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

mf_dolphin · #41 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:16 pm

My point Steve and TWW is that we have nothing riding on our "forecasts" other than our pride and egos. What they say has an impact on many different government and private agencies. They are calling for an above average season and have nothing to gain by being more specific.

Rainband · #42 Postby **Rainband** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:25 pm

TropicalWxWatcher wrote:
accueweather stinks on my forecasts they are always wrong!!!!

The local forecasts on the AccuWx site are computer generated.

They still stink....N.O.A.A. doesn't charge for there forecasts and they are experts not people out to make a dollar!!!! :roll:

GO FIGURE!!!

#43 Postby **Steve** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:47 pm

Sorry mf. I didn't mean to break any rules. I just thought Derek's comment was over the top. In reality, NOAA has little riding on their forecasts too. They're politically correct and funded by taxpayers. Think about it. How can they be wrong? What chances are they really taking? Most everyone can see (at this point) that we're looking at an above-average season. Time will or will not verify the above-average forecasts. But essentially they didn't take a chance. Hopefully you don't mind me calling that 'useless', but then if it's not useless, what does it actually tell us - that it's looking like an above-average season???

On the other hand (and you can't get to it right now because of their site changes), Bastardi segmented US Landfall areas (his primary concern) and assigned a number of landfalls and an intensity forecast per landfall. No one else is doing that kind of meteorology. And it's driven by the free market. If you don't succeed, people aren't going to buy your products. That's the bottom line on the whole discussion. We may all be driven by pride and ego, but we're amateurs. We're not getting paid to put out 'range' forecasts. And if I was a professional meteorologist, believe me, I wouldn't be putting them out either. If you look at the credits for the NOAA forecast, tell me those aren't some of the brightest minds in tropical weather. Am I wrong to expect more?

Steve

mf_dolphin · #44 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:59 pm

I understand your frustration with the generality of the forecast Steve, but what do they have to gain by trying to be more accurate than the technology allows? No matter what they says someone is going to take a swipe at it! They aren't in the long range forecast contest. Their job is to provide guidance and try an minimize the effects of a storm on loss of life. As long as I've been watching the tropics they have a pretty good track record on that point. Ther are under tremendous pressure to not cry wolf out of fear that people won't listen when they need to. I wouldn't have their job for anything!

As far as Bastardi, I don't put a lot of credibility in his forecasts. While the new format is interesting, it remains to be seen if it's anything nore than a good marketing item. The general problem I have with Bastardi is that he appears to cover all possibilities without really committing to any of them. That leaves him able to say.."See I told you that might happen..." no matter what he says. Not bashing, I just don't care for his style :-)

I wasn't a fan when he was free and I'm not about to pay for the new site either.

#45 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:00 pm

Yes Steve I agree with you in terms of noaa doing more in their forecasts but I think on the other hand that they are the experts and know what they are doing when the forecast is done in the way they do it.They are sending the message out and this is the important thing not the numbers that it will be a busy season calling la nina to develop by summer something that noaa has been reluctant to say until now but as you said time will tell the reallity of what will happen.

Derek Ortt · #46 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:11 pm

Last year, I attended a talk given by Dr Landsea and he discussed the errors in seasonal forecasts. Dr Gray's method of giving specific numbers does not explain that much of the variance of the error (about 40 percent for the August forecast). It seems to me that NOAA has taken this into account and are attempting to explain more of the error; thus, the larger range in the numbers

mf_dolphin · #47 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:18 pm

Good point Derek! :-)

#48 Postby **Steve** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:50 pm

I know what you guys are getting at, and I'm not about to dispute the validity of the error variance or the fact that things are shaping up in ways that lead us all to believe we've got a potentially active season on our hands. But just the same, does anyone else get the impression that they're kind of stating the obvious? Obviously only God knows what we've got in store for the 2003 AHS. But is it only coincidence that all of our forecasts so far, with some minor exceptions, fall within the range?

