[Storm tracks, 2007 Atlantic hurricane season.]
Well, it's April, and the earliest of the pre-season Atlantic hurricane forecasts have appeared. My latest Daily Green entry parses two sets of predictions that are really quite similar:
Colorado State University: 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, 4 intense hurricanes, heightened U.S. intense hurricane landfall risk
Tropical Storm Risk: 14.8 named storms, 7.8 hurricanes, 3.5 intense hurricanes, heightened U.S. intense hurricane landfall risk
In both 2006 and 2007, the big U.S. landfall didn't happen. But we won't keep on getting lucky....and remember, there have been a staggering 8 Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes in the last 5 years.
Read the full Daily Green item here.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Especially since El Nino went away (PDF), hurricane watchers have been worrying about what kind of season we'll see in the Atlantic later this year. El Nino has a well known tendency to suppress Atlantic storms, contributing to quieter years like 2006 (click image). But now, we're expected to see…
The last of the pre-season hurricane forecasts--from Colorado State University's Phil Klotzbach and Bill Gray, the latter of whom happens to be a chief character in my new book--is now out (PDF). It is unchanged from the previous Klotzbach/Gray forecast: 17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 5…
Probably.
The Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University makes annual predictions of hurricane season activity, and they released one of these predictions today. This particular group has a good track record, although I would worry that they tenaciously hold to the idea that global…
The 16 storm 2003 Atlantic hurricane season (click to enlarge) -- a possible analogue for 2007?
As we get closer to hurricane season--and especially once the season starts--the forecasts become increasingly reliable. We're still a month away, though, so what follows should be taken, as always,…
May I quibble - not about something you said, but - about that second prediction. Since there is no such thing as a partial hurricane, what is the point of predicting 7.8 hurricanes? In addition to just being silly, it implies far greater precision in the accuracy of the prediction than is borne out by the inaccuracy of the predictions of the past. Why don't they just say "8" like the other prediction? After all that is an approximation already, it (probably) means 7 or 8 or 9, maybe even means 6 to 10. I hope that Mark CC comments about that.
you wrote:
"Now, having been at that meeting myself, I know that a lot of researchers disagree with Holland about whether you can use a mere eight storms, however extreme, to say anything scientifically defensible. Nevertheless, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that there have been eight Category 5s in the Atlantic in 5 years, people!"
wow.
On the one hand, you say: there's no science behind there being 8 category-5 storms in the last five years.
On the other hand, you make a direct appeal to the emotions: `8 in 5 years, people!' Be afraid! Be very afraid! Even if there's no scientific reason to be afraid.
You even note at the beginning of your article that thes predictions are very inaccurate.
This article strikes me as fear-mongering.
Bill -- You have hit upon the journalistic technique known as the "Mooneyism," which involves the following two-step:
First, make a nod in the direction of scientific uncertainty to buy some "sci cred," and so that you can later cite your own "balanced" journalism if challenged. Then, ignore said uncertainty with a propagandistic appeal to the ignorant emotionalism of your (presumably left-leaning) audience.
Unfortunately, I have to deduct a few points from your score for difficulty, Bill. This one was way too easy. Usually, Chris separates his self-contradictory statements by at least a sentence or two.
Chris,
Have you read Kerry Emanuel's latest study? It doesn't seem to corroborate his earlier work very well. He is to be commended for admitting that the likelihood that global warming is going to significantly increase tropical cyclone strength is much lower than he previously hypothesized.