Everyone knows Bastardi went pay per view. While not always right, I think he was recognized among tropical fans as the main guru on the web with his daily videos and text discussion. I was going to order the Accuweather Pro, but I decided against it. Hopefully someone out there has it and can post some of their seasonal forecast. I e-mailed Ken Reeves last year wtih some ammo on Joe but he was too scared to use it. I still miss him, but I'm not paying for it.
Then I went over to Dr. Gary Gray's site (Millenium Weather). Gary, who missed BIG TIME on his seasonal forecast for 2002 (expected coastal NC to be the breeding grounds with almost all storms missing the coast by a few hundred miles) still has his 2002 forecast up. That's absurd.
Then you have Dr. William Gray. The CSU forecasts have been so off in recent years that one has to wonder if they need to go back to the drawing board. Everyone uses their predictors in their own forecasts, but lately I think they're just missing the big picture by using all their indicators and analogues to the detriment of making risky forecasts.
NWS usually issues its forecast on the last day of Hurricane Awareness Week. I could be wrong, but that's usually in early May. And what they put out there is pretty generic anyway.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having said all that, those were the main sources I'd consult to come up with my own forecast. Last year's 13/8/4 or 13/8/3 that I did looks more suited for this year. (What, we had like 12/3/2 or something?) But it's going to be a shot in the dark without being able to compare and contrast what the so-called experts put out there.
In any event, sorry for the rant but I'm irritated that my easy sources that I always took for granted are off the air!
Steve
All the experts' sites are dead for this year...
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.
-
Derek Ortt
About the Colo State forecasts:
It is the number of hurricanes that is the key factor. Last year, Dr Gray had a very good forecast when he only called for 3 hurricanes to form. We only ended up with 4 of them thanks to el nino. Granted, 2 were Isidore and Lili. This is a common practice by many on the boards, in that they criticize the verification, when it is not wiely known, outside of the field, what the verification parameters are
It is the number of hurricanes that is the key factor. Last year, Dr Gray had a very good forecast when he only called for 3 hurricanes to form. We only ended up with 4 of them thanks to el nino. Granted, 2 were Isidore and Lili. This is a common practice by many on the boards, in that they criticize the verification, when it is not wiely known, outside of the field, what the verification parameters are
0 likes
With all due respect Derek, come on. That's a major stretch. Look what CSU did from December to April to June then last season. Below is the history from the last 3 years. So if you want to say "OOOH! They did a good job" because they got the number of hurricanes right in 3 forecasts in 2000, the number of hurricanes right in 1 of 5 forecasts in 2002 and also the number of named storms in 2 of the 5 forecasts in 2002, that's on you. I can show you rank amateurs right here on this site that did a better job. I have every idea what the parameters are. I've been reading that stuff since back when you had to order them by mail and there were 5 main predictors - when it wasn't even cool to be into hurricanes. They nailed some late 80's/early 90's years dead on. But I don't see that anymore.
Look at what you said and reference it to Gray's forecast last year. It wasn't until August and September that he predicted 4 then 3 hurricanes respectively. Excuse me but with the late start of the season, was that all that remarkable? I don't think so.
2000
-----
12/99 - 11/7/3
4/00 - 11/7/3
6/00 - 12/8/4
8/00 - 11/7/3
Actual - 14/8/3
----------------------
2001
------
12/00 - 9/5/2
4/01 - 10/6/2
6/01 - 12/7/3
Actual - 15/9/4
2002
-----
12/01 - 13/8/4
4/02 - 12/7/3
6/02 - 12/7/3
8/02 - 9/4/1
9/02 - 8/3/1
Actual - 12/4/2
And over the last few years, they've begun dabbling in landfall forecasts. How good was 2002's? Entire US TS - 83%, Hur - 75%, IH - 63%; Gulf - TS - 64% (!), Hur 48%, IH - 35%; FL & EC - TS - 54%, Hur - 52%, IH - 42%.
Seriously, what kind of forecast is that? What does it even say except there is a slightly higher chance of landfalls in all regions by all categories? That's nothing. At least with Joe B, you had a model that verified whether a storm crossed an area and also its intensity given in the form of numerical predictions. Joe blew it because he didn't account for all the close in development we had, but CSU's forecast doesn't address that there were like 5 TS & Hur that made landfall (or exit) in the Gulf. All it said was there was 64% chance there would be a landfalling TS. That says nothing. It's a probability scheme but not a true landfall prediction in my eyes. It doesn't put a value on grading the success. That's pretty elementary. They're right either way. For instance if a TS makes landfall in the Gulf, they hit the 64%. If one doesn't, then they were right in that there was a 36% chance of no landfalling TS. Again - I say that's a BUNK prediction that has as much chance of verifying either way you look at it.
