accuweather hurricane season forecast....uggggh!

[Austin Ivey]

Is anyone else sick of reading these hurricane forecasts that seem to be dreamed up from who the hell knows where??

"Three major hurricanes will strike the United States this year, with the storm-battered Gulf Coast most at risk in June and July, forecaster AccuWeather predicted Monday.

The outlook comes after a record-setting hurricane season in 2005 that devastated New Orleans and other coastal cities along the Gulf, and dealt a heavy blow to the U.S. oil industry that sent energy prices to record highs.

"The 2006 storm season will be a creeping threat," said AccuWeather Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi. He projected that five hurricanes, three of them with winds over 110 miles per hour, would hit the U.S. coastline.

"Early in the season the Texas Gulf Coast faces the highest likelihood of a hurricane strike, possibly putting Gulf energy production in the line of fire," he said. "As early as July, and through much of the rest of the season, the highest level of risk shifts to the Carolinas."[/b]

http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/images/promos/hurr2006/hurrisk.jpg

So, Accuweather, three major hurricanes will strike this year??? Not two or four or five but three. Oh and the first one will hit Texas and cripple oil production and refinement. What the hell man? At this point, how is Texas statistically more likely to be hit by a hurricane, especially "early in the season"???

I mean seriously, what value do these forecasts add to anything? To me the just serve to instill more fear into the already fearful American public. Buy, Buy, Buy your hurricane supplies and insurance policies all you good little Americans in preparation for a big bad hurricane season! Oh wait, I can almost see the subliminal Home Depot and Wal-Mart banner ads on accuweather.com! Oh, and buy some premium services from Accuweather to stay on top of this developing situation. As John Stossel would say, Give me a Break!

Also, what is meant by "the 2006 storm season will be a creeping threat". Maybe they forgot to spell check and it should have said creepy threat. Yeah, I think so. That seems more in line with the bogus nature of these sorts of forecasts.

For the record, I haven't read the meteorological reasoning (if any exists) behind Accuweather's forecast. I have, however, read what 95% of the general public will see......a general, fear mongering AP release that will no doubt be further sliced and diced by local media.

Comments anyone???

[B Ozanne]

You're way off, its not their Wal-Mart and HD stock they are looking to move...its much worse. When Accu-Weather makes comments like this they move the oil markets to the tune of billions of dollars. You better believe that the management at succu-weather is highly invested in oil. Conflict of interest?

There's little science behind Accu-Weather's forecasts. They like to use weather analogs. They are convinced that what happened in the past directly relates to what happens in the future. Which may be the case, but with only a few sample years to test their theories its a reach.

Most of their forecast for 2006 comes from the weather in April. If it rains in Des Moines on April the 6th than New Englanders will get hammered by a hurricane. Or something like that. Didn't Joe B claim that the NE was going to have a cold and snowy winter because of the weather analogs to past active hurricane seasons? Well, they were wrong about that, but where's the accountability?

[Shane Adams]

I could do a hurricane forecast, because if I was wrong I'd get to update it five times throughout the season like the experts do.

[rdale]

AW is not considered an expert source of any sort of forecast... Just like WalMart may not always have the best deals - but everybody goes there because they ARE everywhere!

[Austin Ivey]

AW is not considered an expert source of any sort of forecast... Just like WalMart may not always have the best deals - but everybody goes there because they ARE everywhere!
[/b]

Haha...good point.

[David Draun]

The actuall NHC 2006 outlook should be out on May 22nd. How can Accu?-weather have their outlook out a week earlier than the NHC, LOL?

[Robert Dewey]

I could do a hurricane forecast, because if I was wrong I'd get to update it five times throughout the season like the experts do.
[/b]

Are you sure, I thought in the case of Accuweather they change the forecast AFTER it's happened, so they can say they nailed it. LOL

[Justin Turcotte]

The present AccuWeather hurricane forecast is based on analogues from the past. This doesn't seem unreasable. We know previous El Ninos did "this" and La Ninas did "that". Pick your favorite teleconnection pattern: AO, NAO, PDO, MJO, PNA, ENSO among others. We generally know how these effect the atmosphere and have these indicies available for forecasting. Geologists have a term called "uniformitarianism" meaning the "present is the key to the past". One could say meteorologists/climatologists look at it the other way around: The past is the key to the future. The real science behind the AW forecast is buried in all those SLP charts from the 1900s. There may be some blend of teleconnection patterns and the THC that causes these multi-decadal swings and embedded crazy years (like 2005). Now there is a dissertation project for someone.

