Excellent article in the Miami Herald

[MiamiensisWx]

http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/320606.html

I completely concur with the premise.

[Ed Mahmoud]

http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/320606.html

I completely concur with the premise.

JINX!

[MiamiensisWx]

http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/320606.html

I completely concur with the premise.

JINX!

Well, this thread discusses the validity of all forecasts from their end (not restricted to the December outlooks).

I think this thread can remain here, or you can change your thread title to "Is there any validity to Klotzbach-Gray forecasts?" You can remove "December".

The Herald article discusses all Gray-Klotzbach outlooks.

[cycloneye]

I am eagered to read what Klotzbach & Gray will say in their 2007 summary (Will be released on tuesday 27th).Especially I want to see their anaylsis of why in La Nina year,there was plenty of upper shear that caused the storms that formed to stay weak in the peak of the season.About seasonal forecasts,I follow them every year regardless of the outcome to see what is their analysis about what to expect in any given season.

I see differences on both threads as this one is about the vadility of the seasonal forecasts in general.

The other thread by Ed Mahmoud
relates to the vadility of the December outlooks.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Two threads work, one on the overall subject of long term climate based prediction, the other specifically about whether an outlook issued eight months before the active part of the season has any skill above what some mean of the long term averages would produce.

[Derek Ortt]

Terrible article, IMO (reeks of an agenda)

The NOAA seasonal forecast was OUTSTANDING. 13-17 named storms (we had 14), 7-9 hurricanes (we had 6... the Herald article of 5 is incorrect, check the ATCF file for Karen and you'll see that it is indeed a hurricane and for 12 hours), and 3-5 major hurricanes (we had 2)

If we can get a prediction like that every year, it will show that there is indeed some skill in seasonal forecasting and I would pay much closer to the actual range of numbers and not just the trend of normal, active, or inactive, in the future.

[RL3AO]

I was just going to say that Derek. How can you rip the NOAA forecast? It was pretty good. Also, I've said it before and I will say it again, if you are going to do seasonal forecasts, stay away from numbers and do something like:

75% above average
20% near average
5% below average

or, if you want details

10% much above average
65% above average
20% near average
5% below average
<2% much below average

[CrazyC83]

IMO, numbers for each category:

Named storms

Much above average - 16 or more
Above average - 12 to 15
Near average - 9 to 11
Below average - 6 to 8
Much below average - 5 or less

Hurricanes

Much above average - 10 or more
Above average - 8 or 9
Near average - 5 to 7
Below average - 3 or 4
Much below average - 2 or less

Major hurricanes

Much above average - 6 or more
Above average - 4 or 5
Near average - 2 or 3
Below average - 1
Much below average - 0

ACE

Much above average - 161 or more
Above average - 121 to 160
Near average - 75 to 120
Below average - 41 to 70
Much below average - 40 or less

[MiamiensisWx]

Ugh. Personally, I think all forecasts from Gray and Klotzbach (not NOAA) have become worthless. I'm including ALL forecasts from Colorado State University, whether it is the December or August outlook. I think the methods or analysts should make some adjustments. These seasonal outlooks are misunderstood by the media, thus leading to hype and unreasonable expectations/demands. It's discouraging that we hear "doom and gloom" from the media in the post-2004 and 2005 world. They do not know that these are not landfall estimates. The media's misinterpretations provided the impetus for the South Florida Water Mismanagement District's decisions to lower Lake Okeechobee's water table. You are out of touch with reality if you believe this statement is false. Local knowledgeable people (not related to the media) have stated that this is the truth. This includes workers at the SFWMD. Every news outlet (i.e. AP and news sources) states that the above average numbers in 2006 compelled the SFWMD to make poor decisions.

There is PROPAGANDA that proposes the position that says, "Hey! 2003, 2004, and 2005 were NORMAL! It will only grow worse as AGW causes stronger hurricanes! There will be many deaths!"

