forecasting

We May Be Able to Further Improve Hurricane Track Forecasts After All

ZetaZeta blossomed into the 11th hurricane of this hyperactive season Monday and its forecast track takes it ashore on the Gulf Coast by midweek. The National Hurricane Center (NHC) on Monday said computer models had become more tightly clustered with the forecast in the Gulf, “resulting in an increase in track-forecast confidence,” and Hurricane Zeta is expected to become the United States’ record 11th storm landfall in a single season.

Such confidence is a reflection that NHC’s tropical storm and hurricane track forecasts, which go out 5 days, have substantially improved in the last 25 years. But, a 2018 essay in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) found that such improvements in track forecasts have slowed, raising concern about making them any better and extending them out beyond 5 days with any skill. While that study suggested improvements may have reached a limit, new research also published in BAMS finds a way to further refine them in the coming decades. Using a different interpretation of track position errors than the earlier article, the research moves the predictability limit for tropical cyclones out a day per decade to 6-8 days in the next 10-30 years.

Late Season Hurricanes Bring Research Opportunities, Too

After a veritable flurry of storms in the Atlantic since August, the basin has gone quiet following the landfalls of Tropical Storm Beta in Texas, and Post-Tropical Storm Teddy in Nova Scotia. But late-season storms are quite common in the Atlantic, and as this hyperactive hurricane season combines with confirmed La Niña conditions, this year it seems almost like an expectation. And that means people on the coast need to stay alert to what’s going on in the atmosphere, but it also means there’s still promise for additional hurricane research this year.

Recent Octobers have seen a couple of very intense and even catastrophic hurricanes develop and make landfall. The last big one was Hurricane Michael, which slammed the Florida Panhandle in 2018. In 2016, Hurricane Matthew roared to life in the Caribbean, reaching Category 5 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson scale before crashing into Hispaniola as a Cat. 4, and then menacing the Florida coast for days and eventually swirling into the Carolinas.

Matthew turned out to be a late-season success for NOAA’s Sensing Hazards with Operational Unmanned Technology (SHOUT) project.  SHOUT evaluated the ability of observations taken by the high-altitude, unmanned Global Hawk aircraft to improve forecasts of high-impact weather events, which are “one of the most critically needed capabilities of weather services around the world,” write lead author Gary Wick and his colleagues in their article on SHOUT in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

NASA’s Global Hawk flew 15 missions sampling Hurricane Matthew and 5 other tropical cyclones as well as 3 winter storms in 2015 and 2016. Instrumented with GPS dropwindsondes and remote sensors, Global Hawk’s data were examined in real time by forecasters, assimilated in operational weather prediction models, and applied to data impact studies, demonstrating positive results.

BAMS asked Wick a few questions about his work and SHOUT in particular (for the full answers, see the print or digital edition of the magazine):

BAMS: What would you like readers to learn from your article?

Gary Wick: The primary message we would like to convey is that Global Hawk can provide highly useful observations of high-impact weather events that would be very difficult to obtain with any other
existing aircraft or observing system.  It was possible to consistently see the potential for forecast benefit across a wide range of models.

Gary_Wick-and-Global_HawkBAMS: How did you get into this focus on improving operational hurricane forecasts with unmanned aircraft?

GW: I was fortunate to have participated in both the NASA-led Genesis and Rapid Intensification (GRIP) and Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentinel (HS3) campaigns and was able to observe the potential application of the Global Hawk to tropical cyclone research.  The distinct goals of those campaigns, however, didn’t allow for a real focus on the operational hurricane forecasting problem.  We in the NOAA UAS Program were extremely excited when support from the Disaster Relief Act of 2013 gave us the opportunity to conduct a dedicated campaign to examine the impact of observations from the Global Hawk on forecasts of high-impact weather.

BAMS: What got you initially interested in meteorology?

GW: My path to this project was really quite indirect.  My interests growing up really centered around planes, due in part to living close to the old Denver airport.  As a kid, I would frequently ride my bicycle out to the end of the runway and watch planes take off and land.  These interests led me to study Aerospace Engineering as an undergraduate where I just happened to take a class one year in environmental aerodynamics taught by a scientist from a predecessor of my current NOAA laboratory.  This class introduced me to remote sensing and I ended up pursuing graduate studies centered primarily around satellite-based remote sensing.  The work with UAS in general and this project in particular allowed me to come full circle, in a sense, combining my many interests in aircraft, remote sensing, and weather.

