[hpeer]

Mark,

Like I said, not disagreeing with you.

BTW a while back a thread here or there was discussing the difference between the US and European weather models. I has come out the US Air Force is buying European weather data because it’s better.

One post or linked article explained that a lot of the problem is the forecasters union resists any improvements, algorithms etc. because they don’t want to our forecasters out of work. The claim was made that some forecasters have come up with programming improvements but are not allowed to implement them.

It’s believable because I saw that same kind of stuff in my work history.

 

[Minnewaska]

I’ve been reading up on NOAA hurricane predictions. They only claim their season predictions to be 60% - 70% accurate, within a range of storm numbers. That’s pretty squishy. Specifically.......

The seasonal activity is expected to fall within these ranges in 70% of seasons with similar climate conditions and uncertainties to those expected this year. These ranges do not represent the total possible ranges of activity seen in past similar years. The predicted ranges for 2020 are centered above the 1981-2010 seasonal averages of 12 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes. Most of the predicted activity is likely to occur during the peak months (August-October, ASO) of the hurricane season.

The Atlantic hurricane season officially runs from June 1st through November 30th. This outlook will be updated in early August to coincide with the onset of the peak months of the season.

Here is their actual prediction, not media sound bite. Higher than normal is 60% odds.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane2020/May/hurricane.shtml

I just don’t have the time to line up all their historic predictions vs. actual. Here’s the archived predictions....

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane-archive.shtml

To clarify the 60% tp 70% comment, I attached a link in my post, in which NOAA makes that claim themselves. This year, they predict 6 to 10 hurricanes, where the average is 6. They claim their ranges are 70% accurate in seasons of similar climate conditions. Then they make odds on lower, normal or higher numbers of hurricanes in 2020. This year they claim their own forecast to have 60% odds of being higher than normal. These odds have nothing to do with short term weather prediction.

The question in the OP about these predictions was..... "Has this caused you to change your thinking, plans or travel?

I don't see how 60% would change someones plans any more than 40% would. It's too squishy. Add the fact that they make absolutely no effort to predict where a hurricane might develop or whether any will make landfall.

 

[colemj]

Mark,

Like I said, not disagreeing with you.

BTW a while back a thread here or there was discussing the difference between the US and European weather models. I has come out the US Air Force is buying European weather data because it’s better.

One post or linked article explained that a lot of the problem is the forecasters union resists any improvements, algorithms etc. because they don’t want to our forecasters out of work. The claim was made that some forecasters have come up with programming improvements but are not allowed to implement them.

It’s believable because I saw that same kind of stuff in my work history.

Without getting too political, the real reason the European model surpassed the US GFS model in the past two years is because the current administration removed the funding and resources for the US modeling program. Thus, the model is no longer being continually trained with new data and updated incrementally. It just gets worse and worse over time, and has pretty much been abandoned now for the ECW model. The shame is this wasn't done because of tight budgets and necessary priorities, it was done because weather models and climatologists are perceived to have a slight tenuous connection to "climate change".

Mark

 

[colemj]

To clarify the 60% tp 70% comment, I attached a link in my post, in which NOAA makes that claim themselves. This year, they predict 6 to 10 hurricanes, where the average is 6. They claim their ranges are 70% accurate in seasons of similar climate conditions. Then they make odds on lower, normal or higher numbers of hurricanes in 2020. This year they claim their own forecast to have 60% odds of being higher than normal. These odds have nothing to do with short term weather prediction.

The question in the OP about these predictions was..... "Has this caused you to change your thinking, plans or travel?

I don't see how 60% would change someones plans any more than 40% would. It's too squishy. Add the fact that they make absolutely no effort to predict where a hurricane might develop or whether any will make landfall.

Yes, that number sounded about right to me, so I didn't check it for accuracy or source - just borrowed it and treated it as true. I didn't intend to attribute it to you, and believed you had sourced it correctly.

Are you sure they don't break down estimates to general areas like Atlantic, etc? And I thought they gave some indication of how many might make landfall?

I don't think these estimates are to help individuals plan their movements. I do think they may be taken into account in planning large-scale planning like stocking or moving resources, implementing certain coordination, etc.

Maybe it is just for the bookies.

