HanKFranK
User
Reged: Mon
Posts: 1841
Loc: Graniteville, SC
|
|
Thought I'd start 'er up early. Usually in November, a little before Dr. Gray (and heretofore Dr. Klotzbach, who's taken over the lead role) puts out his early December lead forecast for Atlantic activity, we put up a forum thread for folks who like to prognosticate about the next year's activity. You can put out your numbers and thoughts as to why we'll see an active/inactive/normal season. Come May when we're reassessing things at the edge of the oncoming season, you can adjust them once again with the context of your old forecast to fall back on. It's sort of a friendly competition, as we'll tally who gets the closest to the totals, and also have some sort alternate competition like 'when will the first named storm form?' or something.
Anyhow, here's the format, if you want your numbers to count. Present them in the following simple format:
11/6/2
Where 11 would be total named storms (including subtropcial systems), six would be total achieving hurricane strength, and 2 would be total achieving intense/category 3 hurricane strength.
It's not a bad idea to add your thoughts as to the what factors will be at play, i.e., QBO will be positive, will run neutral but there will be a warm pocket in Nino 3.4, the PDO and AMO parameters will be favorable... etc. From November it's hard to tell much about the coming season; all that stuff is more important in May, when we can forecast with some skill. But if you think you're on to what things may be like next season, no reason not to include them.
Just add your forecast to this thread. Dr. Klotzbach will post the 'Graycast' on or just before December 5. Getting your forecast in prior, without the help of those official forecast numbers, will look more authentic. You can post afterwards for the rest of December, just the same.
Enjoy.
HF 0300z22november
|
HanKFranK
User
Reged: Mon
Posts: 1841
Loc: Graniteville, SC
|
|
14/9/4
ENSO I'm thinking will continue to run near neutral, with the persistent weak warm anomalies in the western Pacific. The AMO/PDO pairing is overall favorable, like it will remain for the coming decade or two. Not too keen on QBO phase, so ignoring that.
Based more on a climatology of past active seasons, this follow-on could go strong or weak. There is precedent for both. Since I don't see an El Nino coming on (though it's not possible to say with certainty how that will go), will go with an active season, but not as intensely active as the 2005 season was. I don't think we'll see quite the Western Atlantic focus that we did this year. Probably more normal with the Eastern Atlantic going active in August. Again, assuming neutral, can activate and cluster the activity some.
Will be watching for the persistence of blocking type events. Even during the summer they can lower heights in the mid latitudes.. which weakens the trades and lets storms form more easily in the deep tropics.
The tendency for hurricanes to form/get far west and strike the U.S. this year according to Gray's bunch hinged on the Pacific SST profile, with a warm central/west Pacific keeping heights low in the west, and high in the east. If that persists, or very warm SSTs become apparent in the Atlantic in the spring... I'll tick everything up a notch. If El Nino starts coming on, or La Nina for that matter.. that'll change things a lot as well.
HF 0313z22november
Edited by HanKFranK (Tue Nov 22 2005 03:22 PM)
|
Ed Dunham
Former Meteorologist & CFHC Forum Moderator (Ed Passed Away on May 14, 2017)
Reged: Sun
Posts: 2565
Loc: Melbourne, FL
|
|
I actually started to gather my thoughts on this annual subject about two months ago. I'm thinking 13/7/2 or 13/8/3 - haven't made up my mind yet, but I'm leaning toward the latter if you are looking for some forecast numbers.
Only a couple of primary reasons - 1) I expect a colder winter over the southeast U.S., so a colder Atlantic basin next season, and 2) Climatology (thinking 1934). Haven't really looked at yet, but I'd anticipate a neutral SST state. What really surprises me is that HF and I are actually rather close for a change!
Cheers,
ED
|
CaneTrackerInSoFl
Storm Tracker
Reged: Mon
Posts: 395
Loc: Israel
|
|
14/8/3
In my opinion the season will slow down compared to the last few years. As has been shown in the past, two sraight extremely active years are not rare and they are usually followed up by a less active season. I think even with the cold winter that is forecast for hte US, the Atlantic will be just as warm. I also believe that we will see less landfalls, but with the majority of the landfalls being farther up the coast.
Of course, thats just me.
--------------------
Andrew 1992, Irene 1999, Katrina 2005, Wilma 2005
|
Lee-Delray
Weather Master
Reged: Thu
Posts: 429
|
|
0/0/0
Total wishcast
14/7/3
I think mother nature needs a break
|
Clark
Meteorologist
Reged: Wed
Posts: 1710
Loc:
|
|
I'm no good at the seasonal stuff, so I'll leave a lot of the description to those who do. I think we'll see another above-normal season in terms of activity across the board, with 15/9/4 as my baseline forecast. I feel that this winter will be about normal in terms of temperatures across the eastern US, though the extremes will be quite a bit more than normal -- not out of the question to see some hard freezes into Florida this year. I feel that next season will bring a bit more of a Cape Verde season than we saw this year, with slightly less activity close-in. There is no skill in predicting any activity locations any more specifically than that right now, however. More or less, I feel we'll see a season in line with the past 10 years, with all of the caveats and such that it brings.
