EXTENDED RANGE FORECAST OF ATLANTIC SEASONAL HURRICANE ACTIVITY AND LANDFALL STRIKE PROBABILITY FOR 2011
We continue to foresee well above-average activity for the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season. We are predicting the same levels of activity that were forecast in early April due to the combination of expected neutral ENSO conditions and very favorable atmospheric and oceanic conditions in the tropical Atlantic. We continue to anticipate an above average probability of United States and Caribbean major hurricane landfall.
(as of 1 June 2011)http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2011/june2011/jun2011.pdf
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
saveenergy on 65 Years Of Progress! Jeff L. on Analyzing The Western Water Cr… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Approaching 100% I… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Set Another Spring… gelcarrion0t on New Visitech Features saveenergy on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast gelcarrion0t on Seventeen Years Of Fun Barbara Stockwell on Nuclear Safety In The US
Did they make the same prediction the last three years? If you make it enough times it will be accurate eventually, then they will be the smartest people in the room.
yes, they predicted 9 last year too…
…eventually they’ll get it right
At least this time they said CO2 and SST’s have nothing to do with it.
Since the same people who predict the storms name the storms, you can rest assured that they will name whatever they have to name to make their forecast verify, even if they are subtropical lows at 30N and 30W, or phantom disturbances with 1010 mb pressures and no clouds.
As far as landfalling storms, they have been saying every year that there will be landfalling storms. One of these years, they are bound to be right. We can’t go forever with no landfalling storms (just like you can’t go forever without a major tornado disaster) but you can bet that when one finally does hit, the alarmists will wet their pants.
My cat just had a terrific fight with a little restaurant bag of oyster crackers: I think I should alert the NHC so they can name it.
Waning La Nina and what analog years show for activity. They are making use of the natural climate cycles to anticipate the activity. The fact that there has been no US landfall for the last 2 years (since records are available,there has never been 3 years without a US landfall) makes it ALMOST a sure thing for this year…..
Most of the meteorologists involved with the NHC are just that, meteorologists. Not climate scientists waiting for the gravy train to pull into the station. Whatever the totals, preparation is the key and early warning helps that, due in large part to the NHC and the NWS. Time to look elsewhere for the warmists that will crow about the next US landfall as a sign of doom….rather than an overdue cyclical WEATHER event.
Most meteorologists are warm-earther sympathizers, either overtly or covertly. They can’t risk pooping in their own nests.
The number of major hurricanes is at best a rough estimate, but CSU and other groups seem to be fairly close.
http://www.islandpacket.com/2011/05/26/1668553/how-good-and-what-good-are-hurricane.html
But as this reference points out, knowing a total level of activity is far from the sort of detailed information one needs to prepare for a specific storm.
Have they ever forecast a below average year in hurricane activity.
That wouldn’t scare anyone. So no, they haven’t.
A man with a broken watch gets the time right twice a day. 😉 When one does eventually hit landfall it will be blamed on global warming despite slight global cooling. Why did they not blame the lack of hurricanes hitting landfall on global warming? These are the questions I want answers to from the scammers and tricksters.
It has now been 1000 days since any hurricane hit the US, the longest spell since before the Civil War.
16 ±3.7 ie that is the jumpiest dang barndoor I ever tried to shoot at. I guess I need to get closer’n 1.4 sciencemeters.
By the way, I think the 95% is 16 ±15.9