* As hurricane season starts, the FSU hurricane season forecast is the odd man out citing "active"

Why are you describing this as “at odds” with the other forecasts?
They too are describing this year as ” slightly below the 1995-2010 average”.
REPLY: They are saying an “active” season where the others describe it in more muted terms – Anthony

“NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center says there’s a 70 percent chance of nine to 15 named storms…of which four to eight will strengthen to a hurricane… and of those one to three will become major hurricanes…. Based on the period 1981-2010, an average season produces 12 named storms with six hurricanes, including three major hurricanes.”
FSU: “This year’s forecast calls for a 70 percent probability of 10 to 16 named storms and five to nine hurricanes. The mean forecast is for 13 named storms, seven hurricanes.”
The FSU forecast is for a slightly below average year but it’s still showing (slightly) higher numbers than the previous two. Most people reading this blog know that 9-15 vs 10-16 is a difference without a distinctioin but the MSM won’t push that aspect.

“This year’s forecast calls for a 70 percent probability”
Now let’s be honest here……would you bet on that horse
If they are wrong…they are still right

They say this is their 4th year “using a unique computer model with a knack for predicting hurricanes with unprecedented accuracy”. So what FSU’s track record on hurricane prediction?

FSU: “The forecast mean numbers are slightly below the 1995-2010 average….”
NOAA: “NOAA’s outlook predicts a less active season compared to recent years….”
CSU: “We anticipate a slightly below-average probability of United States and Caribbean major hurricane landfall.”
Works for me, especially in light of this:
NOAA: “… But regardless of the outlook, it’s vital for anyone living or vacationing in hurricane-prone locations to be prepared.”
I prepare by living and vacationing far inland.

You know, FSU’s headline reads:
“Hurricane season is here, and FSU scientists predict a near-normal season”
Your issue, Anthony, is with the word “active.” Why can’t “active” = “normal” within a hierarchy such as “Quiet, Active, OMG!!!”
I dunno, I’m a meteorological ignoramus, so maybe the biz just normally uses “active” = “more than normal,” “alert,” and so on. Certainly on a day when there’s actively active activity I’d want to be in duck-and-cover mode … but just reading FSU’s release without a cautionary link wouldn’t have alarmed me.
Even if I were “living and vacationing in hurricane-prone locations.” 😉 But I take your point that I’m not in journalism and so am not looking for stories I can get people excited about.

Anthony:
Why sans Ryan Maue?

It’s already started.
CNN uses small blurbs to link to the main stories.
Their link states (under LATEST NEWS):
“…Hurricane forecast a bit scarier…”
The main story doesn’t even mention the FSU projection, just CSU and NOAA.
First part of the linked story:
“…Hurricane forecasters raise 2012 predictions.
On the first day of the Atlantic hurricane season, forecasters at Colorado State University have increased their predictions for the number of named storms for the year but are still predicting a below-average number of storms…”
Doesn’t take much to scare some people.

As someone who could be affected by hurricanes, I pay great attention to all this. I was under the hurricanes of 2004 so I tend to take a little notice too. What is apparent is that:
* The error bars on these projections/predictions/forecasts are very wide. So wide that anything within 4 of average can be claimed as success
* The counts are inflated by the arbitrary decision to ‘name’ a storm that is somewhere in mid-Atlantic and for a brief period is assessed as passing the wind speed parameter for Tropical storm – whereas in the recent past it would not even have been counted as a storm.
So there does not appear to be any ‘skill’ involved in these forecasts. Tell us how many land-falling hurricanes there will be and the state of landfall – No? Well the current ‘forecasting’ looks like Kenji could succeed at another job.
Anyway as an interested observer it seem from the SSTs shown in the Unisys SST map in the right hand column that the Atlantic is not really hot enough for an active season or strong hurricanes.
Where is Joe Bastardi when you need him 🙂

Brian R says: “They say this is their 4th year “using a unique computer model with a knack for predicting hurricanes with unprecedented accuracy”. So what FSU’s track record on hurricane prediction?”
Let’s see:
2011 FSU June Prediction Named and Hurricanes
17, 9
Actual
19, 7
2010 Predicted
17, 10
Actual
19, 12
2009 Predicted
8, 4
Actual
9, 3
Not terrible.
tetris says: “Why sans Ryan Maue?”
He earned his PhD, hence Doctor Maue. He is no longer at the University, AFAIK.
Catcracking says: “It seems as though the predictions all have a slant to reinforce the global warming.”
Yes, noted AGW skeptic Bill Gray is started and is coauthor of predictions from CSU that slant to reinforce global warming…NOT. The forecasts from CSU and NOAA are based on the natural variability of the climate system, not AGW. Most of the forecast from these groups have been about right in the last several years as far as overall storms and pretty good with the intensity distributions, too. They have not systematically erred in any particular direction.
BTW, if you don’t like government funded programs…Bill Gray finances CSU’s predictions from his own pocket. As a skeptic he can’t get government funding.
Ian W says: “The counts are inflated by the arbitrary decision to ‘name’ a storm that is somewhere in mid-Atlantic and for a brief period is assessed as passing the wind speed parameter for Tropical storm – whereas in the recent past it would not even have been counted as a storm.”
They get named because they are Tropical Storms. We are not over counting now. We undercounted before.
“* The error bars on these projections/predictions/forecasts are very wide. So wide that anything within 4 of average can be claimed as success”
They openly state how uncertainty their predictions are. They want you to know how close they think they can get. What’s wrong with that?
“Tell us how many land-falling hurricanes there will be and the state of landfall – No?”
This is at the frontier of current forecasting ability. If you don’t like that science isn’t to the point that it can offer such predictions, too bad. They do their best.

