Philip Klotzbach/Gray's remainder of season numbers=13/8/4

[Beam]

I'm sure Dr. Gray and co. are all very knowledgable individuals, but I can't see the point of these season forecasts. There's no way to know how many storms are going to form in any given season other than a rough guideline such as "quiet" or "active". These numbers are useless.

[senorpepr]

Okay... I'm just going to toss this out there.

As of 3 August, we've had three named storms.

When looking at the total historical data set, from 1851 through 2006, we should have 1.47 named storms by this point. Typically, season-totals averaged 8.67 named storms.

When just focusing on the past 30 years, a typical "climatological" data set, we should have 2.03 named storms by this point. Typically, season-totals averaged 11.30 named storms.

When looking at the hyper-active period from 1995 through 2006, we should have 3.09 named storms by this point. Typically, season-totals averaged 16.09 named storms.

So... we have three named storms. We're on average for post-1995 era seasons. (By the way... the "day" we should have had our third named storm was 1 August.) Typical post-1995 era season yielded 16 named storms. Dr. Klotzbach says 15 for the season. That doesn't include Subtropical Storm Andrea. Add that... and Dr. Klotzbach is forecasting 16.

Well folks, that seems about par to me. I can't fault him for using climatology.

[wxman57]

One of the problems with computing what's "average" for this time of year is that the hurricane database is probably quite lacking prior to the modern satellite era. Chris Landsea and Roger Pielke Jr. believe that about 3 storms were missed per season prior to 1965 due to inadequate observations in the Atlantic Basin. Perhaps as many as 6-10 of the named storms of 2005 might have been missed prior to satellite (my estimate). And considering intensity estimates in the database, in many cases, the only way we were really sure of how strong the hurricanes were was when they struck a ship or landmass (direct observations). Many storms probably reached major hurricane intensity without us ever knowing of it.

Based on the above, the recalculated average of named storms per season is closer to 12, not 9.6. And I'd wager that there were more early-season short-lived "fish storms" prior to the satellite era. Storms like Andrea and Barry earlier this season would probably not have been named, possibly not Chantal, either. So consider that when looking back beyond 1965. That's the trouble with looking for trends with the GW debate, not enough data.

[weatherguru18]

*Re-post*

Ok...Dr. Gray came out with his new forecast today. He calls for 15 storms, 8 hurricanes and 4 major. Honestly, I think he's dead wrong! Does he remember last year? This year is paralleling last year pretty good. Not to mention that we have a lot of Saharan dust and cooler than normal sst's.

My personal forecast is:

10 named storms (8 more) we've already had two real ones.
5 hurricanes
2 major

With the Bermuda high so far to the east, I am also inclined to believe we will have plenty of fish storms. Just my thoughts...anybody?

I would also add that all it takes is one hurricane to make it a bad season and according to the Dr. Gray's forecast, all we really need to worry about it 4 or them...

[senorpepr]

One of the problems with computing what's "average" for this time of year is that the hurricane database is probably quite lacking prior to the modern satellite era. Chris Landsea and Roger Pielke Jr. believe that about 3 storms were missed per season prior to 1965 due to inadequate observations in the Atlantic Basin. Perhaps as many as 6-10 of the named storms of 2005 might have been missed prior to satellite (my estimate). And considering intensity estimates in the database, in many cases, the only way we were really sure of how strong the hurricanes were was when they struck a ship or landmass (direct observations). Many storms probably reached major hurricane intensity without us ever knowing of it.

Based on the above, the recalculated average of named storms per season is closer to 12, not 9.6. And I'd wager that there were more early-season short-lived "fish storms" prior to the satellite era. Storms like Andrea and Barry earlier this season would probably not have been named, possibly not Chantal, either. So consider that when looking back beyond 1965. That's the trouble with looking for trends with the GW debate, not enough data.

Very true in regards to the satellite era. That's another reason why I calculate 30-year and 1995-present averages. ...and I believe you know my opinion of Andrea, Barry, and Chantal. Oddly enough, it seems to be a common thread among meteorologists (both online and those I work with) that those Andrea and Barry probably should not have been named and Chantal is sort of "fishy" (no pun intended).

Uh-oh... I said something against the naming of 2007's "storms." The villagers are bound to attack...

[ajaxw]

Actually you won't find any disagreement with me. For all his faults, Steve Lyons does occasionally say something useful when he's not talking about rain ruining Acapulco vacations. Our first three storms this year have lasted a grand total of 72 hours. Whether this is truly due to a lower threshold for upgrading storms close to land or just a quirk of this year's synoptics I don't know. (See 1999's TS Katrina as an example). As for Klotzbach and Gray's forecast, two observations: 1) Phil Klotzbach gets no respect (all the local stations just mention Gray) and 2) if you are going to adjust your statistical output from your model to analog year data anyway, why go through all the song and dance of step 1 of the scheme?