2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast
This was written by Rob Mann and I, with additional help from Kevin Budd. Any comments are welcome.
2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
-
cycloneye
- Admin
- Posts: 148496
- Age: 69
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
- Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Jason that is the old forecast from november at link. 
0 likes
Visit the Caribbean-Central America Weather Thread where you can find at first post web cams,radars
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here
-
cycloneye
- Admin
- Posts: 148496
- Age: 69
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
- Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Ok I clicked wrong link.
0 likes
Visit the Caribbean-Central America Weather Thread where you can find at first post web cams,radars
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here
-
cycloneye
- Admin
- Posts: 148496
- Age: 69
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
- Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Congratulations Jason,Rob and Kevin for a very complete outlook and what I liked the most of the outlook was about how all the regions will be in terms of activity but of course time will tell about any landfalls an area may have.The most important thing to do is to prepare for the worse and hope for the best during this season because it only takes one system to do all the damage.
0 likes
Visit the Caribbean-Central America Weather Thread where you can find at first post web cams,radars
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here
Jason,Rob and Kevin...
I have to write this opinion, but before I do, I'm going to qualify my intent.
I think the work you've put in here is excellent. It appears to be well researched, it is clean, organized, well-written and a good read. I think you should keep doing stuff like this. Just because this document didn't emanate from an .edu or .gov source doesn't make it automatically a bad thing. It's great to see more people putting their thoughts out OBJECTIVELY and VERIFIABLY. I wish more people would. It takes guts and it takes commitment.
So with that in mind...we've discussed this topic a little in other threads...but here's where I hang it all out to dry.
The concept that certain patterns allow for greater or less overall US landfalls is not new and I'm OK with that. But please follow my logic here:
1. The 120 hour error rate...one way or the other...with a system in the Atlantic...is roughly 300 nautical miles (5 degrees of latitude/longitude). And that's given two huge pieces of important information...system strength and system LOCATION.
2. Tropical cyclones are not large-scale events. They are highly susceptible to small...difficult to resolve features that cannot be predicted months in advance no-way no-how. For example, no one here, at the TPC, CSU or anywhere else can tell me that a hurricane will not, any given time:
a. Pass over a cold wake from another system
b. Not get embedded in a SAL
c. Happen to develop at the base of a receding 500MB trough and sneak past a persistent central Atlantic trough...then move west for several days
d. Not encounter a cutoff ULL
e. Avoid the Dominican Republic
f. Traverse Puerto Rico lengthwise from east to west
Florida, for example, has been EXTREMELY lucky in this regard. Floyd caught an approaching trough at the last possible second. David got tangled with the DR. Georges would have undoubtedly been a Cat 3 at least had it not gone directly over Puerto Rico. Things could have definitely been different with Debbie had it not passed so close to the DR. I don't write this because I live in Florida...it just happens to be true. Florida...in general...has been lucky.
A few small bad breaks, and all of this climatology stuff goes out the window. Or maybe reverses. Who knows, but I don't think anyone here can realistically suggest that a westerly QBO, or La nina, the PDO or NAO or the FBI or the KGB or MTV *caused* Puerto Rico to get in the way of Georges or any of this other stuff...'cause it's not ture.
To extend on that...if anyone said that of the 100 waves that will cross the Atlantic this year...waves 16,22,67,89,90, and 92 will develop where the others won't...would be completely CERTIFIABLE and probably get themselves banned from this board.
Back to my main point. Lets say this season we have a system approaching the Turks and Caicos islands. Even if we knew how strong it was...which direction it was moving...and all of the dynamic model output etc...300 nautical miles...our expected forecast error...could be the difference between a system cutting between the Bahamas and FL...or smashing into Apalachicola.
I just am not buying Gray's numbers. I'm OK with frequency and general trends...but I don't but into determining with our current technology who will get hit and who won't three months from now. We can't even determine how strong a system will be with any reasonable certainty 48 hours from forecast time.
And...considering we know next to nothing about intensity forecasting...saying that location X is more likely to get a weak TS versus location Y, who will get a hurricane...is scientific conjecture AT BEST, with no real application to the real world, and Ms Cleo Astrology at worst. There is no way...even if successful this data could be applied due to the law of large numbers. Had we read something about how 1992 was going to be a Nino year...and this board were around in 1992...folks around Aug 2nd would have proclaimed the season dead.
