997 was the only year in the past 9 years with that few storms and it took the strongest El Nino event in decades to reduce the amount that much.

i.e

1995 - 19
1996 - 13
1997 - 7
1998 - 14
1999 - 12
2000 - 14
2001 - 15
2002 - 12
2003 - 16

the most recent El Nino event was 2002 and we had 12 tropical storms that year.

and the forcast this year is no EL Nino during the peak of the season.

7 seems very far of the mark to mind.

[Aquawind]

[quote="wxman57
No, not in other words - those are the words. They're charlatans as Dr. Gray said. The OCSI theory is a joke. Think of it like astrology. Flawed theory, flawed verification. [/quote]



I hear that!!!! Thanks for your professional clarification on that baloney theory...

[OuterBanker]

Their data was obviously based on the hurricane psychic network, but if it raises awareness I guess it could do some good.

[Guest]

I found numerous cases of such bogus "verifications" in their research.

If their method of predicting the number of storms is so good, how come they've been off 6, 6, 9, and 6 storms (all too low) the previous 4 years? And now they say 7 storms this season?

One would think that they would have learned from their mistakes after those previous dismal forecasts.

[wxman57]

I found numerous cases of such bogus "verifications" in their research.

If their method of predicting the number of storms is so good, how come they've been off 6, 6, 9, and 6 storms (all too low) the previous 4 years? And now they say 7 storms this season?

One would think that they would have learned from their mistakes after those previous dismal forecasts.

The problem with this "forecast method" is that they simply went back for 150 or so years and looked at the number of storms and landfall points then compared them with the year number before the next sunspot maximum and clamed that there's a relationship. They show no reason why there should be such a relationship between sunspots and/or gravitational influences. Then they falsify the verification to try to prove their theory.

[Guest]

Not a good "forecast method",I can see why Jill was a no show.

[Rainband]

Thank God for the experts we have here. I wouldn't know what to believe otherwise. I have learned so much. Again Thanks!!

[cycloneye]

I only posted this for information for all but I always follow what NOAA and Dr Gray say as they are much more experts than this little group of newbies.