Being Mad at the Forecasters

[MWatkins]

It’s human nature to want to blame someone, or something, when things don’t turn out like one expects.

For example, when I used to watch the Chiefs play on TV (they are so bad I don’t think they are allowed to play on TV anymore), when one of their players would invariably fumble away a chance to score, I would take it out on my remote. It wasn’t the remotes fault, but I blamed it by proxy and chucked it across the room until the batteries flew out of it.

I see a similar type of anger evolving in the tropical cyclone enthusiast community. Actually, I see it every year around this time. But, it’s especially bad when forecasts are for big numbers, like this year.

First, panic sets in early because some other season that also had a lot of storms had a hurricane by now…and the realization hits that nope…there’s not a big hurricane on the map on that particular day. That’s my favorite one because…well…the atmosphere doesn’t remember what happened some other year…yesterday or last week.

Let’s take one my favs:

Statement of Distress: “Geez, gonna be hard to make that big forecast now! These guys should stop making these forecasts if they can’t get it right!”

What That Really Means: The hurricane guys are lying to me! I was all set for a hurricane to hit my neighborhood, but since it hasn’t happened, these guys should stop making these forecasts!

My dad used to do this too…I could bleeping TELL he was looking forward to a big snow storm, be he would always tell me “aww, it’s probably going to miss us” even if the forecast was for 12 inches or something like that. And more times than not, he was right. But as I got older, I learned he was just protecting himself from disappointment.

Hurricane forecasting by it’s very nature is an inexact science. There are WAY too many variables to know what’s going to happen 1, 3 or 7 days from now. But, over time, these guys prove they are skillful. Not every forecast is going to work out, but they will be right more often that a climatological average…

My suggestion is to go back and read the forecast verifications, and see why things did or didn’t pan out.

It’s bizarre. I guess everyone is here for one of a few reasons:

1. Seek information about the tropics because hurricanes are interesting and there are a lot of knowledgeable people here who answer questions

2. Contribute to the exchange of ideas

3. Seek reassurance that no storms are going to form because they hate hurricanes

4. Lurk and learn

I think I fall under 1 and 2…but I think most are under 1 and 4. I would venture to guess most of the complaining is coming from group 1, which I understand to a point…even if I think the hostility is misdirected.

But in any case, I really think people need to lay off of Phil, Dr Gray, NOAA and others who make these forecasts. They shouldn’t stop this very scientific, and in some ways, groundbreaking research just because someone wanted a hurricane someplace by this time. They are the best at it, and I would challenge ANYONE to do better. I would even volunteer to do the forecast verification if you were to put a forecast out there…

I am NOT saying they are above reproach. If someone sees a flaw in their analysis, or has an idea of something that might work better, that’s a different story. But, sadly, it gets personal and emotional, and those two things have no business in the scientific community.

Almost universally, forecasters learn far more from the forecast busts than they do from the correct ones. It’s part of the process…it’s part of science.

Lay off the forecasters…give them time to see if this year verifies or not.

To quote Mike Tyson, attacking the forecasters because they made you sad is nothing short of “ludicrisp”.

MW

[hurricaneCW]

I think there's a reason to be mad when the NOAA forecasts range from 14-23 storms. That was the most ridiculous hurricane forecast I had ever seen. Also, most forecasters believed that just because we're in a La Nina that it automatically means a very active season. So I definitely agree with JB that the La Nina is not the ultimate driving force. Statistically, neutral ENSO years have seen more tropical activity than La Nina years.

By the way, the La Nina is already doing its job. We've been seeing below average shear throughout the MDR, the gulf, and Caribbean since July. It's the other factors that are giving us trouble. The unpredictability of the ULL's, the sustained TUTT, the outbreaks of SAL, and the bad timing of a developing system that gets entrained with those negative factors. La Nina certainly isn't hurting us, but there are other factors at work here that many forecasters didn't even think about.

[rockyman]

Very well said, Mr. Watkins! We have way too many people playing "Monday morning quarterback"...especially since we're just getting into the second quarter.

[Florida1118]

Agreed. I see the future and our angry people will be saying "I knew the forecast would be right..."

[tronbunny]

I am fascinated to watch as we try to figure out why things are happening differently than predicted.
What variables did we misinterpret or omit?
This is what knowledge expansion is about.

I think it's better for learning when things don't work the way we expect.

Amazing, we don't know EVERYTHING just yet.

[ConvergenceZone]

I never get mad at the forecasters, but I always get mad at the media due to over-hyping.

[chzzdekr81]

If NOAA forecasted 5 named storms the entire season, and we were up to 10 named storms right now, you wouldn't see people saying "So much for a slow season." To me, the people who are saying "So much for an active season" are the ones who want a lot of named storms. JMO.

[Florida1118]

I never get mad at the forecasters, but I always get mad at the media due to over-hyping.

Well thats the Media. They tend to insensitive and quite annoying. Also, they filter their info so they say what they think is important, not what IS important.