So with the coincidence/reality of what we have achieved on this site - concurrence with the NOAA forecast prior to it even coming out - either we're all getting pretty smart or else everyone is using similar factors to come up with numerical predictions or ranges. - Just something to think about.

I'm as concerned with target areas and formation zones than with the numbers themselves. I'm watching the SST anomalies off the NE US Coast. They were a major factor with the close-in development last year. They seem to be running above average over the last few weeks, yet might be slightly further offshore. It's impossible to know what they'll be like in 3 1/2 months, but they'll be something to watch. I'm testing a theory on above average NE/MA SST's and their relation to the coastline as to whether or not weaker storms (primarily ts's) will curve further east or west realtive to their location.

Steve

mf_dolphin · #49 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Mon May 19, 2003 10:02 pm

Maybe we're getting good? ;-)

Keep us posted on your theory Steve :-)

ColdFront77 · #50 Postby **ColdFront77** » Tue May 20, 2003 1:41 am

I don't see why any of us would have (dramatically) different numbers, after knowing that the 2003 Hurricane Season is going to be at least average.... and also we have no reason not to follow suit and/or taking the averages of the different variables in the current predictions.

#51 Postby **vbhoutex** » Tue May 20, 2003 2:49 am

Interesting discussion gentlemen!! I see one thing missing here and that is the NHC. I realize NOAA is the overall agency here and responsible for all the others. NHC takes care of almost everything from June 1 to Dec 1 when it comes to the tropics. And even though we have all, or most of us, stated numbers and our reasons for them it isn't about that at all in the end. It is about saving lives and minimizing damage when the inevitable happens and we have a major hurricane landfalling in the Atlantic Basin. Also, as an agency paid for by you and me and subject to political whims, there are all sorts of parameters that these different agencies are forced to work under that you and I aren't. Hence the "waffling" or "range forecasts". For you and me, the weather weenies or wannabes, it is generally useless as we use a lot of the same resources the experts do to determine our numbers and forecasts. For the general public who could basically care less until they are threatened, it just gives them something to think about and the media one more "tool" to work with. The difference comes in the fact that they have been formally trained to use these resources and many we do not have access to that help get the job done as best as possible when there is a threat. And as anyone who knows much about tropical weather knows, landfall forecast accuracy, though slowly improving, is still far from being an accurate science. Considering the fact that we are talking about a weather system that can span several hundred miles that can be influenced by two or more major weather systems at the same time, I figure they are doing a pretty good job even getting a landfall prediction into the right state, 72 hours in advance, if they do. I mean we are not talking about a tornado(a little point on the map)here guys.

Steve you hit it on the head when you said Bastardi won't keep his customers if he is wrong too often or has his clients evacuate offshore platforms or what ever too often because he is driven by the free market while our agencies do not compete on the free market. He is paid big bucks to get it right on the money, every time, whereas our NHC/NOAA/SPC etc. are paid a nominal wage to keep the public informed of what to expect for the season, and to warn us of imminent danger like severe storms or tornados or blizzard's etc., not tell us where each storm is going to hit far in advance. As you stated about Bastardi, " no one else is doing that type of meteorology". I think there is a good reason for that-it is not within the realm of possibility or we wouldn't even need the trained experts because as you stated, only God knows! Suffice it to say I trust the experts that I know are trained first and everyone else second. I have questioned their conclusions about certain storms and have about a 50% accuracy record when I do that, but never would I call the information they have provided useless. Are they stating the obvious? To a point they are, but until they do the general public won't have a clue and that is who they serve, not you and I who are hungry for every little tidbit of info we can get. I fear I have made little sense here and have rambled uselessly while trying to make the point, so I'll just stop here.

southerngale · #52 Postby **southerngale** » Tue May 20, 2003 2:55 am

Well said David

ColdFront77 · #53 Postby **ColdFront77** » Tue May 20, 2003 3:49 am

Great response, David, I agree.

