Check out Hurricane Alley.net

[cajungal]

Check out Hurricane Alley.com. Then, check out the probability Landfall zone for Hurricanes for 2005. Southeast Louisiana is under the gun in the bright red for highest risk. Louisiana and Mississippi Gulf Coast. Not to say that is going to happen. We were in the orange last season (medium risk) and nothing happened. But, it is interesting to say the least. I love reading comments, so send me some! I can't believe it is less than 2 months away! Boy, time flies!

[Huckster]

Just a correction, the right link is hurricanealley.net

[ohiostorm]

Looks almost the same from last years landfalls.

[Rainband]

Looks almost the same from last years landfalls.

bite your tongue

[Steve]

We were in the red last year for one or two of their periods of the season. We did get Matthew in October (6"+) and some outskirts of Ivan (mostly just gusty winds and a little rain).

It gives me hope that maybe I'll get another 3 days this year where the wife and kids evacuate and I can go nuts with booze

Steve

[rainstorm]

doesnt make alot of sense to me. basically, they just said all the areas that would normally be most likely to get hit will get hit. hrd to be wrong with thier map

seasons where the east coast of fla, the west coast of fla, la, texas, mexico, nc, sc, ga, and east canada all get hit are extremely rare

[Scorpion]

Looks like the map shows late season risks to the SW Florida coast. No idea how can they come up with strike probabilities other than a wild guess.

[Javlin]

I've been looking at them for the last couple of months waiting to see April's update.It might be guessing Scorpion but some of the analog's have the North Central Gulf Coast with a few hits.I do think I read somewhere else(another thread here) were some of the mild El Nino years that 9 out fo the 16 hurricanes hit NCGC and those El Nino years lay claim to the only 2 cat 5's.Just because that happen then by no means that there will be a repeat just some data to look at.I most certainly do not wish to go through another Camille much less a Cat 2 really.We keep hearing about that Kelvin Wave but all the Big Guns are going with the active season even as the wave was developing.If the Wave does play an impact probably to little to late.

[Steve]

It is true that some of the most brutal storms to hit this area happened during El Nino seasons.

>>Looks like the map shows late season risks to the SW Florida coast. No idea how can they come up with strike probabilities other than a wild guess.

Here it is from their site:

For the purpose of this study, 17 variables were considered. The list of these variables can be found in the Forecast Explanation document. The historical data for the past years, from 1950 forward was used for the tropical cyclone information, the best track data from the National Hurricane Center was used for the location information. Each of the 17 variables was given a weighting and a tolerance value. Only the years when the "match" was at least 80% were used. The forecast will be updated monthly.

Here is a link the indicators they used last year:

http://hurricanealley.net/HAFrcstMthd.pdf

It's too early in the science of landfall prediction to say who is any good yet. So far, I think Bastardi's shown expert skill in his landfall intensity forecast. But since he doesn't give you his methodology, you really don't know what he's pulling out from where. I have to give credit to Independent for the job they do. Hurricane Alley has been pretty good over the last few years. I don't think Gary Gray or WX Research is doing that good of a job.

Steve

[MSRobi911]

Just what I need, MS Gulf Coast in the red...aww jeeze, please......NO thank you!

I'm going to have to start using my gris gris to make them go away already and they haven't even formed yet

Mary

[MWatkins]

Hmmm...the "high" risk areas clearly correspond with GOM long-track hurricanes that run through the Lesser Antillies...then the Carribean...and cross western Cuba on a northwestern to NNW path.

Anyone care to guess where HurricaneAlley.com originates from?

I wonder if there is a connection between this forecast and the location of the person who updates the site...

MW

[Huckster]

I couldn't find anything about where they're based on their site, and I don't know where they are, but it sounds like maybe you've got an idea that there's a bias toward the central Gulf coast in their forecast. A wishcast on their part? It looks like they're intimating that there will be a long tracked storm moving through the Caribbean, the Yucatan Channel area, and into Louisiana or Mississippi.

[TampaFl]

I belive they (Hurricanealley) are located in or near Mobile, Alabama. I remember last year when Ivan was heading towards Mobile they posted special notices on their site that they may not be able to keep the site updated. Thoughts and comments welcomed.

Robert

[Steve]

MW,

The Alley is better than that. They are in Satsuma, AL which is north of Mobile, AL (still in Mobile Co.) which is not in their danger area. The site is legit and has been around for at least the last few years.

Steve

[MWatkins]

MW,
The Alley is better than that. They are in Satsuma, AL which is north of Mobile, AL (still in Mobile Co.) which is not in their danger area. The site is legit and has been around for at least the last few years.
Steve

In all fairness, what I implied last night is that they are forecasting a track very close to where the website is located, which is true. It's also implied that they selected that "threat" area because it's close to where the website is located, which is not a concrete fact. So I should be more careful before free-wheeling like that. It was late when I posted that. I also agree with you Steve....They've been around a long time and do a good job overall.

And I have a great deal of respect for Michael Bryson who developed StormTrakker (sp?), not sure if that software is still around but at the time it was an excellent tool.