So..in conclusion...I like the work...I like the risk...and I like the presentation. Do not let my rant discourage you from continuing (not that you will...I'm sure you won't). I don't think your opinions are wrong...they are conclusions and opinions...and we all draw different ones. My opinion is that we don't know enough about small scale events to draw inferences on landfall probablilties in a paticular year. But I have been wrong before.
Keep up the good work.
MW
I have to write this opinion, but before I do, I'm going to qualify my intent.
I think the work you've put in here is excellent. It appears to be well researched, it is clean, organized, well-written and a good read. I think you should keep doing stuff like this. Just because this document didn't emanate from an .edu or .gov source doesn't make it automatically a bad thing. It's great to see more people putting their thoughts out OBJECTIVELY and VERIFIABLY. I wish more people would. It takes guts and it takes commitment.
So with that in mind...we've discussed this topic a little in other threads...but here's where I hang it all out to dry.
The concept that certain patterns allow for greater or less overall US landfalls is not new and I'm OK with that. But please follow my logic here:
1. The 120 hour error rate...one way or the other...with a system in the Atlantic...is roughly 300 nautical miles (5 degrees of latitude/longitude). And that's given two huge pieces of important information...system strength and system LOCATION.
2. Tropical cyclones are not large-scale events. They are highly susceptible to small...difficult to resolve features that cannot be predicted months in advance no-way no-how. For example, no one here, at the TPC, CSU or anywhere else can tell me that a hurricane will not, any given time:
a. Pass over a cold wake from another system
b. Not get embedded in a SAL
c. Happen to develop at the base of a receding 500MB trough and sneak past a persistent central Atlantic trough...then move west for several days
d. Not encounter a cutoff ULL
e. Avoid the Dominican Republic
f. Traverse Puerto Rico lengthwise from east to west
Florida, for example, has been EXTREMELY lucky in this regard. Floyd caught an approaching trough at the last possible second. David got tangled with the DR. Georges would have undoubtedly been a Cat 3 at least had it not gone directly over Puerto Rico. Things could have definitely been different with Debbie had it not passed so close to the DR. I don't write this because I live in Florida...it just happens to be true. Florida...in general...has been lucky.
A few small bad breaks, and all of this climatology stuff goes out the window. Or maybe reverses. Who knows, but I don't think anyone here can realistically suggest that a westerly QBO, or La nina, the PDO or NAO or the FBI or the KGB or MTV *caused* Puerto Rico to get in the way of Georges or any of this other stuff...'cause it's not ture.
To extend on that...if anyone said that of the 100 waves that will cross the Atlantic this year...waves 16,22,67,89,90, and 92 will develop where the others won't...would be completely CERTIFIABLE and probably get themselves banned from this board.
Back to my main point. Lets say this season we have a system approaching the Turks and Caicos islands. Even if we knew how strong it was...which direction it was moving...and all of the dynamic model output etc...300 nautical miles...our expected forecast error...could be the difference between a system cutting between the Bahamas and FL...or smashing into Apalachicola.
I just am not buying Gray's numbers. I'm OK with frequency and general trends...but I don't but into determining with our current technology who will get hit and who won't three months from now. We can't even determine how strong a system will be with any reasonable certainty 48 hours from forecast time.
And...considering we know next to nothing about intensity forecasting...saying that location X is more likely to get a weak TS versus location Y, who will get a hurricane...is scientific conjecture AT BEST, with no real application to the real world, and Ms Cleo Astrology at worst. There is no way...even if successful this data could be applied due to the law of large numbers. Had we read something about how 1992 was going to be a Nino year...and this board were around in 1992...folks around Aug 2nd would have proclaimed the season dead.
So..in conclusion...I like the work...I like the risk...and I like the presentation. Do not let my rant discourage you from continuing (not that you will...I'm sure you won't). I don't think your opinions are wrong...they are conclusions and opinions...and we all draw different ones. My opinion is that we don't know enough about small scale events to draw inferences on landfall probablilties in a paticular year. But I have been wrong before.
