Is Climatology losing credibility?

[tgenius]

This is attacking that same dead season point from a different perspective ,is it at all possible that the credibility that Climatology has had in creating estimates,etc. is losing steam.

For example, in 05' they were grossly underestimating the # of storms (05' is EXCEPTION not the rule)

and THUS FAR, 06' is grossly overestimating the # of storms..

Is Climatology's reliability losing steam?

[quandary]

Climatology is about on track for this season. The only problem is that climatology is based on the past hundred years, which has been somewhat different from the last 11 years (since 1995).

Consider that in the average year there are 10 storms. On average 1 will form in either June or July (we had 2 weak ones) and then 3 in August, 4 in September and 2 between October and November.

So... we're about 1/2 way through August, but through only the less active half and we're at 3 storms, which is exactly where we should be.

[tgenius]

Well.. here's my issue with Climatology being based on 100 yrs.. we have only had radar/satellites in say the last 50 or so yrs (being generous) so even though they may be accurate, without that technology, I can't believe in those figures entirely.

[miamicanes177]

keep in mind the earth has been around for a ton of years. Some estimate earth to be several billion years old. 100 years or so of data is nothing.

[Jim Cantore]

Whats climatology?

[senorpepr]

FWIW, if you use climatology over the past 30 years (which covers the satellite era), we are still about normal. (Matter of fact, as of 16 August, the 30-year average is exactly 3 named storms.)

You have to keep in mind that the 11-year average has two über-seasons (1995 and 2005) that throw off the curve. However, we're still not that far below that average. (As of today, we should have 3.91 named storms based on the past 11 years.)

[Frank2]

I don't know if it's losing credibility, but, I never liked the idea of it, and, that is why it's never a good idea to make an absolute statement when it comes to nature - I can't tell you how many commercials over the past year for generators, roof repairs, flashlights, etc., etc., have started out with "experts say that we are in a very active 20 year period of hurricane formation".

It was not a good idea that this was made to sound like an absolute - those who I worked for always said that even during the active cycles, there would be some years that would not be as active as others, and, is why NOAA officials were never eager to grasp that concept.

For good or bad, Dr. Gray made this a very popular topic, and, since the 1990's, NOAA has been forced to follow suit.

Frank

[tgenius]

I am not saying its totally wrong, but it just seems like too much creedence is being given to this, and as mentioned 100 yrs of analysis doesn't seem like alot when you consider the age of earth.

[clfenwi]

This is attacking that same dead season point from a different perspective ,is it at all possible that the credibility that Climatology has had in creating estimates,etc. is losing steam.

For example, in 05' they were grossly underestimating the # of storms (05' is EXCEPTION not the rule)

and THUS FAR, 06' is grossly overestimating the # of storms..

Is Climatology's reliability losing steam?

As the second post noted, using pure climatology for a forecast this season would work out pretty good (at least up to this point). Check out table one on the Tropical Cyclone climatology page for example.

The fact that we have not had a repeat of 05 is a point in favor of climatology. The seasons we have on record suggest that we may not see a similar season in our lifetime. If we were to have had a season resembling 2005 again this season, then it would be a suggestion that the existing pre-2005 climatology would be of little use in the future.

I say it would be a suggestion, because you just can't toss 50-100 years of records based on a couple of years. It would take a few more years to make an overhwelming argument that the existing climatology is grossly incomplete.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your beef though, seems to be with the seasonal forecasts and not pure climatology. And as far as those goes, they are a work in progress, and I doubt anyone has ever claimed otherwise. They have had a very mixed record...if this season's forecast is off then it won't be the second.

[Jim Hughes]

Climatology has it's place in science just like meteorology does. The big difference between the two is time. We have easily tweaked incorrect model forecasts over the years more quickly because there was a larger data base to work with.

It unfortunately takes more time to find out when a particular seasonal forecast has busted. I am sure this season will get thoroughly analyzed if the seasons ends up being a bust. And most long term forecasters will end up learning something from it to.

[Stephanie]

Remember as well, hindsight is better than foresight. It's easier to see how cycles have developed and changed after the fact.

Forecasts in general being for the weather, the economy, job market, etc. is based on prior history and trends. I guess it depends on how you use the information will depend upon it's credibility.

[benny]

Climatology has it's place in science just like meteorology does. The big difference between the two is time. We have easily tweaked incorrect model forecasts over the years more quickly because there was a larger data base to work with.

It unfortunately takes more time to find out when a particular seasonal forecast has busted. I am sure this season will get thoroughly analyzed if the seasons ends up being a bust. And most long term forecasters will end up learning something from it to.

Climatology is simply an average as others have mentioned... a baseline for seasonal forecasters to try to beat in many respects. You would have been freaking out in 2001 if the first hurricane waited until September.. then we got 9 total that season. It is too early to proclaim the season dead but I will say it is a little discouraging. Let's evaluate the seasonal forecasts after about Oct 15 or so..