BAMS: What surprised you the most in the SHOUT project?

GW: As someone whose personal work hadn’t centered around atmospheric models, assimilation, and weather forecasting, it was surprising to me early on how providing weather models with more, high quality, direct observations wouldn’t necessarily improve the resulting forecasts and, in some cases, could actually degrade them.  One might naively think that better data could only lead to a better final product.  After gaining an appreciation of how challenging it is to achieve meaningful forecast improvements through addition of any data to our current observing and assimilation systems, I was
very pleasantly surprised that it does appear that the highly unique observations enabled by the Global Hawk still have the potential to help us improve our forecasts of high-impact weather events.

BAMS: What was the biggest challenge you encountered in the experiment?

GW: As with seemingly any field project, our biggest challenge was probably obtaining the weather events we were hoping to study during the necessarily limited duration of the campaign.  Through the multiple years of the GRIP, HS3, and SHOUT campaigns, the Global Hawk developed almost a reputation as a “hurricane repellent” due to the limited number of storms during the experimental periods.  Perhaps the most interesting storm sampled during the SHOUT campaign, Hurricane Matthew in 2016, actually occurred after the scheduled end of the experiment.  Fortunately, we were able to extend the campaign and collect some very valuable additional observations.

Matthew_GHBAMS: What’s next? How will you follow up?

GW: Several additional studies are underway to better evaluate the impact of all the different observations collected in different and the most recent models. NOAA is still working to evaluate and increase the number of UAS observations (particularly from smaller platforms) to help conduct our mission.

Red Proverb at Morning, Meteorologists Take Warning

Sunset4_IMG_0813 copy

Weather proverbs can be useful indicators of real correlations observed over the centuries, but they can also show unwelcome persistence. The phenomenon is well known: for example, a December 1931 BAMS article referred to a Columbia University study that revealed most high school students had heard the proverb, “When squirrels gather an unusual supply of nuts, it indicates a severe winter”—and 61% of them believed it.

Efforts to confirm or debunk proverbs are also an old tradition. As recorded in the October 1896 Monthly Weather Review, members of the Meteorological Society of France discussed the merits of the popular proverb: ” When it rains on St. Medard’s day it will rain for forty days unless fine weather returns on the day of St. Bernabe.” They found no confirmation of the saying in their data.

In recommending W.J. Humphrey’s 1923 book sorting proverb fact from fiction, Robert deCourcy Ward of Harvard University wrote in BAMS,

There have been several such collections, but there have been practically no serious attempts to separate the “good” from the “bad” proverbs. Many proverbs are merely the relics of past superstitions. Many are useful in one climate and of no use in another land into which they have been imported. Most of our own proverbs came from Europe, or even still farther away, and do not fit into our climatic environment.

Along comes an unusually thorough verification study of Polish weather proverbs in the July 2020 issue of Weather, Climate and Society. Lead author Piotr Matczak (of the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland) and colleagues set their article in the context of the recent, increased interest in integrating traditional knowledge with scientific findings in order to enrich overall climate databases.

The authors searched through 1,940 sayings, mostly looking for if-then logical structure (such as “hot July leads to January frosts”) that suggested predictive power, and narrowed the list to 28 specific enough about temperature to be verified by decades of weather data from observing stations in and around Poland. In many cases, this meant turning subjective descriptions into quantitative categories. For instance, “If Saint Matthew (February 24) does not melt ice, peasants will long puff to warm their cold hands]” was recast as a test: the correlation of maximum air temperature on February 24 below 0°C to mean air temperature for the following two weeks below 0°C.

This proverb proved to be the most accurate of the bunch, fulfilling its predictions 83% of the time. The rest of the sayings were–not so much fantastical as just plain unhelpful. Only 16 of the 28 proverbs showed any forecast skill, and usually quite low skill, which wasn’t necessarily unexpected, since many of the proverbs were essentially extended range forecasts that wouldn’t have been skillful even with modern techniques. Three proverbs, like “If the Marek day (April 25) is threatening with the swelter the Boniface (May 14) freezes” never predicted accurately in the data record. Most of the time the predictive condition occurred, the predicted consequence did not occur (false alarm ratios for most proverbs greatly exceeded 50%).

