Last Day of Hurricane Season

[HAltschule]

Today is the last day of the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season. In accordance, I will await Dr. Gray and Joe Bastardi's updated Hurricane forecast for the 2006 season. I am fairly confident it will be another donward revisement.

 

[Jim Leonard]

Today is the last day of the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season. In accordance, I will await Dr. Gray and Joe Bastardi's updated Hurricane forecast for the 2006 season. I am fairly confident it will be another donward revisement.

A lot will depend on the status of the current EL-Nino episode and how much of it will exist toward late spring and early summer next year. EL-Nino models for what they are worth are showing a cooling trend toward late next spring.

 

[HAltschule]

I was actually trying to make a joke. Today was the last day of hurricane season and I was saying that they would probably once again lower there outlook for the rest of the official hurricane season (which ends today) so that they would be more accurate with their predictions. They have been lowering there forecasts all season and botched the forecasts for the most part...especially Bastardi.

I guess my bad attemt at humor and sarcasm backfired again.

 

[Pat Lawrence]

lol, Howie, I actually got that one, and I'm not known for having much of a sense of humor.

He probably remembered your typo in the election thread

Yep, a pathetic Atlantic season is now over. Bastardi can always blame that red face on weightlifting, however, so he has little to worry about. Dr. Gray, well, he's a bit too old to use that for an excuse

Pat

 

[Margie Kieper]

Well, I got it. After all, you did type "2006."

If you assign a weight to the -- what is it, six? -- hurricane predictions that ColoSt does during the course of the year, the Dec one, which will be out on the 8th, would get the lowest weight in my mind, followed by all the post-August ones (which are, frankly, a little asinine). The spring and the August 1st forecasts are the most pertinent ones to my way of thinking; the same dates as the NOAA predictions. This is when you can see how things are going to shape up.

As for AccuWeather's "forecast," it was actually a recycling of the same one they did the year before. It's kind of fun to keep track of things like that. Did you realize when it came out that they gave eastern Canada a higher chance of getting hit than the FL panhandle and upper peninsula? And where did Alberto make landfall? I think the "this is the year for the East Coast" refrain may have something to do with expanding their subscriber base every year. Since they don't do any kind of verification, and basically sweep last year's forecast under the rug before the next year comes along, you can't really lump their forecasts in with groups that provide some type of after-season accountability.

I recall there were only two groups last spring predicting an El Nino (I think BOM was one of the two). Like long-term hurricane forecasting, there is not a high level of confidence in the El Nino forecasts. Nothing wrong with trying, even if the state of the science is not quite there yet.

It looks to me, from the observations that are available online, like this El Nino will be a strong one, and the effects will last through the spring and into early summer.

 

[Margie Kieper]

Actually, August 3rd (or something like that) is, I believe, Gray/Klotzbach's last forecast for the season. They do a monthly forecast at the beginning of Sept and Oct, but that doesn't correspond to their seasonal numbers. Their last seasonal forecast is in August (which is still kind of cheating, in my opinion). They then do individual months, and recompile the seasonal totals based on those numbers in each of those post-August reports. Their new tactic of doing individual months has raised a large amount of confusion, but I don't know if that is really well explained by the media.

(Yeah, I know, I've become the chief ST defense monitor of the CSU Gray forecasting squad (duo), which is strange, since I'm ambivalent about their forecasting methods as it is, and I most definitely disagree with Gray's view on global warming, but I still respect their efforts at seasonal forecasting.)

No, they change their total seasonal numbers after August. They call it an "adjusted" forecast. In other words, they change it. It's what they do with every update, whether it is in the spring, or in the fall. Their seasonal summary notes this:

A forecast was initially issued for the 2006 season on 6 December 2005 with updates on 4 April, 31 May, 3 August, 1 September and 3 October of this year.​

For instance, for named storms, they downgraded from 17 to 15 in the August 3rd forecast. They dropped that number to 13 on September 1st, and to 11 on October 3rd. But if you ask them what their seasonal forecast for named storms was for 2006, they'll tell you 11, not 17.

The only relevance of the monthly forecasts is that they divvy up the remaining storms into the months that are left, between the already-observed activity, and their "adjusted" forecast number.

An August forecast is absolutely necessary. Many of the key factors in determining seasonal activity set up in the second half of July.

 

[B Ozanne]

I recall there were only two groups last spring predicting an El Nino (I think BOM was one of the two). Like long-term hurricane forecasting, there is not a high level of confidence in the El Nino forecasts. Nothing wrong with trying, even if the state of the science is not quite there yet.