[KWT]

By the way, the La Nina is already doing its job. We've been seeing below average shear throughout the MDR, the gulf, and Caribbean since July. It's the other factors that are giving us trouble. The unpredictability of the ULL's, the sustained TUTT, the outbreaks of SAL, and the bad timing of a developing system that gets entrained with those negative factors. La Nina certainly isn't hurting us, but there are other factors at work here that many forecasters didn't even think about.

There is a good reason why those negative patterns are happening, they are simply a combo of the La Nina and rapidly changing QBO signal IMO...the sustained TUTT is something else that cropped up in 2007 if we all remember correctly. There is a good reason why La Ninas start slow, and its exactly because of the fatures you mention, strong subtropical highs help to also promote stronger ULLs/TUTTs usually, as well as strong outbreaks of SAL but they do tend to ease down very quickly in the 15 days between the 15-30th of August and hence why things ramp up quickly in that time.

Now the big key is whether it finally weakens in September like they normally do. In previous big moderate La Nina seasons, they have done so and thus we still end up with high ACE totals. Still too early to call either way right now.

[bvigal]

WOW, a lot of wisdom is contained on this page!! Thanks Mike, and everybody, for your comments. Mike those 4 reasons people frequent s2k are dead-on. And tronbunny, love your comment "Amazing, we don't know EVERYTHING just yet." How true!

I'm beginning to seriously wonder if there isn't some factor that isn't being measured, a missing ingredient, if you will, that significantly contributes to Atl cyclogenesis. And I don't base that upon the season storm predictions vs what we've seen so far, or even upon the unpredictability of some storms we have had or not had, most recently TD5. I know that seasons can get started in mid-August and still rack up a healthy ACE number.

Living in the Caribbean where EVERYONE pretty much watches from the coast of Africa all season, many people plan their days up to 5 fairly accurately (when it's going to be raining, stormy, not a good day to book passengers out on the water), based upon what twaves are on their way across the Atlantic and the usual time, with usual variability in speed, that they take to come across. In 11 years of watching every day, I've never seen a year where the mapped tropical waves were so unpredictable - one day here, the next day gone, the next day repositioned, the next day a new one half-way across the basin. It's been just crazy!

The reason is not the lack of scatterometer, a loss for sure, but it was never the main determinant of twaves. It's not the persistant TUTT, we've had that other years and it effects waves after they cross to 50W or so, not in the far E-Atl. We've had years with worse SAL and more storms, but twaves usually are at least trackable on the map, south of the SAL. It's not the forecasters at NHC, I'm sure. The forecast models, usually reliable on twaves, seem to be useless this season.

I'd really like to hear some of the experts come forward and shed some light on this year. Even if they say "this year is difficult to forecast and we don't know why", it would be helpful to hear something.

[thetruesms]

It’s human nature to want to blame someone, or something, when things don’t turn out like one expects . . . MW

Best. Post. Ever.

[ColinDelia]

Quite a few of these storms could have turned out very different under slightly different conditions. What if the ull near td5 had been just a few hundred miles further east for example? I can think of a few examples that were like that where we could easily have a few more named storms by now.

There is some predictive ability as far as number of storms but there is some error in that too. Such research is probabilistic only and not intended to be anything but.

The researchers with the best track record say the conditions are ripe for a busy year. As far as I've seen the most recent updates still say that. If someone out there has a better prediction scheme that somehow takes into account upper conditions by all means publish it.
That's the nature of science and the entire world would be interested.


Some excellent posts in this thread and I like reading both points of view.

[ColinDelia]

I think it is important to remember that these forecasts are made with assumptions. William Gray, as one example, has been very forthright about what those assumptions are and to indicate the probabilistic nature of the forecasts. They are not meant to be anything but that.

Here is the intro to the most recent William Gray forecast issued August 4. (54 exciting fun, packed pages. A must read!)

Why issue forecasts for seasonal hurricane activity?

We are frequently asked this question. Our answer is that it is possible to say something about the probability of the coming year’s hurricane activity which is superior to climatology. The Atlantic basin has the largest year-to-year variability of any of the global tropical cyclone basins. People are curious to know how active the upcoming season is likely to be, particularly if you can show hindcast skill improvement over climatology for many past years.

Everyone should realize that it is impossible to precisely predict this season’s hurricane activity in early August. There is, however, much curiosity as to how global ocean and atmosphere features are presently arranged as it regards to the probability of an active or inactive hurricane season. Our early August statistical forecast methodology shows strong evidence over more than 100 past years that significant improvement over climatology can be attained. We would never issue a seasonal hurricane forecast unless we had a statistical model developed over a long hindcast period which showed significant skill over climatology.

We issue these forecasts to satisfy the curiosity of the general public and to bring attention to the hurricane problem. There is a general interest in knowing what the odds are for an active or an inactive season. One must remember that our forecasts are based on the premise that those global oceanic and atmospheric conditions which preceded comparatively active or inactive hurricane seasons in the past provide meaningful information about similar trends in future seasons. This is not always true for individual seasons. It is also important that the reader appreciate that these seasonal forecasts are based on statistical schemes which, owing to their intrinsically probabilistic nature, will fail in some years. Moreover, these forecasts do not specifically predict where within the Atlantic basin these storms will strike. The probability of landfall for any one location along the coast is very low and reflects the fact that, in any one season, most U.S. coastal areas will not feel the effects of a hurricane no matter how active the individual season is. However, all coastal residents should prepare for an active hurricane season every year. Landfalling tropical cyclones can devastate communities in inactive or active seasons. It only takes one landfalling system to make this a very active season for you.

