Another team of researchers make a prediction for 2007

[webke]

Team predicts 8 to 9 hurricanes this year
By Associated Press
RALEIGH, N.C. - The up-and-coming hurricane research team that accurately predicted a mild 2006 storm season, despite the dire predictions of more established forecasters, say that the 2007 season will be much more active.

Researchers at North Carolina State University, in their third year of hurricane forecasting, said the Atlantic basin will brew 12 to 13 named storms and eight to nine hurricanes, including four or five major hurricanes.

Forecasters said there is a 75 percent chance a hurricane will make landfall along the eastern seaboard and an equally strong chance that a hurricane will hit the Gulf of Mexico coastline.

The team also estimated a 56 percent chance that a major hurricane will strike the Gulf Coast, and a 10 percent chance of a major hurricane striking the southeast coast. Storms with sustained winds of at least 111 mph are considered major hurricanes.

In 2006, the N.C. State team predicted that one or two hurricanes would strike the East Coast and estimated five or six hurricanes would form in the Atlantic Ocean east of the United States. Five hurricanes formed that year and none made landfill. A total of 10 named Atlantic storms formed that year.

William Gray, who has become the nation's most reliable hurricane forecaster over the past 24 years, had estimated last season would produce 17 named storms and nine hurricanes, but later revised his projections downward. The National Hurricane Center also predicted an active hurricane season, saying 13 to 16 named storms would form.

This year, Gray predicted at least nine hurricanes - five major - and predicted a total of 17 named storms. The National Hurricane Center will issue its forecast for the 2007 season in late May.

The N.C. State team also accurately predicted the 2005 storm total while focusing on storms along the East Coast, saying at the time that five to six hurricanes would form along the eastern seaboard and two or three would make landfall. The season produced seven hurricanes from that region - two of which hit the East Coast.

This year, the N.C. State scientists have expanded their unique model to analyze how many storms will make landfall in the Gulf of Mexico and how many will make landfall along the Atlantic seaboard.

The team focuses much of their research on the difference in water temperatures between the north Atlantic and south Atlantic. If tropical water is warmer than normal in the north and cooler than normal in the south, hurricane activity increases, the team says.

Sorry,
Here is the link
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/135/story/43421.html

[cycloneye]

I dont think that what you posted is a not credible information,but I say this as there is no link with that,although it says at the top Associated Press.It is required for the members that a link has to be posted.

[cycloneye]

Thanks for posting the link.

[AJC3]

Team predicts 8 to 9 hurricanes this year
By Associated Press
RALEIGH, N.C. - The up-and-coming hurricane research team that accurately predicted a mild 2006 storm season, despite the dire predictions of more established forecasters, say that the 2007 season will be much more active.

<snip>

The N.C. State team also accurately predicted the 2005 storm total while focusing on storms along the East Coast, saying at the time that five to six hurricanes would form along the eastern seaboard and two or three would make landfall. The season produced seven hurricanes from that region - two of which hit the East Coast.

This claim raises my eyebrows, since I don't recall any forecasts that accurately predicted anything near the 28NS which formed that year. Does anyone have a link (preferably a pre-season prediction straight from the NCSU folks) that references their actual hard numbers showing that they were indeed accurate?

TIA

[webke]

I could not find the official forecast, but this article mentions who is in oversight I think pf the team.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurrica ... cast_x.htm

[hial2]

In the same page link about the NC group,I found this about Accuweather...Didn't they say recently that they had been accurate about their 2006 forecast??


http://blogs.usatoday.com/weather/2006/ ... id_th.html

[hial2]

Here's the official Accuweather 2006 tropical forecast...


http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promo-ad.as ... e=hurr2006


Sorry if it has already been posted...

[gotoman38]

There was a little discussion on this last November
http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic ... highlight=

The Raleigh News & Observer had an article on today's
http://www.newsobserver.com/856/story/565758.html

And here is a link to the abstract of the original academic article that is the basis for their methodology
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005.. ... 1702.shtml


Article requires payment or a subscription.

[gotoman38]

Here's the official Accuweather 2006 tropical forecast...


http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promo-ad.as ... e=hurr2006


Sorry if it has already been posted...

WHOA! I had forgotten that one - OOPS!!!!!

Did they ever say why they were so far off the mark?

[gotoman38]

Based on the current (4/14) SST anomaly - I read this as a slight

N +
S -



but.... not very significant to my untrained eye.

