GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10543-x (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

Long-term forecasting of tropical cyclones over Bay

of Bengal using linear and non-linear statistical models
Sweta Sen . Narayan Chandra Nayak . William Kumar Mohanty

Accepted: 2 November 2021 / Published online: 18 November 2021

 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract Forecasting tropical cyclones with climate
and physical variability and observed cyclonic distur-
bances has been developed over the years for all the
ocean basins successfully and is still one of the
priorities for disaster risk reduction policymaking.
This study attempts to forecast seasonal cyclonic
disturbances and severe cyclonic storms over the Bay
of Bengal, where about 80% of the tropical cyclones of
the North Indian Ocean are formed. We have used
three time-series models, namely, the seasonal autore-
gressive integrated moving average with exogenous
variables (SARIMAX) model, artificial neural net-
work-nonlinear autoregressive with exogenous vari-
ables (ANN-NARX) model, and the hybrid model.
The basic purpose of considering three different
S. Sen (&)
Advanced Technology Development Centre, Indian
Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur,
West Bengal, India
e-mail: sensweta@iitkgp.ac.in
N. C. Nayak
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian
Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur,
West Bengal, India
e-mail: ncnayak@hss.iitkgp.ac.in
models is to improve the forecasting accuracy of
tropical cyclones. We have shown that the intensifi-
cation rate of the severe cyclonic storms over the Bay
of Bengal has been significant and increasing over the
years. Results show that the ANN-NARX model with
sea surface temperature and near-surface wind speed
as predictors is the best performance model for long-
term forecasting of cyclonic disturbances. Hence, the
distribution of cyclonic disturbances is non-linear. The
correlations between observed and predicted occur-
rences are 0.80 and 0.85 for cyclonic disturbances and
severe cyclonic storms, respectively, corroborating,
by and large, the forecasting accuracies of some
previous studies. The forecasting of cyclonic distur-
bances indicates that they will vary from 5 to 13
annually and there will be, on average, one severe
cyclonic storm per year. The likelihood of occurrence
of severe cyclonic storms is most significant in the
post-monsoon season. This forecast till 2050 would
help the scientific community and policymakers
significantly for applications and good disaster risk
governance.
Keywords Tropical cyclones  Seasonal
forecasting  SARIMAX  Artificial Neural Network 
Hybrid model  Predictors  Bay of Bengal

W. K. Mohanty
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Indian Institute
of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur,
West Bengal, India
e-mail: wkmohanty@gg.iitkgp.ac.in

123
S86
Introduction
The forecasting of cyclonic disturbances has improved
significantly over the years due to the application of
modern modeling techniques. Several studies (Bengts-
son et al., 1995; Haarsma et al., 1993) have shown that
simulating tropical storms from the observed tropical
storms using different climatological and physical
characteristics gives close resemblance. Statistical
forecasting of tropical cyclones has been performed
globally for frequency forecasting in different ocean
basins such as the Australian basin (Nicholls, 1992),
the western North Pacific (Chan et al., 1998), the
Atlantic basin (Gray et al., 1993, 1994) and so on.
About 80% of the tropical cyclones in the North
Indian Ocean are formed in the Bay of Bengal with an
approximate ratio of 4:1 in its occurrences compared
to the Arabian Sea (Neumann, 1993; IMD, 2011).
Only 10% of cyclones formed over the Bay of Bengal
dissipate in the basin (Bhardwaj & Singh, 2020). The
Bay of Bengal has witnessed some extremely devas-
tating cyclones over the years, causing a global
casualty rate of more than 75% in the adjoining
countries (Chowdhury, 2002). The two most recent
cyclones over the Bay of Bengal were FANI and
AMPHAN, which resulted in an economic loss of
about $1.81 billion and $15.38 billion and over 90 and
84 casualties, respectively. The coasts of West Bengal,
Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu in India,
entire Bangladesh and the adjacent Myanmar coast
remain at high risk due to tropical cyclones in the Bay
Bengal (Bhardwaj et al., 2020).
The advantage of long-run forecasting is that with
its help, we can determine the cyclonic disturbances
beforehand for better preparedness. Long-term fore-
casting is gaining importance due to its societal and
scientific significance for achieving disaster risk
reduction goals. Several world organizations are
known for their actions towards disaster risk reduction
and climate change effects by forecasting for the long-
term using simulations and assuming scenarios. The
prominent among them are the Sendai framework of
disaster risk reduction under the United Nations Office
of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), and the Intergovernmen-
tal Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).
The UNDRR raises the importance of disaster risk
governance for all countries. Its primary thrust is to
develop appropriate local and national strategies for
123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
disaster risk reduction, focusing on multi-sectoral
policies to make a resilient planet for future genera-
tions. Needless to say, to understand the risk, it is
essential to forecast the disaster occurrences. The
present study, thus, attempts to predict the tropical
cyclones in the Bay of Bengal for the long run. While
doing so, we examine which statistical forecasting
method is appropriate to employ for long-term fore-
casting of tropical cyclone counts. In addition, we also
analyze the long-term trends and intensification rates
of cyclonic disturbances and severe cyclonic storms
over the past 128 years (1891–2018). The findings of
this study would help the planners and policymakers
for adaptation and preparedness against the devastat-
ing effects of tropical cyclones.
This study is distinct in the following ways. First,
based on comparison across linear, non-linear and
hybrid models, we eventually perform statistical
forecasting using non-linear models whose application
in forecasting cyclonic activities is limited. Second,
we consider three critical exogenous variables for
forecasting cyclonic disturbances. This makes it easier
to compare the contribution of each exogenous
variable to the cyclonic disturbances over the Bay of
Bengal. However, the various predictors used for
forecasting cyclonic disturbances have satellite record
data from 1951, so our forecasting is carried out using
the 1951–2018 dataset.
Accordingly, the remainder of the paper is orga-
nized as follows. Section 2 presents the literature
review with particular emphasis on forecasting tech-
niques used over the Bay of Bengal. Section 3
describes the data and methodology thoroughly. In
Section 4, we present the results of tropical cyclones
over the Bay of Bengal with discussion. Section 5
provides the summary and concludes the study.
Overview of literature
There have been studies in the past (Villarini et al.,
2019; Vitart et al., 1997, 1999; Zhang & Villarini,
2019) on tropical cyclone forecasting with good fit
models and high correlations with the observed
occurrences. Statistical and dynamic forecasting mod-
els such as European Centre for Medium-Range
Weather Forecast’s (ECMWF) dynamical system
(Vitart & Stockdale, 2001), global atmospheric gen-
eral circulation models (AGCMs) (LaRow et al.,
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
2010), and general circulation model (GCM) coupled
with the ocean–atmosphere-land–sea ice model (Sun
& Ahn, 2011) are quite common. However, some
recent studies have observed that GCM has a relatively
lesser ability to predict the inter-annual variability due
to its incorrect response of the observed remote
response (Nair et al., 2013; Rajeevan et al., 2012).
Consequently, the forecasters tend to explore the
multi-model ensemble approach (Acharya et al.,
2014).
Some other models, which are found to have strong
abilities to forecast tropical cyclonic occurrences and
landfalls, are the threshold autoregressive model–a
hybrid statistical model combining the regression
model and the time-series autoregressive model–
(Feng & Luo, 2014), the auto-regressive integrated
moving average (ARIMA) model (Geetha & Narisa,
2016), projection pursuit regression with smooth
multiple additive regression technique (SMART)
generalization (Chan et al., 1998), and the least sum
of absolute deviations regression (Gray et al.,
1993, 1994). Studies have also been carried out on
long-term forecasting of tropical cyclones using
support vector regression model (Richman & Leslie,
2012; Wijnands et al., 2014), multilayer perceptron
(Nath et al., 2016) and feed-forward neural networks
(FFNN) (Yip & Yau, 2012). Recently, Mitchell and
Camp (2021) have applied the Conway–Maxwell–
Poisson distribution to model seasonal tropical
cyclone counts for East China and forecasted its
tropical cyclones over a few months ahead. The
Conway–Maxwell–Poisson denotes the under-disper-
sion and improves the predictive skill. However, it
seems to have the disadvantages of forecasting only
for the short term.
Over the years, the Indian Meteorological Depart-
ment (IMD) has developed models like regional non-
hydrostatic mesoscale modeling system–weather
research forecasting data assimilation-weather
research and forecasting-advance weather research
and forecasting system (WRFDA-WRF-ARW), hur-
ricane WRF and the numerical weather prediction
method–to forecast different components over the Bay
of Bengal namely, cyclone genesis potential, cyclone
track, cyclone intensity, rapid intensification index,
and decaying intensity after the landfall. However,
they are also purely short-term in nature (IMD, 2019).
Among other forecasting studies over the Bay of
Bengal, Dube et al. (1997) have developed a 48-h
S87
forecast model for storm surges generated by a tropical
cyclone using a dynamic non-linear simulation model
with oceanographic and meteorological parameters as
predictors, which can predict the landfall. Similarly,
Kutty et al. (2020) have provided a statistical evalu-
ation of tropical cyclone forecasts over the Bay of
Bengal using the limited area model. Comparing
different models, they found that in performing
forecasts of tropical cyclone tracks, Kalman filter
three-dimensional variational data assimilation sys-
tem is superior to the three-dimensional variational
(3DVAR) data assimilation system in WRF. Srinivas
et al. (2013) used the ARW model to predict tropical
cyclones in the Bay of Bengal, considering 21
cyclones with a depth of 9 km resolution. Bhardwaj
et al. (2020) applied the extreme value theory to
forecast the probabilities of wind speed of tropical
cyclones over the Bay of Bengal. They predicted that
at least one tropical cyclone of wind speed C 64 kts
can occur every year and that the return period of a
super cyclone can be over an interval of 6 years.
Artificial neural network (ANN) models have been
applied extensively for non-linear meteorological
events (Chattopadhyay, 2007; Chattopadhyay & Chat-
topadhyay, 2008; Gardner & Dorling, 1998). A non-
linear ANN with a single-hidden-layer feed-forward
neural network was used to predict post-monsoon
rainfall in the southern peninsular region of India by
Acharya et al. (2014), which resulted in significantly
higher skill than individual GCM. Exponential regres-
sion and ANN to forecast post-monsoon rainfall were
applied by Chattopadhyay et al. (2010) while using
rainfall amounts and SST anomalies as predictors. Ali
et al. (2007) predicted the positions of cyclones for
24 h in advance using 12-h location at the 6-hourly
intervals by employing the single-hidden layer ANN
model over the North Indian Ocean. Chaudhuri et al.
(2017) used swarm intelligence followed by neural
networks to forecast the maximum sustained wind
speed of the cyclones over the Bay of Bengal and
found their methods giving lesser error percentage
than other methods like operational tropical cyclone
intensity forecasts and high-resolution ARW model.
Among all the models, evidently, ANN seems to
have provided better prediction results covering both
monsoon prediction (Acharya et al., 2014) and
cyclone intensity prediction (Baik & Paek, 2000).
Recently, the ANN models like the Multilayer
perceptron model, Radian basis function network
123
S88
model and Generalized regression neural network
model were employed for forecasting pressure drop
and maximum sustained wind speed of tropical
cyclones over the Arabian Sea (Sarkar et al., 2021).
The Cooperation search algorithm approach of the
extreme learning method model (an AI model) is yet
another technique that seems to have a novel multi-
scale nonstationary hydrological prediction tool (Feng
et al., 2021).
It is clear from the extant literature that though
several studies have been carried out over the Bay of
Bengal and different techniques have been applied to
forecast tropical cyclones, the application of non-
linear statistical models with ANN seems limited.
Moreover, a comparison of the linear model with the
non-linear one and applying a hybrid model combin-
ing both are hardly found in the forecasting literature,
especially on tropical cyclones. The present study,
thus, attempts to employ both linear, non-linear and
hybrid statistical models and finds the superiority of
one over the other while forecasting the occurrences of
tropical cyclones over the Bay of Bengal for a long-
term period.
Data and methodology
Our study aims to find a statistical model for
forecasting tropical cyclones using predictor(s), which
have a strong relationship with a tropical cyclone’s
formation to dissipation. We introduce three statistical
models, namely, (1) the seasonal autoregressive
integrated moving average with exogenous variable
(SARIMAX) model, (2) the ANN non-linear autore-
gressive with exogenous variable (ANN-NARX)
model, and (3) the hybrid model comprising both the
above linear and non-linear components, and compare
them to find the best model that can forecast long-term
tropical cyclones. The details about the data are
described below.
Sources of data
Two leading institutions provide information on
tropical cyclones for the North Indian Ocean, namely,
the IMD and the Joint Typhoon Warning Centre
(JTWC). While JTWC has archived data from 1972,
IMD has it from 1861. We use IMD dataset as we need
a time-series dataset for a longer period. The IMD
123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
provides details about frequencies, probabilities, gen-
esis and impacts of cyclonic disturbances over the Bay
of Bengal. According to the current classification,
tropical cyclones can be divided into eight categories
starting with the low-pressure area (Bhardwaj &
Singh, 2020). However, till 2015, IMD’s classifica-
tions were limited to three categories only, namely,
depression, cyclonic storm, and severe cyclonic storm,
as shown in Table 1. Accordingly, we analyze the data
in two different ways. First, we take all the seven
categories (except low-pressure area) from depression
(greater than 31 kmph) to super cyclonic storms
(greater than 222 kmph) together and denote them as
cyclonic disturbances. Then, we consider cyclones
having maximum sustained wind speed greater than
89 kmph (i.e., severe cyclonic storms, very severe
cyclonic storms, extremely severe cyclonic storms and
super cyclonic storms) and denote them as severe
cyclonic storms. Accordingly, we run models for
cyclonic disturbances for all seven categories fol-
lowed by severe cyclonic storms (Table 1).
To analyze trends, we consider the cyclonic distur-
bances and severe cyclonic storms formed during
1891–2018 over the Bay of Bengal lying between 77
and 97E and 5 and 25N. We collected data from the
Tracks of Storms and Depressions over the Bay of
Bengal published by the IMD. Data on the three
exogenous variables used for forecasting were
extracted from the CORDEX dataset available with
the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology for
1951–2018. According to cyclonic seasons, we
divided the yearly cyclones into four seasons: Jan-
uary–February (JF)—winter season, March–April-
May (MAM)—pre-monsoon season, June-July–Au-
gust-September (JJAS)—monsoon season, and Octo-
ber–November-December (OND)—post-monsoon
season. However, we have eliminated the JF season
from our analysis to avoid noise in the forecasting
process as the cyclonic disturbances were very few in
the winter seasons.
Method of analysis
Selection of predictors
Tropical cyclonic activities are mainly dependent on
the characteristics of large-scale circulation, which are
the fundamental reasons behind the seasonal forecast-
ing of these disturbances (Gray, 1979). The latter seem
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107 S89