I'm not a big AW fan. I don't like how they treat and pay staff, I don't like their lobbying, and I often don't like their forecasts. I do like Joe Bastardi even though I think he has a big head. I my gripes with NWS too. I don't like their hiring practices, don't like the beaurocracy, don't like the politics, don't like the lack of individualism, and sometimes don't like the forecasts (which can be harmed by any of the above). It seems that criticizing private firms are fair game while criticizing the government is not. Both public and private have flaws, some shared and some not. I have no objection to critique on either so long as it is constructive. Constructive crticism is what improves products and performance. In this business you really don't learn until you bust. If you ignore that bust and nobody gives you hell about it than you have no reason to improve. Both public and private mets need to be willing to accept this criticism (just like athletes, politicians, movie producers, and Walmart managers). You live and learn. It is easy to get defensive instead of focusing on the customer concern. Final note on this: Public and private forecasters may not play for the same team but they still represent the league. Keep this in mind when sending someone to the guillotine for public execution. I've done this in the past and regret at least some of it.

Discloser: I work for a private met firm in North Dakota

Now what I found interseting buried in the AW logic behind the forecast:
...The climate cycle of the 1930s to 1950s was characterized by many hot, dry summers centered over the central Plains of the United States, with expansion northeast toward the Great Lakes and Northeast as the summer progressed. But with extremes, either hotter or colder, during the summer in the nation's midsection relative to the East Coast, the threat of hurricane activity appears to increase on the Eastern Seaboard. While the colder years such as 1960, 1985, and 1996 did feature significant East Coast storms (Donna, Gloria, Bertha and Fran), the hotter pattern that appears to be setting up across the Plains this year identifies some startling analog years (1938, 1944, 1954, 1955, 1991 and 1999), including 1954. During that year across the midsection of the nation, April was very warm with a turn to colder weather in May followed by the return of warmth for June. The first two have set up this year, and the warmer pattern is already starting to take shape for the last week of May. (For example, Kansas City was 7.7 degrees above normal in April and is 1.5 degrees below normal so far in May). The 1954 hurricane season is significant since three hurricanes made landfall on the East Coast (Carol at the end of August on eastern Long Island, Edna in the second week of September in southeastern Massachusetts, and Hazel in mid-October in the Carolinas)....[/b]
AW is essentially forecasting a death ridge to build in June. If that happens I'll see you all in NoDak for summer chasing.

[Aaron Kennedy]

Really... AW can't bust. As the saying goes... any PR is good PR. Even if the forecast gets blown away, no one will remember (clients at least) that Accuweather busted the hurricane forecast. Or if they do... they'll just say oh... that's nature. If the hurricane forecast does playout somewhat similar to their forecast, however, I'll promise we'll hear no end to it. And somebody help us if it ends up better than the gov forecast... AW has no problem biting the hand that feeds them.

I think we all realize the gov has its issues too. My lack of respect for AW comes from their blatant attacks against the gov and their ability to "forget" their mistakes. Lets face it... in a perfect world Accuweather wants the gov to provide them all the data (tax payer money), cover every topic that could result in lawsuits (warnings, watches, etc.), and have everyone pay them x amount of dollars to find out what the temperature for today will be. While I have no issue with making money (hey this is capatalism), I still beleive the gov has an important role in providing our citizens with general weather information. AW will say that they don't want the gov to expand their role in forecast information, this is just a blind for their real want (see above). I've worked at a private sector weather company... the type of products they offer are highly specialized, and I don't see the gov infringing on the large majority of their operations any time soon.



Aaron

[rdale]

"How can Accu?-weather have their outlook out a week earlier than the NHC"

Because AW is not connected to the NWS - they can do it whenever they want (that's the advantage to being in the private sector.)

[Dave Kaplow]

For the record, I haven't read the meteorological reasoning (if any exists) behind Accuweather's forecast. [/b]

Looking at the map, it would appear that a lot of their reasoning is geographical rather than meteorological. It's simple: most hurricanes making landfall on the US East Coast are moving northwestward. So pieces of the eastern seaboard that run from the SW to the NE, i.e. coastal areas that face the southeast, are more likely to take a direct hit from a hurricane. And indeed you see on the AW chart that the areas of "very high risk" are simply those areas of the east coast that face the southeast. Note that these areas also stick out a bit into the Atlantic, so they are closer to the gulf stream and thus a bit more likely to face a unweakened storm.

