Philip J. Klotzbach-Dr Gray 2007 Season Verification Report

[cycloneye]

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Fo ... ov2007.pdf



Read the long report that has 53 pages,so take your time to read all of it.On section 7 you can see the whole explanation of the factors such as ssts in the Tropical Atlantic,ENSO,Wind Shear and SLP.They say the main factor for the ssts to not be very warm was the dust from Africa that was the highest since 1999.After reading and digesting the verification report for the 2007 season,drop in here and say what do you think of the Colorado State University team number of factors that lead to them not be succesful in their forecasts especially the September and October ones?

"Meterologists are known to be brillant at after - the - fact explanation of weather phenomena ... but please dont press us too hard on future events!!"

The above big words are a quote from them.That is a tremendous line that they put there.

wxman57,you can take to the bank the 6th hurricane number for 2007.

[wxman57]

I do find it interesting that Dr. Gray/Phil Klotzbach report Humberto's insured damage at $250 million and total damage twice that at $500 million. The final NHC report had that insured losses were less than $50 million with total losses near $50 million. Maybe Dr. Gray left out a decimal point by mistake?

[cycloneye]

I do find it interesting that Dr. Gray/Phil Klotzbach report Humberto's insured damage at $250 million and total damage twice that at $500 million. The final NHC report had that insured losses were less than $50 million with total losses near $50 million. Maybe Dr. Gray left out a decimal point by mistake?

Looks like a typo error.

[RL3AO]

Well. They said "Hurricane Karen". That about closes any doubt. Just waiting for the BT report.

[HURAKAN]

Like in any forecast, sometimes you succeed, sometimes you fail, and the failure over the past two years have to be associated with the increadible seasons of 2004 and 2005, especially 2005. I think we have to get back to what is normal in the Atlantic and remember extremely clearly that 2004 & 2005 were anomalities, and not the norm.

Moreover, like they make the case, sometimes even if conditions are favorable for development, it doesn't necessarily mean that a tropical cyclone will develop and that's a huge risk that you take when making this kind of forecasts.

I think the media is making this something more important than what it's. When the forecasts are good they're rarely celebrated, but when they're not exact they appear in every newspaper, magazine, internet article, and/or any kind of media.

Furthermore, we must remember that a perfect average season doesn't exist and that's my problem when people talk about averages like they are the norm. The norm is high seasons vs. low seasons, and then you get an average.

What shocked me more about the 2007 season was the absolute and complete absense of long-tracking Cape Verde hurricanes that recurve in the middle of the Atlantic. The existence of Karen, Ingrid, and Melissa were cut-off almost before they began.

[HURAKAN]

Well. They said "Hurricane Karen". That about closes any doubt. Just waiting for the BT report.

I agree Karen was a hurricane but they also say that Melissa had winds of 40 knots, while the NHC final report downgraded the storm to 35 knots, and they say 75 knots for Humberto, and the NHC says 80 knots. I think they prepared this report before any of this happened but they should have gone back and fix the minor errors.

[wxman57]

I do find it interesting that Dr. Gray/Phil Klotzbach report Humberto's insured damage at $250 million and total damage twice that at $500 million. The final NHC report had that insured losses were less than $50 million with total losses near $50 million. Maybe Dr. Gray left out a decimal point by mistake?

Looks like a typo error.

I emailed Phil Klotzbach about it and he just responded. His mistake was looking at the dollar estimate on Wikipedia vs. the NHC post-storm report. He's making the correction now.

[wxman57]

Well. They said "Hurricane Karen". That about closes any doubt. Just waiting for the BT report.

I agree Karen was a hurricane but they also say that Melissa had winds of 40 knots, while the NHC final report downgraded the storm to 35 knots, and they say 75 knots for Humberto, and the NHC says 80 knots. I think they prepared this report before any of this happened but they should have gone back and fix the minor errors.

I just asked Phil about that, too. I wonder if he was using Wikipedia for those, too?

[RL3AO]

I do find it interesting that Dr. Gray/Phil Klotzbach report Humberto's insured damage at $250 million and total damage twice that at $500 million. The final NHC report had that insured losses were less than $50 million with total losses near $50 million. Maybe Dr. Gray left out a decimal point by mistake?

Looks like a typo error.

I emailed Phil Klotzbach about it and he just responded. His mistake was looking at the dollar estimate on Wikipedia vs. the NHC post-storm report. He's making the correction now.

I find it funny that a guy with a Ph.D is getting so much of his info from Wikipedia, especially with storms that have NHC reports out.

[HURAKAN]

Me too. Wikipedia is a great way to get fast the information but it's not always accurate. In this case you should only use the NHC.

[wxman57]

Just heard back from Phil. I think he put together parts of the report before the NHC best track database was finalized. He said he's not going to adjust Melissa's or Humberto's max wind speeds for now.

[RL3AO]

Just heard back from Phil. I think he put together parts of the report before the NHC best track database was finalized. He said he's not going to adjust Melissa's or Humberto's max wind speeds for now.

Makes sense. I guess you don't write a 53 page report overnight.

[cycloneye]

I do find it interesting that Dr. Gray/Phil Klotzbach report Humberto's insured damage at $250 million and total damage twice that at $500 million. The final NHC report had that insured losses were less than $50 million with total losses near $50 million. Maybe Dr. Gray left out a decimal point by mistake?

Looks like a typo error.

I emailed Phil Klotzbach about it and he just responded. His mistake was looking at the dollar estimate on Wikipedia vs. the NHC post-storm report. He's making the correction now.

Thank you for the info.

I guess you don't write a 53 page report overnight.

This report in my estimation started to be made around three weeks before todays release as it has many graphics and information that they had to get all the data.It looks like they trusted a lot Wikipedia.

[Jam151]

Why don't they wait for the final stats before they put together a seasonal verification report? It seems counterproductive to me.

[RL3AO]

Why don't they wait for the final stats before they put together a seasonal verification report? It seems counterproductive to me.

My guess is because the first forecast for the 2008 season is due in a week or two. Klotzbach probably wants to focus on that.

[cycloneye]

To be exact,on December 7th.

[Jim Hughes]

Well. They said "Hurricane Karen". That about closes any doubt. Just waiting for the BT report.

I agree Karen was a hurricane but they also say that Melissa had winds of 40 knots, while the NHC final report downgraded the storm to 35 knots, and they say 75 knots for Humberto, and the NHC says 80 knots. I think they prepared this report before any of this happened but they should have gone back and fix the minor errors.

I just asked Phil about that, too. I wonder if he was using Wikipedia for those, too?

Ask him next time if he's going to listen to my El Nino/La Nina forecasts, since he got both my 06' & 07' event calls quite early in both years. And we talked over the telephone.