Table 1 Classification of cyclonic disturbances in the North Indian Ocean (Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal)
Category of cyclonic Max sustained surface Max sustained surface
disturbances winds (kmph) winds (knots)

Low pressure area \ 31 \ 17

Tropical depression 31–49 17–27 Cyclonic
Deep depression 50–61 28–33 Disturbances
(CDs)
Cyclonic storm 62–88 34–47
Severe cyclonic storm 89–118 48–63 Severe Cyclonic
Very severe cyclonic 119–221 64–119 Storms (SCSs)
storm
Extremely severe 167–221 90–119
cyclonic storm
Super cyclonic storm [ 222 [ 119
The eight categories of cyclonic disturbances have been referred from Bhardwaj & Singh (2020)

to have strong relationships with sea surface temper-
ature, surface wind speed, and sea surface pressure.
The positive relationship between sea surface temper-
ature and tropical cyclone intensity has been verified
in several studies (Emanuel, 1988; Merrill, 1987;
Miller, 1958) and the former is proven as a predom-
inant predictor for the increased intensity of tropical
cyclonic disturbances (Evans, 1993). Tropical ocean
basins witness peak occurrences of cyclonic distur-
bances when sea surface temperature is high (Gutzler
et al., 2013; Zhao & Raga, 2015). It is further observed
that the lower the central pressure of the storms, the
more will be the intensity of the storms. The minimum
sustained pressure is strongly correlated with the
intensities of the strongest tropical cyclones, which
can be explained by thermodynamics and the effects of
water substance on density (Emanuel, 1988, 1995).
Surface wind speed and sea-surface pressure affect air-
sea interactions in the Bay of Bengal (Emanuel, 1995;
Reddy et al., 2018). This leads to a very active bed for
cyclonic disturbances and consequently, maximum
tropical cyclones are formed in the Bay of Bengal
region (Bhardwaj & Singh, 2020).
The pairwise correlation coefficients across the
above-mentioned three exogenous variables (see
Table 2) indicate strong correlations between sea-
surface pressure and sea-surface temperature, and sea-
surface pressure and near-surface wind speed. So, to
avoid spurious results, apart from estimating the
models with individual predictors, we consider sea-
surface temperature and near-surface wind speed
together as predictors, which have the lowest corre-
lation. To make the time-series stationery, we have
differentiated each exogenous variable by order 3. A
conceptual framework of the forecasting system of
cyclonic disturbances and severe cyclonic distur-
bances is shown in Fig. 1. The analysis of SARIMAX,
ANN-NARX, and the hybrid model is programmed in
MATLAB. The detailed formulations of these three
models are given as follows.
Model Formulation
The SARIMAX model The SARIMAX is a
conditional mean time-series model. In this model, a
variable’s future value is assumed to be a linear
function of its past observations, exogenous variables,
and random errors. The performance of the
SARIMAX model is considered better than that of
the classical ARIMA model (Vagropoulos et al.,
2016), though, in the past, natural disasters like
earthquakes and hydroclimatic events have also been
forecasted by the latter (Amei et al., 2012; Islam et al.,
2021). The existing studies have highlighted the
effectiveness of SARIMAX in fields like electricity,
rainfall, traffic, and sales, to name a few (Elamin &
Fukushige, 2018; Farajzadeh & Alizadeh, 2018).
However, for forecasting cyclones, so far, its
application seems to have been limited.
A SARIMAX (p,d,q) model of time-series cyclonic
disturbances using two exogenous variables (X1 and
X2) applies the following equation:

123
S90
Table 2 Correlation between exogenous variables (predictors)
Exogenous variables (predictors) Sea-surface temperature (TS) Near-surface wind speed (WIND)
Sea-surface temperature (TS) 1.0000
Near-surface wind speed (WIND) 0.0780
Sea-surface pressure (PSL) - 0.3268*
*Means significant at 0.05 level
Fig. 1 The framework of the model formulations and forecast-
ing system used in this study for forecasting tropical cyclonic
disturbances and severe cyclonic storms over the Bay of Bengal.
 