My point was that it seems harsh to criticize them, and the alternative of getting rid of their continual efforts is worse than nothing. Just like in all similar endeavors, they are getting better over time as they understand the science and variables more. Granted, we are in the birthing stages of long-range weather prediction, but why kill the infant because they weren't born an adult?

Mark

 

[hpeer]

:cut_out_animated_em

Without getting too political, the real reason the European model surpassed the US GFS model in the past two years is because the current administration removed the funding and resources for the US modeling program. Thus, the model is no longer being continually trained with new data and updated incrementally. It just gets worse and worse over time, and has pretty much been abandoned now for the ECW model. The shame is this wasn't done because of tight budgets and necessary priorities, it was done because weather models and climatologists are perceived to have a slight tenuous connection to "climate change".

Mark

The discussion I was remarking about predated Trump. The conversation was a year or 2 ago. And the reports were a year or two older than that.

 

[jtsailjt]

My point was that it seems harsh to criticize them, and the alternative of getting rid of their continual efforts is worse than nothing. Just like in all similar endeavors, they are getting better over time as they understand the science and variables more. Granted, we are in the birthing stages of long-range weather prediction, but why kill the infant because they weren't born an adult?

Mark

I don't think anyone is criticizing them as being bad people, but just as you say, long term weather forecasting is in its infancy so when one of the infants makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong 40% of the time, people tend to almost ignore it and certainly don't base big, consequential decisions on it and it doesn't get the same respect a more mature science such as physics or chemistry does. At its current range of maturity, I'd say that long range forecasts are worth checking out, and then going about your business as you would have while keeping an eye on how the weather systems are actually developing. Once the forecast is within about a week, THEN I'd start to really pay attention. When you think about it, that's not too bad because a hundred years ago, people had no idea a hurricane was coming until the barometer started to drop, and by then it was usually too late to do anything about it except for last minute emergency measures. So there's been progress, but not as much as some who give long range forecasts more credibility than they probably deserve at this point.

 

[hpeer]

I’ve got an approximate 14 day passage coming up.

3 day forecasts are worth paying attention to.

7 day forecasts will likely catch a big weather feature and give me some warning.

After that it’s down to luck. The Sailing Directions look favorable.

Chicken bones look good also.

 

[Minnewaska]

.... the real reason the European model surpassed the US GFS model in the past two years.....

Perhaps the spread has widened in the past two years, but the European model has generally been considered a better model, for much longer than that. Maybe it was a smart idea to not pour money into both, if one was better.

 

[Minnewaska]

....Are you sure they don't break down estimates to general areas like Atlantic, etc? And I thought they gave some indication of how many might make landfall?....

Yes, the link is titled the 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook, so it's confined to that basin.

They are also very clear, within the linked forecast, to disclaim any indication of landfall or specific locations. I wonder if any of the media that reported the forecast disclosed either the 60% odds or the lack of landfall prediction. I'm not going to dig through them to find out.

Interpretation of NOAA's Atlantic hurricane season outlook:

This outlook is a general guide to the expected overall activity during the hurricane season. It is not a seasonal hurricane landfall forecast, and it does not predict levels of activity for any particular location.

 

[jtsailjt]

I can't respond to this in any meaningful way because I can't begin to even comprehend it. It is illegible, and what little I can piece together is illogical.

Mark

I know what you mean about her posts because she regularly takes quite a few more liberties with the English language than most of us. I used to think she was actually nuts! But if you read what she writes and don't try to take every word and sentence literally, she manages to squeeze quite a lot of wisdom into her entertaining and 'freestyle' form of writing. Give her posts another chance or two and even though you and I and other more linear thinking people might well dispute some details or opinions she includes, the overall point she is making often turns out to make a whole lot of sense, at least to me. I reluctantly had to revise my thinking to she's sort of nuts but only in a fun way, but she's also pretty smart about a lot of things. It'll probably never happen, but I know I'd enjoy sharing an anchorage with her or having her as a neighbor in a marina.

 

[colemj]

I know what you mean about her posts because she regularly takes quite a few more liberties with the English language than most of us. I used to think she was actually nuts! But if you read what she writes and don't try to take every word and sentence literally, she manages to squeeze quite a lot of wisdom into her entertaining and 'freestyle' form of writing. Give her posts another chance or two and even though you and I and other more linear thinking people might well dispute some details or opinions she includes, the overall point she is making often turns out to make a whole lot of sense, at least to me. I reluctantly had to revise my thinking to she's sort of nuts but only in a fun way, but she's also pretty smart about a lot of things. It'll probably never happen, but I know I'd enjoy sharing an anchorage with her or having her as a neighbor in a marina.

Illegible communication is different than figurative or symbolic communication. I simply can't read it. The grammar, syntax, and structure is beyond my ken. I have seen her writing in other places, and it is intentionally done this way only on forums. I don't have time for that. I have lots of experience with her thoughts and writing over many years and several forums, and have come to a different conclusion about them than you.

Mark

 

[MarkofSeaLife]

I can't respond to this in any meaningful way because I can't begin to even comprehend it. It is illegible, and what little I can piece together is illogical.

Mark

Then why respond at all???

If theres one tool I would love to have as a moderator would be to force a member to Ignore all the posts of another member. It would stop 100% of the aggression on this and every forum.

Mark I know you know how to use the Ignore button as you have admitted having me on Ignore. So why the hell dont you use it more instead of whinging like a school girl?


Mark

 

[MarkofSeaLife]

I’ve got an approximate 14 day passage coming up.

3 day forecasts are worth paying attention to.

7 day forecasts will likely catch a big weather feature and give me some warning.

Enjoy the trip.

I find 7 days too far out to be reliable.

Another trick I use is never to slow down before I absolutely have to. Usually slowing down prematurely is not tactically the best in retrospect.


Take extra chocolate


Mark

 

[colemj]

Then why respond at all???

If theres one tool I would love to have as a moderator would be to force a member to Ignore all the posts of another member. It would stop 100% of the aggression on this and every forum.

Mark I know you know how to use the Ignore button as you have admitted having me on Ignore. So why the hell dont you use it more instead of whinging like a school girl?


Mark

I have never put anyone on ignore, and certainly never told you I put you on ignore. I think the ignore function is silly.

You have developed quite a personal animosity toward me. You will need to overcome that to remain an effective and impartial moderator.

Or put me on ignore!

BTW, using "whinging school girl" as a perjorative is misogynistic. As a moderator you should take more care.

Mark

 

[MarkofSeaLife]

Zee is a friend.

 

[colemj]

Zeehag posted directly to me, which invites a response. I tried, but failed, and stated why.

Mark

 

[roverhi]

Mark,

Not arguing just pointing out:

Weather forecasters 60% to 70% correct.

Coin flip 50% correct.

If anyone uses the long term forecast of count of tropical storms as a reason to do or not do something they are an idiot.

Hurricanes will happen so if you are in an area where they happen, plan for it. If one develops and you are in the cone either start preparations on how you are going to cope with it and/or get out of the cone. When it's a week or so out either move the boat to a hurricane hole and/or do all the preparatation necessary to survive the storm where you are at. If at sea, sail to the least effected part of the cone that you can make within it's expected arrival and get the boat ready for a beating. Lastly, take a land cruise out of the area expected to be hit. Don't wait till the last day or two as you may get caught in traffic and go nowhere. Don't hang on the boat. If it doesn't survive with all the precautions you've taken, you probably won't either.

 

[outbound]

Ya but it’s got 77 responses so far. I’m away from my boat. Can only do so many house projects, tie so many flies. Catch so many fish. Figured it was a non covid diversion so worth a shot.

 

[hpeer]

Good shot. Funny, talking about weather forecasting feels tangibly reliable to much else about. Is. LOL

We’ve been through a couple of named storms while in a dock. We didn’t get go to hurricane force winds. Bad enough.

Then a couple of years ago on a dock a well predicted front came through with 60knot gusts for a few hours. Little Bayfield 29 on our finger woke me right up when the wind caught a bubble in their imperfectly reefed Genoa. BANG!

Gave me a new respect for the wind power.

 

[colemj]

All of these are just viewers for the same model data. They are not weather services or predictions. Predictwind also presents the European model, so would have been equally accurate WRT that model on your passage.

Mark