JB still sticking with 1954 analog: science or hype?

[LarryWx]

JB continues to emphasize 1954 as an analog for this year’s summer/hurricane season. When he first started working on his summer/hurricane forecast back around mid-march, we were still in a weak La Nina based on region 3.4. Based on his comments, he had no idea that the weak La Nina was about to rapidly reverse to a small positive anomaly. I recall him thinking that the weak La Nina would more or less remain.

JB is quite worried about the northeasern US getting hit hard by a hurricane within the next decade or so. He’s been emphasizing this to media outlets a lot this spring. Whereas he’s not explicitly saying it will occur this year, he has been saying that New England’s landfall chances are well above their normal even this year.

The year 1954 had direct New England hits from two hurricanes. There has yet to be another season since then with two direct hurricane hits. So, it clearly was a very unique season for New England.

Keeping in mind that a solid La Nina was in existence IN 1954, check the following link’s study, which is titled “REGIONAL EFFECTS OF ENSO ON U.S. HURRICANE LANDFALLS”:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/papers/regiona ... _landfalls

The gist of this study’s results for the east coast EXLUDING Florida and INCLUDING New England, is that chances for a hurricane landfall on the east coast are about the same for both an El Nino and a neutral ENSO that occurs during the following fall. ONLY A LA NINA ENHANCES THE CHANCE FOR A DIRECT HIT ON THE EAST COAST ABOVE FLORIDA. So, per this study, “this means that during 75 percent of years, the East Coast has a reduced probability of hurricane landfall.”

Despite the fact that JB now acknowledges that the La Nina is history and that we may even be headed for an El Nino (which seems like a reasonable idea) with perhaps a reduction in the total number of storms, he said just this past week that this will NOT affect the landfall ideas that he has had for awhile even though his thinking about ENSO has changed since he first came up with his landfall ideas.

Keeping the above in mind, do you think that his sticking to his idea of well above normal chances for New England as opposed to reducing them somewhat is based more on science or is it based more on hype? Why not lower them at least a little bit (closer to normal) to reflect on a significant change in one of the most important factors?

[ronjon]

JB is stubborn as a mule and once he declares something will tend to stay with it till the bitter end. If he says something long enough its bound to come true someday. I like JB. He picks out development patterns sometimes a couple of weeks ahead of time. But he hypes and will not change his opinion with shifting data on the ground. This year will probably be neutral ENSO conditions with a shift to a weak El Nino this winter. Anyone predicting landfall conditions to me is out on a limb. We can't even predict upper air patterns well beyond 10 days so why try to predict them 2-3 months ahead of time. Like many have said before - it's all timing as to where the storm forms, how fast it moves, and when will it feel the tug of upper air troughs to the north.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

There were two other years prior to 1954 storms in which the area has had "twins". 1638 and 1869:


Track map I made of 1638 hurricanes, for a study I'm doing.






Needless to say we do not know what the atmospheric conditions were that prevailed in 1638 and 1869. However going by pure mathematics, one should expect a rate of return of 123 years for such an occurrences, on average for the 370 years (1635 - 2005) of recorded storms.

[LarryWx]

There were two other years prior to 1954 storms in which the area has had "twins". 1638 and 1869:



Needless to say we do not know what the atmospheric conditions were that prevailed in 1638 and 1869.

Actually, we do know about ENSO from 1869 per the following link:

ftp://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/JMA_SST_Ind ... y.filter-5

According to this, a weak La Nina started in the fall. Based on the study I cited in my initial post, 1869 could easily have been counted as a La Nina for that study's purposes.

[Regit]

I find the whole discussion of "odds" for coastal hits to be sort of silly anyway. We don't have nearly enough data to determine real odds yet.

[SouthFloridawx]

I find it to be silly media hype and a great way to get new subscriptions.

[cajungal]

And I see on those maps of tracks you provided that Louisiana still got hit both times.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

According to this, a weak La Nina started in the fall. Based on the study I cited in my initial post, 1869 could easily have been counted as a La Nina for that study's purposes.