Keep up the good work.
MW
0 likes
-
Guest
MWatkins wrote:Jason,Rob and Kevin...
I have to write this opinion, but before I do, I'm going to qualify my intent.
I think the work you've put in here is excellent. It appears to be well researched, it is clean, organized, well-written and a good read. I think you should keep doing stuff like this. Just because this document didn't emanate from an .edu or .gov source doesn't make it automatically a bad thing. It's great to see more people putting their thoughts out OBJECTIVELY and VERIFIABLY. I wish more people would. It takes guts and it takes commitment.
So with that in mind...we've discussed this topic a little in other threads...but here's where I hang it all out to dry.
The concept that certain patterns allow for greater or less overall US landfalls is not new and I'm OK with that. But please follow my logic here:
1. The 120 hour error rate...one way or the other...with a system in the Atlantic...is roughly 300 nautical miles (5 degrees of latitude/longitude). And that's given two huge pieces of important information...system strength and system LOCATION.
2. Tropical cyclones are not large-scale events. They are highly susceptible to small...difficult to resolve features that cannot be predicted months in advance no-way no-how. For example, no one here, at the TPC, CSU or anywhere else can tell me that a hurricane will not, any given time:
a. Pass over a cold wake from another system
b. Not get embedded in a SAL
c. Happen to develop at the base of a receding 500MB trough and sneak past a persistent central Atlantic trough...then move west for several days
d. Not encounter a cutoff ULL
e. Avoid the Dominican Republic
f. Traverse Puerto Rico lengthwise from east to west
Florida, for example, has been EXTREMELY lucky in this regard. Floyd caught an approaching trough at the last possible second. David got tangled with the DR. Georges would have undoubtedly been a Cat 3 at least had it not gone directly over Puerto Rico. Things could have definitely been different with Debbie had it not passed so close to the DR. I don't write this because I live in Florida...it just happens to be true. Florida...in general...has been lucky.
A few small bad breaks, and all of this climatology stuff goes out the window. Or maybe reverses. Who knows, but I don't think anyone here can realistically suggest that a westerly QBO, or La nina, the PDO or NAO or the FBI or the KGB or MTV *caused* Puerto Rico to get in the way of Georges or any of this other stuff...'cause it's not ture.
To extend on that...if anyone said that of the 100 waves that will cross the Atlantic this year...waves 16,22,67,89,90, and 92 will develop where the others won't...would be completely CERTIFIABLE and probably get themselves banned from this board.
Back to my main point. Lets say this season we have a system approaching the Turks and Caicos islands. Even if we knew how strong it was...which direction it was moving...and all of the dynamic model output etc...300 nautical miles...our expected forecast error...could be the difference between a system cutting between the Bahamas and FL...or smashing into Apalachicola.
I just am not buying Gray's numbers. I'm OK with frequency and general trends...but I don't but into determining with our current technology who will get hit and who won't three months from now. We can't even determine how strong a system will be with any reasonable certainty 48 hours from forecast time.
And...considering we know next to nothing about intensity forecasting...saying that location X is more likely to get a weak TS versus location Y, who will get a hurricane...is scientific conjecture AT BEST, with no real application to the real world, and Ms Cleo Astrology at worst. There is no way...even if successful this data could be applied due to the law of large numbers. Had we read something about how 1992 was going to be a Nino year...and this board were around in 1992...folks around Aug 2nd would have proclaimed the season dead.
So..in conclusion...I like the work...I like the risk...and I like the presentation. Do not let my rant discourage you from continuing (not that you will...I'm sure you won't). I don't think your opinions are wrong...they are conclusions and opinions...and we all draw different ones. My opinion is that we don't know enough about small scale events to draw inferences on landfall probablilties in a paticular year. But I have been wrong before.
Keep up the good work.