This kind of stuff does not take a lot of genius to figure out, and it's not what I would call forecasting. If they have an alternative explanation for the seemingly precise positioning of their east coast high risk areas, I would like to know it.

[Damon Poole]

Frankly, I think the Old Farmers almanac could do a better job than Inaccu-Bungle, although I don't put much faith in it either. Yes I do get tired of Inaccu-Bungle, especially in the last year or so. I removed all access to them from my sites and computers after SB 786 came out. I use NWS stuff almost exclusively, simply because I think it's a better product. Yes, all forecasts have issues from time to time, but I'll put NWS data quality and accessability above Inaccu-Bungle any day.

Damon Poole

[Austin Ivey]

When Accu-Weather makes comments like this they move the oil markets to the tune of billions of dollars. You better believe that the management at succu-weather is highly invested in oil. Conflict of interest?
[/b]

This is a great comment. I've always thought of Accuweather as the FOX NEWS of the weather world. I mean come on, look at the layout and style of their graphic above...."Hurricane Risk 2006" in big blood red at the top. In my view, if this conflict of interest is indeed true it helps to solidfy their likeness.


Has anyone seen the Southpark episode about Global Warming causing the beaver dam to bust? It has definite parallels with this topic. The Fox News style anchorman reports that billions have been killed in Chicago. When the anchorman asks if him if he actually has seen that many dead he replies "No, that's just what we are reporting". This accuweather forecast is similar. "Hurricanes are going to hit Texas early in the season, New York City has a very high "risk" this year..." blah blah blah. They are just going for the headlines/shock and awe and NOT for an accurate, meteorologically sound forecast.

[Shane Adams]

I wasn't referring to AW...I was referring to the guy in Colorado who releases his "official" tropical forecast every year, then gets to update it five times as the reality of the season unfolds. Be quite easy to "forecast" accuately when you get five mulligans as things evolve.

[rdale]

So you'd rather, as new information comes in, NOT modify your forecast? I know some people do that while chasing to make them "hard core" -- but if I see a no-storm day become a high risk, I'm not going to sit home because that wasn't my "original" forecast!

I can't imagine any meteorologist not amending their forecast just because 7 days ago I said it was going to be sunny and now it's going to be raining. That makes no sense...

[Eric Treece]

I gotta agree with Shane on that. I mean, it is one thing to give a legit forecast......it is another thing to throw a dart in March or April no less, about how many hurricanes there will be AND intensities. Man, I can do that and I know Jack about tropical forecasting. That is not forecasting. That is pure speculation. Just like AW. Look how far off the "Doctor" was last hurricane season. He wasn't even on the same planet.

[rdale]

So one bad season means "don't do it again"? He's had a very successful record, and I can't imagine how you can say "don't forecast" is better than what he provided.

[Shane Adams]

Quite simply, my point is: don't issue a forecast months in advance...wait. Because it's going to be adjusted anyway, right?

Example: I say there's gonna be tornadoes on June 4-5 and 13-14. I'll adjust that on June 3 when I get the new model runs. If I was serious, everyone would be thinking "whatever" and when I adjusted it on June 3 they'd be thinking "wow, what a genius."

[Greg Stumpf]

...who releases his "official" tropical forecast every year, then gets to update it five times as the reality of the season unfolds. Be quite easy to "forecast" accuately when you get five mulligans as things evolve.[/b]
I'd like to see folks try that with storm chase forecats. Forecast once before you hit the road, and then no more updates. :)

[John Erwin]

Obviously forecasters get to ammend/update their forecast as time progresses, however I think the application is a bit different here. Other long range meterological forecasts generally don't claim the kind of precision being displayed here, especially for something so dynamic. Obviously as the anticipated event period gets closer more details or ammendments are made. In this case there doesn't appear to be enough supporting facts for the localized predictions being made.

[Jay McCoy]

Their "forecast" is nothing more than pure speculation. They have no clue how many strong hurricanes there will be and where they will hit. It is like a chaser saying in January that there is going to be 4 high risks in 2006 and 9 moderate risks. The high risks will be most likely in NE Kansas and Western Oklahoma with the moderate risks in the lower plains.