1  /1 L  . . .  /p Lp ð1  U1 L  . . .  Ua La Þ
   bance counts of each season are taken as response
1  Ld yt ¼ c þ X1 b1 þ X2 b2 þ 1 þ h1 L þ h2 L2
 
þ . . . þ hq Lq Þ 1 þ H1 L þ . . . þ Hb Lb et
ð1Þ
The underlying process has p autoregressive, d
degrees of integration and q moving average terms,
and seasonal AR(a) and MA(b) that generate the time-
series of the form as in Eq. 1. yt and et are the actual
values and random errors at time t, respectively. b1, b2,
/i (i = 1, 2, …., p) and hj (j = 0, 1, 2, …., q) are model
parameters. Random errors,et , are assumed to be
independently and identically distributed with mean
zero and constant variance r2.
123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
Sea-surface pressure (PSL)
1.0000
- 0.5999* 1.0000
Note M1, M2, …, M12 are model numbers which are run with
combinations of predictors
While employing SARIMAX, the cyclonic distur-
variables and the exogenous variables become the
predictors. As the data are found to be non-stationary,
the differentiation (i.e., d-degree of integration) of the
response variable is considered to make the time-
series stationery. To decide on the number of times the
series has to be differentiated to achieve stationarity,
the augmented dickey fuller (ADF) test is employed.
The model selection is based on the autocorrelation
function (ACF) and partial autocorrelation function
(PACF) plots to determine the p-autoregressive and q-
moving average. Further, the chosen model satisfies
the lowest Akaike information criterion (AIC) and
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
Bayesian information criterion (BIC) (Bhaumik,
2015).
The ANN-NARX model In recent years, the ANN
model as a forecasting tool seems to have gained
momentum, thanks to its pattern recognition and
classification capabilities. The ANN is a non-linear
model, considered an alternative technique in
forecasting natural hazards (Sahoo et al., 2009). The
NARX is a recurrent dynamic network model based on
the linear autoregressive with exogenous variable(s).
It has been applied for various time-series modeling to
forecast wind speed, rainfall, droughts, electricity,
cash demand, exchange rate, etc. (Cadenas et al.,
2016; Morid et al., 2007; Vaz et al., 2016). This
method carries a more efficient learning process than
other neural networks as it converges and generalizes
better. The training of the NARX model follows Feed-
Forward Neural Networks (FFNNs), which are
universal function approximators of a class of linear
regression models (Georga et al., 2017), as shown in
Eq. (2):
X
m function updates the weights and biases. Figure 2
f ðx; hÞ ¼ hj / j ð x Þ ð2Þ
j¼0
where h ¼ ðh0 ; h1 ; . . .; hm ÞT represents model param-
eters and / ¼ ð/0 ; /1 ; . . .; /m ÞT represents a vector of
non-linear parametric basis function, with h0 as the
bias parameter and /0 (x) is equal to unity. Each basis
function /j (x) constitutes itself a non-linear function
of a linear combination of the input x 2 Rd , which is
Pd
ð1Þ
represented as /j ðxÞ ¼ hð wji xi Þ. Here, the coeffi-
i¼0
ð1Þ
cients wji with i = 1, …, d represent the weights,
ð1Þ
wj0 (x0 = 1) represents the biases corresponding to the
links between the input and the jth node of the hidden
layer of the FFNN, and h is a non-linear differentiable
activation function, which typically follows the
sigmoidal function. Accordingly, the output of an
FFNN can be mathematically represented as:
X
m X
d
yl ðx; wÞ ¼ w2lj h w1ji xi ð3Þ
j¼0 i¼0
where the coefficients w2lj with l = 1, …, L represent
the weights and w2l0 are the biases of the links between
the hidden layer and the lth node of the output layer of
S91
the FFNN. The weights are linked together into the
parameter vector h.
The FFNN has two advantages. First, the input is
more accurate as a series–parallel architecture is
created during the training of the network in which the
true output is used instead of feeding back the
estimated output. Second, the resulting network has
a pure feed-forward architecture, and static back-
propagation can be used for training. Our study applies
the close loop function for converting NARX net-
works from the series–parallel architecture, which is
then implemented for multi-step predictions for
32 years (2019–2050).
We employ the FFNN NARX model to estimate
and forecast tropical cyclonic disturbances and severe
cyclonic storms. Along with the past cyclonic distur-
bances yt, we consider other predictors xt. et is the error
term:
yt ¼ f ðxt1 . . .; xtd ; yt1 ; . . .; ytd Þ þ et ð4Þ
We choose the Levenberg–Marquardt optimiza-
tion, a back-propagation algorithm, as the training
shows the neural network architecture of our study.
The model is trained and the errors are visualized in
graphs to see the fitting. The model having the least
error and the best fitting is chosen for forecasting.
The hybrid model A hybrid model combines both
linear and non-linear models (SARIMAX and ANN-
NARX models) and consequently, it may carry the
advantages of both. It has been employed earlier for
predicting various hydrological and wind speed
parameters (Liu et al., 2012; Pektaş & Cigizoglu,
2013), including drought (Mishra et al., 2007) and
economic and financial variables (Yang et al., 2017;
Zhang, 2003). The past empirical studies have proven
that the forecasting accuracy can often be improved
under a combined model (Clemen, 1989; Newbold &
Granger, 1974).
For applying the hybrid model, we assume that the
distribution of cyclonic disturbances has both linear
and non-linear components (Fig. 3). The cyclonic
disturbances are first regressed with the SARIMAX
model. The residuals are then modeled with the ANN-
NARX model. As it is necessary to check whether the
residuals of the SARIMAX model have non-linearity,
we perform the Brock, Dechert, and Scheinkman
(BDS) test. It helps one detect the general stochastic
123
S92
Fig. 2 An artificial neural network architecture showing a non-
linear autoregressive model (ANN-NARX) with exogenous
variable–x(t) and input variable–y(t). Note The above
Fig. 3 The hybrid model estimation framework
non-linearity in a time-series (Mann, 1945). The null
hypothesis of the BDS test is that the series is
independent and identically distributed with an
asymptotically normal distribution. Once the null
hypothesis is rejected i.e., the presence of non-
linearity in the series is approved, we apply ANN-
NARX to the time-series. Accordingly, the hybrid
model can be represented by the following equations
(Eq. 5–7).
The time-series
yt ¼ Lt þ Nt ð5Þ
where Lt represents the linear component and Nt
represents the non-linear component. The residuals
contain the Nt, and are modeled as:
123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
framework has 9 hidden layers for each variable and 9 lags. It
passes through the non-linear function and generates output
y(t) and forecasts the series
et ¼ yt  L^t ð6Þ
where L^t is the forecast value for time t. Hence, the
hybrid model forecast will be:
y^t ¼ L^t þ N^t þ 2 ð7Þ
where 2 is the error of the hybrid model.
Measuring forecasting performances
We employ four different forecasting consistency
measures to compare the performances of SARIMAX,
ANN-NARX, and the hybrid models. They are the root
mean square error (RMSE), the mean absolute error
(MAE), the Nash–Sutcliffe coefficient of efficiency
(NSC), and mean absolute scaled error (MASE). The
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
assessment of the model performance necessitates a
goodness of fit measure like NSC and an absolute error
measure like RSME (Legates & McCabe, 1999).
RMSE and MAE are the most commonly used scale-
dependent measures, dependent on absolute errors or
squared errors. Since the time-series are of the same
scale, RMSE and MAE are considered good indica-
tors. They estimate the error between the actual and
the estimated. The lesser the value, the more efficient
is the estimated model. Contrarily, the NSC (Nash &
Sutcliffe, 1970) is a relative measure of testing
forecasting accuracy, ranging between - ? and 1.
More the value closer to 1, it would be nearer to the
perfect fit. If the NSC has negative values, the
forecasting is less accurate. Many earlier studies have
employed NSC to test the accuracy and efficiency of
the forecasting models (Barzegar et al., 2016; Hwang
et al., 2012). Another measure is MASE, which puts a
thrust on scaled errors for forecasting. It is useful when
the series has values close to zero or negative and has a
lesser influence on the outliers (Hyndman & Koehler,
2006). All the above measures are expressed as
follows (Eq. 8–11):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1X n
RMSE ¼ ð Pi  O i Þ 2 ð8Þ
n i¼1
where Pi and Oi are the predicted and observed
cyclonic disturbances, respectively and n represents
the number of observations.
1X n
MAE ¼ jPi  Oi j ð9Þ
n i¼1
Pn
ð Pi  O i Þ 2
NSC ¼ 1  Pi¼1
n  2 ð10Þ
i¼1 O  Oi
where O represents the average of the observed
occurrences.
MASE ¼ meanðjqi jÞ ð11Þ
where qi is the scaled error, independent of the scale of
the data, and
Pi  Oi
qi ¼ 1
Pn
n1 i¼2 jOi  Oi1 j
The accuracy test is conducted to select the best fit
model. Consequently, the chosen model is employed
for forecasting cyclonic disturbances and severe
S93
cyclonic storms. Further, we also estimate the Pear-
son’s correlation coefficient of the best fit models
between the predicted ðPi Þ and the observed ðOi Þ for
testing the accuracy (LaRow et al., 2010; Vitart et al.,
2007).
Results and discussion
Temporal trends and intensification rates
To examine the trends of tropical cyclones over the
Bay of Bengal, we take the yearly counts of cyclonic
storms and severe cyclonic storms. The seasonal
severe cyclonic storms and cyclonic disturbance
counts are shown in Fig. 4. It is observed that the
cyclonic disturbances tend to be maximum in mon-
soon seasons followed by post-monsoon seasons. Still,
severe cyclonic storms are the highest in the post-
monsoon seasons, followed by the pre-monsoon
seasons. Most of the cyclonic disturbances formed in
the Bay of Bengal during the pre-monsoon seasons
result in severe cyclonic storms. Post-monsoon sea-
sons record the highest number of occurrences of
severe cyclonic storms. As each season has different
characteristics, we undertake a seasonal analysis.
Over time, there has been an increase in the
frequency of tropical cyclone counts in the Bay of
Bengal. We analyze changes in the trends using the
intensification rate. The intensification rate is defined
as the ratio between severe cyclonic storm occurrences
and the total occurrences of cyclonic disturbances. The
results suggest that only 5% of the cyclonic distur-
bances have intensified to severe cyclonic storms in
monsoon seasons. However, the frequency of severe
cyclonic storms has increased through the past
decades as there has been at least one severe cyclonic
storm in the Bay of Bengal every year. The intensi-
fication rate has increased from 1961 till 2000, with
the highest intensification rate being the 22nd pentad.
Having noticed a decreasing trend since 2000, a rising
trend has been recorded since 2011 (Fig. 5).
To test the significance and the movement of the
trend, the non-parametric Mann–Kendall trend test
(Mann, 1945; Yue et al., 2002) is conducted. We reject
the null hypothesis, which assumes that the intensifi-
cation rates and years are independent, implying no
trend. There is an increasing trend in the intensifica-
tion rates (Table 3). Further, there is a rising
123
S94 GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107

