NOAA issues 2005 outlook=Another active season

#1 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:33 am

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2438.htm

Any comments are welcomed.

x-y-no · #2 Postby **x-y-no** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:37 am

Well, my numbers (13/8/4) are right smack in the middle of their ranges. :-)

cyclonaut · #3 Postby **cyclonaut** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:41 am

That set up spells trouble for just about everyone in the Caribbean, US EC & GOM States.

southerngale · #4 Postby **southerngale** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:45 am

Boy did they underestimate 2004. Let's just hope that this forecast isn't the same way. They are predicting more hurricanes, and major ones though.

#5 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:49 am

Dr Gray will follow NOAA at his May 31 update.

mf_dolphin · #6 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Mon May 16, 2005 12:21 pm

This is right in line with Dr Gray. Looks to be a busy year for tracking :-)

Let's all hope for a fish season :-)

#7 Postby **MWatkins** » Mon May 16, 2005 1:06 pm

Hey hate to throw in a shameless plug but I will go ahead and do so.

Dr Landsea is a huge contributor to the NOAA outlook...he'll be on live tonight. If you have any questions about the outlook post 'em here or send me a PM...we will try to get them in.

MW

#8 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 16, 2005 1:10 pm

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/o ... icane.html

Above is a more detailed discussion of the noaa outlook.What stands out in the outlook are the warm waters at the MDR area and no el nino.

#9 Postby **dhweather** » Mon May 16, 2005 1:32 pm

More press

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050516/ap_ ... ane_season

StormChasr · #10 Postby **StormChasr** » Mon May 16, 2005 2:26 pm

This is no surprise to anybody. After drastically undercounting last year, it was necessary to make a prediction that will reflect the strong possibility of an above average season. Given the newspaper articles about complacency with regard to hurricanes, I applaud NOAA for being proactive. That way, if it is a less active season, everybody's happy, and if it is active---people are more prepared. It makes total sense.

krysof · #11 Postby **krysof** » Mon May 16, 2005 2:34 pm

Will I get threatened with a hurricane?

Anonymous · #12 Postby **Anonymous** » Mon May 16, 2005 2:35 pm

I have to disagree. They would never issue JUST FOR KICKS like that. We thought it would be a less active...even at times a 2002 like season. Now, it appears it could be a season much like 1995 or 2004. Everything is pretty much in place. So, they are pushing up the forecast. Last year, a horror movie called "Hurricane Season 2004" shook the nation. Now, the director "Mother Nature" is looking into making a sequal in 2005.

cyclonaut · #13 Postby **cyclonaut** » Mon May 16, 2005 3:09 pm

I disagree with StormChasr too.

NOAA scientists get paid to study the atmosphere & ocean & figure stuff like this out.Hence the the name NOAA..So basically one should assume they know what theyre doing & why theyre doing it.

StormChasr · #14 Postby **StormChasr** » Mon May 16, 2005 3:32 pm

Where did I criticize NOAA? I was being supportive of their announcement. It is a win-win either way--if it is a terrible season, then they're doing their duty. If it is a less threatening season, it is always better to err on the side of caution. What is wrong with that??? :eek:

Agua · #15 Postby **Agua** » Mon May 16, 2005 3:54 pm

Stormchaser,

You have to also look at the fact that if they were to inflate numbers for the sake of motivating people, they lose credibility when those high numbers aren't realized. It's not a "win-win" situation to up the #s simply for the sake of motivating people. The safest thing you could assume would be that they believe there is a rational reason grounded in metoerlogical fact that the higher # reflect what they believe will happen.

StormChasr · #16 Postby **StormChasr** » Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm

You have to also look at the fact that if they were to inflate numbers for the sake of motivating people, they lose credibility when those high numbers aren't realized. It's not a "win-win" situation to up the #s simply for the sake of motivating people. The safest thing you could assume would be that they believe there is a rational reason grounded in metoerlogical fact that the higher # reflect what they believe will happen.

I believe what I believe--you believe what you believe. Why do you insist that I am criticizing them--I am not. They evidently believe that it will be an active season, which most people also concur upon. Last year, they grossly underestimated the number of storms. It would make sense to go with the highest projection that is likely, for the sake of having people prepared. Not only is it good science--it is good public relations.

Anonymous · #17 Postby **Anonymous** » Mon May 16, 2005 4:09 pm

Who ever said 15 named storms this year is the highest? What if we have a weak la Nina and get 18 named storms? You never know.

StormChasr · #18 Postby **StormChasr** » Mon May 16, 2005 4:12 pm

Who ever said 15 named storms this year is the highest? What if we have a weak la Nina and get 18 named storms? You never know.

Don't think the ENSO reflects a weak Nina. Outside chance of a weak Nino, but not a Nina......besides, the total number of storms isn't really relevant. All it takes is one Andrew, or one Camille.

Anonymous · #19 Postby **Anonymous** » Mon May 16, 2005 4:20 pm

Well, I am just saying what I heard at the conference. Stacy Stewart said Weak El Nino, Neurtal, or a Weak La Nina.

StormChasr · #20 Postby **StormChasr** » Mon May 16, 2005 4:21 pm

Well, I am just saying what I heard at the conference. Stacy Stewart said Weak El Nino, Neurtal, or a Weak La Nina.

Really!! Now that is news. The charts seem to support neutral, or weak Nino later in the season. First I've heard of the possibility of Nina for this season.

NOAA issues 2005 outlook=Another active season

NOAA issues 2005 outlook=Another active season

Who is online