Pre-season forecast numbers for 2003 Tropical Atlantic

Stormsfury · #1 Postby **Stormsfury** » Tue May 13, 2003 8:19 pm

Based on the trend back towards La Niña, and other factors which are both conducive and non-conducive to TC development ... I have no choice to up my preliminary numbers back in December 2002 from the 11/6/2 ... to 13/9/3 (this does include Ana) - and call for a record 6th straight season of double digit tropical cyclones ... 2003 has been a year that records have fallen by the wasteside in regards to all forms of weather, and I feel the Tropical Weather Season shall be no different ...

I've noticed that others here are primarily along the same line with 13 named storms and I have to agree wholeheartedly ...

There have been some great discussions here about all the factors and I will not go back through and repost those on this thread ... Keep up the good work everyone.

Syponsis:
I do believe a couple of systems will likely form from cutoff lows based on the overall longwave pattern we've been stuck in for a while now which has been quite conducive for these such occlusions.

I also believe the CV season will be much more active as well.

SF

#2 Postby **cycloneye** » Tue May 13, 2003 8:41 pm

Congrats stormsfury for that not loooong forecast and you did it the same as I did mine short but precise and about the numbers those are good ones as the factors are in favor of an active season and I have 14/8/3 almost the same.

Now let's see how in reallity the season pans out but it will be a season of many anaylisis and discussions for sure.

Anonymous · #3 Postby **Anonymous** » Tue May 13, 2003 8:46 pm

"2003 -- the year of new records"

Hmmm catchy.

Anyways, good prediction. 8-)

chadtm80 · #4 Postby **chadtm80** » Tue May 13, 2003 9:38 pm

Looks good Stormsfury :-)

#5 Postby **Steve** » Tue May 13, 2003 10:06 pm

Alright. You guys have your numbers predictions, but what about landfalls and formation zones? Those are the most critical for those of us on the coast or on the islands.

I've still got 2 weeks before I'm posting mine, and I'm not sure where I'm going with it. I almost want to predict last season's formation with lots of tropical storms, but that's not likely to repeat itself. The winters were totally different, the pacific basin is diffent - the only things similar are the relatively warm SST's along the Gulf and Mid-Atlantic coasts.

I've gotta think long and hard on this one.

Steve

jabber · #6 Postby **jabber** » Wed May 14, 2003 7:40 am

15/9/4 which should equal a very bzy season. Will it pan out, I doubt it but what the hey.

chadtm80 · #7 Postby **chadtm80** » Wed May 14, 2003 9:13 am

im going with 15/9/3 here.... But im just a rookie....

#8 Postby **cycloneye** » Wed May 14, 2003 12:55 pm

Chad for you being a rookie those numbers are reallistic and good ones close to mines 14/8/3 and close to SF too.

Anonymous · #9 Postby **Anonymous** » Wed May 14, 2003 2:17 pm

My mouth is shut for another 11 days. :wink:

Rainband · #10 Postby **Rainband** » Wed May 14, 2003 2:28 pm

I am the rookie of all rookies LOL but here goes....12/6/4.. :roll:

I will go out on a limb and say that THE GOM is going to be very active this year and LA and TX need to watchout. 8-)

chadtm80 · #11 Postby **chadtm80** » Wed May 14, 2003 4:24 pm

My mouth is shut for another 11 days

Were waiting :wink:

ColdFront77 · #12 Postby **ColdFront77** » Wed May 14, 2003 4:29 pm

I agree with the numbers everyone else has put forth, no reason to disagree with having a average to just above average season.

Derek Ortt · #13 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Wed May 14, 2003 9:43 pm

No numbers should be given without some hard, quantifiable statistics to back them up. Dr Gray's numbers come from a concrete, mathematical formula, with no subjective decision making involved at all. That is the way that the forecasts should be issued and all forecasts without them are basically speculation.

Even so, the variance of the error that is explained is so small until August that seasonal forecasts need to be taken with a grain of salt

mf_dolphin · #14 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Wed May 14, 2003 10:54 pm

If this were an official site I would agree Derek but since it's not I hope everyone posts their numbers :-)

We are here for the fun of watching the tropics develop every year and the common thread seems to be for an active year. With the state of the art of the art improving but still lacking in so many areas there's absolutely no harm is guessing :-)

ColdFront77 · #15 Postby **ColdFront77** » Wed May 14, 2003 11:03 pm

I am not one for giving out preditions.

#16 Postby **Steve** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:42 am

>>Dr Gray's numbers come from a concrete, mathematical formula, with no subjective decision making involved at all

That's not true whatsoever. There's no 'concrete, mathmatical formula'. There is a lot of statistical analysis that change from year to year as they add in new factors believed to play a part in tropical development, intensity correlations, etc. But that's not my beef. Saying that they forecasts have no subjective decision making is just flat out wrong. As per our previous discussion, unfortunately many of their archived forecasts that I need to reference are off-line. But there is plenty of subjectivity. There were specific forecasts (within the last 5 years) where the contributing influences and/or analog years were believed to bias the CSU forecast high or low and required adjustments based on perceptions (subjective decision making) by the team or it's lead forecaster, Dr. Gray.

Steve

chadtm80 · #17 Postby **chadtm80** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:53 am

Dr Gray's numbers come from a concrete, mathematical formula, with no subjective decision making involved at all

That's not true whatsoever. There's no 'concrete, mathmatical formula'

Exactly

Guest · #18 Postby **Guest** » Thu May 15, 2003 12:07 pm

OK Gang - I really was going to wait until June 1st - but here are my predictions - and guess what mine are based on -removed- - the mathematical equations of quessimation - LOL

13/9/3

Chad - why can't you say its Florida's year. Everyone keeps pointing fingers at LA and TX.

This thread will be kept until the end of the season and we will see who comes the closests.

Steve - I like your idea on prediction formation, zones and landfalls - makes it more interesting.

chadtm80 · #19 Postby **chadtm80** » Thu May 15, 2003 12:43 pm

Na, we dont get canes in FL, we send them all to texas and LA... hehehe Enjoy..

#20 Postby **Steve** » Thu May 15, 2003 1:32 pm

>>Steve - I like your idea on prediction formation, zones and landfalls - makes it more interesting.

Thanks ticka. I stole that one from Joe B last year in his 2002 seasonal forecast. He was off for the Northern GoM, but the fact that one's predictions can be quantified and scored is a major improvement on numerical and or probability (percentage) forecasts only. The old lady's working all weekend so I'm going to try to do a bunch of research this weekend to help me come up with something for this year. I'm (like everyone else) leaning toward a higher-than-average forecast in terms of numbers and a more likely landfall zone from the Mississippi Coast over to the Big Bend area of FL (say Bay St. Louis to Cedar Key) with probably a hit or two on the mid-Atlantic or New England coasts. My early gut on formation area centers around 65 W which would be substantially east of last year's formation zones. Anyway, it's a crapshoot for everyone, me included.

Btw, if anyone thinks I've got a hardon for Derek Ott, nothing could be further from the truth. We butt heads sometimes over details, but I respect the hell out of him FWIW.

Steve

Pre-season forecast numbers for 2003 Tropical Atlantic

Pre-season forecast numbers for 2003 Tropical Atlantic

OK.. I will give it a shot

Who is online