They have enough trouble telling where a hurricane will hit 7 days out and at what strength let alone months before it even forms. They can make these wild guesses and if they are even partly right they will spout off about their incredible forecasting skills and if they are wrong they wont even mention their original forecast they will just amend it to fit and then brag about their skills. Anybody can do that. They did it a number of times last year.

If they are so good where was their long range forecast of multiple outbreaks in the Tennessee Valley this year and the lack of anything significant through May?? Their crystal ball ( more like magic 8 ball) must have failed them.

I wouldnt pay those chumps to tell me the time of day. they would get it wrong anyway.

[Jeff Snyder]

I don't like AccuWx as much as the next guy, but let's try not to go overboard here. There are signals for anticipating some trends for a hurricane season, such as SST anomalies, global flow patterns (which are influence by el nino and la nina), etc. If we say that the tropics are 100% unpredictable in terms of forecasting seasonal trends, then we must apply that to all forecasting outlets. In other words, I better see some NHC bashing when they release their official forecast. Well, I actually don't want to see that, but people shouldn't complain that it is nearly impossible for AccuWx to forecast the season because there are no real 'indicators' without realizing that they are also accusing CSU and the NHC of the same.

Most of the forecasts started as a forecast relative to average. I'm sure a skilled meteorologist could sit down and spit out a forecast that is better than random and anticipates whether the reason will be below, near, or above the climatological average. Weak flow across the Atlantic basin and warmer-than-normal SSTs would be two indicators that, by the end of the season, there may be more-than-average number of tropical systems. In addition, convective events can be much more sensitive to very small changes in location and amplitude of various meteorological features. One event may be 'ruined' by cloudcover that doesn't clear out until 3pm, while another may be ruined because 700mb temps are 1.5C higher than forecast, which capped off the environment. The tropical systems, especially when averaged over the course of the entire season, seem to be less sensitive to these very small variations. So, I think it's easier to forecast an under-near-above average tropical season many months ahead of time than it is to forecast any individual convective event (like tornadoes in Oklahoma on May 30th) that far ahead of time. I can liken a forecast of weaker-than-normal flow over the Atlantic (favorable upper-level pattern) and higher-than-normal SSTs to having knowledge that dewpoints in the plains will be higher than normal and that there will be persistent southwesterly flow aloft on the east side of a western US trough (favorable upper-level pattern).... We can anticipate the flow and SST anomalies in the tropical Atlantic with some skill, and we base the forecast off of that information. If we knew the large-scale, mean flow pattern would be favorable across the US, and we could anticipate that Tds would be higher-than-normal, than it would be a reason forecast to anticipate a more-active-than-normal chase season. The problem with chasing, however, is that the signals over the mid-latitudes in spring can be quite a bit weaker than the signals over the low-latitudes of the Atlantic during the summer and fall.

Again, I'm no fan of AccuWx, and I find their occassional anti-NHC tones deplorable at times. However, I do think it's only fair to realize that their forecast may not be an absolute crap shoot. As someone else noted, some of their map looks like it's nearly entirely climatological, since it's common for tropical systems to hit, for example, southern Florida and the outer banks of NC. So, I think some of that is climo-based. But hey, climo IS A forecast tool. If it wasn't, none of would say "wait until May" when the setup looks like garbage in April. Again, I question their motives for this "product", and I fully expect an onslaught of "I told you so" should their forecast verify (with absolutely no mention of it should it not verify).

[Josh Morgerman]

I've noticed that no matter what the forum, an AccuWeather/Joe Bastardi tropical forecast always sparks a firestorm. Floating one of their long-range tropical forecasts on a weather message board = lighting a cigarette while filling the car with gasoline. :D

The fringe benefit, I suppose, is very lively discussion!

[Shane Adams]

I'd like to see folks try that with storm chase forecats. Forecast once before you hit the road, and then no more updates. :)
[/b]

I've done that more times than I would've liked to. Once in a while it works.

[Carrie Halliday]

I like to see Dr. William Gray's analysis every spring. Not using his guesses as gospel, but more as a guideline to what kind of season it looks to be (active, quiet, normal, 2005, etc). He is passing the torch to one of the guys he has been mentoring. Philip (forgot his name, it is unique) will be the man now, as Dr Gray is going more into global warming after 34 (?) years in Hurricane prediction. Read about this the other day.