Including the St. Matthew’s day prediction, only three verified more than 43% of the time: “When Zbigniew and Patrick (March 17) are freezing people’s ears, two more Sundays of winter freezing and snows,” and another for St. Matthew’s day: “If the Matthew day is warm there is a hope for spring.”

There were some interesting shifts in the proverbs’ success rate however that may warrant follow-up research. They did better earlier in the record than in later years, and better in eastern Poland and formerly Polish lands further east. Matczak et al. note,

following the Second World War, Poland was displaced by some 200 km westward, with the population displaced accordingly. Thus, the proverbs may refer to the climate of areas that are more eastward when compared with the current borders of Poland, that is, the areas nowadays in Belarus, Lithuania, and Ukraine.

 

 

“Decision-making under meteorological uncertainty” for D-Day’s Famous Forecast

The success of the D-Day Invasion of Normandy was due in part to one of history’s most famous weather forecasts, but new research shows this scientific success resulted more from luck than skill. Oft-neglected historical documentation, including audio files of top-secret phone calls, shows the forecasters were experiencing a situation still researched and practiced today: “decision-making under meteorological uncertainty.”

New research recently published in BAMS into that weather forecast for June 6, 1944, which enabled the Allies in World War II to gain a foothold in Europe, answers questions about three popular perceptions: were the forecasts, which predicted a break in the weather, that good? were the German meteorologists so ill-informed, missing that weather-break? and was the American analog system for prediction so great and better than what the Germans had?

The “alleged” weather break

An expected ridge and fair weather between two areas of low pressure, one departing and one arriving over the area, didn’t materialize. The departing low instead lingered and created a lull in visibility and lifted the cloud ceiling height, but it didn’t slow winds much. They blew at Force 4-5 (~13-24 mph), creating very choppy seas that sickened many troops prior to the invasion.

Synoptic analyses at 00 UTC from 5 to 8 June 1944. The low that was supposed to move northeast to southern Norway remained over the North Sea for some days. On 6 and 8 June the observed winds in the Channel were force 4 and occasionally force 5.
Synoptic analyses at 00 UTC from June 5-8, 1944. The low that was supposed to move northeast to southern Norway remained over the North Sea for some days.

 

A blown German Forecast?

Because the invasion came as a complete surprise to the Germans it has been surmised their weather forecast for June 6 had to be bad. German forecasters prior to the war were the best at “extended” forecasts, and their synoptic maps and forecast for that day were more realistic than the Allies, with a less optimistic speculation of any break in the weather.

The German's European-Atlantic map at 00 UTC June 6, 1944, where the analysis over the North Atlantic appears not to be based on observations but intercepted American coded analyses.
The German’s European-Atlantic map at 00 UTC June 6, 1944, where the analysis over the North Atlantic appears not to be based on observations but intercepted American coded analyses.

 

A historically debated forecast

The analog weather prediction system employed by the Allies for the invasion was claimed by its creators to have correctly identified the weather break. But historical analysis and review doesn’t bear this out. What it does find, though, is that the system correctly identified a transition from zonal to meridional flow, which delivered the break the Allies needed for success. History’s finding: The forecast was “Overoptimistic.”

The 1984 Fort Ord meeting about the D-Day forecast got coverage in the local Monterey newspapers. The invasion was said to have occurred in a "break" or a period of a "brief lull" in the weather.
The 1984 Fort Ord, California, AMS meeting about the D-Day forecast got coverage in the local Monterey newspapers. The American forecasting group was led by Lt. Col. (Dr.) Irving Krick of Caltech. The president of the Naval Post Graduate School, Robert Allen, Jr., at the time an Air Force officer conducting high-level weather briefings at the Pentagon, also spoke at the meeting.

 

As a lesson learned from this most famous of weather forecasts, the paper’s author, Anders Persson of Swedin’s Uppsala University, concludes:

It was 75[+] years ago and the observational coverage has improved tremendously since then, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Our understanding of the atmosphere is much better,and the forecast methods have reached a standard that could hardly have been dreamt of in 1944. However, there’s one element that has a familiar ring to it and is of great interest today. That is when Air Marshall Tedder [Deputy Supreme Commander of the Invasion under General Eisenhower] asks about an assessment of the confidence in the forecast he has just heard … This illustrates that the D-day forecast is a significant early example of decision-making under meteorological uncertainty.