--------------------
Current Tropical Model Output Plots
(or view them on the main page for any active Atlantic storms!)
|
rmbjoe1954
Weather Master
Reged: Tue
Posts: 427
Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida, USA
|
|
I've read that the Norwegian arctic is not receiving any significant snowfall- it appears to correlate with climate changes that may- or may not- be caused by human intervention. The jury is out on that call.
I understand this may ultimately cause the extinction of the beloved polar bear among other arctic animals.
In light of the continuing disruption of the climatic 'norms' I am calling for 21/10/5 for 2006.
I mean, why not? 
maybe they ought to supplant some of those bears in antarctica. of course, that might mean the end of penguins.. but the climate around antarctica is cooling some, in spite of the slight warming at global scales. the north atlantic/arctic seems to be more of a global 'switch' where things tend to vary more. by the way, nice numbers. i was tempted, but don't think 2005 was the sort of thing we can expect to see in the near future. -HF
Edited by HanKFranK (Tue Nov 22 2005 06:08 PM)
|
NONAME
Weather Guru
Reged: Sun
Posts: 136
|
|
17/6/3
eleven tropical storms? maybe there will be enough lilliputians to tie down gulliver... -HF
Edited by HanKFranK (Tue Nov 22 2005 11:55 PM)
|
Cycloneye11
Weather Hobbyist
Reged: Mon
Posts: 70
Loc: San Juan,Puerto Rico
|
|
My early numbers are 15/9/4.
|
UKCloudgazer
Verified CFHC User
Reged: Wed
Posts: 21
Loc: Wallasey
|
|
2005 numbers, according to Drs Klotzbach and Grey, were 23/13/7. Add Gamma and Delta and you get 25/13/7 (possibly 25/14/7).
As we are in the middle of an active multi-decadal era according to the Drs, I would expect 2006 to still be busy but not so much so as 2005.
Therefore I will go with 18/11/5. Hopefully with fewer landfalls.
|
Enrique
Registered User
Reged: Sat
Posts: 3
Loc: Upstate New York
|
|
I think we'll exhaust the list again.
22/12/6
|
Hurricane Fredrick 1979
Weather Guru
Reged: Sat
Posts: 116
Loc: Mobile,Alabama
|
|
I beleive that next year we will have another active season. it will be interesting to monitor the SST's this winter and see how warm the water stays. So I am going with the following:
23/10/7
|
AgnesOfHell
Registered User
Reged: Mon
Posts: 8
|
|
It's nearly the first of December and I would have expected to see the wintertime continental pattern established. Instead, the jet is oscillating north/south and east/west, with disastrous results for those in the midwest US. We still have a lot of winter to get through - and hence, a lot of cooling - but the early pattern suggests storminess, which may keep SSTs in the GOM up a click.
Also saw the macrospheric levels of CO2 are at a geological-era high and climbing. Atmospheres don't respond quickly to change, and this may fortell not only an increase in the global heating capacity, but a sluggishness in the cool-offs ahead.
Thinking maybe 2006 will be above average but not at 2005 levels.
21/10/6
--------------------
Standing on the shoulders of giants
|
Bloodstar
Moderator
Reged: Mon
Posts: 462
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
Part of the problem with predicting a season that has never happened before, is even when you look at the numbers, there is no way you can externally justify your call without looking like you're wish casting.
I think we're still going to see weaker than normal shear throughout the season, along with warm waters that will lead to another extremely active season.
Right now, I'm thinking the following (to borrow rabbit's style)
January - April 1/0/0
May 1/0/0
June 2/1/0
July 4/2/1
August 4/3/2
September 5/3/2
October 3/1/1
November -December 2/1/0
22/11/6
As much as I want to say next season will be worse, I just can't bring myself to do it.
my gut feeling says to up all the 2005 numbers by 1 for 2006
Either way, my prediction is one I would be blad to be wrong!
-Mark
--------------------
M. S. Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech - May 2020
Brookhaven National Laboratory
U. Arizona PhD Student
|
Tak
Weather Watcher
Reged: Tue
Posts: 41
Loc: Altamonte Springs, FL
|
|
I think 18/13/6.
