Let the games begin-JB's preliminary for 2011

[Ivanhater]

The way landfall predictions will improve is by issuing them and then finding out why you were wrong at the end of the season and use what you learned to improve future forecasts. Same as seasonal forecasts.

Same as tornado watches in the 1950's and 1960's. The SPC (then SELS) wasn't are good with predicting severe weather back then as they are today. They forecasted. They failed. They learned. They improved. (If there was a battlestar galactica of meteorology, that would be the opening sequence).

The reason I get confused is that, why even issue a specific amount of storms to affect the USA when you don't even know? I mean, are they saying that they know where the high pressures are going to set up shop? the amount of troughs that are going to come down? and where the ULLs are going to form? which all play a big roll in directing a storm towards the land or not....It just seems like such a wild guess to the point that it's useless....

I think predicting the number of storms is fine. I have no problem with that.

As far as I'm aware, only JB issues a range of storms to effect the U.S, not the governmental agencies.

There are various signals to use to forecast the synoptic setup for the season. The seasonal forecast from governmental agencies use percentages for regions (53 percent chance for above average number of storms in Gulf of Mexico). They do not specify on an exact area or an exact number of storms. They only use percentages opposed to the average. Also in the seasonal forecast they make it clear landfall forecast is highly variable. They need and should continue to do it so the science improves. I'm not seeing the problem here.

[ConvergenceZone]

The way landfall predictions will improve is by issuing them and then finding out why you were wrong at the end of the season and use what you learned to improve future forecasts. Same as seasonal forecasts.

Same as tornado watches in the 1950's and 1960's. The SPC (then SELS) wasn't are good with predicting severe weather back then as they are today. They forecasted. They failed. They learned. They improved. (If there was a battlestar galactica of meteorology, that would be the opening sequence).

The reason I get confused is that, why even issue a specific amount of storms to affect the USA when you don't even know? I mean, are they saying that they know where the high pressures are going to set up shop? the amount of troughs that are going to come down? and where the ULLs are going to form? which all play a big roll in directing a storm towards the land or not....It just seems like such a wild guess to the point that it's useless....

I think predicting the number of storms is fine. I have no problem with that.

As far as I'm aware, only JB issues a range of storms to effect the U.S, not the governmental agencies.

There are various signals to use to forecast the synoptic setup for the season. The seasonal forecast from governmental agencies use percentages for regions (53 percent chance for above average number of storms in Gulf of Mexico). They do not specify on an exact area or an exact number of storms. They only use percentages opposed to the average. Also in the seasonal forecast they make it clear landfall forecast is highly variable. They need and should continue to do it so the science improves. I'm not seeing the problem here.

I understand what you are saying Michael, but again, what variables would make someone say, "2 majors to affect the USA" a year from now? I know that, as WXMan pointed out, the NHC doesn't make such predictions, but JB and others do. While I think that they did great with the number of storms prediction, they are never going to know the amount of majors that they think might affect the USA(this year was a perfect example of that). That's difficult to guess 3 months in advance, let alone a whole year....I just hope that nobody actually looks at landfall predictions for the following year and buys into it.....

[Ivanhater]

This is in the introduction to Philip J. Klotzbach and William M. Gray Seasonal forecast

It has never meant to be a crystal ball. It is based on statistics and will not come out true every time, but there is science behind it and the only way to continue improvement it to keep forecasting it. Here is the entire forecast and explains how they came up with it.

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/fo ... un2010.pdf


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 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. [b]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.
2[/b]

[ConvergenceZone]

Thanks Ivan,
I started reading some of that. I do understand their point of making the public aware of hurricanes. On the flip side, I also think that it can backfire if they predict a certain amount of majors to hit land and they don't.

I guess it's like the boy that cried wolf analogy...The public probably won't believe it the next time. I mentioned in another thread that whe I was talking weather with a few people, I was often asked, "what happened to the horrible hurricanes that we suppose to have had"? followed up by comments such as
"I'm not going to listen to them next year"....

I think what happens is that the media gets a hold of these landfall predictions, and make them sound more important than they are.

In my opinion, I just think that there are other ways to make the public aware of hurricanes, for the above reasons....So with that said, maybe they should continue to make the landfall predictions, for the reasons they mentioned, but just keep the landfall data to themselves(Just My Opinion)...

Then again, as we talked about on this board several times, you know how the media is when they get a hold of these predictions. They make them sound overly important and dramatic.

[Ptarmigan]

I notice there have been prolonged La Nina events. The closest to a prolonged El Nino is from 1991-1994 in terms of SST.