Cyclonic Disturbances Severe Cyclonic Storms

1217
610

447

235
142
136

59

31

PRE-MONSOON MONSOON POST-MONSOON ANNUAL

OCCURANCES

Fig. 4 Seasonal distribution of tropical cyclonic disturbances and severe cyclonic storms over the Bay of Bengal from 1891 to 2018

0.35
0.33
0.3 0.30 0.31
INTENSIFICATION RATE SCS

0.28 0.28 0.29

0.25 0.26
0.25 0.24 0.25 0.24
0.22
0.2 0.2 0.19 0.19
0.18 0.19

0.15 0.16 0.15 0.15

0.14

0.1 0.10 0.1 0.11

0.05 0.05 0.04

Fig. 5 Intensification rate of severe cyclonic storms during 1891–2018. Note The dotted line represents the trend which clearly shows
an increasing trend due to climate change

123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
Table 3 Mann–Kendall test results to show the existence of trend of severe cyclonic storms intensifiction rate during 1891–2018 for
pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon seasons and 5-year pentads
Cyclonic seasons No. of obs Kendall’s tau-a
Pre-monsoon 96 0.0496
Monsoon 124 - 0.0964
Post-monsoon 124 0.3184
Annual 26 0.3354
1. ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%; 2. The null hypothesis is H0: 5 years and intensification rates of severe cyclonic storms
over the Bay of Bengal are independent
probability of cyclonic disturbances turning to severe
cyclonic storms. There also exists an increasing trend
of intensification in the post-monsoon but a declining
trend in the monsoon seasons. However, the intensi-
fication rates in the pre-monsoon seasons do not turn
out to be significant. This may be attributed to the
increase in temperature and warming of the North
Indian Ocean Tropical Easterly Jet, more on the
equatorial side than on the northern side during the
summer monsoon seasons (Krishna, 2009).
The estimated forecasting models
Before we compare the performance of the three
different forecasting models, we present the estimates
of all three models. For the SARIMAX model, the
Box-Jenkins methodology is employed on time-series
data comprising the following four different stages:
model identification, estimation of the chosen model,
diagnostic checking, and forecasting (Bhaumik,
2015). The parameters (p,d,q) of the best fit SAR-
IMAX model is ARIMAX (6,1,3) with Seasonal
AR(6) and MA(9) for sea-surface pressure; ARIMAX
(6,1,3) with Seasonal AR(9) and MA(9) for near-
surface wind speed; and ARIMAX (6,1,3) with
Seasonal AR(9) and MA(9) for surface temperature.
Lastly, the model with two exogenous variables –
near-surface wind speed and sea-surface temperature –
is the ARIMAX (6,1,3) model with Seasonal AR(9)
and MA(9) parameters.
All the constant and exogenous terms are found to
be significant. The results indicate that with one unit
(pascal) decrease in sea-surface pressure, there is an
increase in cyclonic disturbance counts by (-)0.07
times. With one unit (meters per second) increase in
near-surface wind speed and one unit (Kelvin)
S95
Kendall’s tau-b Kendall’s score SE of score Prob [|z|
0.0617 226 291.752 0.441
- 0.1580 - 735 328.892 0.026**
0.3289 2428 460.654 0.000***
0.3354 109 45.369 0.017***
increase in sea-surface temperature, there is an
increase in the cyclonic disturbance counts by 0.01
times and 0.14 times, respectively. The M10 shows
that with a one-unit increase in sea-surface tempera-
ture, there is an increase in the cyclonic disturbances
by 0.73 times. With a unit increase in near-surface
wind speed, there is a 0.03 times increase in the
occurrences of cyclonic disturbances. The residual
autocorrelation functions are well settled within
confidence limits with none or very few individual
correlations just crossing the confidence limits, which
is acceptable among 20 lags. For residual checks, the
histograms and quantile–quantile plots of residuals
(Fig. 6) are drawn and they satisfy the goodness of fit
criterion of the models.
For the ANN-NARX model, a three-layer feed-
forward neural network model is used for estimating
cyclonic disturbances and severe cyclonic storms with
an optimized Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm. Each
dataset is divided into a 14:3:3 ratio with 70% for
training, 15% for validation, and 15% for testing. The
training of the time-series was continued until the
validation error failed to decrease. The error his-
togram, error autocorrelation, time-series plot, and
regression are considered to validate the optimum
network.
To determine the optimum neurons and lags, the
trial and testing method is adopted with a minimum of
1 and a maximum of 10. To select the optimum model,
training performance, training state, error autocorre-
lation, error histogram, the correlation between input
and error, and the response of output time-series are
compared between models. The network chosen for
cyclonic disturbances and sea-surface pressure as
predictors is (9,9) with nine hidden neurons and nine
lags. For cyclonic disturbances and sea-surface
123
S96
Fig. 6 Residual quantile–quantile plot of SARIMAX models with different predictor(s) of cyclonic disturbances
temperature as predictors, ANN-NARX (9,9) is cho-
sen. The cyclonic disturbances with near-surface wind
speed have the optimum model of ANN-NARX
(12,12). For M11 with two exogenous variables –
near-surface wind speed and sea-surface temperature–
the optimum model is ANN-NARX (12, 12). Figure 7
shows the ANN-NARX model estimation with the
errors of all four models.
As mentioned earlier, before estimating the hybrid
model, we employ the Brock, Dechert, and Scheink-
man (BDS) test on the residuals of the SARIMAX
estimates (Lee et al., 1993). The null hypothesis is
123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
rejected, which proves the existence of a non-linear
pattern in the residual data of SARIMAX (Table 4).
The application of the hybrid model comprises two
steps. First, to estimate the linear part where the
SARIMAX model is employed. Second, to calculate
the residuals from the SARIMAX model (the non-
linear part) by using the ANN-NARX model. By
summing up the SARIMAX estimates and the ANN-
NARX residual estimates, we get the estimates of the
hybrid model.
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
Fig. 7 Estimated cyclonic disturbances (CD) response of output and error time-series plot of ANN-NARX models with predictor(s)
Performance comparison across forecasting
models
Tables 5 and 6 show the details of the accuracy tests of
different models for cyclonic disturbances and severe
cyclonic storms. We observe that there exist signifi-
cant error differences between all the models. First,
SARIMAX is a relatively least performing model for
forecasting tropical cyclones. Further, the MASE and
NSC estimate also find that it is not appropriate for
forecasting cyclonic disturbances. For predicting sev-
ere cyclonic storms, the hybrid model also doesn’t
seem to show better performance. However, we
observe a close resemblance in the performances
between the ANN-NARX and the hybrid model with
S97
differences of 0.02 between M2 and M3; 0.12 between
M5 and M6; 0.1 between M8 and M9; and 0.14
between M11 and M12.
Among all, evidently, the best performing model is
the ANN-NARX with sea-surface temperature and
near-surface wind speed together as predictors for
cyclonic disturbances and also for severe cyclonic
storms, which is M11. The performance results
suggest that the time-series distribution of cyclonic
disturbances and severe cyclonic storms are non-linear
in nature.
The previous studies of seasonal tropical cyclone
forecasting, mostly modeled over the Atlantic and the
Pacific Ocean, had reported correlations of 0.81
(Vitart et al., 2007) and 0.74 (LaRow et al., 2010)
123
S98 GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107

