Noaa's outlook for season: 11-15 named systems 6-9 canes

#1 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:08 pm

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s1146.htm

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/o ... icane.html

They do not put one number in each category but they generalize in their forecasts but the important thing that they are saying is that it will be an active season and they say that la nina will develop during the summer making the atlantic more favorable for formations but read the whole report and be free to comment about it.

jabber · #2 Postby **jabber** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:23 pm

Looks like its going to be a very busy season. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

15/9/4 2003

Rainband · #3 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:25 pm

Our local news bay news9 carried a portion of the conference. They are saying la Nina is going to be a factor as well as sst being above normal and to be prepared..Our local mets say it's going to be as high as 50% the normal season!!! uggg :o :o Anyhow..bring on the storms!!!! :wink:

Guest · #4 Postby **Guest** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:37 pm

Are we ready?

Rainband · #5 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:39 pm

ticka1 wrote:Are we ready?

Time will tell..no matter how much you prepare I don't think we can ever be "ready" for a natural disaster :o :roll:

#6 Postby **wx247** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:39 pm

How is NOAA with their numbers? Are they pretty accurate? Are they conservative?

Guest · #7 Postby **Guest** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:42 pm

I agree Rainband. Everything keeps pointing to a busy season and very active. Do the majority of people care? No I think not - until after the fact and they are faced with the devastation.

Patricia

#8 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:48 pm

Garrett they haved made good forecasts in the past and yes they are somewhat conservative and looking at what they say in their outlook we may see more action than indicated by them but time will tell but all points for a very busy season.

Rainband · #9 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:54 pm

ticka1 wrote:I agree Rainband. Everything keeps pointing to a busy season and very active. Do the majority of people care? No I think not - until after the fact and they are faced with the devastation.

Patricia

I know Ticka..last year, as I posted earlier, the only people who seemed to know or care about lili or issy were the weather enthusiasts..I think if something really big happens people are gonna be in for a rude awakening!!!!! :o Half of my neighbors didn't even know Gordon was headed this way back in 2000..Albeit a weak hurricane then..a tropical storm!!! They had no idea!!! :roll:

#10 Postby **wx247** » Mon May 19, 2003 2:01 pm

Thanks for the info. Cycloneye!

#11 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 2:11 pm

yw Garrett.

#12 Postby **Steve** » Mon May 19, 2003 3:04 pm

>>They do not put one number in each category but they generalize in their forecasts but the important thing that they are saying is that it will be an active season and they say that la nina will develop during the summer making the atlantic more favorable for formations but read the whole report and be free to comment about it.

Absolutely useless forecast. NOAA shouldn't even be in the business of predictions. For anyone who disagrees, listen to what Accuweather does on their site (scoring solution mentioned on Barometer Bob's archived show from last week). Now tell me how in the world 11-15 named storms says anything to anyone. It's ridiculously underwhelming. So they expect a busier than normal season. That's ALL they have to say. Their 'range' predictions are a waste of taxpayer money.

And you want something even worse? Look at CNN's story of the news release. How many errors can you find in this article?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/05/19/h ... index.html

Steve

#13 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 3:14 pm

Yeah Steve there are some errors in there but one of them is that guy Brown who says (some) several times.

But I will wait for Dr Grays outlook on may 30th to compare with noaas one and see if they differ or not.

#14 Postby **Steve** » Mon May 19, 2003 3:19 pm

Yeah. In all fairness, at least Dr. Gray is giving us numbers to work with. It's not enough because his landfall probabilities are simply probabilities. But the idea of 11-15 named storms is pretty useless (as stated by me). That's so politically-correct it's impossible to argue with. Most of these guys at CPC are probably Masters/Doctors in atmospheric sciences. They could do far better than what it is they are presenting.

Steve

#15 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 3:23 pm

Agree they can do more in the forecasting area.

Anonymous · #16 Postby **Anonymous** » Mon May 19, 2003 3:49 pm

Absolutely useless forecast. NOAA shouldn't even be in the business of predictions. For anyone who disagrees, listen to what Accuweather does on their site (scoring solution mentioned on Barometer Bob's archived show from last week). Now tell me how in the world 11-15 named storms says anything to anyone. It's ridiculously underwhelming. So they expect a busier than normal season. That's ALL they have to say. Their 'range' predictions are a waste of taxpayer money.

I couldn't agree with you more. I mean come on; 11 to 15 named storms? 6 to 9 hurricanes? Talk about a no-brainer! Why even bother coming up with those ranges, I could easily go out and say "2003 will be active" and be just as precise.

Anonymous · #17 Postby **Anonymous** » Mon May 19, 2003 3:55 pm

Absolutely useless forecast. NOAA shouldn't even be in the business of predictions. For anyone who disagrees, listen to what Accuweather does on their site (scoring solution mentioned on Barometer Bob's archived show from last week). Now tell me how in the world 11-15 named storms says anything to anyone. It's ridiculously underwhelming. So they expect a busier than normal season. That's ALL they have to say. Their 'range' predictions are a waste of taxpayer money.

Agree with your comments completely. I guess they never even thought about a landfalling forecast. :roll:

#18 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 4:03 pm

At least Dr Gray talks about landfall probabilities.

Rainband · #19 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 4:03 pm

My opinion...People who don't follow or understand tropical weather or any weather for that matter, may not understand in weather terms..the words "active" or "above average" as they pretain to tropical weather...SO in order to get the sense of urgency out to the general public.. that they obviously feel we need..due to the complacent attitudes...they use numbers to show the possibilty of that many hurricanes!!!Because after all we all understand numbers.. Just a thought :o

Anonymous · #20 Postby **Anonymous** » Mon May 19, 2003 4:12 pm

Rainband wrote:My opinion...People who don't follow or understand tropical weather or any weather for that matter, may not understand in weather terms..the words "active" or "above average" as they pretain to tropical weather...SO in order to get the sense of urgency out to the general public.. that they obviously feel we need..due to the complacent attitudes...they use numbers to show the possibilty of that many hurricanes!!!Because after all we all understand numbers.. Just a thought :o

You're exactly right. I just think that (considering they are experts and all) they could be more specific with their numbers.

Noaa's outlook for season: 11-15 named systems 6-9 canes

Noaa's outlook for season: 11-15 named systems 6-9 canes

Bzy Season

Who is online