[WxGuy1]

Is "climatology" something that CAN have credibility to begin with? It's just a long-term average... As such, I don't think it can have credibility to begin with. A better descriptor may be accuracy in prediction, which involves standard deviation or variance. For example, if seasons vary much from the long-term average ('climatology'), yielding relatively high variance, then climatology may not be a very good predictor. The opposite can also be the case -- if many years cluster nicely around the long-term average, you can have more confidence that this average value can be used as a valid predictor for future seasons.

Climatology may not to be a good predictor when one compares one year to another (a comparison in time). For example, the "average" number of tornadoes in the US may or may not be a good predictor for next year. There are shorter-lived trends that may favor more or less tornadoes than the average. Climo may be better applied to comparisons of different areas (instead of different times). For example, using climatology can help discern the risk of hurricanes when comparing southern Japan with the Leeward islands. As another example, since the average temperature in OK is higher than that in ND, I can reasonably assume that I should experience hotter temps in OK than in ND on most days. It may be easier to apply climatology that way than to wonder whether May 2008 will be warmer-than-average or colder-than-average in OK.

Unfortunately, a few more or less hurricanes in a season can lead to significant error in season forecasts given that those "few" hurricanes make a significant portion of the total number. We know how some cyclones can develop in small areas where all other locations are unfavorable for development, and it's difficult (if not impossible with much confidence) to forecast these individual storms months ahead of time. Climo "smooths" out anomolous storms and years to give us an idea of what has happened in the past. Whether this climo should be applied with any confidence to the future involves looking at standard deviations, etc.

[tgenius]

Is "climatology" something that CAN have credibility to begin with? It's just a long-term average... As such, I don't think it can have credibility to begin with. A better descriptor may be accuracy in prediction, which involves standard deviation or variance. For example, if seasons vary much from the long-term average ('climatology'), yielding relatively high variance, then climatology may not be a very good predictor. The opposite can also be the case -- if many years cluster nicely around the long-term average, you can have more confidence that this average value can be used as a valid predictor for future seasons.

Climatology may not to be a good predictor when one compares one year to another (a comparison in time). For example, the "average" number of tornadoes in the US may or may not be a good predictor for next year. There are shorter-lived trends that may favor more or less tornadoes than the average. Climo may be better applied to comparisons of different areas (instead of different times). For example, using climatology can help discern the risk of hurricanes when comparing southern Japan with the Leeward islands. As another example, since the average temperature in OK is higher than that in ND, I can reasonably assume that I should experience hotter temps in OK than in ND on most days. It may be easier to apply climatology that way than to wonder whether May 2008 will be warmer-than-average or colder-than-average in OK.

Unfortunately, a few more or less hurricanes in a season can lead to significant error in season forecasts given that those "few" hurricanes make a significant portion of the total number. We know how some cyclones can develop in small areas where all other locations are unfavorable for development, and it's difficult (if not impossible with much confidence) to forecast these individual storms months ahead of time. Climo "smooths" out anomolous storms and years to give us an idea of what has happened in the past. Whether this climo should be applied with any confidence to the future involves looking at standard deviations, etc.

Thank You! I appreciate this explanation coming from a pro met.. I wasn't trying to start a war,but more so a healthy discussion about pros/cons.

[StrongWind]

The problem with climatology is that it is statistics under cloud cover:

1. You can get it to show whatever you want. If you don't like the 10-year average do it for 11. Or 9...

2. Statistics of groups rarely predict the behavior of an individual. Knowing that storms at spot x go to spot y 60% of the time doesn't mean that storm z will.

3. Limited practical applications. Knowing that the GOM may have 70% less chance of storms in a year doesn't mean that gulf residents only have to get 30% as ready as usual.

That said, statistics/climatology when properly applied can have it's uses.

[flyingphish]

A good post. Also, keep in mind that over a one hundred year period, if you accept an average of ten Atlantic storms per season, you get 1000 events. Not gonna get "a sniff" from a statastician or an actuary. Could you imagine how little progress would be made in the fields of medicine, agriculture, insurance, etc. with such a limited set of data. I would expect "gross inaccuracies" at this point, in the art of hurricane forecasting. I will always respect the phenomena of the hurricane. Truly Awesome !

[sma10]

This is attacking that same dead season point from a different perspective ,is it at all possible that the credibility that Climatology has had in creating estimates,etc. is losing steam.

For example, in 05' they were grossly underestimating the # of storms (05' is EXCEPTION not the rule)

and THUS FAR, 06' is grossly overestimating the # of storms..

Is Climatology's reliability losing steam?

There is a slight problem with your argument. Where is the "gross overestimation" thus far in 2006? Your logic is flawed because you're assuming that there's been an overestimation because the season "feels" slow to you. I still think Dr. Gray's prediction of 15 named storms has a fair chance to be realized by November 30.

EVERY SINGLE YEAR (last year excluded) that I've been a member of a weather chat board (since 1996!) there appears numerous threads claiming how badly Dr. Gray's numbers are gonna bomb. End result: he hardly ever UNDERpredicts.

Consider: it's not terribly unusual to have two or three late August systems popping up. Then maybe a burst of 4 or 5 storms in September. Then perhaps 3 or 4 more in October. Throw in a storm or two in November and guess what? You end up with 14 or 15. It seems to happen every year that way. At least that what Climatology tells us