MW
Agree
0 likes
-
Anonymous
I fully understand what you're saying MW. In fact, I was expecting more in the way of criticsm due to the amount of detail presented in the forecast. This can pretty much be called an experimental forecast. We did something similar last year, but not to this extent. In 2003, it did seem as if the East Coast would be the most vulnerable region and sure enough we almost had a major hurricane strike North Carolina. I've also noticed that similar seasonal forecasts often point in similar directions. I recall Joe Bastardi hyping the EC threat in June 03. Even the wx research center was talking about it. If i'm not mistaken, I think it was Gary Gray who is also forecasting the panhandle to get hard this season...You may want to verify that. We've been working on stats on an almost daily basis since October and there are very interesting correlations....that is is the only reason why we've decided to release this type of work. To sum things up, if we see at least decent verification, we will continue to make forecasts like this until our accuracy begins to decline. It's a work in progress. 
0 likes
-
Anonymous
Just trying to explain things a little better....
I expected a lot of criticism and it is perfectly understandable. Most people don't understand how long range forecasts can be made when 5 day forecasts aren't 100% accurate. My answer to that question is that it's almost like comparing two different sciences. The techniques used to produce our seasonal forecast are completely different than those used in daily forecasting.
It's not like we're forecasting tropical storm Alex to hit Florida. Basically what we're saying, is chances are that however many storms are most likely to take a track in whatever direction by the end of the season. this is more of an experimental forecast. A lot of the details in there are based on climatology and analogs...which we do know can result in bad verification, as the weather does not always follow the rules set by previous seasons. We incorporated them into our forecast because the correlations that were found were convincing enough to use. Plus, the 500MB pattern and steering flow (as mentioned throughout) were looked at as well to back up what climatology showed. So yes the detailed expectations are fairly high-confident, and likewise, yes, there is still bust potential...as the case with any forecast.
If we were to release all of the stats we had, I think the opinions of some of the more skeptical posters would change a bit. It's simply too much to go over and explain...but you get the picture.
I expected a lot of criticism and it is perfectly understandable. Most people don't understand how long range forecasts can be made when 5 day forecasts aren't 100% accurate. My answer to that question is that it's almost like comparing two different sciences. The techniques used to produce our seasonal forecast are completely different than those used in daily forecasting.
It's not like we're forecasting tropical storm Alex to hit Florida. Basically what we're saying, is chances are that however many storms are most likely to take a track in whatever direction by the end of the season. this is more of an experimental forecast. A lot of the details in there are based on climatology and analogs...which we do know can result in bad verification, as the weather does not always follow the rules set by previous seasons. We incorporated them into our forecast because the correlations that were found were convincing enough to use. Plus, the 500MB pattern and steering flow (as mentioned throughout) were looked at as well to back up what climatology showed. So yes the detailed expectations are fairly high-confident, and likewise, yes, there is still bust potential...as the case with any forecast.
If we were to release all of the stats we had, I think the opinions of some of the more skeptical posters would change a bit. It's simply too much to go over and explain...but you get the picture.
0 likes
Hey Jason...
Dude...seriously...keep the forecasts coming. I'm all for your effort and will be interested to see how things play out.
Specifically...I think it is almost impossible to reduce the resolution of a landfall forecst down beyond...say 10 degrees of coastline (600 nautical miles). Then again I've never tried to do it.
MW
Dude...seriously...keep the forecasts coming. I'm all for your effort and will be interested to see how things play out.
Specifically...I think it is almost impossible to reduce the resolution of a landfall forecst down beyond...say 10 degrees of coastline (600 nautical miles). Then again I've never tried to do it.
MW
0 likes
Updating on the twitter now: http://www.twitter.com/@watkinstrack
-
Anonymous
MWatkins wrote:Hey Jason...
Dude...seriously...keep the forecasts coming. I'm all for your effort and will be interested to see how things play out.
Specifically...I think it is almost impossible to reduce the resolution of a landfall forecst down beyond...say 10 degrees of coastline (600 nautical miles). Then again I've never tried to do it.
MW
We will!
....i'm just as anxious to see how these numbers will verify. I just hope that ppl understand that this is simply a forecast, and I wouldn't be surprised if it contains numerous errors by November 30, that can be expected. But I am confident that we will do fairly well...climo usually wins 9/10 times. 
0 likes
-
wxman57
- Moderator-Pro Met
- Posts: 23080
- Age: 68
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
- Location: Houston, TX (southwest)
Re: 2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast
TropicalWxWatcher wrote:2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast
This was written by Rob Mann and I, with additional help from Kevin Budd. Any comments are welcome.