[wxman57]

I think there's a reason to be mad when the NOAA forecasts range from 14-23 storms. That was the most ridiculous hurricane forecast I had ever seen. Also, most forecasters believed that just because we're in a La Nina that it automatically means a very active season. So I definitely agree with JB that the La Nina is not the ultimate driving force. Statistically, neutral ENSO years have seen more tropical activity than La Nina years.

By the way, the La Nina is already doing its job. We've been seeing below average shear throughout the MDR, the gulf, and Caribbean since July. It's the other factors that are giving us trouble. The unpredictability of the ULL's, the sustained TUTT, the outbreaks of SAL, and the bad timing of a developing system that gets entrained with those negative factors. La Nina certainly isn't hurting us, but there are other factors at work here that many forecasters didn't even think about.

Are you aware of what the term "standard deviation" means? It's a mathematical term used to describe uncertainty. At no time was NOAA forecasting 14 or 23 named storms. Their forecast was for the median value, about 18.5. No different from most of the other forecasts. However, the NOAA forecasters don't just predict a single number like everyone else (their 18 or 19 named storms forecast in this case), so they express the forecast with a range of uncertainty to explain 70% of the possible variance. That's a bit over 1 standard deviation below and above their actual number. Thus the 14-23 named storms.

If you applied the same standard deviation range to any of the 2010 seasonal forecasts then they would all look just about like NOAA's forecast. But everyone else publishes the single median value vs. a range based upon standard deviation. Personally, I think NOAA should just predict a number, as it's clear that no one seems to be able to understand what they're trying to accomplish with the uncertainty range.

[JtSmarts]

One of the many reasons Mr. Watkins is one of my favorite posters. This post is 100% spot on and from being a member of many other diverse forums you see this type of behavior quite often.

[capepoint]

This will probably anger some people, but it's true so i'll say it.
A lot of the people that get angry over a forecasted storm that does not build-up to epic proportions are young and/or never been through a strong storm. They don't own property that could be destroyed, and they don't understand what it's like to live for a week or 10 days or more without electricity or the things that we take for granted in life. They don't understand the hardships that these storms cause, they just want to see one and see the damage. They think that it will be cool for them to say that they have been through it.

I personally have lived through more than my share of weak to moderate hurricanes, and would be totally happy to never have to go through it again. Once some of these people I disagree with live through one, and the aftermath, they won't be so quick to complain because a storm didn't live-up to the forecasts. Anyone who gets upset because they DON'T get a hurricane is either mentally off or has no idea what they are really getting themselves into.

[thetruesms]

I think it is important to remember that these forecasts are made with assumptions. William Gray, as one example, has been very forthright about what those assumptions are and to indicate the probabilistic nature of the forecasts. They are not meant to be anything but that.

Here is the intro to the most recent Klotzbach and Gray forecast issued August 4. (54 exciting fun, packed pages. A must read!)

Why issue forecasts for seasonal hurricane activity? . . .

fixed the authors for you on the CSU forecast

But your post brings up something that has disappointed me, and that's the clear lack of interest of people to look into seasonal forecasts more deeply in favor of superficially looking at the numbers. I guess I can't expect too much of the general public, and I suppose that those who put their numbers out could do a better job of crafting sound bites for the media to include when reporting the numbers to give them some context. However, it's a little different on this board, which is made up of self-described enthusiasts. It's a little depressing to see people tear apart a forecast in a rant that clearly shows a complete failure to gain any knowledge about the predictive model, its abilities, and limitations when such descriptions are usually readily available. If this is something that people really enjoy following and learning about, why not spend the time to read and learn more about it?

[Sanibel]

Perhaps we are into a new range of atmosphere behavior when SSTs get to a certain point they promote turbulence and ULL's and a hostile upper level? This next phase of atmosphere behavior could be something not known to the previously understood models.

[tolakram]

more deeply in favor of superficially looking at the numbers.

This is why numbers are bad. They know who will pick up on it, there is no surprise that numbers will be the focus if provided. At some point they will switch to low, med, high risk and drop the numbers, or bury them deep in the report. I'm convinced of this almost as much as I'm convinced the category system for hurricanes will be replaced with a damage potential more indicative of how strong a storm is. The Real Strength(c) index.

[ColinDelia]

thetruesms,

Agree completely. The forecasts are a really interesting read for anyone with an interest in tropical weather.

Another interesting thing from this year's forecast. Every year the CSU forecast points out the years which have the most similar characteristics to the
current ones for the range of variables that they consider. This year they are 1952, 1958, 1998 and 2005 (with 7, 10, 14 and 28 named storms respectively).
On this basis alone it shows the wide range of possible storms that can occur under somewhat similar conditions. The average of these is way above normal but it is possible with similar conditions to only have 7 named storms. It has happened in the past anyway.