Table 4 Results of Brock, Dechert and Scheinkman (BDS) test to examine the existence of non-linearity
Model combinations Dimension (m) BDS Statistic z-Statistic Normal Prob

Cyclonic disturbances with PSL 3 0.012 2.263 0.024

4 0.069 10.91 0.000
5 0.124 18.739 0.000
6 0.167 26.228 0.000
Cyclonic disturbances with WIND 3 0.04 7.256 0.000
4 0.1 15.165 0.000
5 0.152 22.377 0.000
6 0.194 29.682 0.000
Cyclonic disturbances with TS 3 0.044 8.009 0.000
4 0.118 18.136 0.000
5 0.171 25.302 0.000
6 0.212 32.668 0.000
Cyclonic disturbances with TS and WIND 3 0.049 7.917 0.000
4 0.124 16.982 0.000
5 0.176 23.154 0.000
6 0.215 29.344 0.000
1. There is presence of non-linearity in all the distributions as Prob. is less than 0.05 for all; 2. TS represents sea-surface temperature,
WIND represents near surface wind speed and PSL represents sea-surface pressure

Table 5 Forecasting model Models Estimation process RMSE MAE NSC MASE
performances of cyclonic
disturbances Sea Surface Pressure (PSL)
M1 SARIMAX 3.5964 3.0887 - 2.1525 1.253
M2 ANN-NARX 1.4384 1.1109 0.4903 0.4534
M3 HYBRID 1.4041 0.8291 0.5122 0.3381
Near Surface Wind Speed (WIND)
M4 SARIMAX 3.6954 3.2550 - 2.3285 1.321
M5 ANN-NARX 1.409 0.977 0.5088 0.3984
M6 HYBRID 1.5706 1.1297 0.3896 0.4607
Surface Temperature (TS)
M7 SARIMAX 3.4399 3.1488 - 1.8841 1.277
M8 ANN-NARX 1.3457 1.0555 0.5539 0.4308
M9 HYBRID 1.4914 1.1416 0.4521 0.4659
The best performance
Near Surface Wind Speed (WIND) and Surface Temperature (TS)
model under each
exogenous variable is given M10 SARIMAX 4.1948 3.8532 - 3.2887 1.563
in bold and the best model M11 ANN-NARX 1.2330 0.9446 0.6255 0.3855
among the entire set of M12 HYBRID 1.446 0.9946 0.4849 0.4059
models is in italics

between observed and predicted occurrences. Inter- forecasting results for both cyclonic disturbances and
estingly, our estimates indicate correlations of 0.80 severe cyclonic storms are presented in the following
and 0.85 with the observed annual cyclonic distur- two subsections (Table 7).
bances and severe cyclonic storms, respectively. The

123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107 S99

Table 6 Forecasting model performances of severe cyclonic storms with Near-Surface Wind Speed (WIND) and Surface tem-
perature (TS) as predictors
Models Estimation process RSME MAE NSC MASE

M10 SARIMAX 1.4944 1.0127 - 1.5963 1.083

M11 ANN-NARX 0.8272 0.7008 0.2261 0.731
M12 HYBRID 1.9167 1.7005 - 1.1678 1.765
The best performance model values are given in bold

Table 7 Forecasts of cyclonic disturbances and severe cyclonic disturbances over the Bay of Bengal till 2050
Year Cyclonic Severe cyclonic Year Cyclonic Severe cyclonic
disturbances-annual storms- annual disturbances-annual storms- annual

2019 4.96 1.39 2035 12.60 2.10

2020 8.08 1.51 2036 6.76 1.48
2021 9.05 1.44 2037 4.73 2.10
2022 6.31 1.69 2038 10.42 0.55
2023 6.56 0.06 2039 10.84 1.73
2024 7.39 1.93 2040 7.48 2.50
2025 5.27 1.64 2041 7.71 0.94
2026 4.32 0.34 2042 8.65 1.54
2027 4.66 0.92 2043 7.07 2.69
2028 7.45 0.23 2044 11.74 1.00
2029 9.73 3.36 2045 11.98 1.41
2030 8.98 1.16 2046 5.28 2.03
2031 6.31 -0.11 2047 7.71 1.22
2032 10.19 1.61 2048 11.92 1.76
2033 6.89 2.38 2049 10.10 0.78
2034 6.80 1.79 2050 7.05 1.07

Forecasting cyclonic disturbances
Comparing across models, we observe that the model
with exogenous variables as sea-surface temperature
and near-surface wind speed is most accurate for
forecasting cyclonic disturbances over the Bay of
Bengal. The observed and predicted cyclonic distur-
bances are shown in Fig. 8, where panel-WIND and
TS have the closest resemblance.
Further, the forecasted occurrences of cyclonic
disturbances are fitted in a polynomial curve with 95%
prediction bounds (Fig. 9). We observe a steep upward
trend of cyclonic disturbances during pre-monsoons
and a wave-like but upward trend during monsoons,
whereas the post-monsoon season forms a downward
U-shaped curve. Overall, there has been an increasing
trend of cyclonic disturbances over the years.
The forecasts suggest that during 2019–2050, on
average, there would be eight cyclonic disturbances
per year, with three cyclonic disturbances in pre-
monsoon and monsoon season each and 2 in the post-
monsoon season. Cyclonic disturbances are expected
to vary from 5 to 13. Over a period of 12 different
years, the cyclonic occurrences are expected to be
greater than the average (e.g., 2021, 2029, 2030, 2032,
2035, 2038, 2039, 2042, 2044, 2045, 2048, and 2049),
registering increasing trend in 35% cases. The season-
wise forecast indicates that in pre-monsoon seasons,
the cyclonic occurrences are expected to rise post-
2029. In monsoon seasons, there would be an increase
in the occurrences from 2035, with the highest

123
S100
Fig. 8 Observed and predicted cyclonic disturbance plots with
all the predictors of cyclonic disturbances (CD). Note 1. The best
performance model is M11 (bottom left corner) with WIND and
occurrences in 2039. However, in post-monsoon
seasons, the cyclonic occurrences would remain the
same as observed in the last two decades.
Forecasting severe cyclonic storms
Instead of carving out all the 12 models to find the best
fit and best performances, we have taken a set of
models (namely, M10, M11, M12) exhibiting the best
combination of predictors. Similar to the case for
cyclonic disturbances, the ANN-NARX model with
sea-surface temperature and near-surface wind speed
turns out to be the best performance model for
forecasting severe cyclonic storms. Figure 10 shows
the diagnostics of the best performance model for
forecasting severe cyclonic storms. Figure 11 presents
the observed and the predicted annual severe cyclonic
storm counts.
123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
TS as exogenous variables. M11 has strong correlation of 0.8
with observed cyclonic disturbances; 2. TS represents sea-
surface temperature; WIND represents near surface wind speed
We fit a polynomial curve for the forecasted severe
cyclonic storms with 95% prediction bounds (Fig. 12).
It is observed that the pre-monsoon seasons have an
inverted-U-shaped curve, while the monsoon seasons
have a slightly upward trend. However, the post-
monsoons have a wave-like structure–first downward
sloping and then increasing over the years. The overall
picture indicates that the severe cyclonic storms
decrease initially, then increase and again start
decreasing. The forecasts from 2019 to 2050 suggest
that, on average, there would be about 1.44 severe
cyclonic storms per year, and the likelihood of severe
cyclonic storms in the post-monsoon seasons is
relatively high. We further observe that while in the
pre-monsoon and monsoon seasons, severe cyclonic
activities are expected to increase, the occurrences in
the post-monsoon seasons will decrease or remain
constant.
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107 S101