But here is my problem with this, and ALL other landfall forecasts for that matter.

1. There is little to no obvious reasoning for why these areas are highly favored. Here are the "high" threat areas:

most of the lesser Antillies
western tip of Cuba
eastern tip of the Yucatan
120 miles either side of the GA/SC border
Eastern LA and all of MS
Most of SW FL from Tampa southward

These are areas that would highly favor long track hurricanes running through the caribbean and into the Gulf on a path not unlike Ivan last year.

But there is no direct or indirect scientific reasoning as to why these tracks are highly likely to impact eastern LA for example, yet the western half of LA is in the clear according to this map.

I think the lack of explination as to why is the first major omission.

2. If you imply a high threat to the GA/SC border wouldn't you almost have to include a threat to the Bahamas? The only way you miss a Bahamas event would be a storm on a Carbon Copy track like Hugo. Even then...it would seem to me that PR would need to be included. I cannot see how GA/SC get a strike unless something develops right off the coast there and intensifies rapidly..and again...I dont know how you predict that.

An the implied gulf threat does not appear to be driven by storms developing in the Carribean late in the season...else the Antilies wouldn't have a "high threat".

3. Seasonal landfall forecasts this far out...in general...are bogus. There is no way to claim that the FL big-bend is a moderate risk, for example, when the second half of the panhandle is "no risk" according to this map.

The average error at 5 days...5 days...is 300 nautical miles...which is 5 degrees of longitude....which is the difference between Miami and New orleans. If tracks cant be narrowed down in 5 days they certainly cant be narrowed down like this in 5 months.

I suppose I wouldn't be as critical if there were some good, solid reasoning behind the map...and I shouldn't be so quick to fill in the gaps. But even then...I'd still probably post something about the validity of seasonal landfall forecasts. While they are good to call attention to the season, they have little scientific use.

Although...there are not enough good weather sites out there...and I think Tom and his site do a good job in staying on top of hurricanes throughout the year...and covering the tropics. This is not a personal issue at all...it's really more about seasonal landfall forecasts than anything else.

MW

[Javlin]

I have to agree Mike for the Most part that's why I am looking for the update because the strike probabilities have changed from month to month.What one use for analog years I think makes the difference on the impact zones.The Ms area did not get red as much until 1969 was added in March.
I just went back to HAlley April 05 is out some changes.Judging by the changes they are expecting some long trackers with a strengthing Bermuda High.We will have to see how it plays out.

[Steve]

No problem Mike. I hear what you're saying. What I suspect happens with them is that they look at the highest impact areas from the analog years. I'd like to see some actual discussion behind the methodology besides just what they (or anyone) comes up with for analogs. For instance - if 4 of somebody's 5 analog years had a storm hit eastern Cuba, they come out and say they believe that in a similar season eastern Cuba might expect to be effected. I could live with that and give weight according to how detailed the presentation was. The differences are always in the details, but ultimately, major weather systems only have so many options. To me, the science is just too new to know if one (or more) of the landfall or landfall-intensity forecasters are onto anything. I'm sure many people thought Dr. Gray was whacked for trying to quantify seasons. But now he's someone we all look to for guidance and to compare notes with. If anyone is able to establish a track record or be able to correct their mistakes along the way, seasonal landfall forecasts might not be considered voodoo or conjecture.

Steve

[Brent]

Joy... a MS/AL/FL Panhandle landfall would put me on the awful bad side of the storm. Great.

[cajungal]

The April forecast changed slightly. If that would hold true, even if a storm would hit Grand Isle (which is still in the red), I would be on the weak side of the storm. Because I live in Terrebonne Parish to the west. We are not even shaded in the red for April. We are in the clear now. It all depends on how big the storm is too. Because Betsy hit Grand Isle and her eye wall was an amazing 40 miles across. So, Houma-Thibodaux were all in the eyewall and got winds well over 130 mph. I bet the forecast will change again in May. We may still be in the clear or they may shade us in the red again.

[Huckster]

The April forecast changed slightly. If that would hold true, even if a storm would hit Grand Isle (which is still in the red), I would be on the weak side of the storm. Because I live in Terrebonne Parish to the west. We are not even shaded in the red for April. We are in the clear now. It all depends on how big the storm is too. Because Betsy hit Grand Isle and her eye wall was an amazing 40 miles across. So, Houma-Thibodaux were all in the eyewall and got winds well over 130 mph. I bet the forecast will change again in May. We may still be in the clear or they may shade us in the red again.

As has been pointed out before, if we cannot accurately predict exactly where a storm is going to be in 5 days, how can it be done in 5 months? I wouldn't place a hold lot of faith in those maps. How can one spot have a "high risk" and then if you go a couple of miles, the next spot has apparently no risk from a direct hit? A much, much better way to draw a map like that would be to have every zone of the coast represented by either a high, moderate, or low risk and/or have these risks fade from one to the other. That would give a much more reasonable appearance in my opinion.