"Decision-making under meteorological uncertainty" for D-Day's Famous Forecast

The success of the D-Day Invasion of Normandy was due in part to one of history’s most famous weather forecasts, but new research shows this scientific success resulted more from luck than skill. Oft-neglected historical documentation, including audio files of top-secret phone calls, shows the forecasters were experiencing a situation still researched and practiced today: “decision-making under meteorological uncertainty.”
New research recently published in BAMS into that weather forecast for June 6, 1944, which enabled the Allies in World War II to gain a foothold in Europe, answers questions about three popular perceptions: were the forecasts, which predicted a break in the weather, that good? were the German meteorologists so ill-informed, missing that weather-break? and was the American analog system for prediction so great and better than what the Germans had?
The “alleged” weather break
An expected ridge and fair weather between two areas of low pressure, one departing and one arriving over the area, didn’t materialize. The departing low instead lingered and created a lull in visibility and lifted the cloud ceiling height, but it didn’t slow winds much. They blew at Force 4-5 (~13-24 mph), creating very choppy seas that sickened many troops prior to the invasion.

Synoptic analyses at 00 UTC from 5 to 8 June 1944. The low that was supposed to move northeast to southern Norway remained over the North Sea for some days. On 6 and 8 June the observed winds in the Channel were force 4 and occasionally force 5.
Synoptic analyses at 00 UTC from June 5-8, 1944. The low that was supposed to move northeast to southern Norway remained over the North Sea for some days.

 
A blown German Forecast?
Because the invasion came as a complete surprise to the Germans it has been surmised their weather forecast for June 6 had to be bad. German forecasters prior to the war were the best at “extended” forecasts, and their synoptic maps and forecast for that day were more realistic than the Allies, with a less optimistic speculation of any break in the weather.
The German's European-Atlantic map at 00 UTC June 6, 1944, where the analysis over the North Atlantic appears not to be based on observations but intercepted American coded analyses.
The German’s European-Atlantic map at 00 UTC June 6, 1944, where the analysis over the North Atlantic appears not to be based on observations but intercepted American coded analyses.

 
A historically debated forecast
The analog weather prediction system employed by the Allies for the invasion was claimed by its creators to have correctly identified the weather break. But historical analysis and review doesn’t bear this out. What it does find, though, is that the system correctly identified a transition from zonal to meridional flow, which delivered the break the Allies needed for success. History’s finding: The forecast was “Overoptimistic.”
The 1984 Fort Ord meeting about the D-Day forecast got coverage in the local Monterey newspapers. The invasion was said to have occurred in a "break" or a period of a "brief lull" in the weather.
The 1984 Fort Ord, California, AMS meeting about the D-Day forecast got coverage in the local Monterey newspapers. The American forecasting group was led by Lt. Col. (Dr.) Irving Krick of Caltech. The president of the Naval Post Graduate School, Robert Allen, Jr., at the time an Air Force officer conducting high-level weather briefings at the Pentagon, also spoke at the meeting.

 
As a lesson learned from this most famous of weather forecasts, the paper’s author, Anders Persson of Swedin’s Uppsala University, concludes:

It was 75[+] years ago and the observational coverage has improved tremendously since then, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Our understanding of the atmosphere is much better,and the forecast methods have reached a standard that could hardly have been dreamt of in 1944. However, there’s one element that has a familiar ring to it and is of great interest today. That is when Air Marshall Tedder [Deputy Supreme Commander of the Invasion under General Eisenhower] asks about an assessment of the confidence in the forecast he has just heard … This illustrates that the D-day forecast is a significant early example of decision-making under meteorological uncertainty.

In Celebration: American Weather Enterprise Collaborating to Protect Lives and Property

By Mary M. Glackin, AMS President-Elect, and Dr. Joel N. Myers, Founder and CEO, AccuWeather

In his acclaimed book, The Signal and the Noise, noted statistician Nate Silver examines forecasts of many categories and finds that most forecast types demonstrate little or no skill, and most predictive fields have made insignificant progress in accuracy over the past several decades.  The one exception, Silver concludes, is weather forecasting, which he singles out as a “success story.” We quite agree.