Of course this is just my opinion.
Steve
Look at what you said and reference it to Gray's forecast last year. It wasn't until August and September that he predicted 4 then 3 hurricanes respectively. Excuse me but with the late start of the season, was that all that remarkable? I don't think so.
2000
-----
12/99 - 11/7/3
4/00 - 11/7/3
6/00 - 12/8/4
8/00 - 11/7/3
Actual - 14/8/3
----------------------
2001
------
12/00 - 9/5/2
4/01 - 10/6/2
6/01 - 12/7/3
Actual - 15/9/4
2002
-----
12/01 - 13/8/4
4/02 - 12/7/3
6/02 - 12/7/3
8/02 - 9/4/1
9/02 - 8/3/1
Actual - 12/4/2
And over the last few years, they've begun dabbling in landfall forecasts. How good was 2002's? Entire US TS - 83%, Hur - 75%, IH - 63%; Gulf - TS - 64% (!), Hur 48%, IH - 35%; FL & EC - TS - 54%, Hur - 52%, IH - 42%.
Seriously, what kind of forecast is that? What does it even say except there is a slightly higher chance of landfalls in all regions by all categories? That's nothing. At least with Joe B, you had a model that verified whether a storm crossed an area and also its intensity given in the form of numerical predictions. Joe blew it because he didn't account for all the close in development we had, but CSU's forecast doesn't address that there were like 5 TS & Hur that made landfall (or exit) in the Gulf. All it said was there was 64% chance there would be a landfalling TS. That says nothing. It's a probability scheme but not a true landfall prediction in my eyes. It doesn't put a value on grading the success. That's pretty elementary. They're right either way. For instance if a TS makes landfall in the Gulf, they hit the 64%. If one doesn't, then they were right in that there was a 36% chance of no landfalling TS. Again - I say that's a BUNK prediction that has as much chance of verifying either way you look at it.
Of course this is just my opinion.
Steve
0 likes
-
Derek Ortt
I have to disagree.
The early predictions are the least accurate. The August ones are the only ones anyone should be placing any weight upon. I would go back and check the variance explained by some of the early forecasts over a 10 year period. You will see then that those forecasts are not to be used as absolute fact. In fact, those forecasts are not intended to be used by the general public, but by emergency management officials and insurance planners. They are merely meant to indicate trends, not be verified absolutely.
The early predictions are the least accurate. The August ones are the only ones anyone should be placing any weight upon. I would go back and check the variance explained by some of the early forecasts over a 10 year period. You will see then that those forecasts are not to be used as absolute fact. In fact, those forecasts are not intended to be used by the general public, but by emergency management officials and insurance planners. They are merely meant to indicate trends, not be verified absolutely.
0 likes
I understand that. The early predictions are tools. As a bonus, you get a packaged snapshot of relevant data readings you don't have to scour the web for. But the farther out it is from the season, obviously the more assumptions they have to make. That can really show up in years like 2002 where non-traditional factors (mid-Atlantic drought, hot water off the northeast coast) play a bigger role than usual.
It's all good though, I don't want to overly dis CSU. I read all their stuff. I depend on them to keep me informed and help me understand physical processes. The closer it is to the meat of the season, the more current, contributing factors they are able to consider.
But just the same, you have to admit there isn't a whole lot of risk involved with 1) putting out a very broad forecast of landfall percentages, and 2) doing it at the season's starting gate. (Note: I'm not implying risk is a motive whatsoever).
We'll see how CSU does this year. As of 4/4/03 they're at 12/8/3. Based on the limited research I've done so far, 2003 does appear to be trending toward an above-average season. So they may have it pegged.
Steve
It's all good though, I don't want to overly dis CSU. I read all their stuff. I depend on them to keep me informed and help me understand physical processes. The closer it is to the meat of the season, the more current, contributing factors they are able to consider.
But just the same, you have to admit there isn't a whole lot of risk involved with 1) putting out a very broad forecast of landfall percentages, and 2) doing it at the season's starting gate. (Note: I'm not implying risk is a motive whatsoever).
We'll see how CSU does this year. As of 4/4/03 they're at 12/8/3. Based on the limited research I've done so far, 2003 does appear to be trending toward an above-average season. So they may have it pegged.
Steve
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: AnnularCane, Cpv17, Google Adsense [Bot], ljmac75, NotSparta, Teban54 and 106 guests