I did a "speculative" forecast for an insurance company last winter regarding the 2006 hurricane season, and I mentioned the possibility of an El Nino creeping into the situation. I was seeing guidance last winter that led me to include this caveat. It seems crazy that so many people over looked this situation.

Don't get me wrong, I was all in for an active season, but I covered myself with some likely spoilers. Which included El Nino, but not the Saharan dust.

 

[HAltschule]

I think it is OK to give a long range Hurricane Forecast as long as it is a general outlook and not too specific. Because...this is the result you get. The news media and public have been commenting on how inactive it was this season despite the outlooks for a busy year (including on today's news). It sure does not make Meteorologists, in general, look good.

I am especially referring to Bastardi who said the Northeast or NYC was going to get hit head on this season. There is now way to justify a ridiculous forecast like that. And right now he is eating his words. I basically think he and Accuweather were sensationalizing there product and company, tried to make the clear cut, pinpoint forecast to look like the heroes, but busted tremendously.

How many times have you seen SPC give an outlook on how many Severe Weather outbreaks were going to occur over the course of 1 season? Never. It is smart not too. Instead, provide the outlooks, advisories and statements as conditions warrant.

Now, I am totally FOR an enhancement outlook on the tropics when the models start converging or showing a possible development. At least there is some foundation to that outlook and it can be used for planning purposes. The seasonal Hurricane Outlook, I see few to none uses for it...except perhaps for Oil Rigs and financial traders.

 

[HAltschule]

Here is Joe Bastardi's Hurricane Outlook from May. This was actually a 2006 release, not 2005 as the tex says. He mentions a heightened alert for the Northeast here...but I remember seeing a TV show where was almost positive that the NE was going to get it. Compare the numbers...WAY off.

http://www.accuweather.com/iwxpage/adc/pressroom/prs/wx/wx_250.htm

 

[HAltschule]

PS: On a complete side note, I read on Accuweather's news archive that Mike Smith's (a ST contributor) company, WeatherData, was bought out and is now owned by AccuWeather. Interesting acquisition. Congrats Mike, I think.

 

[Margie Kieper]

I think it is OK to give a long range Hurricane Forecast as long as it is a general outlook and not too specific.

This is one of the things I like about the NOAA seasonal forecast; they give a range.

However TSR takes it a little too far; they give their outlooks in decimal numbers with a plus or minus range which is not only difficult to read, but when you convert it the actual range it is so large that they could be right whatever type of season we have. An example is their named storm outlook for the first of August, which was 14.1 +- 3.6, yielding a range of 10.5 to 17.7 named storms -- that covers most of the likely possibilities. Depending on how they round off, they could claim they correctly forecasted the season if there were anywhere from 10 to 18 named storms. Plus, I think they do it on purpose to convey some false impression of more accuracy (!).

The seasonal Hurricane Outlook, I see few to none uses for it...except perhaps for Oil Rigs and financial traders.

These forecasts are used by the insurance industry and by investment firms. There was a news item earlier in the year about some firms that didn't do too well because they based their investment strategy on a busy hurricane season, because of the forecasts. And I recently blogged about RMS's update to their five-year outlook. They model insurance losses. There are a lot of companies that have a use for it, and there is a lot of money at stake.

 

[HAltschule]

I am well aware of what the forecasts are used for. Investment firms=financial traders last I checked? My company is involved in these fields to an extent. There are many more uses in industries other than those you mentioned.

But I don't think we know what you are talking about when you refer to TSR and RMS. Did I miss your original message that spelled out what they stand for?

 

[Margie Kieper]

I'm a little surprised you aren't familliar with TSR -- Tropical Storm Risk -- if you've been looking at seasonal hurricane forecasts. They get a lot of press.

RMS stands for Risk Management Solutions. If you Google "RMS" they come up #1 -- right after my friend Richard Stallman.

 

[Pat Lawrence]

http://tsr.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/

 

[HAltschule]

I have been a Meteorologist for almost 12 years and have never heard of TSR. I, like most of us, make my own forecasts, do my own research and look at the models, so that would explain why I have never seen this website before. Quite frankly, at first glance, the TSR site looks pretty useless. Sorry. IMO, why would I go to this site when there is more information available at NHC's site and on all of the models we have available?

Now, I have heard of RMS but really don't follow any of there work or outlooks. Have you looked at NHC's site, the various models and the HPC outlooks yourself to see what the outlooks and guidance say? I'm pretty sure these are more useful.