WRC 2007 Hurricane Season Forecast

[hurricanetrack]

Wasn't there a ridge parked over the SE in 2005? Isn't that why so many hurricanes went in to the GOM, around the bottom part of said ridge. If you look at that cool NASA animation that showed the entire 2005 season, you can see the ridge pretty much parked over the SE- steering hurricane after hurricane in to the GOM and/or Yucatan. If there was not a ridge parked over the SE, then we would have seen more hurricanes coming up the East Coast or staying out to sea like last year.

As far as WRC and their forecast, the question is moot.

[vacanechaser]

seems worthless and silly to me...



Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

[GeneratorPower]

The ongoing drought conditions across the SE US may be due in part to said ridge parking. 2005 would have been a MUCH drier year for the southeast if not for the constant hurricanes. It's still dry now and I think research would prove that the same mechanisms causing the dry weather would also steer hurricanes this way as Mark was implying.

[GeneratorPower]

Hey, Mark, how bout moving to the Gulf Coast? Although when you do you'll probably end up having to go to NC for every storm.

[canegrl04]

Wasn't there a ridge parked over the SE in 2005? Isn't that why so many hurricanes went in to the GOM, around the bottom part of said ridge. If you look at that cool NASA animation that showed the entire 2005 season, you can see the ridge pretty much parked over the SE- steering hurricane after hurricane in to the GOM and/or Yucatan. If there was not a ridge parked over the SE, then we would have seen more hurricanes coming up the East Coast or staying out to sea like last year.

As far as WRC and their forecast, the question is moot.

That does not bode well for 2007.If that ridge is still firmly in place by the official start of the season,we could see some monsters develope over the Western Carribean and GOM.Especially since the SSTs are really heating up now.Wouldn't be surprised if we got a couple of cat 5s

[Stormcenter]

Their sunspot theory doesn't allow for a prediction over the climatological norm, for the most part.

1996-2000 predictions: http://www.wxresearch.com/outlook/box3.htm

2001-2005 predictions: http://www.wxresearch.com/outlook/box4.htm

Note that they always forecast between 6 and 11 named storms. Last year they forecast that 2006 would be the most active season in the last 10 years (11 named storms). In 2005, they predicted only 10 named storms (and I think they tweaked the number up from 9 in July after we'd almost reached 9 by the end of July).

In 2004, we were all waiting for Jill Hasling to make her OCSI presentation at the 26th Conference on Tropical Meteorology in Miami. All the leading research scientists were there, ready to grill her about this theory. Standing room only. I was talking to Dr. Gray before anyone else arrived. He was anxious to question Jill about their theory. She didn't show up for the talk.

What gets me is that the headlines of the local paper will get wind of the forecast of an 80% chance that the Gulf will be "affected" and run with it like it's the end of the world, where that's below the climatological norm. And if you go back and check their "verification", you'll see it's very ambiguous. It's definitely not related to the center of a storm impacting a loction. In some cases, it looks like a forecast is verified if cirrus outflow passes over a state.

Looks like pure junk science, to me.

Amen wxman57!

[perk]

Their sunspot theory doesn't allow for a prediction over the climatological norm, for the most part.

1996-2000 predictions: http://www.wxresearch.com/outlook/box3.htm

2001-2005 predictions: http://www.wxresearch.com/outlook/box4.htm

Note that they always forecast between 6 and 11 named storms. Last year they forecast that 2006 would be the most active season in the last 10 years (11 named storms). In 2005, they predicted only 10 named storms (and I think they tweaked the number up from 9 in July after we'd almost reached 9 by the end of July).

In 2004, we were all waiting for Jill Hasling to make her OCSI presentation at the 26th Conference on Tropical Meteorology in Miami. All the leading research scientists were there, ready to grill her about this theory. Standing room only. I was talking to Dr. Gray before anyone else arrived. He was anxious to question Jill about their theory. She didn't show up for the talk.

What gets me is that the headlines of the local paper will get wind of the forecast of an 80% chance that the Gulf will be "affected" and run with it like it's the end of the world, where that's below the climatological norm. And if you go back and check their "verification", you'll see it's very ambiguous. It's definitely not related to the center of a storm impacting a loction. In some cases, it looks like a forecast is verified if cirrus outflow passes over a state.

Looks like pure junk science, to me.

I agree pure junk science.

[kba981]

it may be junk science or may not be. only time will tell.