Fig. 9 Seasonal forecasts of cyclonic disturbances with 95% prediction bounds of the period from 2019 to 2050

Fig. 10 Quantile–quantile and response of output element plots predictors is the best performing model; 2. TS represents sea-
for the best performance model of severe cyclonic storms (SCS). surface temperature and WIND represents near surface wind
Note 1. The ANN-NARX model with TS and WIND as speed

Summary and conclusion close resemblance with observed cyclonic distur-

bances and severe cyclonic storm counts over the
The main aim of this study was to find out a statistical Bay of Bengal. This study is an advancement over the
model for long-term forecasting that could establish a existing ones as it performed and compared—linear,

123
S102 GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107

Fig. 11 Observed and predicted severe cyclonic storm (SCS) correlation of 0.85 with observed severe cyclonic storms; 2. TS
plot of the best performance model—M11 with WIND and TS represents sea-surface temperature and WIND represents near
predictors. Note 1. M11 has the most precise estimates, with a surface wind speed

Fig. 12 Seasonal forecasts of severe cyclonic storm occurrences with 95% prediction bounds of the period from 2019 to 2050

123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
non-linear, and hybrid models with predictors to find
out the best fit of the distribution of cyclonic
disturbances over the Bay of Bengal. It contributes
significantly to the current literature on tropical
cyclone forecasting methods, which will assist the
scientific community and academicians alike.
The trend analysis indicated an increase in cyclonic
disturbances, which may be attributed to climate
change (Knutson et al., 2010; Nordhaus, 2013). We
need to control or cut our emissions to subjugate the
intensification rate of cyclonic disturbances in the Bay
of Bengal. The intensification of severe cyclonic
storms had an upward trend from 1961 to 2000 and
again from 2011 to 2018. However, when we tested for
detecting trends seasonally, post-monsoon seasons
showed increasing probabilities of severe cyclonic
storms, while monsoon seasons showed a negative
intensification trend. This conforms to the previous
findings (Balaguru et al., 2014; Krishna, 2009).
Overall, the modeling approach with different
exogenous variables appear promising. With the help
of the observed cyclonic disturbances and severe
cyclonic storms, we introduced twelve models for
forecasting with different exogenous variables and
their combinations (as predictors). It was observed that
for forecasting cyclonic disturbances, the ANN-
NARX model performed, by and large, equally as
the hybrid model. However, for severe cyclonic
storms, the ANN-NARX performed the best. The
performance of the SARIMAX model was relatively
lower compared to the hybrid and ANN-NARX
models. Near-surface wind speed and sea surface
temperature together as predictors provided the best fit
with minimum errors compared to the cases when each
predictor was considered individually. Consequently,
it can be inferred that the cyclonic disturbances and
severe cyclonic storms are very close to non-linear
distributions.
The ANN-NARX models used for forecasting
cyclonic disturbances and severe cyclonic storms over
the Bay of Bengal seemed to have much better
performances of 0.8 and 0.85, respectively. Our results
were persistent with the assumption that there would
be a rise in cyclonic disturbances and severe cyclonic
storms over the years till 2050. The occurrences of
cyclonic disturbances would vary from 5 to 13, with an
average of 8 annually. Severe cyclonic storms will
have an average occurrence of 1.44 per year, corrob-
orating the study by Bhratwaj and Singh (2020).
S103
It is a long-term forecasting study where we have
considered only the tropical cyclone counts over the
years. However, other intrinsic details of tropical
cyclones like genesis or six hourly interval data have
not been considered, which remains a limitation of this
study. Future studies may focus on these aspects,
including intensity, landfall, etc. Further, it may be
significant to note that the ANN-NARX model is not
free from its limitations. One of the shortcomings is
that the connecting non-linear functions through
which the weights and biases are generated are not
known. This problem can be addressed by other
methods of artificial intelligence or by integration with
numerical models. Nonetheless, the ANN-NARX
model generally applies the sigmoid function (Can-
denas et al., 2016).
Suffice to state that the devastating consequences of
tropical cyclones are not unknown. Extreme sea-level
rise and coastal flooding due to tropical cyclones are
the leading causes of damages to lives, properties, and
loss of lives (Dube et al., 1997). Cyclonic disturbances
are on the rise and will grow faster in the future if
different countries continue to have inefficient adap-
tive capacity coupled with low preparedness and
‘fading memory syndrome’ (Raghavan &
Rajesh, 2003). Though there has been a significant
fall in the casualties associated with the cyclones in
recent years due to the improved warning system, the
damages to infrastructure, trees, and loss of livestock
continue to be a severe problem.
The primary cause for the increase in tropical
cyclones is the rising environmental pollution. Hence,
strict emission laws need to be put in place in the form
of carbon taxing or carbon compensation by govern-
ment intervention. This would tamper with the
increase in sea surface temperature and other influ-
encing factors in the long term. Meanwhile, the
policymakers and planners should give special atten-
tion to the vulnerable coastal areas by building
mangrove forests as a natural buffer and adequate
embankments to protect them from the fury of tropical
cyclones. Green infrastructure (mangroves and wet-
lands) along with gray infrastructure will deliver a
‘‘triple win’’ (Browder et al., 2019), benefitting the
economy, communities, and the environment.
Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to the Indian
Meteorological Department and Regional Specialized
Meteorological Centre (http://www.rsmcnewdelhi.imd.gov.in/
123
S104
index.php?lang=en) for providing reports and records of tropical
cyclones. We also acknowledge the Centre for Climate Change
Research, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, India,
for supplying the CORDEX dataset (http://cccr.tropmet.res.in/
home/cordexsa_datasets.jsp). We also thank the anonymous
reviewers for giving their valuable suggestions.
Funding No funding has been received for this study.
Data availability All data is available online in respective
sources as provided in the data and methodology section.
Code availability This study has been carried out in
MATLAB Version R2019b for data analysis. Codes will be
provided upon contacting the authors.
Declarations
Conflict of interest There are no known financial or non-
financial potential conflicts of interest among the authors
regarding this paper. We followed all the research ethics in the
submitted work.
Human and animal rights This research is not an experiment
or survey-based study, thus there is no involvement of Humans
or Animals in the study.
References
Acharya, N., Shrivastava, N. A., Panigrahi, B. K., & Mohanty,
U. C. (2014). Development of an artificial neural network
based multi-model ensemble to estimate the northeast
monsoon rainfall over south peninsular India: An appli-
cation of extreme learning machine. Climate Dynamics,
43(5–6), 1303–1310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-
1942-2
Ali, M. M., Kishtawal, C. M., & Jain, S. (2007). Predicting
cyclone tracks in the north Indian Ocean: An artificial
neural network approach. Geophysical Research Letters,
34(4), L04603. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028353
Amei, A., Fu, W., & Ho, C. H. (2012). Time-series analysis for
predicting the occurrences of large scale earthquakes. In-
ternational Journal of Applied Science and Technology,
2(7), 64–75.
Baik, J. J., & Paek, J. S. (2000). A neural network model for
predicting typhoon intensity. Journal of the Meteorologi-
cal Society of Japan. Ser. II, 78(6), 857–869. https://doi.
org/10.2151/jmsj1965.78.6_857
Balaguru, K., Taraphdar, S., Leung, L. R., & Foltz, G. R. (2014).
Increase in the intensity of post-monsoon Bay of Bengal
tropical cyclones. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(10),
3594–3601. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060197
Barzegar, R., Adamowski, J., & Moghaddam, A. A. (2016).
Application of wavelet-artificial intelligence hybrid mod-
els for water quality prediction: A case study in Aji-Chay
River Iran. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk
Assessment, 30(7), 1797–1819. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00477-016-1213-y
123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
Bengtsson, L., Botzet, M., & Esch, M. (1995). Hurricane-type
vortices in a general circulation model. Tellus A, 47(2),
175–196. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0870.1995.t01-1-
00003.x
Bhardwaj, P., & Singh, O. (2020). Climatological characteris-
tics of Bay of Bengal tropical cyclones: 1972–2017. The-
oretical and Applied Climatology, 139(1), 615–629.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-019-02989-4
Bhardwaj, P., Singh, O., & Yadav, R. B. S. (2020). Probabilistic
