Thoughts on the Season to date

[HURAKAN]

A pre-season forecast need to be looked from an educated point of view. If you have a forecast of 5/2/1, it doesn't mean you need to relax because it's forecasted to be a below normal season, you need to still get ready in case that forecast verifies and that 1 moves over you! The same should apply to a forecast of 17/10/5.

Pre-season forecasts don't do any harm, an uneducated population does the harm.

It's just like playing the lottery, you know your chances are very low but you still play it. You need to get ready before every season because even though the chance of a hurricane moving over your house is pretty low, it's higher than winning the lottery for most of us!!!

Bottomline:

Education is the key for a civilization to move forward.

[DanKellFla]

This year, the models seemed a bit off. Especially the CMC. Whatever tune-ups are done to a model after the season should be interesting. Not that I will be able to understand what they are. Hopefully, the data from this year will improve next years model runs.

The Canadian model (CMC) is NOT a tropical model, and it probably won't be tweaked during the off-season to do better with tropical systems (though I can't guarantee that). The CMC appears to develop any upper-level feature into a TC. Obviously, its physics are meant for northern-latitude cold-core storms, not tropical systems. As for the other models, I noticed no change from previous seasons. GFS always over-forecasts development, though it didn't do so as much in 2007. The NAM/WRF (not HWRF) should never be used for tropical systems. I believe the folks operating the GFDL are done tweaking it. They're working on the HWRF now.

What models did you perceive as being "off"?

The CMC mostly. Good information. Thanks. I didn't understand the purpose of the CMC. Makes sense though, it is CANADIAN.

[Steve]

>>Ok, what if the spring forecast was for a very quiet season due to a strong El Nino?? People are more apt not to work on a family plan and not buy supplies. The pre season predictions do more harm than good.

You can lead a horse to water. We do not live in a communist, information-controlled society where information of a scientific nature is only released on a need-to-know basis. Any arguments to withhold anything from anyone smacks of totalitarianism and elitism IMHO. You don't penalize free people in a free society by withholding information. If this is what you are advocating, I find it embarrassing. Preseason predictions give you a baseline from which to judge the merits of said forecast at the end of the season. What you seem to be hinting at and advocating in both of your posts on this thread that I have replied to is nothing short of scary.

>>I agree with Fox13. If you live in Florida you would know why. The reason why our Insurance is so high is because of what was supposed to happen in 2006. The same goes with the oil prices. "Futures" start panic IMHO.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Just today, I had a lengthy discussion over insurance premiums with an individual who oversees purchasing millions of dollars of policies annually on every type of real estate immaginable in the 5 state area stretching from SE Texas to South Florida. Insurance rates are not based on futures except in very specific instances which are not instances that a typical homeowner is going to face. The hurricane premiums she negotiated in June of 2007 were substantially off from the 2006 levels and closer to the 2005 levels which were much higher than 2004. You need a series of years of non catastrophic events that plague your area for the rates to return to normal. You also have a bunch of greedy corporations that will milk you for every last dollar in premiums that they can get their hands on because generally they need increasing revenue streams to remain independent but that is beside the point. The 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons caused premiums to skyrocket and insurers to drop specific coverages in order for them (so they claim) to remain profitable. Eventually after they do not have to pay out substantial claims over x period of time, the rates per $1,000 will fall. It is based on actual events and actuarials but not on a hurricane season forecast. Oil futures are another story. Real estate speculating may also be. The cost of your insurance is not. The only hedge is that if you live on or near the Gulf Coast, you cannot get insurance whatsoever if a storm is in the Gulf. And you may have a 30 day waiting period for certain coverages which can make one susceptible in the event a threat materializes during that period.

Steve

[DanKellFla]

To add to what Steve says...
Insurance companies make most of their money off of investing your premiums. The money you give them in premiums doesn't sit in a vault somewhere, most of it gets invested. Some is kept on hand to pay for claims. Then, insurance companies buy re-insurance to cover the big losses. Actuaries calculate and re-calculate this stuff to provide a reasonable path for the insurance companies to take. Then, they buy re-insurance to cover big losses.

Now comes my mini-rant:
For decades, the South Florida area was undercharged for insurance. It wasn't a secret that Hurricanes hit here. The developers, government, and real estate intrests pushed massive development. Nothing wrong with that. But, for some reason, the insurance companies kept writing cheap insurance. And I don't believe that the insurance companies didn't know any better. A massive storm had to hit us eventually. So, after decade of being undercharge, we have to "make-up" for it in a few years with massive rate hikes. As I see it, the insurance companies screwed up by KNOWINGLY undercharging us for decades, and now we have to pay for it!

