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

#21 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 4:15 pm

As I type here in Puerto Rico the 4 channels here are talking about what noaa said in their outlook and I think that in the states it will be the same as the TV weatherman or lady will comment about it.Noaa what they do is to generalize to the public what will happen but the bottomline is an active season is instore for 2003 as they say in the discussion.

#22 Postby **Steve** » Mon May 19, 2003 4:21 pm

Thanks guys. I agree with Rainband in that yeah, some people that don't follow storms can be a little clueless, but it's good to know I'm not Don Quixote fighting the windmills alone. I mean seriously:

>>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.

Bingo Supercane.

But cyclone:

>>At least Dr Gray talks about landfall probabilities.

Even that is suspect. I'm not out to discredit CSU because I have a world of respect for them. At least they give numbers instead of ranges. But a landfall probability is just that. Consider: suppose they say there is a 60% chance of Puerto Rico being hit with a tropical storm. For argument sake, let's say the average chance is 49%. So they're telling you there is an 11% chance above normal that PR will be affected by a tropical storm. But they're also telling you there is a 40% chance that PR will NOT be affected by a tropical storm. How can they be wrong? It's automatically right whether PR gets hit or not. I think a better system than what Accuweather does could be developed, but at least they're scoring landfall areas and intensity. Either they score, or they don't. Last night's listen to the Barometer Bob show reminded me how much I miss being able to hit Bastardi up for information. I'm seriously thinking about getting Accuweather Pro for July-October. It's $14.95/month, and that's well worth it to me. As Bastardi said to JimW, it's about 35 cents a day. It's well worth it to have a level headed (sorta) forecaster out there putting his own neck on the line for his clients and viewers.

Steve

Rainband · #23 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 4:35 pm

Supercane wrote:
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.

I see what your saying but I think they are trying to be careful..and give a margin of error to protect themselves for some reason or another :wink:

I get the point though

#24 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 4:43 pm

But guys the bottomline even with this long range of the numbers from noaa is that it will be a busy season as the factors that they mention come together and the main one is la nina developing by summer.

Anonymous · #25 Postby **Anonymous** » Mon May 19, 2003 4:45 pm

>>At least Dr Gray talks about landfall probabilities.

Even that is suspect. I'm not out to discredit CSU because I have a world of respect for them.

I agree fully. A % isn't exactly a forecast.

Steve H. · #26 Postby **Steve H.** » Mon May 19, 2003 5:11 pm

Steve, you should give Dr. Gray a break there though. Predicting landfalls beyond using a statistical (%) approach is impossible. Imagine trying to hold somebody accountable for not seeing a landfall coming months before it happens :roll:

I understand your arguement in your 40/60 example. They need to take be careful when they "grade" themselves by taking too much credit for an event happening/not happening. Only then will they be able to get data of any value. BTW, anyone know what Bastardi's thoughts/forecast for 2003 are?? Man, I'd hate to pay the fee. I've been without cable for 8 years, never mind thinking about paying for JB!!

Derek Ortt · #27 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Mon May 19, 2003 5:17 pm

Steve,

To say that their forecast is useless shows that you have a lot to learn about forecasting. That is a very useful forecast. It doesnt give a precise number, but takes into account the probable variance in the error. This is the forecast that I pay attention to the most every year (as we at RSMAS do some research with HRD)

chadtm80 · #28 Postby **chadtm80** » Mon May 19, 2003 5:57 pm

I think the forcast is a good one.. and lets remember like it or not - agree with them or not- They are the experts.

Rainband · #29 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 5:59 pm

chadtm80 wrote:I think the forcast is a good one.. and lets remember like it or not - agree with them or not- They are the experts.

Couldn't have said it better myself!!!! :wink:

#30 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 6:17 pm

Now comes the other expert Dr Gray on the 30th so let's wait for it to see if he goes up in his numbers from 12/7/3 that he had in april.

Rainband · #31 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 6:19 pm

We shall see!!!! :wink:

mf_dolphin · #32 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Mon May 19, 2003 7:42 pm

Let's take real care here with calling the professionals forecasts useless. This board is not about bashing anyone much less the people who are trained and have many more tools at their disposal. While I was disappointed in the range of the forecast as well, it goes to show that even the best are unsure. My take is that they are forecasting a probability of an active season and that's all. With so many variables in play there is absolutely no way to do better. The fact that we decide to post numbers for fun has nothing to do with their reality and responsibility. :-)

Thanks for listening :-)

#33 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 7:49 pm

AMEN !!! Marshall.

ColdFront77 · #34 Postby **ColdFront77** » Mon May 19, 2003 7:50 pm

Exactly, Marshall.

The last few years have generally been forecast to be average to above average, even to the amount of storms making landfall along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. This is why the population increase along coastal waters is becoming a big problem.