I think using numbers of storms is no longer a good method given the way storms are named in the middle of nowhere. Instead the ace index is the way to go and at 70-90. Weatherbell is the lowest of the bunch. My forecast calls for over 2/3rds of the ace index to be attained north of 25 north this year and over 50% of it within 300 miles of the US coast. We have been touting in close development since April, had maps on line on May 4 of the development of Able of May of 1951 off the Carolinas saying we should look for that in 10-15 days , followed by a system out of the Caribbean. My point is that fast starts like this have happened before, like 1968 with Abby Brenda and Candy all by june 25 in 1968 and 4 by mid July in 1997 and the season shut down.
I presented a new technique idea at ICCC7 on using 400 mb temps in March over the tropics as a precursor matching up the lowest ace years with this year, so this will be an interesting test. At the very least, FSU, myself, and most of the other vendors put their forecast out in real time for all to see, rather than have research that is not seen until someone puts out a paper.
also showed how using the AMSU 400 mb temps, one can predict the tornado trend from the year before… even after the rip roaring start, our forecast called for activity overall to be near normal and shut down of this season. Folks on our paid site saw that.
Impossible to hide a decline when you are in the public eye and I applaud FSU and others for their straightforward ideas we can all see in real time.
I was on Cavuto tonight outlining the season and firing warning shots at anyone trying to attribute any long overdue major eastern hurricane to global warming. The nonsense about Irene last year was as bad as ignorance or deception ( they either do not know the history, or they do, and simply lie) on that matter as I have seen in the climate fight.
In the meantime, this should be very interesting. Dr Maue just joined us so the forecast is still my fault if its wrong… Ryan should not be blamed for my shortcomings, and he knows how much respect I have for FSU!

The link to the FSU site now says “Near Normal”, not active.

Andrew says:
June 1, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Ian W says: “The counts are inflated by the arbitrary decision to ‘name’ a storm that is somewhere in mid-Atlantic and for a brief period is assessed as passing the wind speed parameter for Tropical storm – whereas in the recent past it would not even have been counted as a storm.“
They get named because they are Tropical Storms. We are not over counting now. We undercounted before.
“* The error bars on these projections/predictions/forecasts are very wide. So wide that anything within 4 of average can be claimed as success“
They openly state how uncertainty their predictions are. They want you to know how close they think they can get. What’s wrong with that?
“Tell us how many land-falling hurricanes there will be and the state of landfall – No?“
This is at the frontier of current forecasting ability. If you don’t like that science isn’t to the point that it can offer such predictions, too bad. They do their best.
The counting of tropical storms looks then to be similar to the counting of sunspots. Previously, a ship would have had to be in the storm and assessed the wind against the Beaufort scale as ‘force 8 fresh gale’ (yes that’s all it is) or had someone monitor the anemometer and think it was significant enough to report the storm. Today the wind around a tropical depression gets briefly to >34kts when assessed by satellite metrics and it is ‘counted’ as a tropical storm. For people using the ‘active years’ as proxies in support of hypotheses of rising storm numbers – such as insurance companies setting premiums – this can be totally misleading. Perhaps, as solar science has done with counting sunspots, meteorology needs to keep a ‘traditional count’ as well as the satellite era count so that valid comparisons are made? This for many may be an academic ‘game’ like predicting sea ice minima, however for Florida and Gulf Coast households with continually increasing hurricane insurance based on “the increasing number of storms” it can mean significant financial losses.
There is also a huge difference between the damage caused by a ‘tropical storm’ which in wind terms often would not even merit a mention in many areas of the world, and a hurricane. SWAGed numbers for the number of hurricanes or land-falling hurricanes are actually taken seriously by people and used. (see http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/05/remember-when-one-hurricane-was.html — note WUWT and others in the sidebar ). If it is known that the skill in forecasting storm activity in the Atlantic during hurricane season “is at the frontier of current forecasting ability.” then say so when you put out the forecasts. It’s not a case of “If you don’t like that science isn’t to the point that it can offer such predictions, too bad. They do their best.“; it is a case of ensuring everyone, including insurance companies and politicians, understand that caveat. But I see no such caveats in what is being published one even states: “Three More Tropical System Landfalls Forecast in the U.S” there is no mention that this is little better than a guess. I realize the difficulties of attempting to forecast the behavior of a chaotic system when not all the inputs are known and the values of the known inputs are probabilistic forecasts. However, these uncertainties need to be made plain when the annual ‘hurricane season guessing game’ kicks off.

Ian W says: “If it is known that the skill in forecasting storm activity in the Atlantic during hurricane season “is at the frontier of current forecasting ability.” then say so when you put out the forecasts.”
They’ve been forecasting Atlantic activity with decent skill for years. What is at the frontier is when, where, and how many will make landfall. What portion of the storms that form will make landfall seems to vary quite a bit, probably because whether a storm makes landfall depends on instantaneous conditions, whereas aggregated storm activity depends fairly reliably on large scale seasonal conditions.
I agree that some forecast centers could stand to be more upfront about the uncertainties in landfalls.
“Perhaps, as solar science has done with counting sunspots, meteorology needs to keep a ‘traditional count’ as well as the satellite era count so that valid comparisons are made?”
Something very much like this has been done:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-et-al-jclim2010.pdf
Turns out, without the short lived storms unlikely to be identified in the past-and accounting for increasing density of ship tracks (and decreases during the world wars), apparent trends in storm numbers disappear.