The benefit of improved weather forecasting on human activity over the last 60 years cannot be overstated. As we approach in January the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, the nation’s premier scientific organization dedicated to the advancement of meteorological science, it seems a fitting time to celebrate all that we have accomplished for the protection of life and property and the substantial benefits to people and business and contemplate the challenges ahead and the path forward to conquer them.

With technology and human knowledge increasingly transforming both weather forecasting and our relationship with it, our success will rest squarely on our ability to embrace transformational change and to recognize and welcome opportunities for collaboration between key facets of the weather enterprise – academic, government and the private weather industry.

The publicly funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration plays a critical role in supporting the entire infrastructure of weather forecasting, which government organizations, such as the National Weather Service, the U.S. military, and privately held organizations rely on. This infrastructure includes observational systems, maintenance and support of numerical weather prediction models, and providing life-saving weather warnings.  Warnings, arguably, are the biggest payoff of weather forecasting with lives and property on the line.

The NWS analyzes and predicts severe weather events and issues advisories and warnings to the general public for their safety and protection. Warning services provided by NWS have improved over the decades. By design, NWS weather warnings cover a broad territory, intended for the widest possible public audience in a region.

While all government weather warnings reaching the public are produced by the NWS, increasingly in today’s digital age they are tailored and delivered almost entirely by private weather providers through news broadcasts and free, advertising-supported mobile phone apps and other digital sources of convenience.  The greatest challenge the weather enterprise faces is ensuring these life-saving weather warnings reach the greatest number of people potentially impacted by hazardous weather with enough advance notice to take proactive steps to remain safe and out of harm’s way. When seconds count in a weather-related emergency, this partnership example significantly extends the reach of the government for greater public safety.

What some may not realize is that when severe weather threatens, companies, such as AccuWeather, pair a deep understanding of client operations with their team of meteorologists to provide vital services, such as custom site and operation specific weather warnings, to clients tailored to their risk thresholds.

A recent Washington Post article mistakenly conflated warning services provided by NOAA with custom warning services provided to private clients.

In fact, with example after example, there is no doubt private companies, such as AccuWeather, which has received many AMS accolades for its warnings and expertise, can and do provide valuable warnings and services to private clients. It was unfortunate that a comment said on the fly was taken out of context. Both AccuWeather and AMS view the incident in this light and are continuing to build on their shared history of partnership. AccuWeather works closely with NOAA and NWS to make sure communities and businesses have the best information and warnings they need to stay safe. This partnership has never been stronger.

In fact, there has been a long history of cooperation between the public and private weather sectors.  National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS), including the NWS, readily source data and intellectual property from private companies to support their mission of saving lives, protecting property, and enhancing the national economy.  This trend is likely to continue in the world of shrinking government budgets and resource allocation.  In turn, private companies leverage technologies, such as the many forecast models provided by NMHS, as the foundation to their own products and services.

As we look ahead to the next 100 years, many challenges impacting the future of the weather enterprise loom large, such as cost and financial pressures, the hyperbolic increasing rate of the capture, storing, processing and analyzing of data, emerging challenges of health and climate change and new accelerating technologies and platforms in the digital age, some of which we cannot yet even conceive.

These sectors of the weather enterprise have their own advantages and efficiencies and together we can most certainly succeed in furthering meteorological advancement if we capitalize on each other’s strengths and work cooperatively and decisively to achieve our larger mission of safety and protection.

All partners in the weather enterprise –government, commercial and academia —  in addition to the support and stewardship of important professional organizations, such as the AMS, the National Weather Association and the American Weather and Climate Industry Association – are essential to meteorological progress, and the sum of our value to the public and business can be far greater than the individual parts.

In the last six decades, each component of the weather enterprise has learned to better understand and appreciate one another and to communicate more effectively and to respect the important contributions of each in the true spirt of cooperation. The greatest example of this is the AMS-championed Fair Weather Report, a study funded by the federal government to generate more harmony across the entire weather enterprise.

Since we began our careers, we have had the privilege of seeing amazing progress in our ability to provide more specific, more accurate, and more useful weather forecasts and warnings, which extend further ahead and have saved tens of thousands of lives and prevented hundreds of billions of dollars in property damage.

With even more and better collaborations between the various facets of the weather enterprise, there is no question the public and our nation stand to benefit from greater safety and better planning. We look forward to continuing our work together to bring about more exciting innovations and enhancements to advance public safety.