assessment of tropical cyclones’ extreme wind speed in the
Bay of Bengal: Implications for future cyclonic hazard.
Natural Hazards, 101(1), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11069-020-03873-5
Bhaumik, S. K. (2015). Principles of econometrics: A modern
approach using eviews. Oxford University Press.
Browder, G., Ozment, S., Rehberger Bescos, I., Gartner, T., &
Lange, G. (2019). Integrating Green and Gray Creating
Next Generation Infrastructure. Washington, DC: World
Bank and World Resources Institute. World Bank and
World Resources Institute. https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/handle/10986/31430
Cadenas, E., Rivera, W., Campos-Amezcua, R., & Cadenas, R.
(2016). Wind speed forecasting using the NARX model,
case: La Mata, Oaxaca México. Neural Computing and
Applications, 27(8), 2417–2428. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00521-015-2012-y
Chan, J. C., Shi, J. E., & Lam, C. M. (1998). Seasonal fore-
casting of tropical cyclone activity over the western North
Pacific and the South China Sea. Weather and Forecasting,
13(4), 997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0434(1998)013%3c0997:SFOTCA%3e2.0.CO;2
Chattopadhyay, G., Chattopadhyay, S., & Jain, R. (2010).
Multivariate forecast of winter monsoon rainfall in India
using SST anomaly as a predictor: Neurocomputing and
statistical approaches. Comptes Rendus Geoscience,
342(10), 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2010.06.
004
Chattopadhyay, S. (2007). Feed forward artificial neural net-
work model to predict the average summer-monsoon
rainfall in India. Acta Geophysica, 55(3), 369–382. https://
doi.org/10.2478/s11600-007-0020-8
Chattopadhyay, S., & Chattopadhyay, G. (2008). Comparative
study among different neural net learning algorithms
applied to rainfall time-series. Meteorological Applica-
tions: A Journal of Forecasting, Practical Applications,
Training Techniques and Modelling, 15(2), 273–280.
https://doi.org/10.1002/met.71
Chaudhuri, S., Basu, D., Das, D., Goswami, S., & Varshney, S.
(2017). Swarm intelligence and neural nets in forecasting
the maximum sustained wind speed along the track of
tropical cyclones over Bay of Bengal. Natural Hazards,
87(3), 1413–1433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-
2824-4
Chowdhury, K.M.M.H. (2002). Cyclone preparedness and
management in Bangladesh. In: BPATC (ed.) Improvement
of early warning system and responses in Bangladesh
towards total disaster risk management approach.
BPATC, Dhaka.
Clemen, R. T. (1989). Combining forecasts: A review and
annotated bibliography. International Journal of
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
Forecasting, 5(4), 559–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-
2070(89)90012-5
Dube, S. K., Rao, A. D., Sinha, P. C., Murty, T. S., & Bahulayan,
N. (1997). Storm surge in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian
Sea the problem and its prediction. Mausam, 48(2),
283–304.
Elamin, N., & Fukushige, M. (2018). Modeling and forecasting
hourly electricity demand by SARIMAX with interactions.
Energy, 165(2), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2018.09.157
Emanuel, K. A. (1988). The maximum intensity of hurricanes.
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 45(7), 1143–1155.
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1988)045%3c1143:
TMIOH%3e2.0.CO;2
Emanuel, K. A. (1995). Sensitivity of tropical cyclones to sur-
face exchange coefficients and a revised steady-state model
incorporating eye dynamics. Journal of Atmospheric Sci-
ences, 52(22), 3969–3976. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0469(1995)052%3c3969:SOTCTS%3e2.0.CO;2
Evans, J. L. (1993). Sensitivity of tropical cyclone intensity to
sea surface temperature. Journal of Climate, 6(6),
1133–1140. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0442(1993)006%3c1133:SOTCIT%3e2.0.CO;2
Farajzadeh, J., & Alizadeh, F. (2018). A hybrid linear–non-
linear approach to predict the monthly rainfall over the
Urmia Lake watershed using wavelet-SARIMAX-LSSVM
conjugated model. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 20(1),
246–262. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2017.013
Feng, L., & Luo, G. (2014). Application of a non-linear model in
landfall number forecasting for tropical cyclones in China.
Natural Hazards, 73(3), 1475–1482. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11069-014-1146-z
Feng, Z. K., Niu, W. J., Tang, Z. Y., Xu, Y., & Zhang, H. R.
(2021). Evolutionary artificial intelligence model via
cooperation search algorithm and extreme learning
machine for multiple scales nonstationary hydrological
time series prediction. Journal of Hydrology, 595(1),
126062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126062
Gardner, M. W., & Dorling, S. R. (1998). Artificial neural net-
works (the multilayer perceptron)—A review of applica-
tions in the atmospheric sciences. Atmospheric
Environment, 32(14–15), 2627–2636. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1352-2310(97)00447-0
Geetha, A., & Nasira, G. M. (2016). Time-series modeling and
forecasting: Tropical cyclone prediction using ARIMA
model. In 2016 3rd International Conference on Comput-
ing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom),
3080–3086. IEEE.
Gray, W. M. (1979). Hurricanes: Their formation, structure and
likely role in the tropical circulation. Meteorology over the
tropical oceans, 155(1), 218.
Gray, W. M., Landsea, C. W., Mielke, P. W., Jr., & Berry, K. J.
(1993). Predicting Atlantic basin seasonal tropical cyclone
activity by 1 August. Weather and Forecasting, 8(1),
73–86. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1993)008%
3c0073:PABSTC%3e2.0.CO;2
Gray, W. M., Landsea, C. W., Mielke, P. W., Jr., & Berry, K. J.
(1994). Predicting Atlantic basin seasonal tropical cyclone
activity by 1 June. Weather and Forecasting, 9(1),
103–115. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1994)009%
3c0103:PABSTC%3e2.0.CO;2
S105
Gutzler, D. S., Wood, K. M., Ritchie, E. A., Douglas, A. V., &
Lewis, M. D. (2013). Interannual variability of tropical
cyclone activity along the Pacific coast of North America.
Atmósfera, 26(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-
6236(13)71069-5
Haarsma, R. J., Mitchell, J. F., & Senior, C. A. (1993). Tropical
disturbances in a GCM. Climate Dynamics, 8(5), 247–257.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00198619
Hwang, S. H., Ham, D. H., & Kim, J. H. (2012). A new measure
for assessing the efficiency of hydrological data-driven
forecasting models. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 57(7),
1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2012.
710335
Hyndman, R. J., & Koehler, A. B. (2006). Another look at
measures of forecast accuracy. International journal of
forecasting, 22(4), 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijforecast.2006.03.001
Indian Meteorological Department (IMD). (2011). Tracks of
cyclones and depressions over North Indian Ocean (from
1891 onwards). Cyclone Warning and Research Centre,
India Meteorological Department, Regional Meteorologi-
cal Centre, Chennai. http://www.rsmcnewdelhi.imd.gov.in
Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) report. (2019). Report
on cyclonic disturbances over the north Indian Ocean
during 2018, No. ESSO/IMD/CWD Report-01(2019)/09.
Retrieved 21 April, 2020, from http://www.rsmcnewdelhi.
imd.gov.in
Islam, A. R. M. T., Karim, M. R., & Mondol, M. A. H. (2021).
Appraising trends and forecasting of hydroclimatic vari-
ables in the north and northeast regions of Bangladesh.
Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 143(1), 33–50.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-020-03411-0
Knutson, T. R., McBride, J. L., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland,
G., Landsea, C., & Sugi, M. (2010). Tropical cyclones and
climate change. Nature Geoscience, 3(3), 157–163. https://
doi.org/10.1038/ngeo779
Krishna, K. M. (2009). Intensifying tropical cyclones over the
North Indian Ocean during summer monsoon—Global
warming. Global and Planetary Change, 65(1–2), 12–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.10.007
Kutty, G., Gogoi, R., Rakesh, V., & Pateria, M. (2020). Com-
parison of the performance of HYBRID ETKF-3DVAR
and 3DVAR data assimilation scheme on the forecast of
tropical cyclones formed over the Bay of Bengal. Journal
of Earth System Science, 129(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12040-020-01497-8
LaRow, T. E., Stefanova, L., Shin, D. W., & Cocke, S. (2010).
Seasonal Atlantic tropical cyclone hindcasting/forecasting
using two sea surface temperature datasets. Geophysical
Research Letters, 37(2), L02804. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2009GL041459
Lee, T. H., White, H., & Granger, C. W. (1993). Testing for
neglected non-linearity in time-series models: A compar-
ison of neural network methods and alternative tests.
Journal of Econometrics, 56(3), 269–290. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0304-4076(93)90122-L
Legates, D. R., & McCabe, G. J., Jr. (1999). Evaluating the use
of ‘‘goodness-of-fit’’ measures in hydrologic and hydro-
climatic model validation. Water Resources Research,
35(1), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998WR900018
123
S106
Liu, H., Chen, C., Tian, H. Q., & Li, Y. F. (2012). A hybrid
