During yesterday's press conference the folks at the National Hurricane Center sounded a bit defensive.
As well they should.
From MIT's Technology Review blog:
While forecasters have improved path predictions, they still have difficulty predicting a storm's intensity.
Hurricane path prediction has enormously improved. Forecasters knew days before it made landfall that Irene would hit the Carolinas and move up the East Coast, reaching New York and New England.
"There have been tremendous improvements in hurricane track forecasts over the past 20 years," says Gerald Heymsfield, a research meteorologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Information from aircrafts flown by NOAA and the Air Force provided data, as well as NOAA radars on the ground along the East Coast. "This was an ideal situation compared to storms forming over the ocean or around the islands," he adds.
The Associated Press points out that better computer models and better data for the models have led to drastically improved predictions of hurricanes' paths:We were fortunate to catch a Wunderblog post and get "Irene's eyewall collapses; further intensification UNLIKELY (ALL; TRV; CB; BRK.b)" in front of our readers early Friday morning, allowing plenty of time to adjust bets.
By Monday night, five days before Irene first hit the East Coast, the hurricane center figured the storm would come ashore around the North Carolina-South Carolina border. By Tuesday night, they predicted it would rake the coast. And on Friday morning—24 hours before landfall—they had the storm's next day location to within 10 miles or so.While path prediction has steadily improved over the decades, forecasting the intensity of storms still proves tricky. Irene's expected monster intensity—much to the nation's relief—was far less as she weakened a day or so after reaching land. "What made Irene especially difficult for the forecasting models was that she had three landfalls and followed the coastline," says Heymsfield. "We need a lot more research to understand how to better model this land interaction."
Twenty years ago, 24-hour forecasts were lucky if they got it right within 100 miles and the average 36-hour forecast within 146 miles. With Irene, that was about the accuracy of the five-day forecast.
Others point to the unusual way Irene's "eye wall"—the inner core of storms surrounding the hurricane's eye—behaved. New York Times reports....MORE
It worked out well.
Later that morning the NYT's Dot Earth blog posted a partial confirmation that the coastal damage wouldn't be as bad as some were forcasting: MIT: "New York Surge From Irene Looks Bad, But Not Off Charts"