Editor’s note: Mary M. Glackin is President-elect, American Meteorological Society. She was formerly the Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a Senior Vice President of Science and Forecast Operations at The Weather Company (IBM). Dr. Joel N. Myers is Founder and CEO of AccuWeather

The Trouble with Harvey: Hurricane Intensification Dilemmas

Hurricanes like rapidly-changing Harvey are still full of surprises for forecasters.
The remnants of Caribbean Tropical Storm Harvey made a startling burst Thursday from a tropical depression with 35 mph winds to an 85 mph hurricane in a little more than 12 hours. It has been moving steadily toward a collision with the middle Texas coast and landfall is later Friday. If intensification continues at the same rate, Harvey is likely to be a major hurricane by then, according to a Thursday afternoon advisory from the National Hurricane Center, with sustained winds of 120-125 mph and even higher gusts.
That’s a big “if.”
The drop in central pressure, which had been precipitous all day—a sign of rapid strengthening—had largely slowed by Thursday afternoon. Harvey’s wind speed jumped 50 mph in fits during the same time, but leveled off by late afternoon at about 85 mph. Harvey was a strong Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale by dinner time.
The intensifying process then slowed. But it turns out this was temporary.
Many signs pointed to continued rapid intensification: a favorable, low-shear environment; expanding upper-air outflow; and warm sea surface temperatures. Overnight and Friday morning, Harvey continued to traverse an eddy of water with high oceanic heat content that has detached from the warm Gulf of Mexico loop current and drifted westward toward the Texas coast. Its impact is apparent as the pressure resumed its plunge and winds have responded, blowing Friday morning at a steady 110 mph with higher gusts.
Further intensification is possible.
In fact, the SHIPS (Statistical Hurricane Intensity Prediction Scheme) Rapid Intensification indices “are incredibly high,” Hurricane Specialist Robbie Berg wrote in the Thursday morning forecast discussion. Guidance from the model then showed a 70 percent chance of another 50 mph jump in wind speed prior to landfall. The afternoon guidance lowered those odds a bit, but still showed a a 64 percent probability.of a 35 mph increase.
It wouldn’t the first time a hurricane has intensified rapidly so close to the Texas coast. In 1999 Hurricane Bret did it, ramping up to Category 4 intensity with 140 mph winds before crashing into sparsely populated Kennedy County and the extreme northern part of Padre Island.
Hurricane Alicia exploded into a major hurricane just prior to lashing Houston in 1983. And 2007’s Hurricane Humberto crashed ashore losing its warm water energy source and capping its intensity at 90 mph just 19 hours after being designated a tropical depression that morning off the northern Texas Coast, a similar boost in intensity as Hurricane Harvey.
Rapid intensification so close to landfall is a hurricane forecasting nightmare. An abundance of peer-reviewed papers reveal that there’s a lot more we need to learn about tropical cyclone intensity, with more than 20 papers published in AMS journals this year alone. Ongoing research into rapidly intensifying storms like Harvey, is helping solve the scientific puzzle, including recent cases such as Typhoon Megi  and Hurricane Patricia. Nonetheless, despite strides in predicting storm motion in past decades, intensification forecasting remains largely an educated guessing game.

Improving Tropical Cyclone Forecasts

Tropical cyclones are usually associated with bad news, but a long-term study about these storms now posted online for publication in BAMS has some good news–about the forecasts, at least. The authors, a Japanese group lead by Munehiko Yamaguchi, studied operational global numerical model forecasts of tropical cyclones since 1991.
Their finding: the model forecasts of storm positions have improved in the last 25 years. In the Western North Pacific, for example, lead time is two-and-a-half days better. Across the globe, errors in 1 – 5 day forecasts dipped by 6 to 14.5 km, depending on the basin.
Here are the improvements for the globe as a whole. Each line is a different modeling center:
CycloneForecastsGlobal
While position forecasts with a single model are getting better (not so much with intensity forecasts), it seems natural that the use of a consensus of the best models could improve results even more. But Yamaguchi et al. say that’s not true in every ocean basin. The result is not enhanced in the Southern Indian Ocean, for example. The authors explain:

This would be due to the fact that the difference of the position errors of the best three NWP centers is large rather than comparable with each other and thus limits the impact of a consensus approach.

