Note the author of that article also runs theeyewall.com and has a meteorology degree, so he’s not just a run of the mill science reporter.
Just last year, the AI models weren’t very good. Looks like extra year of data and training has helped a lot. The GFS model has gotten worse over time but still a solid tool. Doing better than that is a big achievement.
I wonder how much of a factor this is. An awful lot of weather forecasting is based on data collected by the National Weather Service and NOAA, and the quality and quantity of that data has been seriously degraded lately. If Google has other sources of data that the standard models aren’t currently using, that alone could make their forecasts much better than the standard models.
Eric Berger touches on that a bit in the article. Hard to say, really.
Though, the other standard models haven’t degraded much. So, it’s just left to be seen if the Google AI just had a particularly good year or if this is the standard we can expect from now on.
While true, that degraded quality of current meteorological data in the U.S. would likely affect any model. My understanding is that the GFS model (which is run by the NWS) has been regularly updated and upgraded over the past years. However, despite these upgrades, GFS’s accuracy has been generally falling behind the European EMCWF model.
Right, which is why I’m wondering if Google has access to other data sources. For instance, there’s a very widely dispersed collection of a great many barometers out there, which Google could potentially be harvesting data from: Do they use data from phone barometers?
TIL that many smartphones have built-in barometers. 
If Google’s paper is to be believed, they use the same data available to traditional ensemble models.
There are other bits of meteorological data you can gather from phones, too. For instance, a widely-distributed array of antennas is a great way to pinpoint the locations of lightning strikes.
Temperature measurements would be tricky, though, since phones spend a lot of time in close proximity to body heat.
I suppose those might help a bit but one of the traditional problems of hurricane forecasting (and general weather forecasting to a lesser extent) is limited data in the vicinity of nascent and active storms. There’s a lot of ocean out there
Bumping this thread with something relevant - NOAA released its 2026 forecast, and it calls for a below average season for a variety of reasons but mainly the developing El Niño, which is correlated with less hurricane activity.
Of course, the usual caveats apply - if it does come to pass, people won’t remember because a below average season usually isn’t exciting news.
But also, even if it is a below average season, if you still happen to get hit by a storm, it doesn’t matter how below average the overall season is, it won’t feel below average to you.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I haven’t seen any news organizations screaming out: “BELOW AVERAGE SEASON FOR HURRICANES PREDICTED FOR 2026!!!”
This apparently doesn’t garner eye revenue
It was just picked up by the AP, though the AP isn’t exactly known for breathless headlines like that.
On the other hand, with all the more ridiculous news items these days, it’s not too surprising if coverage of this is falling “below the fold.”
I can’t recall the last time they released a forecast calling for a less active hurricane season.
Seems like the default has been for predicting more hurricanes and tropical storms than the average, for stimulating public awareness and/or not wanting to be caught looking bad if things turn out worse than anticipated.
There are a few examples above.
It’s not really a calculated message. We tend not to pay attention and/or forget if it’s a forecast to be a below average season. It’s not that exciting.
And, as a previous post noted, to the extent they get things wrong with any consistency, they tend to underestimate rather than overestimate.
deleted
Depends on which “they” you’re talking about.
NCAR, the NWS, and the others issue a prediction on the same schedule every year. Some are more active, others less. And all delivered in the same bland science-ese. There are also start-of-season updates, mid-season updates, and a post-season post-mortem. Every year.
Living as I do within sloshing distance of the ocean in hurricane territory I follow this stuff.
Now I suspect you’re right that the sensationalists like the formerly reliable Weather Channel and mainstream press tend to play up the “OMG it’s gonna be awful” angle in above-average forecast years. When a below-average forecast year rolls around they instead play up “Don’t let your guard down. A big one might still hit you!!1!” angle.
Both of which are strictly true enough. If over-egged.