Atlantic to see six hurricanes in '08 - forecast

[Ed Mahmoud]

2007 prediction from Wx Research

If you strike all the less than pure tropical storms that they insist NHC shouldn't have named, they were perfect.
For what its worth.

[RL3AO]

Yes. A handful of storms last year would not have been named 20 years ago. They just have the technology now to find more tropical storms. The only debatable ones are Chantal and Jerry. I think the rest were confirmed to be a TS by an aircraft.

[HURAKAN]

What about Melissa, it didn't last much. Even Andrea and Olga were kind of controversial. TD 15, TD 10.

[Recurve]

While I can accept various methods for overall season activity prediction, I am much less convinced that landfall predictions can be accurately made far in advance -- so much depends on the dynamics, the setup at a particular area at a particular time. Could anybody have predicted last year that we would have such intense storms stay so low through the Caribbean?

[RL3AO]

:uarrow: What about Melissa, it didn't last much. Even Andrea and Olga were kind of controversial. TD 15, TD 10.

Melissa was semi-questionable. Anything that was named after a the hunters went through it can be considered legit. Thats direct proof of a LLC and TS winds.

[Andrew92]

Actually, after reading this thread and the article and dissecting it further, I am actually terrified of what this hurricane season could bring.

I don't agree that there would simply have been 7 storms and 4 hurricanes if this hurricane season were twenty years ago. It would have been close, but my guess is more like 10 storms and 5 hurricanes. So in that sense, they didn't do too bad, but they still were off a little.

11 storms may seem like too little, but go back to 1999. That year "only" saw 12 storms, but we consider that year above average. Why? 8 of those stoms became hurricanes, 5 of them major (all of them at C4 intensity), and several of them had long lives. Contrast that with a year like 2002, which also saw 12 storms, but is considered below average. That's because only four storms became hurricanes, two of them major, and in general most of the storms had very short lives (until Isidore, Kyle, and Lili).

So what's the point in that? La Nina doesn't mean more storms. But it may mean proportionately more stronger storms. And these storms could also have longer lives than most storms did last year.

And let's talk about last year for a sec. It amazes me that people think it was above average simply because we had 15 named storms. But it was really a slightly more active version of 2002 when you think about it. Only 6 of them became hurricanes, and only two storms, Dean and Felix, really had an appreciable lifespan (although Noel was also close). Last year wasn't below average, but it wasn't above either.

Believe me, if we see more longer-lived storms next year go on to become major hurricanes, it will be more active than last year. Even if we "only" see 11 or 12 named storms. And yes, I do consider the 1999 season to be more active than last year, by quite a bit actually.

I said 14/8/4 as my numbers for this year, and I do stick with them, as I think there will be a couple of those short-lived storms as well. But seeing a couple fewer named storms would not surprise me either. And as always, please remember that IT ONLY TAKES ONE.

-Andrew92

[KWT]

Yeah i got the feeling its sort of going for a slightly less active version of 1999. 1950 was another season which whilst having above normal NS wasn't really that high but it also had a very high ratio of NS to hurricanes---and both had ACE which show they were hyperactive seasons.

[HURRICANELONNY]

Derek. You haven't given any reason/factors for this season that would coincide with there forecast. Since your a scientist you should have many reason why you beleive there right. I'm not upset. I gave my reasons why I think it will be more active then the UK said. So has Dr. Klotzbach. Now yours..........

[Derek Ortt]

I will wait for the NOAA forecast.

That said, it is best to take some time to learn the methodology of each individual forecast. One forecast from the UK uses dynamic models and not statistical methods. It could be that the models just are not showing as much.

[Ed Mahmoud]

I will wait for the NOAA forecast.

That said, it is best to take some time to learn the methodology of each individual forecast. One forecast from the UK uses dynamic models and not statistical methods. It could be that the models just are not showing as much.

The Wx Reseach model forecast uses solar cycles. Which, in a sense, I'd assume, is statistical.



In the early days, from what I understand, the statistical models were actually better than the dynamic models, which is why models are still compared to CLIPER, and, of course, all modern dynamic models do better, but they didn't always.


Since a two week dynamic model and its ensembles can have a pretty good variance by the end of the forecast cycle, I don't understand how a long lead time dynamic model at this point would really exceed something based on analogs and statistics.

But I don't work in the field.

[HURRICANELONNY]

Either do I.

[Ed Mahmoud]

The following was posted in Florida weather, since Floridians were noting how much rain they've been getting.



Unscientific observation, although I think I've seen it mentioned somewhere, (maybe Bastardi), where it is warm and dry in the Spring, partly through feedback, signals the location of the mean summer ridge. Places in the Rio Grande Valley in March got less than a tenth of an inch of rain. So, (going back to my equally unscientic fixation on 1950 as the analog year), any Gulf storms getting near the latitude of Texas will keep chugging West, into Mexico.


And if the ridge is centered over Texas, well, the mean trough has to be somewhere East of here, maybe far enough East to recurve most storms (like 1950), but allow one or two to sneak up from the Caribbean into Florida. (Like 1950).


I eagerly await JB's 2008 Hurricane landfall forecast, I wanna see if he agrees with my uneducated reasoning.

[Blown Away]

2007 prediction from Wx Research

7 storms only, seems like an extreme prediction.

[canegrl04]

Whatever the forecasts are,its going to be the opposite

[hial2]

2007 prediction from Wx Research

7 storms only, seems like an extreme prediction.

The forecast quoted is from 2007...

[Ed Mahmoud]

2007 prediction from Wx Research

7 storms only, seems like an extreme prediction.

The forecast quoted is from 2007...

Well, six isn't much different. But I guess they are talking 'true' tropical cyclones, nothing sub-tropical, and any cyclone of non-tropical origin being completely tropical or they don't think it counts.

[Opal storm]

The bottom line is......(drum roll)

NO ONE really knows for sure...

So true. I really don't even pay attention to these pre-season forecasts. 8 storms...12 storms...18 storms, doesn't matter. All it takes is one.

[JTD]

So I get from the above posts that hyperactive seasons like 2004 and 2005 aren't on the horizon again any time soon?

[Cyclone1]

Maybe, maybe not.

We simply don't know. Tropical cyclones are a fickle, aren't they?

[JTD]

I agree.

As a sidebar, my interest in hurricanes has almost evaporated over the course of the 2006 and 2007 seasons. I went from being an avid follower in 2004 and 2005 to this.