Ed Dunham
Former Meteorologist & CFHC Forum Moderator (Ed Passed Away on May 14, 2017)
Reged: Sun
Posts: 2565
Loc: Melbourne, FL
|
2002 and 2003
Sun Aug 25 2002 12:24 PM
|
|
|
Didn't quite know where to put this since its an updated forecast for the rest of this season, a statistical outlook for next season and an analysis of past seasons which were rather quiet. Normally I don't bother with an updated forecast this late into the season, but I guess that this year is the exception because I no longer believe that my last update which called for 9 named storms is a good forecast..
Current conditions: Subsidence continues to rule the eastern and central tropical Atlantic - it doesn't matter much if its a 1036mb Azores High or a 1016mb high which is causing this - the point is that its still there. Tropical Atlantic SSTs are still below normal and expected to stay that way - from a tropical cyclone point of view, it doesn't matter much if it should finally warm up a little in December  Strong westerly shear still exists in the Caribbean Sea and portions of the tropical Atlantic. The much heralded MJO wet phase has thus far turned out to be just that - 'all wet'! SSTs in the western India Ocean are still well below normal and projected to get even colder. Because of the subsidence, the ITCZ remains below 10N. African waves centered above 10N are still uncommon - 10 days ago there were 3 of them across the continent and none of them survived the cold east Atlantic. Today the African continent is almost empty of activity above 10N.
Updated 2002 Forecast:
7 Named Storms
2 Hurricanes
0 Majors
Some will claim that the 2001 season started late, but I don't think that it really did - at this time last year we had already experienced 4 Tropical Storms. Although 2001 really kicked in after September 1st, the tropical Atlantic was quite different (and quite warm) a year ago.
2003 Statistical Outlook:
This section starts out with the premise that there will only be 7 named storms (or less) in 2002. If you cannot accept the possibility that this season is going to remain on the quiet side, then what follows will not have much value to you. I started by taking a look at all of the seasons from 1965 through 2001. I picked 1965 because that was the first full year with satellite imagery - which cuts down on the claim of 'undetected' storms. In those 37 seasons, 10 of them had 7 storms or less - that's 27 percent or about one quiet year in every four seasons. Here are the totals for those years and the year which followed:
1965 6/4/1 1966 11/7/3
1972 7/3/0 1973 8/4/1
1977 6/5/1 1978 12/5/2
1982 6/2/1 1983 4/3/1
1983 4/3/1 1984 12/5/1
1986 6/4/0 1987 7/3/1
1987 7/3/1 1988 12/5/3
1992 7/4/1 1993 8/4/1
1994 7/3/0 1995 19/11/5
1997 7/3/1 1998 14/10/3
Note that these were all quiet seasons without consideration for what the ENSO conditions might have been. Its difficult to find a good analog year in any of these seasons, but 1972, 1986 and 1994 seem to fit close to this season with 1972 probably being the best fit. The much touted era of increased basin activity may have run its course. Periods of high activity have occured in the past, but they don't last forever. If you examine the years which followed each of these quiet seasons and toss out the extremes (1983 and 1995) as anomalous seasons which are not likely to be representative of anticipated conditions for next year, you get the following results as a statistical outlook for 2003:
10 Named Storms
5 Hurricanes
2 Major Hurricanes
In other words, on average, quiet seasons are usually followed by normal seasons (actually, slightly above normal 60% of the time). Perhaps these are good numbers to start with for next year. If El Nino returns, the numbers will probably be lower (remember, a below normal season follows a quiet season 40% of the time). If conditions stay neutral the numbers will probably be about right, and if La Nina kicks in, the numbers should increase. If the Atlantic stays cool, so will the numbers - if it warms up, the numbers will go up. If the subsidence relaxes the activity should increase - and vice versa. An outlook depends on what you think will happen and the rationale behind your forecast. Well, I've rambled on enough with this - now its your turn 
Cheers,
ED
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Edit
Reply
Quote