#35 Postby **Steve** » Mon May 19, 2003 7:53 pm

>>To say that their forecast is useless shows that you have a lot to learn about forecasting. That is a very useful forecast. It doesnt give a precise number, but takes into account the probable variance in the error. This is the forecast that I pay attention to the most every year (as we at RSMAS do some research with HRD)

I see that as a high-horse comment. Take a look at these forecasts by our own people on this website and see how many of them are off the mark compared to the NOAA forecast of 11-15/6-9/2-4

Cycloneye=14/8/3
OtherHD=12/7/2
Rainband=12/6/4
wx247=15/6/3
chad=15/9/3
Pojo=14/7/3
King of Weather=14/7/3
Stormsfury=13/9/3
Vboutex=15/8/5
mf dolphin=14/8/4
Ticka=13/9/3
Amanzi=13/8/3
Coldfront77=14/8/4
Jabber=15/9/4
therock1811=13/7/2
deb-in-fi=11/3/3
Gulfbreezer=15/8/4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So one person, Vboutex, predicted 5 IH's. deb has the hurricanes a little lower, but that's it. Everyone else's predictions falls within in the range. So what is it that the NOAA sees that apparently all of us 'rank amateurs' do not? What makes their forecast so great? Because it's Blake and Landsea?

I challenge them, you and all professional meterologists to beat what Accuweather has done with their forecasts. No one has the nads to do it. That's the bottom line. They, the private sector, cranked it up a notch and have been successful. No one else measures up to their standards. If you're unfamiliar with their intensity/landfall schematic, I'd suggest you take a look at it before telling me "I have a lot to learn." Of course I do. I'm just an enthusiast. I've seen my fair share of storms over the years just living in New Orleans, and I use my gut. Some pro mets (CFHC guys) might even tell you I'm pretty good at it.

Steve

Rainband · #36 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 7:58 pm

accueweather stinks on my forecasts they are always wrong!!!!

Anonymous · #37 Postby **Anonymous** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:00 pm

Steve, I am impressed with all of the comments you've made this evening. I couldn't have said it any better myself. I think you covered everything there is to say.

Anonymous · #38 Postby **Anonymous** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:01 pm

accueweather stinks on my forecasts they are always wrong!!!!

The local forecasts on the AccuWx site are computer generated.

Rainband · #39 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:04 pm

mf_dolphin wrote:Let's take real care here with calling the professionals forecasts useless. This board is not about bashing anyone much less the people who are trained and have many more tools at their disposal. While I was disappointed in the range of the forecast as well, it goes to show that even the best are unsure. My take is that they are forecasting a probability of an active season and that's all. With so many variables in play there is absolutely no way to do better. The fact that we decide to post numbers for fun has nothing to do with their reality and responsibility.

Thanks for listening

AWESOME REPLY!!!!! :wink:

Rainband · #40 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:08 pm

Steve wrote:>>To say that their forecast is useless shows that you have a lot to learn about forecasting. That is a very useful forecast. It doesnt give a precise number, but takes into account the probable variance in the error. This is the forecast that I pay attention to the most every year (as we at RSMAS do some research with HRD)

I see that as a high-horse comment. Take a look at these forecasts by our own people on this website and see how many of them are off the mark compared to the NOAA forecast of 11-15/6-9/2-4

Cycloneye=14/8/3
OtherHD=12/7/2
Rainband=12/6/4
wx247=15/6/3
chad=15/9/3
Pojo=14/7/3
King of Weather=14/7/3
Stormsfury=13/9/3
Vboutex=15/8/5
mf dolphin=14/8/4
Ticka=13/9/3
Amanzi=13/8/3
Coldfront77=14/8/4
Jabber=15/9/4
therock1811=13/7/2
deb-in-fi=11/3/3
Gulfbreezer=15/8/4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So one person, Vboutex, predicted 5 IH's. deb has the hurricanes a little lower, but that's it. Everyone else's predictions falls within in the range. So what is it that the NOAA sees that apparently all of us 'rank amateurs' do not? What makes their forecast so great? Because it's Blake and Landsea?

I challenge them, you and all professional meterologists to beat what Accuweather has done with their forecasts. No one has the nads to do it. That's the bottom line. They, the private sector, cranked it up a notch and have been successful. No one else measures up to their standards. If you're unfamiliar with their intensity/landfall schematic, I'd suggest you take a look at it before telling me "I have a lot to learn." Of course I do. I'm just an enthusiast. I've seen my fair share of storms over the years just living in New Orleans, and I use my gut. Some pro mets (CFHC guys) might even tell you I'm pretty good at it.

Steve

Look again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everyone is within the range except the person that forecast 5 majors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

:o :o :o

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

Who is online