What will Philip J. Klotzbach/Dr Gray do at August Update?

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

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.

Help Support Storm2K

What do you think Philip J. Klotzbach/Dr Gray do at August Update?

Upgrade the numbers from 17/9/5
5
4%
Downgrade the numbers from 17/9/5
65
58%
Leave the numbers the same as June update=17/9/5
43
38%
 
Total votes: 113

Message
Author
User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#41 Postby x-y-no » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:01 pm

I'm betting they stay the same.
0 likes   

User avatar
all_we_know_is_FALLING
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:06 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow...
Contact:

#42 Postby all_we_know_is_FALLING » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:25 pm

x-y-no wrote:I'm betting they stay the same.


Same here.
0 likes   

dwg71
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2349
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:34 pm

#43 Postby dwg71 » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:41 pm

15/8/3 is my guess
0 likes   

User avatar
cheezyWXguy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 6132
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX

#44 Postby cheezyWXguy » Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:11 pm

i say 16/8/5
0 likes   

LarryWx
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 2:04 pm
Location: GA

#45 Postby LarryWx » Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:39 pm

Based on the persistent -SOI since May, I would think they'd lower them several storms. However, I thought they were going to make at least some reduction back in the prior update since the SOI had already reversed sharply from solidly positive in April to negative in May. Regardless, I think they will reduce them at least slightly.
0 likes   
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
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.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

#46 Postby Jim Hughes » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:43 am

LarryWx wrote:Based on the persistent -SOI since May, I would think they'd lower them several storms. However, I thought they were going to make at least some reduction back in the prior update since the SOI had already reversed sharply from solidly positive in April to negative in May. Regardless, I think they will reduce them at least slightly.


Things are slightly different now compared to their last update. One of the things that stand out is the 90 day SOI average. It is much less volatile the the 30 day SOI average. The 90 day average is currently > - 5.0 and this does not happen all that often.

Plus the SST anomaly in the ENSO 1+2 Region just recently went positive in the latest weekly update. So it is now in tune with the other three regions for the first time in a while. This has some meaning since the 90 day SOI average is weakly-moderately tilted towards a warming episode. So I would not be surprised if they tweak the higher intensity numbers a little bit.
0 likes   

kenl01
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:35 am

#47 Postby kenl01 » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:28 am

Lower them by several storms.

I'd say 13/7/3
0 likes   

User avatar
Extremeweatherguy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 11095
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Florida

#48 Postby Extremeweatherguy » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:51 am

I think they may lower the total number of storms, but increase their landfall precentage numbers. I see this as being a less active season with a well above average number of landfalls.
0 likes   

Frank2
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4061
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:47 pm

#49 Postby Frank2 » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:08 pm

Re: wxman57's post

I think they'll definitely be lowering the numbers, or they should be. The early-season prerdictors they counted on for the higher total are just not there now. SSTs continue to fall (less major hurricanes) and wind shear remains typically high for this time of year. La Nina will not be present. Bermuda high is much stronger now - stronger trades mean more low-latitude shear. Why would they go so high above average with such conditions present?


I really have to agree - it seems that the unusual '05 season was likely a continuation of the '04 season that began after August 10, 2004 (as some had mentioned last year), and, perhaps that '04/'05 episode ended over the past 6 months, so, this season is far different in that it is "normal" statistically (at least so far), and, if this "normal" pattern does continue, then, we only have another 6-8 weeks of truly "active" season left, depending in part on the northern branch of the jet stream, and, per something mentioned several weeks ago, is why our old NHEML/NHC people did not like those "active for the next 15-20 year" statements, since, even during an active cycle, there are going to be years that are not as busy - the Earth (air/sea/land) is far too complex to pin it to anything absolute...

As for intensity of those storms that might form this year - as the NHC has mentioned, that skill in forecasting still needs improvement, though, the old comparison of a hurricane to a cake recipie seems to be a good analogy - if even one ingredient isn't just right, it'll affect the entire outcome...

Frank
0 likes   

kenl01
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:35 am

#50 Postby kenl01 » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:21 pm

Excellent post Frank2 !
0 likes   

Eyewall

#51 Postby Eyewall » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:35 pm

I think that the numbers should go down, but i doubt they will change them..
You never know what may happen, we could see a huge burst in activity soon and it could change everything.