Persistant La Nina
1871-1875
1908-1911
1954-1957
1973-1976
1998-2000

Persistant El Nino
1991-1994 (1993 went to Neutral)

Before 1950
ftp://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/JMA_SST_Ind ... y.filter-5

1950-Present
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/a ... ears.shtml

[Florida1118]

I still don't think you can say confidently "___NS, __H, and __MH" out nearly 6 months. Landfall predictions just make people worried. Now a range of like 3 NS and Hurricanes is fine, like they all seem to do. I just hope that Noaa doesn't do a 2-23 NS, 1-12 H, and 1-6 MH prediction again. That was kinda worthless to tell us we can go to below, to normal, to above normal this year.

[Migle]

I don't think it's to early to look ahead to next year as this season is pretty much over now. As far as next year though, if we do go into neutral, then I think were going to be in for another crazy. And probably more activity in the early part of the season like we saw with 08.

[jinftl]

Agree 100%...the science is getting very good at forecasting overall seasonal activity well in advance....what is always going to be a challenge is forecasting steering patterns and landfall threat far in advance of each storm actually forming.....that is just the reality of where we are with understanding the science of storms. This limitation is not just a reality of hurricane forecasting....we are still unable to predict specific earthquakes in advance of them happening and we rarely can pinpoint an exact tornado track (down to the street level) until it is on the ground.

I like JB, but he's just throwing a dart in the dark with his prediction of 1 to 2 majors to affect the USA. Didn't he predict a couple of majors to effect the USA this year as well? ........What happened there Jim?

It is common knowledge that landfall predictions have a LONG way to go, as well as intensity. However, the vast majority of predictions are based on numbers, and that is getting better and better.

The predictions for a hyperactive season this year were spot one, despite the vocal doubters early this season. No reason to doubt the above average season forecast for next year.

The criticism of landfall predictions is beating a dead horse

If someone wants to try to improve the science of this one factor of seasonal forecasting then who cares. Seasonal number predictions use to be horrible before, but by persistence, it has improved.

[StormClouds63]

The way landfall predictions will improve is by issuing them and then finding out why you were wrong at the end of the season and use what you learned to improve future forecasts. Same as seasonal forecasts.

Same as tornado watches in the 1950's and 1960's. The SPC (then SELS) wasn't are good with predicting severe weather back then as they are today. They forecasted. They failed. They learned. They improved. (If there was a battlestar galactica of meteorology, that would be the opening sequence).

The reason I get confused is that, why even issue a specific amount of storms to affect the USA when you don't even know? I mean, are they saying that they know where the high pressures are going to set up shop? the amount of troughs that are going to come down? and where the ULLs are going to form? which all play a big roll in directing a storm towards the land or not....It just seems like such a wild guess to the point that it's useless....

I think predicting the number of storms is fine. I have no problem with that.

Those of us who closely follow the tropics know that this was an above average season. My prediction of 13/7/3 turned out to be far too low. Nonetheless, ask John Q. Public about the 2010 hurricane season, and he'd probably say just the opposite. Until landfall predictions can be made with some degree of accuracy, even seasonal forecast numbers are a waste of time. The average coastal resident wants to know only one thing -- will any storm affect him or her this season, and how bad will it be. The current science is incapable of this ... so all the preseason forecasts are virtually worthless ... including mine for this year!

For the U.S. in 2010, it was the year of "recurvature" and shear, plus those ULLs. It was the season where hostile conditions persisted in the Gulf of Mexico, even during the heart of the season. Again, here along the GOM, we were incredibly lucky ... and no one is complaining.

[MGC]

I am currently thinking that the Atlantic basin will witness another above average hurricane season in 2011. It is looking like the La Nina will linger into summer or aproach neutral. Should be above average as long as there in not a rapid transition to El Nino which apears unlikely at the time.....MGC

[thetruesms]

Those of us who closely follow the tropics know that this was an above average season. My prediction of 13/7/3 turned out to be far too low. Nonetheless, ask John Q. Public about the 2010 hurricane season, and he'd probably say just the opposite. Until landfall predictions can be made with some degree of accuracy, even seasonal forecast numbers are a waste of time. The average coastal resident wants to know only one thing -- will any storm affect him or her this season, and how bad will it be. The current science is incapable of this ... so all the preseason forecasts are virtually worthless ... including mine for this year!

For the U.S. in 2010, it was the year of "recurvature" and shear, plus those ULLs. It was the season where hostile conditions persisted in the Gulf of Mexico, even during the heart of the season. Again, here along the GOM, we were incredibly lucky ... and no one is complaining.

"If it can't be perfect, it shouldn't be done" - this is a terrible logical fallacy. This is akin to the ban on using the word "tornado" in weather forecasts that existed until 1950, and can only serve to set back the science.