Oh great. Now the season cancel hype is hitting the media. Soon everyday people will be like "Oh, no need to worry this season, its not gonna be bad". Oh well, their loss.
Slow "Active Phase" Hurricane Cycles
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
Scorpion wrote:
Oh great. Now the season cancel hype is hitting the media. Soon everyday people will be like "Oh, no need to worry this season, its not gonna be bad". Oh well, their loss.
I just read the article, and I don't think they are calling for season cancel. There just needs to be less of a comparsion between this season and 2005. I do agree that is probably won't be as active as last season, but that is like saying that we are going to get hit with an atomic bomb rather than a nuclear bomb.
0 likes
Far out - well, I knew that TWC and WPNBC had already been raising questions last week, with one OCM asking "What's with this season?", so, it was just a matter of time before the rest of the media jumped on the bandwagon - the timing with my post and their article is interesting (guess it helps to know how these folks will respond, from my past working knowledge of them).
I'm not saying "cancel the season" (that is silly, unto itself), but, the media needs to stop making the comparison between the last two seasons and today - I stand by my earlier statement (actually the statement of our former HRD Director), that said it's unwise to make these "15 to 20 year" statements, since, the above media grumbling is the result when things don't go as planned - the weather is far too unpredictable to make any "absolute" statements.
What's worse, is that this can cause a loss of confidence in those who forecast the weather, and, could ultimately result in a "cry wolf" situation - not good...
Frank
I'm not saying "cancel the season" (that is silly, unto itself), but, the media needs to stop making the comparison between the last two seasons and today - I stand by my earlier statement (actually the statement of our former HRD Director), that said it's unwise to make these "15 to 20 year" statements, since, the above media grumbling is the result when things don't go as planned - the weather is far too unpredictable to make any "absolute" statements.
What's worse, is that this can cause a loss of confidence in those who forecast the weather, and, could ultimately result in a "cry wolf" situation - not good...
Frank
Last edited by Frank2 on Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
One thing to keep in mind regarding Dr. Gray's predictions is that season statistics are used as part of the process of arriving at a number of predicted storms for a given year.
This means that it is impossibe to predict a record breaking season, since the analysis always includes only one record breaker, and many not so great "numbers of storms seasons".
This is a mathematics/statistics issue...and reminds us all to use reasoned judgement (and experience and understaning) when interpreting predictions that use a statistical model for any part of the prediction.
Even if atmospheric conditions, ocean currents, tropical cyclone heat potential, space weather, MJO, and any other measurable conditions indicate in and of themselves that it will be avery active season, the actual numbers predicted will be below the exceptional year, which in our case in 2006, happens to be 2005.
This also means that even if the good Doctor's "gut feeling" is telling him that his published numbers will likely be "wrong", that is, lower than the actual number of stoms that will form, he must still stick with his statistical analysis.
That is, unless and untill he publishes a different kind of model, and uses thatto arrive at his prediction.
However, experience strongly suggests that using past year's frequency of named storms is still a very important part of formulating a prediction for any given year.
I hope that I made clear what seems to be a rather obtuse point regarding statistics. Frankly, I'd love to get Dr. Gray over a couple of drinks, and ask, "What do you really think we'll have goin' down this year?" This underscores that prediction and opinion are not one in the same.
Zip
This means that it is impossibe to predict a record breaking season, since the analysis always includes only one record breaker, and many not so great "numbers of storms seasons".
This is a mathematics/statistics issue...and reminds us all to use reasoned judgement (and experience and understaning) when interpreting predictions that use a statistical model for any part of the prediction.
Even if atmospheric conditions, ocean currents, tropical cyclone heat potential, space weather, MJO, and any other measurable conditions indicate in and of themselves that it will be avery active season, the actual numbers predicted will be below the exceptional year, which in our case in 2006, happens to be 2005.
This also means that even if the good Doctor's "gut feeling" is telling him that his published numbers will likely be "wrong", that is, lower than the actual number of stoms that will form, he must still stick with his statistical analysis.
That is, unless and untill he publishes a different kind of model, and uses thatto arrive at his prediction.
However, experience strongly suggests that using past year's frequency of named storms is still a very important part of formulating a prediction for any given year.
I hope that I made clear what seems to be a rather obtuse point regarding statistics. Frankly, I'd love to get Dr. Gray over a couple of drinks, and ask, "What do you really think we'll have goin' down this year?" This underscores that prediction and opinion are not one in the same.
Zip
0 likes