model for wind speed prediction using empirical mode
decomposition and artificial neural networks. Renewable
Energy, 48(1), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.
2012.06.012
Mann, H. B. (1945). Non-parametric tests against
trend. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society,
https://doi.org/10.2307/1907187.
Merrill, R. T. (1987). An experiment in statistical prediction of
tropical cyclone intensity change (Vol. 34). US Depart-
ment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Weather Service, National Hur-
ricane Center.
Miller, B. I. (1958). On the maximum intensity of hurricanes.
Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 15(2), 184–195. https://
doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1958)015%3c0184:
OTMIOH%3e2.0.CO;2
Mishra, A. K., Desai, V. R., & Singh, V. P. (2007). Drought
forecasting using a hybrid stochastic and neural network
model. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 12(6),
626–638. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-
0699(2007)12:6(626)
Mitchell, T. D., & Camp, J. (2021). The use of the conway–
maxwell–poisson in the seasonal forecasting of tropical
cyclones. Weather and Forecasting, 36(3), 929–939.
https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-20-0160.1
Morid, S., Smakhtin, V., & Bagherzadeh, K. (2007). Drought
forecasting using artificial neural networks and time-series
of drought indices. International Journal of Climatology: A
Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 27(15),
2103–2111. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1498
Nair, A., Acharya, N., Singh, A., Mohanty, U. C., & Panda, T. C.
(2013). On the predictability of northeast monsoon rainfall
over south peninsular India in general circulation models.
Pure and Applied Geophysics, 170(11), 1945–1967.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-012-0633-y
Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). River flow forecasting
through conceptual models part I—A discussion of prin-
ciples. Journal of Hydrology, 10(3), 282–290. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
Nath, S., Kotal, S. D., & Kundu, P. K. (2016). Seasonal pre-
diction of tropical cyclone activity over the north Indian
Ocean using three artificial neural networks. Meteorology
and Atmospheric Physics, 128(6), 751–762. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00703-016-0446-0
Neumann, C. J. (1993). Global Overview. In: Global guide to
tropical cyclone forecasting, WMO/TC-No. 560. Report
No. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.
Newbold, P., & Granger, C. W. (1974). Experience with fore-
casting univariate time-series and the combination of
forecasts. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A
(general), 137(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2344546
Nicholls, N. (1992). Recent performance of a method for fore-
casting Australian seasonal tropical cyclone activity. Aus-
tralian Meteorological Magazine, 40(2), 105–110.
Nordhaus, W. (2013). The climate casino: Risk, uncertainty, and
economics for a warming world. Yale University Press.
Pektaş, A. O., & Cigizoglu, H. K. (2013). ANN hybrid model
versus ARIMA and ARIMAX models of runoff coefficient.
123
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
Journal of Hydrology, 500(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhydrol.2013.07.020
Raghavan, S., & Rajesh, S. (2003). Trends in tropical cyclone
impact: A study in Andhra Pradesh, India: A study in
Andhra Pradesh, India. Bulletin of the American Meteo-
rological Society, 84(5), 635–644. https://doi.org/10.1175/
BAMS-84-5-635
Rajeevan, M., Unnikrishnan, C. K., Bhate, J., Niranjan Kumar,
K., & Sreekala, P. P. (2012). Northeast monsoon over
India: Variability and prediction. Meteorological Appli-
cations, 19(2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1322
Reddy, B. N. K., Venkatesan, R., Osuri, K. K., Mathew, S.,
Kadiyam, J., & Joseph, K. J. (2018). Comparison of
AMSR-2 wind speed and sea surface temperature with
moored buoy observations over the Northern Indian Ocean.
Journal of Earth System Science, 127(1), 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12040-017-0902-3
Richman, M. B., & Leslie, L. M. (2012). Adaptive machine
learning approaches to seasonal prediction of tropical
cyclones. Procedia Computer Science, 12(1), 276–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.09.069
Sahoo, G. B., Schladow, S. G., & Reuter, J. E. (2009). Fore-
casting stream water temperature using regression analysis,
artificial neural network, and chaotic non-linear dynamic
models. Journal of Hydrology, 378(3–4), 325–342. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.09.037
Sarkar, I., Chaudhuri, S., & Pal, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence
in forecasting central pressure drop and maximum sus-
tained wind speed of cyclonic systems over Arabian Sea:
skill comparison with conventional models. Meteorology
and Atmospheric Physics, 1–20.
Srinivas, C. V., Bhaskar Rao, D., Yesubabu, V., Baskaran, R., &
Venkatraman, B. (2013). Tropical cyclone predictions over
the Bay of Bengal using the high-resolution advanced
research weather research and forecasting (ARW) model.
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society,
139(676), 1810–1825. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2064
Sun, J., & Ahn, J. B. (2011). A GCM-based forecasting model
for the landfall of tropical cyclones in China. Advances in
Atmospheric Sciences, 28(5), 1049–1055. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00376-011-0122-8
Vagropoulos, S. I., Chouliaras, G. I., Kardakos, E. G., Simoglou,
C. K., & Bakirtzis, A. G. (2016). Comparison of SAR-
IMAX, SARIMA, modified SARIMA and ANN-based
models for short-term PV generation forecasting. IEEE
International Energy Conference (ENERGYCON), 1–6.
IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ENERGYCON.2016.
7514029
Vaz, A. G. R., Elsinga, B., Van Sark, W. G. J. H. M., & Brito, M.
C. (2016). An artificial neural network to assess the impact
of neighbouring photovoltaic systems in power forecasting
in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Renewable Energy, 85(1),
631–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.06.061
Villarini, G., Luitel, B., Vecchi, G. A., & Ghosh, J. (2019).
Multi-model ensemble forecasting of North Atlantic trop-
ical cyclone activity. Climate Dynamics, 53(12),
7461–7477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3369-z
Vitart, F., Anderson, J. L., & Stern, W. F. (1997). Simulation of
interannual variability of tropical storm frequency in an
ensemble of GCM integrations. Journal of Climate, 10(4),
GeoJournal (2023) 88:S85–S107
745–760. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010%
3c0745:SOIVOT%3e2.0.CO;2
Vitart, F., Anderson, J. L., & Stern, W. F. (1999). Impact of
large-scale circulation on tropical storm frequency, inten-
sity, and location, simulated by an ensemble of GCM
integrations. Journal of Climate, 12(11), 3237–3254.
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012%3c3237:
IOLSCO%3e2.0.CO;2
Vitart, F., Huddleston, M. R., Déqué, M., Peake, D., Palmer, T.
N., Stockdale, T. N., & Weisheimer, A. (2007). Dynami-
cally-based seasonal forecasts of Atlantic tropical storm
activity issued in June by EUROSIP. Geophysical
Research Letters, 34(16), L16815. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2007GL030740
Vitart, F., & Stockdale, T. N. (2001). Seasonal forecasting of
tropical storms using coupled GCM integrations. Monthly
Weather Review, 129(10), 2521–2537. https://doi.org/10.
1175/1520-0493(2001)129%3c2521:SFOTSU%3e2.0.
CO;2
Wijnands, J. S., Shelton, K., & Kuleshov, Y. (2014). Improving
the operational methodology of tropical cyclone seasonal
prediction in the Australian and the South Pacific Ocean
regions. Advances in Meteorology, 2014(1), 838746.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/838746
Yang, Z., Ce, L., & Lian, L. (2017). Electricity price forecasting
by a hybrid model, combining wavelet transform, ARMA
and kernel-based extreme learning machine methods. Ap-
plied Energy, 190(1), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.12.130
S107
Yip, Z. K., & Yau, M. K. (2012). Application of artificial neural
networks on North Atlantic tropical cyclogenesis potential
index in climate change. Journal of Atmospheric and
Oceanic Technology, 29(9), 1202–1220. https://doi.org/10.
1175/JTECH-D-11-00178.1
Yue, S., Pilon, P., & Cavadias, G. (2002). Power of the Mann-
Kendall and Spearman’s rho tests for detecting monotonic
trends in hydrological series. Journal of Hydrology,
259(1–4), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
1694(01)00594-7
Zhang, G. P. (2003). Time-series forecasting using a hybrid
ARIMA and neural network model. Neurocomputing,
50(1), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-
2312(01)00702-0
Zhang, W., & Villarini, G. (2019). Seasonal forecasting of
western North Pacific tropical cyclone frequency using the
North American multi-model ensemble. Climate Dynam-
ics, 52(9), 5985–5997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-
018-4490-y
Zhao, H., & Raga, G. B. (2015). On the distinct interannual
variability of tropical cyclone activity over the eastern
North Pacific. Atmósfera, 28(3), 161–178. https://doi.org/
10.20937/ATM.2015.28.03.02
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
123