Hurricane predictions miss the mark
Nov. 26, 2007
BY MARTIN MERZER
Two years ago, way under. Last year, way over. This year, still not right.
It's been a stormy few years for William Gray, Philip Klotzbach and other scientists who predict total hurricane activity before each season begins, which raises fundamental questions as the 2007 season draws to an end on Friday:
Why do they bother? And given the errors -- which can undermine faith in the entire hurricane warning system -- are these full-season forecasts doing more harm than good?
'The seasonal hurricane forecasters certainly have a lot of explaining to do,' said Max Mayfield, former director of the National Hurricane Center.
'The last couple of years have humbled the seasonal hurricane forecasters and pointed out that we have a lot more to learn before we can do accurate seasonal forecasts,' he said.
The numbers provide abundant support for those statements.
Just before the season started on June 1, the nationally prominent Gray-Klotzbach team at Colorado State University predicted that 17 named storms would grow into nine hurricanes, five of which would be particularly intense, with winds above 110 mph.
A different team at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted 13 to 17 named storms, seven to 10 hurricanes and three to five intense hurricanes.
The actual results for the 2007 season: 14 named storms, five hurricanes, two intense hurricanes.
That turned a season predicted to be extremely active into one that was about average in number of storms and well below average in total intensity.
Even mid-season corrections issued by both teams in August -- somewhat akin to changing your prediction about a baseball game during the fifth inning -- proved wrong.
Their pre-season predictions in 2005 and 2006 were even worse.
miamiherald.com
If forecasters can't predict one year out, how on earth are we expected to believe the forecasts that are 20, 30, 40, or 50 years into the future? Not very convincing, Kenneth...
Diz- |