The authors point towards ways to improve tropical cyclone track forecasts, because not all storms behave the same:

while the mean error is decreasing, there still exist many cases in which the errors are extremely large. In other words, there is still a potential to further reduce the annual average TC position errors by reducing the number of such large-error cases.

For example, take 5-day track forecasts for Hurricane Joaquin in 2015. Hard to find a useful consensus here (the black line is the eventual track):
JoaquinForecast
Yamaguchi et al. note that these are types of situations that warrant more study, and might yield the next leaps in improvement. They note that the range of forecast possibilities now mapped as a “cone of uncertainty” could be improved by adapting to specific situations:

For straight tracks, 90% of the cyclonic disturbances would lie within the cone, but only 39% of the recurving or looping tracks would be within the cone. Thus a situation-dependent track forecast confidence display would be clearly more appropriate.

Check out the article for more of Yamaguchi et al.’s global perspective on how tropical cyclone forecasts have improved, and could continue to improve.

How does it feel?

Sunday was supposed to be National Weatherperson’s Day. Did you receive flowers? Did distant relatives call to congratulate you? Did adoring fans of your forecasts voice their support?
Or did the much anticipated holiday pass uneventfully while everybody was preoccupied by lesser events…oh, like the Super Bowl, for instance? Just a case of bad scheduling conflicts, or a conscious attempt to diss you?
If you’re a meteorologist, especially a forecaster, you know how it feels to be underappreciated, to be told you’re not right often enough, that your job is going to be taken by a computer. Not only might you get ignored on the very day meant for you, now you get replaced…by a cube:

No substitute for the real thing.

Hook the device to your smart phone weather app and it adjusts its temperature to match the forecast temperature. So that’s how the weather feels! And how does it feel to be replaced by an aluminum box with a heating element and simple sink inside it?
Bob Dylan stuck the knife in with “You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows,” but he twisted it cruelly with:

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone.

A forecaster’s fate? We think not.
Clearly this invention leaves much to be desired. In addition to being unable to prognosticate without a web app, after a decade or more of good minds trying to develop better ways of conveying uncertainty information in weather forecasts in a few words or pictures, here comes a giant deterministic step backward for communicating tomorrow’s conditions. And of course, although inventor Robb Godshaw of Rochester Institute of Technology insists that the Cryoscope compensates for the difference between conducting heat with aluminum versus air (and also effects of wind chill), it is difficult to imagine equating the touch of the hand to how it feels to move and breathe in the atmosphere. No, this box is not how it feels at all.
In fact, there’s a lesson here. Much as it is difficult to teach any scientific concept to a wide audience, let’s keep in mind that over the years people have developed an uncanny sense of how they feel, personally, when it’s 40, or 50, or 60 degrees Fahrenheit and so on (not to mention wiser folks who’ve learned all this in terms of Celsius). In fact, people probably have a much more acute ability to imagine what a 10 degree rise in temperature will feel like than what carrying a 10 pound increase in load will feel like.
The depth to which the temperature scale is ingrained with exquisite sensitivity into our consciousness is summed up by a viewer’s comment on the Cryoscope promo video page:

The step after that would be to hook up a water hose to it to tell you when it is rainy.

Another Way to Work the Night Shift in Meteorology

Meteorologist A.J. Jain dispenses a lot of good advice for young professionals on his blog, Fresh AJ. But in a post last week he aimed his thoughts to employers, giving them a tip on how to keep their forecasting talent from drifting away from the rigors of shift work.
Turns out that Jain finds the demands of job, family, and health wearing him down when he’s working through the night four days and then trying to reset his body clock for the other three.

I know there are many meteorologists out there that currently feel the same way I did.  Tired, groggy, and just wish there was another solution.    Well I want to introduce you to a new model that is being successfully run at a top aviation weather company on the west coast (I won’t name names…but I am a huge fan!).
The company allows their meteorologists to work from home.  Yes…home.   Yes you can sit in your pajamas all day or night and work from the goodness of your laptop.   How awesome is that!
And you know what is amazing…the turnover of the meteorology department at the aviation company has dropped considerably.  The employees are much happier…and the product they put out is just as great…if not better. And they’re still doing shift work!

Read the rest of his points about how telecommuting can be a successful strategy for meteorological shift work.