LA Times - Hurricane Season to be Very Active

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

LAJim

Contributor
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
I'm interviewing some climate scientists for an interdisciplinary hire at one of the local universities and I've been following the field with greater than usual interest. The models for 2007 are not as bad as the 2005 season but anyone planning trips to southeast, gulf or carribean this year should consider trip insurance or look at cancellation policies.

Jim



Hurricane season to be 'very active'
Experts predict 17 named Atlantic storms, including five doozies.
By Ken Kaye, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
April 4, 2007

NEW ORLEANS — The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season will probably be "very active" with 17 named storms, including nine hurricanes, five of them major, storm forecasters William M. Gray and Philip J. Klotzbach said Tuesday.

They said there was a 74% chance that a major hurricane, with sustained winds greater than 110 mph, would strike the U.S. coast between northern Maine and South Texas. That prediction is higher than the long-term average of 52%.

They also predicted a 50% chance that a major hurricane will hit the East Coast, including the Florida peninsula, while the long-term average is 31%.

The seasonal outlook by the two tropical weather specialists at Colorado State University is given careful consideration by meteorologists and emergency planners, but is hardly foolproof. Last year, Gray and Klotzbach overestimated the number of hurricanes.

If their forecast for 2007 holds true, it would mean a substantial jump in activity over the relatively quiet 2006 season, which saw 10 named storms, including five hurricanes, and was only the 12th year since 1945 that the nation escaped a hurricane strike.

But 2007 shouldn't be as busy as the 2004 and 2005 seasons, which combined saw eight hurricanes rake Florida, the forecasters said.

"The activity of these two years was unusual, but within the natural bounds of hurricane variation," said Gray, who pioneered long-range seasonal forecasting 24 years ago.

A normal season has about 11 named storms, including six hurricanes, with two intense.

The forecast, issued almost two months before the official June 1 start of the six-month season, is largely based on a faded El Niño, a condition that inhibits storm formation and that helped subdue tropical activity last year, Klotzbach said.

"When you have El Niño conditions during the hurricane season, it increases vertical wind shear across the tropical Atlantic and typically results in a weaker tropical cyclone season," he said.

Also factored into their 2007 prediction: abnormally warm waters in the tropical Atlantic, where hurricanes frequently begin.

Gray and Klotzbach call for 2007's tropical storm activity to be 185% of average. In comparison, 2005 saw 275% of average.

Gray said he overestimated his initial 2006 forecast because he didn't foresee El Niño arising.

This week, Gray and Klotzbach will attend the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans to further explain their forecast.
 
They were right on the money last year - Remember :rofl3:

The 2006 forecast calls for:

17 named tropical storms; an average season has 9.6.
9 hurricanes compared to the average of 5.9.
5 major hurricanes with winds exceeding 110 mph; average is 2.3.

Doesn't the forecast look eerily familiar?
 
The difference - as pointed out in the article - is including the effect of El Nino. Mankind has long sought out fortune tellers and other prognosticators. I think the climate folk are doing a better job every year -on average - on these seasonal predictions.
 
They convieniently left out 2006. They were 100% wrong with their forcast that year!
 
I'm sympathetic because I do computer modeling of molecular properties and generally understand modeling. What they had in their models they treated pretty accurately. As you move along in any modeling exercise you start treating a larger space, and using more accurate mathematical descriptions of the properties of your space and how they interact.

This will get a little professorial - but hang on. Let's say I'm trying to model the structure of one water molecule. A simple quantum computation - I get a result. But now I do the calculation again for two water molecules - and the structure is a little different because they interact with each other. I run three water moecules and its a little different still but now the structure of the molecule in the middle doesn't change very much when I add some more molecules. I say that the result is starting to converge with respect to the size of the system. All of the answers are "right", but not all of them are equally useful. The most useful one is the one that treats a bunch of molecules, but the size of the supercomputer I need to do the calculation scales with maybe the fifth power of the number of molecules, so maybe I can only afford to treat six or eight molecules when I have access to the fifth largest computer cluster in the US - and I do.

Now, if you're doing climate modeling of Hurricanes in the Atlantic you start out modeling a "box" that is the western Atlantic ocean in the Northern Hemisphere and put in a lot of surface water temperature data and do some simplified physics about the motion of air and moisture in the atmosphere. If your simplified physics is pretty good and nothing outside of the "box" matters you do a pretty good job with average properties.

However, if big things outside your box happen - like a huge volcano that cools the entire earth half a degree or an El Nino event in the Pacific that moderates temperatures in the Atlantic - your model is no longer predictive of reality.

What the climate people are doing is finally reaching the stage where their "box" is large enough that it treats much of the Northern Hemisphere, and includes El Nino events in the model. These guys get the largest computer clusters in the nation. If a big volcano erupts their model won't be predictive because there is no volcano in the model.

Here is another simple example. You go to see your accountant and he says he's been modeling your finances and you're going to broke in three months. You buy a lottery ticket on the way home and win a fortune - do you say you have a lousy accountant or agree that the lottery wasn't in his model.

Most of us only care about this when these guys finally get the "right" answer. They are real, real close - I guarantee you that insurance rates in Florida went up over night because the insurance industry understands the accuracy of climate models and is already making decisions based on this.

If this was technical - well it is - sorry.
 
I understand "we need a bigger box" and until model covers the entire earth climatologists will always want a bigger "box". That is just human nature. I just don't like these long term predictions to be used to get headlines,or to be used as scare tactics. And when these predictions change the media never follows up on that story. ("Oh it's going to be lovely this year"- how boring) :( . I take these articles with a great deal of skepticism. Sure 2007 might blow the socks off 2005, but then again like 2006 it may not.
Sorry I couldn't be more tecnical. :)
 
The prediction is 2007 will be above average but less than 2006. LA Times today reports on some of the climate models showing CA and the rest of the west to become permanently drier and maybe a dust bowl by 2050. I entertained a well known climatologist who is visiting LA last night and he went over some very similar modeling predictions beofore dinner. Here the problem is not a big box so much as a small pixel size or fine grid in the modeling to pick up the effects of microclimates suh as mountain slopes. With a little warming CA looses snow on the mountain slopes and instead of building up a large snow pack most of it runs off in the rivers during the winter. When summer comes and we need the water - there is little left even with fixed annual rain fall due to the decreased snowpack.

Jim
 
They said the same thing last year... let's see what happens.
 

Back
Top Bottom