[wxman57]

Now comes my mini-rant:
For decades, the South Florida area was undercharged for insurance. It wasn't a secret that Hurricanes hit here. The developers, government, and real estate intrests pushed massive development. Nothing wrong with that. But, for some reason, the insurance companies kept writing cheap insurance. And I don't believe that the insurance companies didn't know any better. A massive storm had to hit us eventually. So, after decade of being undercharge, we have to "make-up" for it in a few years with massive rate hikes. As I see it, the insurance companies screwed up by KNOWINGLY undercharging us for decades, and now we have to pay for it!

Yep. Take a look at the difference in hurricane strikes from the lower peninsula to the northern parts of the state. Insurance companies charge the same in Miami or Ft. Myers as they do in Jacksonville. Something isn't right there. South Florida way under-charged, northern Florida over-charged.

[DanKellFla]

wxman57, you make a valid point. But just how small should the "risk pool" be? If it is too small, than it isn't worthwhile to buy insurance because it is so expensive. If it is too large, some areas are subsidising other areas. I don't really know a good answer to that question. There is so much bull being tossed around right now, it is hard to understand any of this. What happens if Dade, Broward and Palm Beach county goes 10 years without a significant storm? (in the eyes of the insurance companies.) From Andrew to Frances I remember a rain event tropical storm the flooded entire neighborhoods and not too much else. But that is just my memory, I am sure others will correct me. I don't think that much will happen to lower rates other than property values going down.....
Oh... would you look at that....
Now what are the insurance companies going to do when I tell them that the value of my home has dropped $75,000? Time will tell, but it probably won't tell much.

[CrazyC83]

Shear is rapidly decreasing in the subtropical Atlantic, that could be an area to watch.

[CrazyC83]

A pre-season forecast need to be looked from an educated point of view. If you have a forecast of 5/2/1, it doesn't mean you need to relax because it's forecasted to be a below normal season, you need to still get ready in case that forecast verifies and that 1 moves over you! The same should apply to a forecast of 17/10/5.

Pre-season forecasts don't do any harm, an uneducated population does the harm.

It's just like playing the lottery, you know your chances are very low but you still play it. You need to get ready before every season because even though the chance of a hurricane moving over your house is pretty low, it's higher than winning the lottery for most of us!!!

Bottomline:

Education is the key for a civilization to move forward.

Good point. We could have a repeat of 2005, but if all the big ones are fishes, we'd think it was a fairly calm season. Or we could have the least active season in recent years, but if one of those few storms was a Katrina-like storm, that year would be perceived as brutal.

[dwg71]

I know that there were to Cat 5's, but in regards to shear number of storms this season was a bust. Most predictions were around 17-18 named storms.

[dtrain44]

I know that there were to Cat 5's, but in regards to shear number of storms this season was a bust. Most predictions were around 17-18 named storms.

The sheer number of sheared storms is amazing....

[Steve]

>>wxman57, you make a valid point. But just how small should the "risk pool" be? If it is too small, than it isn't worthwhile to buy insurance because it is so expensive.

In the recent governor's race here in Louisiana, one of the candidates discussed pooling of risks with other hurricane prone states either with a federal program or not. Could bring some relief.

>>I know that there were to Cat 5's, but in regards to shear number of storms this season was a bust. Most predictions were around 17-18 named storms

Not so fast grasshoppa. We are at 14. There well could still be 3 or 4 more named storms. There may also be one or two storms in reanlsysis that is/are upgraded to a "named storm(s)". In my opinion, there were probably at least 1 or 2 systems that never got labled as TS's or STS's that may be candidates. This gives us 15 or 16 depending. That means 1 or 2 more named storms takes it exactly to a 17-18 prediction. And even if we don't get to 17 or 18, being off by 1 or 2 storms is hardly a "bust" in my opinion.



Steve

[dwg71]

>>wxman57, you make a valid point. But just how small should the "risk pool" be? If it is too small, than it isn't worthwhile to buy insurance because it is so expensive.

In the recent governor's race here in Louisiana, one of the candidates discussed pooling of risks with other hurricane prone states either with a federal program or not. Could bring some relief.

>>I know that there were to Cat 5's, but in regards to shear number of storms this season was a bust. Most predictions were around 17-18 named storms

Not so fast grasshoppa. We are at 14. There well could still be 3 or 4 more named storms. There may also be one or two storms in reanlsysis that is/are upgraded to a "named storm(s)". In my opinion, there were probably at least 1 or 2 systems that never got labled as TS's or STS's that may be candidates. This gives us 15 or 16 depending. That means 1 or 2 more named storms takes it exactly to a 17-18 prediction. And even if we don't get to 17 or 18, being off by 1 or 2 storms is hardly a "bust" in my opinion.



