Is there any validity to Klotzbach-Gray December forecast?

[Ed Mahmoud]

Dr. Masters, for one, doesn't think so.

Another concern focuses on the hyperactivity of the Gray-Klotzbach team, which issues not one, not two, but six forecasts before and during the season.

The first arrives in early December, forecasting the outcome of a hurricane season that doesn't begin for six months. Maintaining the baseball comparison, that would be like predicting -- this past October -- the Marlins' precise win-loss record in 2008.

''If Gray were honest, he would say they have no skill in making predictions that far in advance,'' said Jeff Masters, a former NOAA hurricane researcher who now serves as chief meteorologist of the Weather Underground. ``It's just an interesting mental exercise.''

Nevertheless, Masters also favors the issuing of seasonal forecasts.

''If you put good science in the hands of people, that's always a benefit,'' he said.

''But they should do a better job of educating the public about the uncertainty involved,'' Masters added. ``And they have to keep underscoring that you have to be prepared in any given year, whatever the forecast.''

[cycloneye]

I dont think that the December forecasts are a good tool to follow as its too far away as many factors can ruin the forecast six months from June 1 it.I always prefer the April and May outlooks that are much closer.

[CrazyC83]

I agree, they are seldom accurate, yet I think they are valuable in that they provide a comparison baseline for later estimates. My early estimate: 9/5/2, mostly early. I have a gut feeling a super-El Nino - like 1982-83 and 1997-98 - will come in late in 2008. (The Pacific season, on the other hand, will be insane)

[HURAKAN]

These forecasts shouldn't be used if you want an accurate estimate of what you should expect in the season to come. Nonetheless, they serve the purpose of discussing the patterns that should be influencing the number of storms in the following season.

I would keep them but not put to much emphasis on the number of storms forecasted.

[Category 5]

Honestly, I don't think they should even make a December forecast.

[Rainband]

I think that the forecasts are all guesses,albeit educated ones. This year makes me realize more than ever that mother nature is in control and we are basically along for the ride. I will always be ready for Hurricane season because of where I chose to live. As for the forecasts and predictions, I think they tend to drive panic and influence the insurance industry. I also think that they, with the Media tend to make individuals complacent.

[Cyclone1]

For the record... they were only two hurricanes (one major) off last December. They called for named storms exactly, though. 14.

[MiamiensisWx]

Reposted from another thread:

Ugh. Personally, I think all forecasts from Gray and Klotzbach (not NOAA) have become worthless. I'm including ALL forecasts from Colorado State University, whether it is the December or August outlook. I think the methods or analysts should make some adjustments. These seasonal outlooks are misunderstood by the media, thus leading to hype and unreasonable expectations/demands. It's discouraging that we hear "doom and gloom" from the media in the post-2004 and 2005 world. They do not know that these are not landfall estimates. The media's misinterpretations provided the impetus for the South Florida Water Mismanagement District's decisions to lower Lake Okeechobee's water table. You are out of touch with reality if you believe this statement is false. Local knowledgeable people (not related to the media) have stated that this is the truth. This includes workers at the SFWMD. Every news outlet (i.e. AP and news sources) states that the above average numbers in 2006 compelled the SFWMD to make poor decisions.

There is PROPAGANDA that proposes the position that says, "Hey! 2003, 2004, and 2005 were NORMAL! It will only grow worse as AGW causes stronger hurricanes! There will be many deaths!"

Do not misinterpret this sentence. I'm not a person who dismisses GW. Actually, I believe GW is influencing tropical cyclones (it is probably a mixture of natural and anthropogenic influences), but the media assumes that it will ENHANCE development. They do not present the OPPOSING viewpoint (i.e. GW will reduce basin-wide TC activity in the Northern Hemisphere in terms of hurricane days). Personally, I think Downdraft was correct: 2007-type seasons may be the "season of the future". Tropical cyclones struggle with higher shear values in Nina years, but those that survive and strengthen to a TS or hurricane can ramp up via rapid intensification (i.e. Dean, Felix, Humberto, and Lorenzo).

Additionally, the media interprets overall activity as landfalls, thus "active" seasons (i.e. ALL seasons) are "bad" seasons in the United States. Obviously, they don't remember 1995 and 1988. Those seasons brought landfalling tropical cyclones in the Caribbean (i.e. destructive Gilbert, Luis, and Marilyn), but the mainland United States largely escaped in 1988. Although 1995 brought Opal and Erin, it did not match the number of United States landfalls during 2003-2005. It did not match the number of landfalls during a single hyperactive year (2005), and 1995 was very active. That statistic tells the tale.

Moral: 2003-2005 was exceptionally rare.

Unfortunately, some people (in the media) are probably blasting NOAA because we didn't receive another Katrina disaster.

