Is there any validity to Klotzbach-Gray December forecast?

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

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.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
HURAKAN
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 46086
Age: 38
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

Re: Is there any validity to Klotzbach-Gray December forecast?

#21 Postby HURAKAN » Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:30 pm

Category 5 wrote:
Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote: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.



Easy for you to say, hurricanes don't hit Oregon.

Try experencing one before wishing them on other people.


Don't look at it that way. Of course hurricanes are bad for humans and other species, but if you like to track them, you would like to have lots of them. Just like a Vulcanologist likes to study volcanoes, or a doctor that likes to study cancers.
0 likes   

Cyclone1
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2739
Age: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:03 pm
Location: Florida

#22 Postby Cyclone1 » Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:32 pm

2004 a good season? Ask anyone who lives within a 30 mile radius of me what they thought about the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season. Let me tell ya, "good" will not be anywhere within their descriptions.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: Is there any validity to Klotzbach-Gray December forecast?

#23 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:35 pm

Category 5 wrote:
Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote: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.


Volcanoes and earthquakes do.
0 likes   

User avatar
HURAKAN
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 46086
Age: 38
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

#24 Postby HURAKAN » Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:38 pm

Matt is refering to seasons that were good for hurricane tracking. Of course, if you have a good season to track hurricanes, it probably means that the season was pretty bad for humans and other species.

For humans a good hurricane season was 1914 and a bad season, 2005.
0 likes   

Cyclone1
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2739
Age: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:03 pm
Location: Florida

Re:

#25 Postby Cyclone1 » Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:40 pm

HURAKAN wrote:Matt is refering to seasons that were good for hurricane tracking. Of course, if you have a good season to track hurricanes, it probably means that the season was pretty bad for humans and other species.

For humans a good hurricane season was 1914 and a bad season, 2005.


I know exactly what Matt's talking about. Tracking hurricanes is a blast, especially being able to track a record amount of storms within your lifetime.

But watch what you say. You don't want people to think you thought Katrina was "THE BEST", or Charley and Jeanne were "good".
0 likes   

User avatar
Category 5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10074
Age: 35
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Contact:

Re: Is there any validity to Klotzbach-Gray December forecast?

#26 Postby Category 5 » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:07 pm

HURAKAN wrote:
Category 5 wrote:
Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote: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.



Easy for you to say, hurricanes don't hit Oregon.

Try experencing one before wishing them on other people.


Don't look at it that way. Of course hurricanes are bad for humans and other species, but if you like to track them, you would like to have lots of them. Just like a Vulcanologist likes to study volcanoes, or a doctor that likes to study cancers.


I understand what you mean completely.

Having lots is all fine and dandy but if he wants alot of storms, why would he mention 1996 (13 storms), and 1999 (12 storms) but not 2000 (14 storms) and 2001 (15 storms)?

Theres a trend here. The U.S got pounded in 1996 and 1999, but not in 2000 and in 2001, the worst Hurricanes were outside the U.S, as they were this year too (14 storms so far, also more then 1996 and 1999).

Seasons with alot of U.S landfalls got mentioned, but other seasons, some more active then a few mentioned with alot of fish storms and landfalls outside the U.S didn't.

I'm not trying to start anything, but I'm just a little curious to why 1996 and 1999 were mentioned but not 2000 and 2001.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kevin and 17 guests