Derek Ortt · #54 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Tue May 20, 2003 6:36 am

I can say with 100% certainty that a lot of the info received on the internet is not what is received. In fact, it is not even close ot the amount actually available. I have seen some of the other stuff and its value dwarfs the value of that available online

#55 Postby **cycloneye** » Tue May 20, 2003 6:37 am

This kind of discussions is what we want to see in storm2k not the traditional bashing and name calling like it happens in other boards so let's keep this discussion about the noaa forecast like it is now.

#56 Postby **Steve** » Tue May 20, 2003 7:11 am

Nah. That made sense Vbhoutex. That was an excellent post.

Steve

jabber · #57 Postby **jabber** » Tue May 20, 2003 7:40 am

You cannot have to much information. I subscribe to the Accuweather professional service not only for Joes column. Its a pretty good site. Tons of info maps, charts, graphics, etc. Plus, at the least, I find Joes videos amusing.

I take all the information, filter what I think is relevant and make a best guess when it comes to storms. I learn more and more each year. I have serously been following storms for about 12 years now.

chadtm80 · #58 Postby **chadtm80** » Tue May 20, 2003 5:49 pm

#59 Postby **cycloneye** » Tue May 20, 2003 5:57 pm

Yeah when I saw that grafic yesterday and saw that blue line from africa crossing over Puerto Rico I shared it with many people here and they began to worrie about the low latitud systems from CV that this season not many fish systems will be going away from the caribbean. :o

The_Cycloman_PR · #60 Postby **The_Cycloman_PR** » Tue May 20, 2003 8:56 pm

I have to agree with Steve Cycloneye! Those people of NOAA can do a better job on their forecast than guessing 11 to 15. By giving an error margin this big (11 to 15) they will hardly loose in their forecast. For example if this season bring 12 named storms, they will hit their forecast, and if this season bring 14 or 15 they will also hit their forecast!! They will be right almost 90% of the time!! Even my little daughter can make a forecast like this!! As Steve said... I can only take from them that It will be a very active season, but I don't give credit to their more or less number forecast. If they (NOAA) want to gain credibility they will have to give exact number forecasts, like Gray and all of us do.

By the way... looking at the NOAA analisys, the conditions of the NEW la nina and the status of the other factors that are in favor for an Active season, with the QBO being the only inhibiting factor this year. I will have to rise my Numbers to 15 NS, 9H, and 4IH for this upcoming season Ana included.

[/url]http://www.fnoc.navy.mil/PUBLIC/[url]

If I did'nt enter the url correctly please copy it and paste it on your browser and see the status of the ENSO area.

Very cold and this blue pool extending to the west into the El nino 3 and 4. Temperatures are in 70 degrees already on El nino 1 and 2! this will be a tremendous enhancing factor for Atlantic hurricane activity this season. And as NOAA pointed in their map of the Atlantic Basin placing a "red" zone between Africa and the Caribbean and an arrow that point direct to PR with a hurricane symbol in the Lesser Antilles, I also agree that the systems this year would be of more low latitudes and less fish storms than the past few seasons making this year a very dangerous one for the Islands Chain into the gulf/Florida area (Based on The Azores High, the Sea Level Presures forecasts and the very low to none vertical shear on the Caribbean resulting from La nina direct effects during August and September or "Peak Season")

I would like to call this area (Africa to the Caribbean to the Gulf) "The Danger Zone" for this season. I think that the majority of systems forming this season will do in those areas. (Of course this is basing on my none expert knowledge and non scientific guess, for a scientific forecast please look to Dr. Gray or NOAA)

Well... there you have it..!! 15,9, 4 with a high potential risk for the Islands and the Gulf/Florida area. That's my take this season!! By the way last week you told me (Cycloneye) that models were predicting a strong low pressure area forming north of PR. Here you have it...!!

Taken from las NWS Tropical Weather Discussion.

1007 MB LOW IS LOCATED NEAR 30N50W WITH A COLD FRONT EXTENDING
SW ALONG 25.5N65W THEN NW TO 29N76W WHERE IT BECOMES A
STATIONARY BOUNDARY ALONG THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE.

Cycloman.

[/url]

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

The way I look at it

Who is online