Jeff Masters' August Outlook; another great read

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Once again Jeff has done a fantastic group of summing up the factors for this upcoming month of the season, and once again I agree with the reasoning behind it:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... amp=200608

[Steve]

I don't know, it's a cool writeup, but I can't reconcile this:

Thus, I am forecasting that the entire East Coast of the U.S. will have a higher than average risk of hurricane strikes in August, and the Gulf Coast will have a lower than average risk.

Lower than average what? No storms? Some storms? Less than average? I think that kind of percentage game is pretty damn sloppy because when you break it down, it doesn't say anything. If the average Gulf storms in August is 1, then is he saying "0" storms, less than 1, a less intense than whatever is the average? To me, it's utterly meaningless. With all globals currently closing off something in the Gulf south of Louisiana and potentially threatening Texas later this week (and it ain't Tropical Storm Chris), my money is on a continued threat to the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts at least as relative to our seasons. While I believe JB deserves to be knocked from time to time, he did point this out about the NOAA percentage forecasts (x% chance of drier, x% chance of warmer than average). So I definitely don't buy into that line of reasoning, though I don't have a problem with Jeff's take on the overall situation. I think he's right on the money with the atmospheric analysis, I'd just like to see something a little more concrete than "less than average" when average isn't specifically defined.

JMO

Steve

[x-y-no]

I'll agree that with events that happen in very low integer numbers, percentage probabilities aren't particularly meaningful.

Personally, I just act on the presumption that my area is under risk every year.

[bob rulz]

It seems pretty straightforward to me. There's technically a certain percentage chance of a hurricane striking a long stretch of coast (I'm not talking about a city here, I'm talking about, say, the entire northern Gulf Coast), and while he doesn't define any specific percentages, he says that the Gulf Coast has a less-than-average chance of getting struck, and the East Coast has a higher-than-average chance of getting struck. It seems very straightforward to me...and it seems informative. Citing percentage chances would make it less accurate and more misleading...

[jasons2k]

Good points Steve

[Steve]

Thanks J & x

>>It seems pretty straightforward to me. There's technically a certain percentage chance of a hurricane striking a long stretch of coast (I'm not talking about a city here, I'm talking about, say, the entire northern Gulf Coast), and while he doesn't define any specific percentages, he says that the Gulf Coast has a less-than-average chance of getting struck, and the East Coast has a higher-than-average chance of getting struck. It seems very straightforward to me...and it seems informative. Citing percentage chances would make it less accurate and more misleading

Then give the percentage or state the parameters. Without them, I think it's sloppy work that any of us could do and we'd always be right or wrong unless there was a serious anomaly. Now I agree that citing the percentage chances could be more misleading because if you say there's a 60% chance of a gulf hit in August (w/ corresponding 40% chance of no gulf hits in August), you're right whether there is a hit or not. But on the other hand, if one said something like, "Statistically there are 2.413 storms that hit the Gulf of Mexico in August, and I'm calling for a 37% reduction, then we would look to expect 1.52 storms in August. That's a quantifiable forecast utilizing percentages. Personally, I'd rather deal with a specific number. If it is 2.413 (and I have no idea what the climatological average is, I'm just using that for kicks) and you have 3 storms, you were wrong if you said less than average number of storms (just as you would be right if there were only 2, 1 or none at all).

So again, it's just my opinion, but I find the way that portion of the write-up was presented to be meaningless.

Steve

[Jim Cantore]

Always a good read, I hope El nino does show it's ugly head.