Max Mayfield is the Hurricane Authority (not TWC as they have been pimping, when did they start with that?). Max comes on TV, I listen!

[Carrie Halliday]

Someone new throwing their hat in the forecasting biz (http://http://www.click2houston.com/news/9235304/detail.html)
:rolleyes:

[Damon Poole]

Pat Robertson, the real visionary behind Inaccu-Bungle's egotistical excess! :lol:

In God we trust, but Pat Robertson writes his own Almanac. :rolleyes:
Don't leave your day job Pat!

[B Ozanne]

I'm not sure if Accu-Weather has been doing it, but many articles I have seen use the words "Over due" in referring to a hurricane in the northeast. It doesn't really work like that. Hurricanes have no memory and they don't get over due. Past seasons have no control over future ones. While many factors are coming together that increase the hurricane risk to the east coast, it has nothing to do with the fact that "it's been a long time."

[Bart_Comstock]

Originally posted by NOAA: 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook

CAUTIONARY NOTES

1) It is currently not possible to confidently predict at these extended ranges the number or intensity of landfalling hurricanes, or whether a particular locality will be impacted by a hurricane this season. Therefore, residents and government agencies of coastal and near-coastal regions should always maintain hurricane preparedness efforts regardless of the overall seasonal outlook.

Just as NOAA said, you can not place the dart on the map and know where the Hurricanes of pending season will hit, or how strong they will be on land fall. Placing a high risk on heavily populated areas and areas well known for energy production is just a good way to build hype. People like to watch a good disaster movie just as much as they do to hear about the possibility of a real one on the news. AccuWeather is using this to their advantage by forecasting that there is a high risk that Boston and NYC could be hit by a hurricane, and a 50% chance that it will be a major hurricane. This is a great way to great people to notice you and then they will spread the word ("Well AccuWeather said..."). Furthermore, people will keep checking their site for updates on the pending hurricane season, thus raising their site hits total, thus helping them attract more advertisers who will be willing to pay more for a spot on the site. Then as the season progresses they will "update" their forecasts to reflect what may or actually will happen, and even if it doesn’t have a corny disaster movie plot in the making in the updates. They have already built a big enough fan base with their initial forecast that will allow them to make more realistic predictions as the season progresses and not loose to many returning visitors of their site.

[Pat Lawrence]

Well, they were wrong about that, but where's the accountability?
[/b]

It's called accu-tability, or something like that...Which means they are only accu-accountable when they are correct.

Pat

[Mike Smith]

Please allow me to make this point again...

There is far MORE accountability in the private sector than there is in the public sector.

The IRS ensures our patronage of the National Weather Service.

No one is forced to subscribe to a private-sector meteorological service. If enough people do not find sufficent value, the private sector weather service goes out of business (and, plenty have over the years).

This post is NOT intended to be a private sector v. NWS comment. We need both. But there have been several posts (on this and other boards) in the last month about "accountability." I can assure you there is plenty of accountability in the private sector.

Mike

[rdale]

Private sector - certainly.

AW - nope. Just like MS: When you're the giant even when you do wrong, people don't care.

[Bart_Comstock]

It is easy to get people to listen to you and subscribe to your forecasts when you run around and talk about a "high risk" of a worst case scenario in highly populated areas. Furthermore most people don't know enough about the weather to see thru a comment like "it's overdue."

[Justin Turcotte]

Private sector - certainly.

AW - nope. Just like MS: When you're the giant even when you do wrong, people don't care.
[/b]

????

I don't know how many mets AW has on staff but I would think the NWS has them beat in numbers hands down. If this is the case then using your logic, nobody cares when the NWS misses the mark. We know this is not the case. Just a couple weeks ago NWSFO MPX took some serious heat for one of its warnings in the TV and print media. NWSFO FGF took a beating when one of the 1997 flood forecasts was below the crest which inundated the city. AW is certainly taking heat right now in this forum, has in the past, and likely will in the future. Obviously both groups are being held accountable for their products. Private sector forecasting is a highly competitive endeavor. If the firm does not live up to expectations then there is significant risk that the bid will go to a competing outfit.