Additionally, we have numerous misinformed economic weenies that love to harp on a crashing FL real estate market (ala 1920s) because of destructive landfalling hurricanes. They are comparing apples and oranges. They need to beef up their knowledge of history. The Florida land boom of the 1920s was ephermal and short-lived because of other factors, including a frenzy of speculative errors (i.e. buying submerged land), foreclosures, shortage of supplies, and numerous underlying factors (many of which I have not mentioned).

It closely resembles the people (on this site) who panic when they see a major hurricane landfall on Miami, FL or Long Island in the 384-hour operational GFS or 240-hour Euro. These are LONG-RANGE guidance. They are ENTERTAINMENT that should not be taken in a serious manner. It's all HYPE. It also reflects a lack of proper etiquette with respect to the proper way in which models should be utilized.

I apologize for the long post, but I think it summarizes my thoughts.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

NO it has nothing to do with validity but just to put out a forecast. That is at least the way it has been the last few years...But hey a strong La nina, would give better then good odds for a good 2008 hurricane season. HEEHEHEHEHE

[Category 5]

NO it has nothing to do with validity but just to put out a forecast. That is at least the way it has been the last few years...But hey a strong La nina, would give better then good odds for a good 2008 hurricane season. HEEHEHEHEHE

Just curious, define a "good" hurricane season.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Good hurricane season=2004 or maybe 33. A ok hurricane season would be 2003,99,98,96,95. A perfect hurricane season 2005. NOTHING BEATS IT.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I'm sorry I have a hard time hiding my enjoyment of hurricanes. Please don't take this seriously.

[Coredesat]

I'm sorry I have a hard time hiding my enjoyment of hurricanes. Please don't take this seriously.

I don't (I almost never do), but I can't guarantee that others won't. You simply CAN'T act this way on a forum such as this - there are real people here and your behavior is very offensive. I still remember back in 2005 when you were cheering systems on as they intensified, regardless of their proximity to land - posts like the ones you've made in this thread are almost no different from that.

[DanKellFla]

Maybe 100 years of december forcasts will yield some interesting statistical data. But, until them, they are an acedemic exercise.

[boca]

I think these forecasts should be done once a year in May instead of four times a year. I personally think that their just forecasts and I think with time they'll improve. I read them just for entertainment purposes. I think that the insurance companies pay more attention to them to adjust their rates according to their forecasts. The December forecasts are pretty much useless in my opinion. Mother nature will do what she wants anyway.

[Downdraft]

I guess I'm split on the subject. I see anything that brings hurricane awareness to the front as a good thing but I also don't see any validity in a forecast that comes 6 months prior to the season. Florida has such a constant change in population that at any given time a large segment have never experienced a tropical system. I guess to me awareness hype is a good thing but the fear-mongering type is bad. If in fact this year was a good precursor to what a season will look like in a global warming environment, and I believe it is, in coming years it won't be the number of systems that catches our attention but the strength of the systems that do evolve. What really disappoints me is not the season with only a few storms it's the people that are disappointed by only a few storms. The thrill seekers have long moved on from Charley, Francis, Ivan, Jeanne or Wilma. Those of us with families to raise, homes to protect and insurance premiums to pay are still vividly remembering 2004/2005 here. I'm sure it's the same all along the gulf coast where lives where changed forever. Some people need to grow up. Sorry to get off topic.

[tolakram]

What does validity mean in this context?

Hurricane fans will bemoan when the forecast isn't right on.

People in hurricane zones will complain it's all an insurance scam.

People in general, if not effected by any storms, will ignore the forecasts regardless of their accuracy.

If you step back and look at the entire forecast I think they have some merit, but counting things is something humans invented. Calling storms tropical or sub-tropical or extra-tropical in the context of counting storms is also un-natural. A good forecast, in my opinion, would tell us that conditions appear to be ripe for an above average year, be prepared. Then it would discuss what conditions and why, then it would review the averages but not make any numerical predictions. Counting things just doesn't make much sense to me. When the midwest is ripe for tornadoes I don't see counts, I see risk numbers. Moderate risk of severe weather including tornadoes for the next 24 hours.

[RL3AO]

I guess when you think about it, the December 2006 forecast was the best one (it terms of accuracy) for the entire 2007 season.

[Squarethecircle]

The December forecasts are for fun. That's why they're so easily misinterpreted.

[Category 5]

Good hurricane season=2004 or maybe 33. A ok hurricane season would be 2003,99,98,96,95. A perfect hurricane season 2005. NOTHING BEATS IT.

I love tracking Hurricanes as much as the next guy but I could never wish for a year like 2005, and how anybody can after seeing what Katrina did is beyond me. Oh wait, Hurricanes don't hit Oregon so it doesn't affect you, nevermind.

-removed- at it's finest.