I'm thinking more like 16/7/3
0 likes   

User avatar
Andrew92
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3247
Age: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 12:35 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

#52 Postby Andrew92 » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:37 pm

I say lowered by a little bit, maybe 13/7/4. Still an above-average year, though.

-Andrew92
0 likes   

User avatar
NDG
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 15469
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

#53 Postby NDG » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:46 pm

If the season proves to be less active than earlier predicted by Dr Gray, it will be the first time that Dr Gray overhypes a season, as he most of the times has been conservative with his numbers in the previous 6 years.
0 likes   

User avatar
Andrew92
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3247
Age: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 12:35 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

#54 Postby Andrew92 » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:52 pm

NDG wrote:If the season proves to be less active than earlier predicted by Dr Gray, it will be the first time that Dr Gray overhypes a season, as he most of the times has been conservative with his numbers in the previous 6 years.


I sorta remember at first 1997 was overhyped, because it came off of hurricane seaons like 1995 and 1996. Still, it's probably better to overhype than be too low.

-Andrew92
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#55 Postby x-y-no » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:57 pm

Andrew92 wrote:
NDG wrote:If the season proves to be less active than earlier predicted by Dr Gray, it will be the first time that Dr Gray overhypes a season, as he most of the times has been conservative with his numbers in the previous 6 years.


I sorta remember at first 1997 was overhyped, because it came off of hurricane seaons like 1995 and 1996. Still, it's probably better to overhype than be too low.

-Andrew92


Offhand, I'm not remembering what Gray predicted about '97, but it would have been very hard to recognize just how powerful that el Nino was going to be - so I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers were high.
0 likes   

User avatar
NDG
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 15469
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

#56 Postby NDG » Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:14 pm

x-y-no wrote:
Andrew92 wrote:
NDG wrote:If the season proves to be less active than earlier predicted by Dr Gray, it will be the first time that Dr Gray overhypes a season, as he most of the times has been conservative with his numbers in the previous 6 years.


I sorta remember at first 1997 was overhyped, because it came off of hurricane seaons like 1995 and 1996. Still, it's probably better to overhype than be too low.

-Andrew92


Offhand, I'm not remembering what Gray predicted about '97, but it would have been very hard to recognize just how powerful that el Nino was going to be - so I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers were high.


In June of '97 he predicted 11 named storms, the season had 7 tropical named storms & 1 subtropical storm.
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

#57 Postby Jim Hughes » Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:53 am

NDG wrote:
x-y-no wrote:
Andrew92 wrote:
NDG wrote:If the season proves to be less active than earlier predicted by Dr Gray, it will be the first time that Dr Gray overhypes a season, as he most of the times has been conservative with his numbers in the previous 6 years.


I sorta remember at first 1997 was overhyped, because it came off of hurricane seaons like 1995 and 1996. Still, it's probably better to overhype than be too low.

-Andrew92


Offhand, I'm not remembering what Gray predicted about '97, but it would have been very hard to recognize just how powerful that el Nino was going to be - so I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers were high.


In June of '97 he predicted 11 named storms, the season had 7 tropical named storms & 1 subtropical storm.


Not true. Just depends upon your forecasting methodology. I forecasted in March 1997 that an EL Nino was developing and that it would equal or exceed the 1982-83 event. I also forecasted down the road, my first ATL outlook ever, that there would be seven named storms and a Category 1 hurricane would make landfall in Louisiana....BULLSEYE...

These two forecasts were given to several news contacts, two science writers, and some others. Both 1996 & 97 were very good forecasting years for me.
0 likes   

User avatar
Trader Ron
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:25 pm
Location: Naples,Fl
Contact:

#58 Postby Trader Ron » Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:21 am

I think Dr. Gray lowers to 15/8/4
0 likes   

dwg71
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2349
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:34 pm

#59 Postby dwg71 » Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:02 am

dwg71 wrote:15/8/3 is my guess


I was off by one...if I had another guess it would be 13/6/2
0 likes   

User avatar
stormtruth
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:15 pm

#60 Postby stormtruth » Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:03 am

dwg71 wrote:
dwg71 wrote:15/8/3 is my guess


I was off by one...if I had another guess it would be 13/6/2


Sorry, Only Dr. Gray is allowed fifteen guesses.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests