On Apr 10, 9:14*pm, "zaax" wrote:
Martin Rowley wrote:
(ex UPI)
U.S. hurricane *experts William Gray and Philip Klotzbach say they
expect a busy
2008 Atlantic hurricane season, with as many as 15 named storms.
The Colorado State University scientists in their April
forecast said they also anticipate an above average probability of
major hurricanes making landfall in the United States.
Gray and Klotzbach said they expect 2008 will have about
eight hurricanes (the average is 5.9) and four intense hurricanes
(average is 2.3).
... full forecast he-

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/F...008/apr2008.pd
f

They said that last year

--
---
zaax

They did zaax. It's a developing area and the authors of these
forecasts always acknowledge this. Their continuing research has led
them to change their forecast perameters from last year and their
hindcast success rate for these new perameters is 0.64, if you go back
to . It is an improvement on their forecast accuracy of 0.57 over the
13 years they have done this, but that success rate is not sufficient
to say that it is better than climatology, which they acknowledge:

"Although our seasonal hurricane forecast scheme has shown significant
real time
skill for our early June and early August predictions, we have yet to
demonstrate realtime
forecast skill for our early April forecasts that have been issued for
the last 13 years."
(1995-2007).

The choice of the new perameters is, most probably, the work of Philip
Klotzbach, who has assumed the major lead in developing this forecast
and it may give more accuracy. It will not stop newspapers saying that
the coming hurricane season will be an active one, so; "Watch Out USA,
Another Katrina Is On The Way"! shakes head

Even a hindcast of 0.64 is not a high coefficient value . It is
similar, only a little below, the skill of the Met Office in
predicting the correct sign of the NAO (not, however, the value!). I
applaud the Klotchbach and Gray's work, as I do the Met Office, but it
really shows me how far long-range seasonal forecasting has to go to
provide good forecasts. It reinforces what I feel that no-one, not
even the most vocal and wordy, of Internet participators, can predict
with any accuracy the conditions in a subsequent season and none
should be lauded as "forecasters". Maybe one day someone will figure
what conditions are likely to produce particular winter conditions in
the UK, but not in 2008/9. The forecasts you read will be speculation
and infomed guesswork. Their value is not in the forecast itself, but
in the good meteorology they often contain. Unfortunately, it is not
the good meteorology that is remembered.

Changing UK climatology over the last 25 years, will give you a better
percentage accuracy than any combination of chosen precursors.

Paul