Steve

14 ???
1 Subtropical Storm ANDREA 09-11 MAY 40 1002 -
2 Tropical Storm BARRY 01-02 JUN 45 997 -
3 Tropical Storm CHANTAL 31 JUL-01 AUG 45 994 -
4 Hurricane-5 DEAN 13-23 AUG 145 918 5
5 Tropical Storm ERIN 15-19 AUG 35 1003 -
6 Hurricane-5 FELIX 31 AUG-05 SEP 145 929 5
7 Tropical Storm GABRIELLE 08-11 SEP 45 1004 -
8 Hurricane-1 HUMBERTO 12-14 SEP 75 986 1
9 Tropical Storm INGRID 12-17 SEP 40 1002 -
10 Tropical Storm JERRY 23-25 SEP 40 1000 -
11 Tropical Storm KAREN 25-29 SEP 60 990 -
12 Hurricane-1 LORENZO 25-28 SEP 70 990 1
13 Tropical Storm MELISSA 28-30 SEP 40 1003 -

[Steve]

I can't count to "N" which I know is 14

/but still

[MiamiensisWx]

To add to what Steve says...
Insurance companies make most of their money off of investing your premiums. The money you give them in premiums doesn't sit in a vault somewhere, most of it gets invested. Some is kept on hand to pay for claims. Then, insurance companies buy re-insurance to cover the big losses. Actuaries calculate and re-calculate this stuff to provide a reasonable path for the insurance companies to take. Then, they buy re-insurance to cover big losses.

Now comes my mini-rant:
For decades, the South Florida area was undercharged for insurance. It wasn't a secret that Hurricanes hit here. The developers, government, and real estate intrests pushed massive development. Nothing wrong with that. But, for some reason, the insurance companies kept writing cheap insurance. And I don't believe that the insurance companies didn't know any better. A massive storm had to hit us eventually. So, after decade of being undercharge, we have to "make-up" for it in a few years with massive rate hikes. As I see it, the insurance companies screwed up by KNOWINGLY undercharging us for decades, and now we have to pay for it!

Personally, I vehemently disagree with the underlined portion of the bolded statements. I agree that development is essential to the state's economy, and it's all about "location", but you can't deny the fact that "massive" development (especially in flood plains, south FL watersheds, and barrier islands) has brought more harm that often outweighed the benefits. You can't continually construct new developments over our watershed if you haven't found solutions to the water shortages and mismanagement of our resources (i.e. lowering Lake Okeechobee's water level in 2006). Obviously, drought + higher population = environmental and sociological problems. Additionally, it has also (partially) placed the region in our current insurance situation, in addition to the aforementioned "undercharges" during quieter landfalling periods in this state (in terms of hurricane strikes).

OT: I personally believe this season is finished, and I rarely cancel seasons if signs support additional possible cyclogenesis. UL divergence (shear) has been too strong across the Caribbean in October, which is quite unusual during La Nina years. Additionally, higher background pressures may have been taking another toll on systems. The westerlies are clearly entrenched across the area, and the persistent monthly shear suggests we may not see any additional systems in 2007 (pending possible subtropical development). Obviously, I will still keep one cautious eye slightly open, but I think the chances of a United States landfall are vanishing in this pattern. Probabilities will drop in November and December. If shear was lower, I would not have made this statement, and there have been some United States strikes in November-December (i.e. 1935 Yankee Hurricane, Kate '85, 1925, etc.). It does not matter; hurricane supplies are an extension of general emergency preparedness.

[DanKellFla]

The developers, government, and real estate intrests pushed massive development. Nothing wrong with that.

MiamiensisWX....

You are right. If the real costs were taken into account, the massive development would have been slowed due to cost issues. When the government can't get something as basic as drinking water needs into account, something doesn't smell right.

[MiamiensisWx]

Good point. We could have a repeat of 2005, but if all the big ones are fishes, we'd think it was a fairly calm season. Or we could have the least active season in recent years, but if one of those few storms was a Katrina-like storm, that year would be perceived as brutal.

I want to ask a serious question. I don't think you suffer from this condition, but too many people believe the following scenario is a "frequent" occurrence. Personally, what did you think about the probabilities of a Katrina-type disaster (in any given season) prior to 2003, 2004, and 2005? Take a closer look at your opinion today. I would not be surprised if your expectations have been raised with respect to the chances of a Katrina-type event. Some people appear to "expect" another Katrina every year in the post-2005 world. I do not think it's fair to measure a season's "destructive potential" based on major hurricane landfalls. These storms are generally rare events. A Katrina disaster is exceptional. The weaker systems are much more common, and we have seen that these systems (i.e. Claudette '03 and Humberto '07) can be pretty impressive events in local regions. I felt Category 1 winds during Wilma, and I thought it was quite strong. Ultimately, this is the bottom line: the personal aftermath is the biggest factor for a property owner's definition of "impressive" or "bad" (depends on perspective, position in life, etc.), regardless of the storm's intensity. I'm not hyping up a marginal, weakening tropical system that clearly will not bring widespread effects (i.e. Ernesto '06), but I'm adding my own sip of advice. Here is my point (not directed toward you) - Katrina-type events are quite RARE in the United States.