No doubt AW is playing the very old TV weatherman card... "Big storms are possible, tune in at 10 for the WXTV Storm Tracker Doppler 99000 weather team update". Big storms (hurricanes) are indeed possible if not probable given climo. I don't know what exact message AW wants to express with the hurricane graphic but my take is that the areas of "high" risk are defined as higher risk than average climo. If AW is reasonably close then you may never hear the end of it rom them. If AW is not even close than you folks will never let it die. Just be careful who you pick on. There may be a chance that you may work with, directly or indirectly, the folks you blast in a public forum. Burning bridges in a relatively small field is never a good idea. Tactful constructive criticism is good and quite possibly appreciated. Time to practice what I preach.

Mole watch... Any opinions above are mine only and do not reflect the opinions of my employer or co-workers.

[rdale]

"I don't know how many mets AW has on staff but I would think the NWS has them beat in numbers hands down."

I'm not using number of employees as the definition... "Who do people know"? I have no doubt that AccuWeather has better name recognition than NWS when it comes to forecast providers. Many TV stations just buy the AW package for the sole purpose of saying "Your AccuWeather forecast."

My point is that AW provided a HORRIBLE hurricane forecast last year, publicized it, we criticized it - yet the public (and media) didn't care at all when this year's was released. I don't think AW did this "for the public good" but to get their name plastered once again all over the TV/print.

- Rob

[Peter Creedon]

That's why I always use the official source, the NHC. I personally think that Joe Bastardi, is clueless, and that people need to stop thinking he is god qhen it comes to hurricanes. I am not saying that Dr. Gray is god either, but he is not as cocky as Joe B. I have completely boycotted Accuweather. Nothing is accurate about them. There should be a weather network just devoted to chasing.

[Mike Smith]

That's why I always use the official source, the NHC.

There should be a weather network just devoted to chasing.
[/b]


Ok, great. You see a need ("weather network just devoted to chasing"). Now, raise the money or use your savings and take a risk to make the idea a reality. That's what private sector meteorologists do...we take the risks with our (sometimes with other investors) money to build something and make it a reality.

Now, after all the criticism of AW for making a regional-specific forecast for New England, the following quotes come from today's "Wall Street Journal"...

"William Gray, a prominent storm predictor at Colorado State University, and his colleague Phil Klotzbach, put the odds of an intense hurricane hitting the stretch of coast between New York City and Cape Cod at about 1 in 11. That stretch includes the shorelines of Long Island's two counties."

"If that were to hit today in the same area, it would rival Hurricane Andrew, if not more so, as far as damage done," says Mike Wiley, meteorologist in charge of the National Weather Service's forecasting office on Long Island. If the most forceful winds hit closer to New York City, he added, "It would surpass the damage that we just saw with Hurricane Katrina." And he adds that "statistically, we're overdue."

Hmmm. The NWS talks about Andrew-type damage in New England in the above quote and says the region is "overdue."


It is easy to get people to listen to you and subscribe to your forecasts when you run around and talk about a "high risk" of a worst case scenario in highly populated areas. Furthermore most people don't know enough about the weather to see thru a comment like "it's overdue."
[/b]



Now that Dr. Gray and NWS have make similar forecasts to AW, I'd like to see the same amount of criticism of long range, regional hurricane forecasts as earlier in the thread.

[rdale]

The criticism as not as much over the forecast - but the way it was played up. I don't see _any_ of the headlines that AW generated. And AW didn't say that odds were 1 in 11. I think if you review JB's forecast, the percentage is MUCH higher. And I didn't get a press release from Dr Gray.

[Mike Smith]

The criticism as not as much over the forecast - but the way it was played up. I don't see _any_ of the headlines that AW generated. And AW didn't say that odds were 1 in 11. I think if you review JB's forecast, the percentage is MUCH higher. And I didn't get a press release from Dr Gray.
[/b]


The press release that Colorado State University sent to the world is available online at: http://newsinfo.colostate.edu/index.asp?pa...em_id=114210869 (http://newsinfo.colostate.edu/index.asp?page=news_item_display&news_item_id=114210869)

So CSU did exactly the same thing AW did. As of the time of this posting, Google News has 159 organizations publishing their story. I would certainly call this "playing it up."

The press release sent out by NOAA about their seasonal hurricane forecast is available online at: www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2634.htm . NOAA also had a press conference, the video of which is also available at their web site.

