Comments on: Predicting and Positioning for Hurricanes http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3504 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Russ Elsberry http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3504&cpage=1#comment-1212 Russ Elsberry Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:43:13 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3504#comment-1212 A few comments: 1) I was a little misled by your use of the word positioning in the title until I read the article. In the tropical cyclone world, positioning refers to the determination of the location of the circulation center of the cyclone. 2) The BAMS article reported on the achievement of a research goal, and only pointed out that because of a program facilitating the transition of research to operations called the Joint Hurricane Testbed, it led to an advance in forecasting skill as well. The demonstration that this research and forecasting achievement may have led to a measurable improvement in societal response was not a part of the USWRP Hurricane Landfall program (however, your advisor certainly advocated at the beginning of the Hurricane Landfall program that such a societal impacts program be included--we never got the funding to incorporate that aspect). Whereas perhaps $43 B in damages might be attributed to the four hurricanes that struck FL during the 2004 season, I can only assume that the improved skill in forecasting contributed to reductions in deaths (and perhaps damages) via better warnings. 3) I believe you have misinterpreted the Franklin et al. (2003) article in BAMS. They show that the rate of improvement over a period of time for the forecasts when the storm is threatening landfall may be slightly smaller than the overall rate of improvement. I say may be because the number of such landfall-threatening forecasts is small and varies greatly from year-to-year, especially at 72 h since some years have no events, so that constructing trend lines is risky. I agree with the authors that no reason exists from the landfall-threatening forecasts to be worse given that aircraft reconnaisance is continuous in those situations. The rate of improvement for forecasts over open ocean can be larger because the errors have traditionally been larger over those regions owing to a lack of data. 4) I agree that a more systematic focus is needed on how improved forecasts can help the public. Perhaps if the USWRP Hurricane Landfall program had been able to put more focus on societal effects the program would not have been terminated. Russ Elsberry (formerly Science Coordinator, USWRP Hurricane Landfall program) A few comments:
1) I was a little misled by your use of the word positioning in the title until I read the article. In the tropical cyclone world, positioning refers to the determination of the location of the circulation center of the cyclone.
2) The BAMS article reported on the achievement of a research goal, and only pointed out that because of a program facilitating the transition of research to operations called the Joint Hurricane Testbed, it led to an advance in forecasting skill as well. The demonstration that this research and forecasting achievement may have led to a measurable improvement in societal response was not a part of the USWRP Hurricane Landfall program (however, your advisor certainly advocated at the beginning of the Hurricane Landfall program that such a societal impacts program be included–we never got the funding to incorporate that aspect). Whereas perhaps $43 B in damages might be attributed to the four hurricanes that struck FL during the 2004 season, I can only assume that the improved skill in forecasting contributed to reductions in deaths (and
perhaps damages) via better warnings.
3) I believe you have misinterpreted the Franklin et al. (2003) article in BAMS. They show that the rate of improvement over a period of time for the forecasts when the storm is threatening landfall may be slightly smaller than the overall rate of improvement. I say may be because the number of such landfall-threatening forecasts is small and varies greatly from year-to-year, especially at 72 h since some years have no events, so that constructing trend lines is risky. I agree with the authors that no reason exists from the
landfall-threatening forecasts to be worse given that aircraft reconnaisance is continuous in those situations. The rate of improvement for forecasts over open ocean can be larger because the errors have traditionally been larger over those regions owing to a lack of data.
4) I agree that a more systematic focus is needed on how improved forecasts can help the public. Perhaps if the USWRP Hurricane Landfall program had been able to put more focus on societal effects the program would not have been terminated.

Russ Elsberry (formerly Science Coordinator, USWRP Hurricane Landfall program)

]]>