I'm not preaching to the choir here. Additionally, I'm not chiding -removed-; I don't mind others who "wishcast" for weather events. This is another issue. I'm just presenting an alternative opinion.

[Category 5]

As for the frequency of Katrina like storms.

The last time the CONUS saw a Hurricane that bad was in 1900.

However, with population growth along the coastline, storms like that could occur more often.

[Ptarmigan]

Here's my take on this season from a statisical standpoint. We are using the Poisson Distribution. All averages are based from 1870 to 2006. For 2007, it is as of November 4, 2007.

e^-9 * 9^14 / 14! = 0.03238444
Since, p < 0.05 is, this season is more active than usual.

e^-5 * 5^6 / 6! = 0.14622281
Since, p > 0.05, the season is normal in terms of hurricane formation

e^-2 * 2^2 / 2! = 0.27067057
Since, p > 0.05, the season is normal in terms of major hurricane formation.

2007 was more active in terms of storm formation, but normal in hurricane and major hurricane formation.


Let's compare 2003 to 2006 season.
2003
e^-9 * 9^16 / 16! = 0.01092975
Since, p < 0.05 is, this season is more active than usual.

e^-5 * 5^7 / 7! = 0.10444486
Since, p > 0.05, the season is normal in terms of hurricane formation.

e^-2 * 2^3 / 3! = 0.18044704
Since, p > 0.05, the season is normal in terms of major hurricane formation.

2003 is active in terms of number of storms forming, but normal in terms of hurricane and major hurricane formation.


2004
e^-9 * 9^15 / 15! = 0.01943067
Since, p < 0.05 is, this season is more active than usual.

e^-5 * 5^9 / 9! = 0.03626558
Since, p < 0.05 is, this season is more active in terms of hurricane formation.

e^-2 * 2^6 / 6! = 0.0120298
Since, p < 0.05 is, this season is more active in terms of major hurricane formation.

2004 was very active in terms of storm, hurricane, and major hurricane formation.


2005
e^-9 * 9^28 / 28! = 0.00000021
Since, p < 0.05 is, this season is more active than usual.

e^-5 * 9^15 / 15! = 0.00015725
Since, p < 0.05 is, this season is more active in terms of hurricane formation.

e^-2 * 9^7 / 7! = 0.00343709
Since, p < 0.05 is, this season is more active in terms of major hurricane formation.

2005 was hyperactive.


2006
e^-9 * 9^10 / 10! = 0.11858008
Since, p > 0.05, the season is normal.

e^-5 * 9^5 / 5! = 0.17546737
Since, p > 0.05, the season is normal in terms of hurricane formation.

e^-2 * 9^2 / 2! = 0.27067057
Since, p > 0.05, the season is normal in terms of major hurricane formation.

2006, a far contrast from 2005, was normal.

[Downdraft]

I'm going to go out on a limb with two things I'd like to add. I think if you wanted to look at what a model hurricane year might look like in global warming 2007 would be it. Systems undergoing more shear, failure of many good invest to really spin up and those that do becoming significant major hurricanes. We used to be in awe of getting a real CAT 5 storm but in recent years they have not become unusual to see. I think this is the season of the future personally. My second point is pre-season forecasts. I think from a reliability and accuracy viewpoint they are worthless but I also believe that any vehicle to get hurricane awareness in front of the public is a good thing. I do think a pre-season December forecast is not worth the effort. You can use all the standard deviations and 3 sigmas you want it's to soon for public awareness and reality seldom agrees with mathematical distributions.

[CrazyC83]

As for the frequency of Katrina like storms.

The last time the CONUS saw a Hurricane that bad was in 1900.

However, with population growth along the coastline, storms like that could occur more often.

If any of the following 1900-1979 storms hit today, the results would be catastrophic with over $20B in damage and/or the potential for high to extreme death tolls:

1900-Galveston
1915-Galveston
1926-Great Miami
1928-Okeechobee
1938-New England
1944-SW Florida
1947-Fort Lauderdale
1954-Hazel
1960-Donna
1965-Betsy

Numerous other pre-1900 storms repeated would be catastrophic as well...