So far, 71 organizations have printed (checking Google) the headline from the NOAA press release. Again, I would call this "playing it up."

I have no problem with AW, CSU or NOAA. What is the point of making a forecast if you are not going to distribute it? And please do not tell me it is more "noble" for academia or government to make these forecasts. You don't think NOAA hopes the favorable publicity will help them get more funding from Congress? You don't think CSU hopes the publicity will help get more favorable funding from the Colorado legislature?

Of course AW hopes the publicity will help them get more business. What is the problem with that? At least they are spending their own money to gain the publicity. NOAA is spending OUR money. CSU is spending the money of the taxpayers of Colorado.

As to the differing forecasts, this happens all the time. At this moment, the NWS forecast for Russell Springs, KS is calling for "Tonight: Showers and thunderstorms likely, mainly before 1am. Partly cloudy, with a low near 56. North wind between 5 and 10 mph. Chance of precipitation is 60%." However, the county containing Russell Springs is under a severe thunderstorm warning calling for "DESTRUCTIVE WINDS IN EXCESS OF 70 MPH." Two types of forecasts, differing information.

My point is simple: No one has to like AW, NWS, WeatherData, WSI, CSU or anyone else. That is a matter of personal preference. But consider the following quotes from this thread:



I mean seriously, what value do these forecasts add to anything? To me the just serve to instill more fear into the already fearful American public. Buy, Buy, Buy your hurricane supplies and insurance policies all you good little Americans in preparation for a big bad hurricane season!
[/b]



There's little science behind Accu-Weather's forecasts. They like to use weather analogs. They are convinced that what happened in the past directly relates to what happens in the future. Which may be the case, but with only a few sample years to test their theories its a reach.

where's the accountability?
[/b]

and on and on.

My purpose is not to pick on any individual post or person. Here is my point: If we consider ourselves scientists and this is supposed to be a science-based board, then where is equal criticism regarding the self-promotion of CSU and NOAA and where is the criticism of NWS and Dr. Gray's long range forecast methods (the latter uses a form of analogs)?

Meteorology needs all three: NOAA and other federal agencies, academia and the private sector. The private sector (through its generation of tax dollars) makes possible the other two, along with every other taxpayer. We don't expect gratitude for the tax dollars we pay (it is part of doing business). It is great we (along with every other taxpayer) have access to government data and academic research. But one sector is not automatically superior to the other.

All I ask is consistency: If making a long range hurricane forecast and publicizing it is wrong for the private sector, it follows it is wrong for the other two sectors. If it is wrong for AW to say the Northeast is "overdue" it is wrong for the NWS to say it is "overdue."

Thank you for reading this long post.

Mike

[rdale]

Great post Mike! I guess what got me was 1) the release from AW was faxed and email to probably every TV station in America (I received several) and 2) Nowhere does AW acknowledge that their 2005 forecast was downright horrid (pretty much clearing the Gulf Coast of any major concerns in July.) NOAA and CSU did do a recap.

I think the quotes you included are anti-AW just to join the "anti-AW, anti-private sector, anti-any-bill-that-takes-anything-from-NWS" crowd. I'm not on that ship - I'm just not a big fan of AW's tactics when it comes to screaming fire every time there's something in the theater capable of creating a spark (i.e. JB's winter weather "forecasts.")

[Skip Talbot]

As Alberto makes landfall, I can't help but think back to this forecast and chuckle. Mother nature works out of spite.

[Justin Turcotte]

As Alberto makes landfall, I can't help but think back to this forecast and chuckle. Mother nature works out of spite.
[/b]

Chuckle at whom? Wasn't too many days ago that the TPC didn't believe the tropical low would do anything while the Canadian model pretty much nailed the formation and path most of its runs the last week. The path definately wasn't were AW thought the early season threat was but it is quite early in the season just yet to call it a bust. I'm not paying for JB's products so I don't know what he said about this storm when the TPC was holding off. In any event, goes to show that a hurricane forecast even a few days out can strike out. Gotta give credit when due though as the TPC did a pretty good job with predicted strength and path once it became apparent this storm could impact Florida.

Any opinion expressed above is mine only and may not reflect that of my employer or coworkers.

[Skip Talbot]

Chuckle at whom?[/b]


The original accuweather graphic. Sorry, should have clarified that since this thread has progressed since then.