I was unaware that records for said event went back that far. Interesting.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

I find it to be silly media hype and a great way to get new subscriptions.

Very true.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

And I see on those maps of tracks you provided that Louisiana still got hit both times.

Yes, but only by weak storms. Nothing higher than a cat 1. Texas would have more to fear than Louisiana in such years it would seem.

[terstorm1012]

There was the IndependentWx forecast that suggests that hte trough will shunt more storms out to sea...so I'm not so sure where I stand on the '54 analog.

[Pearl River]

All these forecasts are nothing more than a S.W.A.G- Scientific Wild A$$ed Guess. Analog years are good to look at and try to determine what may occur based on similar statistics, but it's no guarantee. I've seen several analog years used in past forecast's and storms have hit in other area's. Only the man upstairs knows for sure.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

There was the IndependentWx forecast that suggests that hte trough will shunt more storms out to sea...so I'm not so sure where I stand on the '54 analog.

That is very possible. Even in my own mean track a shift of only 50 miles Eastward would keep most peak season storms well offshore. Only time will tell though. Here is hoping.

[Regit]

And I see on those maps of tracks you provided that Louisiana still got hit both times.

Yes, but only by weak storms. Nothing higher than a cat 1. Texas would have more to fear than Louisiana in such years it would seem.

Yes, weak. Just like Katrina in NOLA.

[P.K.]

Actually, we do know about ENSO from 1869 per the following link:

ftp://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/JMA_SST_Ind ... y.filter-5

The pre 1949 data has been estimated from numerical modelling, whereas data after this is from observations so you need to be careful looking so far back. ftp://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/JMA_SST_Index/Readme.txt

[Dr. Jonah Rainwater]

Considering the still sorry state of the levees in Louisiana, the FEMA trailer villages all along the coast, and the endless expanse of blue tarps that still haven't been replaced since last year's season, even a Category One could wreak havoc along the Gulf Coast this year...

[Extremeweatherguy]

Considering the still sorry state of the levees in Louisiana, the FEMA trailer villages all along the coast, and the endless expanse of blue tarps that still haven't been replaced since last year's season, even a Category One could wreak havoc along the Gulf Coast this year...

Even a TS would do so. I remember in FL during 2004, everytime we would see winds reach 40mph sustained (or once we saw frequent 50mph gusts) those tarps would start ripping off.

[SouthFloridawx]

Considering the still sorry state of the levees in Louisiana, the FEMA trailer villages all along the coast, and the endless expanse of blue tarps that still haven't been replaced since last year's season, even a Category One could wreak havoc along the Gulf Coast this year...

Even a TS would do so. I remember in FL during 2004, everytime we would see winds reach 40mph sustained (or once we saw frequent 50mph gusts) those tarps would start ripping off.

Not to mention if South Florida is struck by another storm, there are many blue tarps and wind whiped homes. I am pretty sure we would see more damage if another storm comparable to Wilma struck SFL again. I just hope everyone takes it more seriously and not just a storm that is going to weaken because it was coming from the west coast. I tend think that people forget that South Florida is flat and not mountanous.

[Steve]

I think he's being a little stubborn for now. As he digests more of the data he works with and from, he's likely to ammend his initial landfall intensity forecast. I'd wait until the late July/early August update that he usually does to see if he's got any major changes in store from his earlier ideas.

FWIW, the Accuweather video when the released the information didn't have landfall intensity numbers. Out of curiosity, what was the LA and MS/AL/NW FL numerical forecast? Because if that does or doesn't change (along with the Seaboard & NE zones) in his updated forecast, then we'll just have to wait and see whether or not his ideas semi-verify.

Steve

[LarryWx]

Actually, we do know about ENSO from 1869 per the following link:

ftp://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/JMA_SST_Ind ... y.filter-5

The pre 1949 data has been estimated from numerical modelling, whereas data after this is from observations so you need to be careful looking so far back. ftp://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/JMA_SST_Index/Readme.txt

Thanks for the warning to be careful.