One thing that struck me was the statement about a positive NAO meaning a lower chance that Texas might be hit. But a positive NAO means low pressure over Greenland (vs. well south for negative NAO) and a stronger Bermuda High. With a stronger bermuda high, there should be a greater tendency for storms to stay down south, track through the Caribbean, and possibly affect Texas. The NAO has been mostly negative from 1995-2003, and most storms have curved north and out to sea before reaching the U.S. due to the weaker Bermuda High.
0 likes
TropicalWxWatcher wrote:We will!
Cool. One of my coworkers is a stats wiz...she's probably one of the best statistical modelers I've ever worked with. She's showing me some really cool things with regression testing and analysis. Just let me know if you'd like me to work through some of your data with her. She loves this kind of thing and I'm sure she won't mind working through it with me. Just send me an email or PM.
MW
0 likes
-
Anonymous
Re: 2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast
wxman57 wrote:TropicalWxWatcher wrote:2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast
This was written by Rob Mann and I, with additional help from Kevin Budd. Any comments are welcome.
One thing that struck me was the statement about a positive NAO meaning a lower chance that Texas might be hit. But a positive NAO means low pressure over Greenland (vs. well south for negative NAO) and a stronger Bermuda High. With a stronger bermuda high, there should be a greater tendency for storms to stay down south, track through the Caribbean, and possibly affect Texas. The NAO has been mostly negative from 1995-2003, and most storms have curved north and out to sea before reaching the U.S. due to the weaker Bermuda High.
It looks like Texas is more prone to gettong hit by a tropical storm during the negative NAO. Yet, the probability of getting hit by a hurricane is slightly more likely during positive periods. However, a Texas landfall is more common within the negative fluctuations of a long term positive period.
This is why Texas appears to be one of the more difficult landfall regions to forecast. I'm going to take another look at the numbers tomorrow...Rob did a lot of the TX research. Texas is one of the low confidence regions this season.
0 likes
-
Brent
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 38258
- Age: 37
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 10:30 pm
- Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
- Contact:
Re: 2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast
wxman57 wrote:TropicalWxWatcher wrote:2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast
This was written by Rob Mann and I, with additional help from Kevin Budd. Any comments are welcome.
One thing that struck me was the statement about a positive NAO meaning a lower chance that Texas might be hit. But a positive NAO means low pressure over Greenland (vs. well south for negative NAO) and a stronger Bermuda High. With a stronger bermuda high, there should be a greater tendency for storms to stay down south, track through the Caribbean, and possibly affect Texas. The NAO has been mostly negative from 1995-2003, and most storms have curved north and out to sea before reaching the U.S. due to the weaker Bermuda High.
So Positive NAO means less storms that recurve harmlessly out to sea?
0 likes
#neversummer
>>So Positive NAO means less storms that recurve harmlessly out to sea?
It's not exactly that simple. A positive NAO sometimes correlates with increased Gulf potential, but there are always variances. And chances are, the NAO will be both + and - during a given season. It has trended mostly positive of late. But every storm is a local event and part of the global weather at the same time. Relative to what is happening when a specific storm is in a specific area helps determine its fate. Also, origination plays a major part in whether or not a storm might be a proverbial fish spinner or not. (for instance - a storm originating in the Bay of Campeche, SW Caribbean, or the Gulf of Mexico most likely will not, whereas anything originating in the Atlantic Ocean has that potential).
Steve
It's not exactly that simple. A positive NAO sometimes correlates with increased Gulf potential, but there are always variances. And chances are, the NAO will be both + and - during a given season. It has trended mostly positive of late. But every storm is a local event and part of the global weather at the same time. Relative to what is happening when a specific storm is in a specific area helps determine its fate. Also, origination plays a major part in whether or not a storm might be a proverbial fish spinner or not. (for instance - a storm originating in the Bay of Campeche, SW Caribbean, or the Gulf of Mexico most likely will not, whereas anything originating in the Atlantic Ocean has that potential).
Steve
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: hurricanes1234 and 58 guests