So far looks like no El Nino so the best we can hope for is neutral conditions and not a cold event. I think SST's will stay high and SLP's will stay low in the W. Atlantic/Carib and it will be a room full of gas fumes waiting for a match. And I hope this is all wrong.
|
swimaway19
Weather Watcher
Reged: Sat
Posts: 32
Loc: Safety Harbor, FL
|
|
I'm thinking 17/10/4
--------------------
Chris
Swim Away, Swim Far Away....
|
firestar_1
Weather Hobbyist
Reged: Tue
Posts: 64
Loc: Port Charlotte, FL, 26.98N 82....
|
|
Not too happy with these numbers, but with the current information available I will go with 20/8/3. Hope I'm way off....
--------------------
Stay Aware...Stay Alert....Stay Alive.....
|
Margie
Senior Storm Chaser
Reged: Fri
Posts: 1191
Loc: Twin Cities
|
|
I have no technical expertise in this area so I looked only at historical statistics. I looked at all the years and first, based on years with high numbers and with similar tracks (although there is never going to be a terribly close match) I focused on 1887-1888, 1933-34, and 1969-70. 1995-1996 was not a good fit. Then I factored in a little higher activity because of 2003-2004 statistics. Also looked at how quickly the stats tend to fall off after peak years.
I came up with initial ranges of 14-16 / 7-8 / 2-4 and an ACE of 160-175, and 3-4 GOM landfalls.
I'm still working on figuring a way to narrow that down.
* * * * * *
OK this is what I came up with.
15 / 8 / 3
ACE of 165
Now I thought this was very interesting: When you go back and look at Dr Gray's forecast, at the beg of Dec 2004 he forecast a normal year: only 11/6/3. In April he updated that to 13/7/3, and in May to 15/8/4.
From looking at the data, apparently 2005 is the very first time there was a third year in a row with ACE values above normal (75-117). The records are only a little over a hundred years old so we may be looking at more like a 500-year cycle, or overall global warming may be kicking the ACE stats up a bit. There were pairs of years with high ACE values well before this past decade, so it still does not definitely follow that something out of the ordinary is occuring. However if we do have a 4th year with a high ACE value as I think, it will definitely be considered unusual. So my ACE prediction could be way too high for what should be expected next year.
The reason I picked the three storm numbers that I did, is because I looked at the dropoffs from similar years and went down about the same percentage. But I didn't spend enough time on the pattern of the tracks each season and this weekend am going to go back and try to find good matches on the tracks, for years that did not have a high number of storms, and may make some changes based on that, before Monday.
So, because my guess is based on statistical patterns from previous years, which are set, I won't change it as the year progresses, based on other factors, because I didn't take those factors into account in the first place. And I don't think it is sporting to change the numbers once the season starts.
--------------------
Katrina's Surge: http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/Katrinas_surge_contents.asp
Edited by Margie (Fri Dec 02 2005 10:29 PM)
|
Margie
Senior Storm Chaser
Reged: Fri
Posts: 1191
Loc: Twin Cities
|
|
Not sure where to post this...but looking at the ACE numbers again, between 1851 and 1994 there were nine years with an ACE higher than 175...and since 1995 we've had six years with an ACE higher than 175.
And if you add up all of the ACE energy beyond the top of the 'near normal' range (117), it turns out that the above-normal ACE for the past 11 years (1995-2005 inclusive) is almost exactly half of the above-normal ACE for the previous 143 years totaled (about 1200 vs 560), which is a time period 13 times longer.
neat figure, but it's like comparing apples and oranges. that's mostly an artifact of improved detection. years like 1886 and 1933 may have exceeded this one, but we didn't have satellites to find the lees and brets and epsilons. it's extremely likely that a lot of storms in the historic record have escaped detection. but anyhow, if you wish to beat dr. klotzbach's forecast. believe it's coming out tomorrow... CORRECTION, coming out tuesday, dec 6 -HF
Well sure, but there were still a lot of ships in the ocean, and not that much could have been missed, especially big storms, that would render previous ACE values useless for purposes of comparison for this large a discrepancy. The weaker tropical cyclones that were surely missed wouldn't have impacted the ACE number so much.
you'll notice that in a lot of years there are no major hurricanes, or just one.. and the tracks don't have realistic intensity trends for the stronger stroms. believe me, comparing the ntc data of 1872 and 2002 like they're the same thing is a mistake. -HF
Edited by HanKFranK (Mon Dec 05 2005 10:56 PM)
|
EwanM
Registered User
Reged: Sun
Posts: 2
Loc: Edinburgh, UK
|
|
28/15/8
I hope I'm wrong but I think it'll be worse than 2005, more intense and I wouldn't be suprised to see a few tropical storms before May.
Whatever factors caused 2005's frightening hurricane season whether these were multidecadal cycles, climate change or (more likely) a combination both they'll probably still be there next year. A slow down in the Gulf Stream looks ominous too.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