Do not misinterpret this sentence. I'm not a person who dismisses GW. Actually, I believe GW is influencing tropical cyclones (it is probably a mixture of natural and anthropogenic influences), but the media assumes that it will ENHANCE development. They do not present the OPPOSING viewpoint (i.e. GW will reduce basin-wide TC activity in the Northern Hemisphere in terms of hurricane days). Personally, I think Downdraft was correct: 2007-type seasons may be the "season of the future". Tropical cyclones struggle with higher shear values in Nina years, but those that survive and strengthen to a TS or hurricane can ramp up via rapid intensification (i.e. Dean, Felix, Humberto, and Lorenzo).

Additionally, the media interprets overall activity as landfalls, thus "active" seasons (i.e. ALL seasons) are "bad" seasons in the United States. Obviously, they don't remember 1995 and 1988. Those seasons brought landfalling tropical cyclones in the Caribbean (i.e. destructive Gilbert, Luis, and Marilyn), but the mainland United States largely escaped in 1988. Although 1995 brought Opal and Erin, it did not match the number of United States landfalls during 2003-2005. It did not match the number of landfalls during a single hyperactive year (2005), and 1995 was very active. That statistic tells the tale.

Moral: 2003-2005 was exceptionally rare.

Unfortunately, some people (in the media) are probably blasting NOAA because we didn't receive another Katrina disaster.

Additionally, we have numerous misinformed economic weenies that love to harp on a crashing FL real estate market (ala 1920s) because of destructive landfalling hurricanes. They are comparing apples and oranges. They need to beef up their knowledge of history. The Florida land boom of the 1920s was ephermal and short-lived because of other factors, including a frenzy of speculative errors (i.e. buying submerged land), foreclosures, shortage of supplies, and numerous underlying factors (many of which I have not mentioned).

It closely resembles the people (on this site) who panic when they see a major hurricane landfall on Miami, FL or Long Island in the 384-hour operational GFS or 240-hour Euro. These are LONG-RANGE guidance. They are ENTERTAINMENT that should not be taken in a serious manner. It's all HYPE. It also reflects a lack of proper etiquette with respect to the proper way in which models should be utilized.

I apologize for the long post, but I think it summarizes my thoughts.

[wxman57]

Terrible article, IMO (reeks of an agenda)

The NOAA seasonal forecast was OUTSTANDING. 13-17 named storms (we had 14), 7-9 hurricanes (we had 6... the Herald article of 5 is incorrect, check the ATCF file for Karen and you'll see that it is indeed a hurricane and for 12 hours), and 3-5 major hurricanes (we had 2)

If we can get a prediction like that every year, it will show that there is indeed some skill in seasonal forecasting and I would pay much closer to the actual range of numbers and not just the trend of normal, active, or inactive, in the future.

Derek, where's the ATCF file with Karen's best track data? We have a hurricane contest at work. One person has 14 named storms and 6 hurricanes, one has 5 hurricanes. Our rules state that the winner is closest to the official count as of midnight November 30th.

[P.K.]

It got upgraded in the BT pretty much straight after the event on the TPC FTP server.

AL, 12, 2007092606, , BEST, 0, 112N, 415W, 45, 1000, TS, 34, NEQ, 60, 30, 0, 40, 1012,
AL, 12, 2007092612, , BEST, 0, 116N, 425W, 65, 990, HU, 34, NEQ, 75, 45, 30, 45, 1012,
AL, 12, 2007092612, , BEST, 0, 116N, 425W, 65, 990, HU, 50, NEQ, 45, 0, 0, 0, 1012,
AL, 12, 2007092618, , BEST, 0, 121N, 436W, 65, 990, HU, 34, NEQ, 120, 90, 30, 90, 1011,
AL, 12, 2007092618, , BEST, 0, 121N, 436W, 65, 990, HU, 50, NEQ, 90, 50, 15, 45, 1011,
AL, 12, 2007092700, , BEST, 0, 127N, 446W, 60, 995, TS, 34, NEQ, 180, 150, 45, 150, 1013,
AL, 12, 2007092700, , BEST, 0, 127N, 446W, 60, 995, TS, 50, NEQ, 150, 105, 25, 90, 1013,