[MiamiensisWx]

In a general sense, this outlook matches nicely with my current thoughts (with respect to the mean 500 mbar subtropical ridge). When compared with 2006, many factors support reduced westerly shear, lower pressures in the deep tropical Atlantic and MDR, and the removal of the mid-tropospheric central Atlantic trough that was a dominant feature during the 2006 season. In addition, La Nina is developing and we are entering a favorable QBO. With the lack of that trough in 2007, we should see more westerly tracks due to more stable 500 mbar ridging in the central Atlantic. Steering can't be predicted, but I'm comparing the synoptics in place this year with the setup in 2006.

[MiamiensisWx]

Based on the current (4/14) SST anomaly - I read this as a slight

N +
S -



but.... not very significant to my untrained eye.

I believe the study primarily focuses on SST and subsurface differences between the Atlantic Ocean north of the equator and the Atlantic Ocean south of the equator. According to their study, cooler anomalies south of the equator in the South Atlantic and warmer waters north of the equator led to the westerly movements of the tropical cyclones. You are focusing on the wrong hemisphere.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/d ... 7.2007.gif

Look at the cooler waters south of the equator between Africa and South America (and note the warmer conditions north of the equator). 2004 featured similar conditions.

[gotoman38]

I believe the study primarily focuses on SST and subsurface differences between the Atlantic Ocean north of the equator and the Atlantic Ocean south of the equator. According to their study, cooler anomalies south of the equator in the South Atlantic and warmer waters north of the equator led to the westerly movements of the tropical cyclones. You are focusing on the wrong hemisphere.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/d ... 7.2007.gif

Look at the cooler waters south of the equator between Africa and South America (and note the warmer conditions north of the equator). 2004 featured similar conditions.

ah... thanks!

That's the graphic I was looking for - mine didn't see below 10 S in the Atlantic hemisphere.

[gotoman38]

From this press-published graphic with 2005 and 2006



N Atl was above normal and S Atl was below normal. I think that's the basis.

I still can't find the source though. And normal SSTs are based on what qualification?

[gotoman38]

In a general sense, this outlook matches nicely with my current thoughts (with respect to the mean 500 mbar subtropical ridge). When compared with 2006, many factors support reduced westerly shear, lower pressures in the deep tropical Atlantic and MDR, and the removal of the mid-tropospheric central Atlantic trough that was a dominant feature during the 2006 season. In addition, La Nina is developing and we are entering a favorable QBO. With the lack of that trough in 2007, we should see more westerly tracks due to more stable 500 mbar ridging in the central Atlantic. Steering can't be predicted, but I'm comparing the synoptics in place this year with the setup in 2006.

Their original article points to steering current actually, doesn't it? N+ S- dipole steers more W and N-S+ dipole steers more N (did you see all of the fish storms in '06?)

[boca]

In a general sense, this outlook matches nicely with my current thoughts (with respect to the mean 500 mbar subtropical ridge). When compared with 2006, many factors support reduced westerly shear, lower pressures in the deep tropical Atlantic and MDR, and the removal of the mid-tropospheric central Atlantic trough that was a dominant feature during the 2006 season. In addition, La Nina is developing and we are entering a favorable QBO. With the lack of that trough in 2007, we should see more westerly tracks due to more stable 500 mbar ridging in the central Atlantic. Steering can't be predicted, but I'm comparing the synoptics in place this year with the setup in 2006.

Their original article points to steering current actually, doesn't it? N+ S- dipole steers more W and N-S+ dipole steers more N (did you see all of the fish storms in '06?)

If we have the same synoptic setup as 2006 everything that forms won't make it passed the Leeward Islands thus less westward movement more poleward direction if the same as 2006.

[Incident_MET]

For what its worth here is the NC state May 2005 University press release referring to the pre-season forecast. It only gave expected Hurricane totals and not any total number of named storms.

http://web.archive.org/web/200511201718 ... 05/130.htm

[AJC3]

For what its worth here is the NC state May 2005 University press release referring to the pre-season forecast. It only gave expected Hurricane totals and not any total number of named storms.

http://web.archive.org/web/200511201718 ... 05/130.htm

Thx. So for the article to say the team "accurately predicted the 2005 storm total" is a pretty serious misstatement, no matter how one slices it. I would suspect (pretty strongly) that particular quote was a misinterpretation on the part of the reporter.

[flightwxman]

Yea, their prediction definitely undershot the final numbers...

[drezee]

For what its worth here is the NC state May 2005 University press release referring to the pre-season forecast. It only gave expected Hurricane totals and not any total number of named storms.

http://web.archive.org/web/200511201718 ... 05/130.htm

Thx. So for the article to say the team "accurately predicted the 2005 storm total" is a pretty serious misstatement, no matter how one slices it. I would suspect (pretty strongly) that particular quote was a misinterpretation on the part of the reporter.

The NC State numbers were under Dr. Gray's for 2005

2006 for accuweather was horrible: