Atlantic Tropical Action 2012 - Part I

[bluewave]

I remember a lot of people freaking out towards the end of August 2007 that seasonal predictions were going to be an epic fail and that the biggest storm had already happened.

I guess the surprise factor in following the tropics is one of the big reasons that makes this stuff so interesting.

[Srain]

My post responding to this gets deleted, but this post is a-ok with the mods.

Keep your rants to pm's. Thanks.

[DopplerWx]

Looks like the timeframe for further development is tomorrow pm?

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

NOAA Just released their outlook...

9-15 Named Storms

4-8 Hurricanes

1-3 Major Hurricanes

It succeeds in perhaps being the most useless seasonal outlook ever. There is a huge difference between 9/4/1 and 15/8/3.

[Ed Lizard]

Home made satellite floater of 94L, made with love.

Not much there, but a little tiny low level swirl over the Keys...

[GaWx]

Here's a late May STS from 1972, Alpha, that was moving NE but got blocked and backed westward into the SE coast:

http://weather.unisy...ALPHA/track.gif

Go here for the daily wx maps for the week of 5/22-28/1972:

http://docs.lib.noaa...ather_maps.html

1) Alpha was ST rather than tropical. The dewpoints were only in the 50's along the SE coast in advance of its arrival. In contrast, TD's are forecasted this weekend to be about 10 F warmer (near the mid 60's.). So, that would tend to favor more tropical than Alpha.

2) For Alpha, the lowest SLP then was pretty impressive, about 991 mb. Highest winds were 60 knots. it landfalled at ~50 knots.

3) For Alpha, the blocking 500 mb high was NNW of the storm, allowing for almost due west motion into the coast. The currently progged blocking 500 mb high is NW of the storm, favoring WSW motion into the coast.

4) Alpha had a chilly 1032 mb sfc high over the NE US., which allowed for pretty fast motion westward into the coast along with a feed of cool, dry air just to its north. The current setup has no big, chilly surface high. Instead, highest SLP's to the north are only in the 1020's and the high isn't cold at all. So, this means no big feed of cool, dry air (more tropical opportunities vs. 1972) and a slower motion toward the coast.

[Superstorm93]

60-140% ACE?

Is that supposed to be a joke?

This has to be the most useless NOAA Hurricane Outlook since 2010.

[isohume]

NOAA Just released their outlook...

9-15 Named Storms

4-8 Hurricanes

1-3 Major Hurricanes

It succeeds in perhaps being the most useless seasonal outlook ever. There is a huge difference between 9/4/1 and 15/8/3.

I'm not sure I get your point. What is wrong with showing the amount of uncertainty had in an outlook? Knowing the degree of uncertainty is always important for decision makers.

Dr. Grey has a little more uncertainty with a range of 7-13 NS, 2-6 H, and 1-4 MH. NOAA has less spread, but not much. Dr. Grey's spread is 6/4/3 and and NOAA's is 6/4/2.

The main difference is NOAA is going more toward a normal season with 12/6/3 (ACE 100) and Dr. Grey is going with a below normal season with 10/4/2 (ACE 70).

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

I'm not sure I get your point. What is wrong with showing the amount of uncertainty had in an outlook? Knowing the degree of uncertainty is always important for decision makers.

Dr. Grey has a little more uncertainty with a range of 7-13 NS, 2-6 H, and 1-4 MH. NOAA has less spread, but not much. Dr. Grey's spread is 6/4/3 and and NOAA's is 6/4/2.

The main difference is NOAA is going more toward a normal season with 12/6/3 (ACE 100) and Dr. Grey is going with a below normal season with 10/4/2 (ACE 70).

There is nothing wrong with showing uncertainty, but it has to be presented in the correct way.

To the public, saying we expect 9-15 named storms with 70% certainly sounds like we might as well be saying "there will be some storms this year!"

Giving a mean number with an uncertainty percentage and standard deviations would be much better.

[blueheronNC]

I'm not sure I get your point. What is wrong with showing the amount of uncertainty had in an outlook? Knowing the degree of uncertainty is always important for decision makers.

Going back to 1999, they could've issued this exact forecast for any given year and been within one storm of their ranges for each of the TS/Hurricane ranges 10 out of 12 years. Talk about hedging your bets.

In fact, I wonder if there's any combination of ranges, assuming a 7-storm TS range and a 5-storm hurricane range, that would have a higher statistical likelihood of capturing the year's numbers, just probabilistically speaking and without any regard to meteorological forecasting skill.

[isohume]

There is nothing wrong with showing uncertainty, but it has to be presented in the correct way.

To the public, saying we expect 9-15 named storms with 70% certainly sounds like we might as well be saying "there will be some storms this year!"

Giving a mean number with an uncertainty percentage and standard deviations would be much better.

I'm pretty sure the users know how to calculate a mean. The public really wants to know in terms of above/near/below normal...if they want to know at all. NOAA states that in their headlines.

[isohume]

Going back to 1999, they could've issued this exact forecast for any given year and been within one storm of their ranges for each of the TS/Hurricane ranges 10 out of 12 years. Talk about hedging your bets.

So are you saying there shouldn't be a range of uncertainty given? You do realize the low magnitude of the normal number of TCs will always have similar ranges wrt to a specific outlook, right?

[blueheronNC]

So are you saying there shouldn't be a range of uncertainty given? You do realize the low magnitude of the normal number of TCs will always have similar ranges wrt to a specific outlook, right?

That the range of uncertainty is this high takes away a lot of the usefulness of the forecast. Qualitatively speaking, they could make a prediction of "slightly below average season to above average season" every year and make the "correct call" much of the time, but the variance is so great that the meaningfulness of the prediction is eviscerated.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

I'm pretty sure the users know how to calculate a mean. The public really wants to know in terms of above/near/below normal...if they want to know at all. NOAA states that in their headlines.

...and this outlook does not do that.

As I said.... a 9/4/1 season and a 15/8/3 season are two completely different animals. To me, this outlook is saying the hurricane season could be above, at, or below normal, which is more of a "no **** sherlock" than an actual useful tool.

[isohume]

That the range of uncertainty is this high takes away a lot of the usefulness of the forecast. Qualitatively speaking, they could make a prediction of "slightly below average season to above average season" every year and make the "correct call" much of the time, but the variance is so great that the meaningfulness of the prediction is eviscerated.

That's why it's an outlook...it's giving a range of possible outcomes. The science isn't there to be more definitive, yet. When the science matures...the ranges will become smaller.

[isohume]

...and this outlook does not do that.

NOAA PREDICTS A NEAR-NORMAL 2012 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON:

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

That's why it's an outlook...it's giving a range of possible outcomes. The science isn't there to be more definitive, yet. When the science matures...the ranges will become smaller.

This is not completely accurate. The science is there to be more accurate. The problem is that the people putting these outlooks out had an overcorrective knee-jerk reaction to people who said "these outlooks are always wrong" to the point where now the outlooks will always be correct for the most part at the expense of a sound, quality forecast.

If I said that on June 30th, it will either be raining, cloudy, or sunny in Rapid City, SD, I'm probably going to be correct... it doesn't mean that it is a useful forecast.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

NOAA PREDICTS A NEAR-NORMAL 2012 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON:

Then gives a range that represents below, at, and above normal scenarios, which contradicts the headline.

If NOAA really wanted to be serious about its claim of predicting a near normal season, the range would be more like 10 or 11 to 13 named storms, 5-6 hurricanes, and 1-2 major hurricanes.

[isohume]

This is not completely accurate. The science is there to be more accurate. The problem is that the people putting these outlooks out had an overcorrective knee-jerk reaction to people who said "these outlooks are always wrong" to the point where now the outlooks will always be correct for the most part at the expense of a sound, quality forecast.

If I said that on June 30th, it will either be raining, cloudy, or sunny in Rapid City, SD, I'm probably going to be correct... it doesn't mean that it is a useful forecast.

Okay, I just laughed a little. Thanks for that.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Okay, I just laughed a little. Thanks for that.

I'm glad to see you want to have a serious discussion about the contents of their outlook.

[isohume]

I'm glad to see you want to have a serious discussion about the contents of their outlook.

You're laughable. Sorry, I can't take you serious anymore. Introducing drama like "NOAA is worried about folks saying they are wrong...so they better give a large range to hedge their bets to be right" is beyond ludicrus.

[Ed Lizard]

NWS Facebook has a graphic, 50% chance of a normal season, 25% chance of an above normal or below normal season.

[DopplerWx]

NHC just bumped 94L to 40% chance of development on the next 48 hrs

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

You're laughable. Sorry, I can't take you serious anymore. Introducing drama like "NOAA is worried about folks saying they are wrong...so they better give a large range to hedge their bets to be right" is beyond ludicrus.

It's the meteorological community as a whole. Why else would NOAA have bucked the trend and issued a range outlook when they first started. Why has CSU shifted to a range outlook?

One does not worry about incorporating uncertainty or not for no reason.

[isohume]

It's the meteorological community as a whole. Why else would NOAA have bucked the trend and issued a range outlook when they first started. Why has CSU shifted to a range outlook?

One does not worry about incorporating uncertainty or not for no reason.

You're delusional. But, thanks for the LMAO.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

You're delusional. But, thanks for the LMAO.

You are clearly disconnected from what consumers of this type of data want and need. If I am a risk manager for an oil company drilling in the Gulf, and I need to budget for the season how much impact from TCs we may see, I'm going to laugh at the NOAA forecast as being completely useless for what I need to do.

[isohume]

You are clearly disconnected from what consumers of this type of data want and need. If I am a risk manager for an oil company drilling in the Gulf, and I need to budget for the season how much impact from TCs we may see, I'm going to laugh at the NOAA forecast as being completely useless for what I need to do.

If the end user wanted a change, there would be a change. The outlooks are specifically for their customers. Serious, I'm done talking about this with you.

[OKpowdah]

NOAA Just released their outlook...

9-15 Named Storms

4-8 Hurricanes

1-3 Major Hurricanes

It succeeds in perhaps being the most useless seasonal outlook ever. There is a huge difference between 9/4/1 and 15/8/3.

It's true. It's centered around normal also, and is basically saying about +/- 1 stdev for each category ... I give this forecast a 68% chance of verifying lol.

These types of forecasts have little point anyway. What we should be aiming to do now is landfall potential and periods of enhanced activity during the season. #itonlytakesone

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

If the end user wanted a change, there would be a change. The outlooks are specifically for their customers. Serious, I'm done talking about this with you.

The problem is there was a change, but it was more of an overcorrection than the correction that was necessary.

As far as I'm concerned though, you can take your attitude out of this thread until you want to discuss this topic more civilly.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

It's true. It's centered around normal also, and is basically saying about +/- 1 stdev for each category ... I give this forecast a 68% chance of verifying lol.

These types of forecasts have little point anyway. What we should be aiming to do now is landfall potential and periods of enhanced activity during the season. #itonlytakesone

Haha, it's true. They have little point for the general public for sure, but for people like risk managers, they are very important for general budgeting purposes.

For sure, it will be great when we have the ability to pinpoint more specific landfall areas. As last year showed of course, we still have a long ways to go with that.