Brian Norcross Op-Ed Piece on Charley Forecast and NHC...
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
-
ColdWaterConch
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 12:08 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA (formerly KW, FL)
"The Hurricane Center further fine-tunes the chances of specific locations being affected by issuing ''strike probabilities.'' On the afternoon before Charley hit, Fort Myers' strike probability was 42 percent and Tampa's was 39 percent. On the morning of landfall, Fort Myers was at 50 percent and Tampa was at 47 percent."
Norcross basically is telling people to STFU and pay attention.
Norcross basically is telling people to STFU and pay attention.
0 likes
-
x-y-no
- Category 5
- Posts: 8359
- Age: 65
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Derecho wrote:I actually think newspapers have a legit beef about the posting of ENTIRE articles on websites........I'm not a fanatic about it myself either way, and S2K I don't think has a policy on it officially, but I'll err on the side of caution.
It's been a major issue on sites like Free Republic.
Yaeh, whole article is a no-no, but a couple of paragraphs with some commentary is "fair use." So here goes:
Forecast on target, but the media mangled message
BY BRYAN NORCROSS
Hurricane Charley was expected to hit Tampa, but instead came ashore in Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte. Many Floridians, if not most, have the perception that the forecast was wrong and that the storm bamboozled the experts.
But that's not true, and the misperception harms the hurricane-warning program.
Admittedly, the National Weather Service does itself no favors by choosing to communicate the basic issues of ''who might get hit and how badly'' in a fragmented format including graphics that present a mixed message. But, bad format or not, reporters and television meteorologists should know how to piece the information together to present an accurate picture of the forecast. That's their job.
I think Norcross is dead-on. The Hurricane Center did a fine job. Any perception that they didn't is the media's fault - not theirs.
0 likes
-
Downdraft
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 906
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 8:45 pm
- Location: Sanford, Florida
- Contact:
As someone that was indirectly party to the conference calls, meaning I didn't sit in on them but had a boss that did, I'm sick and tired of the NHC slamming. Over and OVER the NHC said that intensity forecasting was not an exact science and in fact, inadequate to provide accurate landfall intensity of any tropical cyclone including Charley. The NHC went on to WARN all areas within the projection probabilties to prepare for this storm. There is no reason to make Max Mayfield bite the bullet after Charely like Bob Sheets did after Andrew. They did a superb job on this storm and they followed the right model. Until the public gets it in their thick skulls that we are talking about a spinning top on a spinning ball you go with "margins and probablities." Yes, they blew the 11AM update BUT would it have made a difference? No one, including Bastardi, a God to some people in here, predicted a CAT 4 hurricane at landfall!. The NHC always has said intensity forecasting has large margins of error. I have no sympathy whatsover for the NHC bashers in this case. The NHC did a damn fine job in my book and in fact, over and over the last few seasons have continued to put some of the "experts" in this room to shame. It's easy to eat humble pie on this message board. It's not so easy to cause a million people to evacuate and then say oops, sorry we blew it. No one in here, Accuwather or anyone else has to really live with the heat that's in that kitchen.
0 likes
-
vacanechaser
- Category 5
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 9:34 pm
- Location: Portsmouth, Va
- Contact:
Downdraft wrote:As someone that was indirectly party to the conference calls, meaning I didn't sit in on them but had a boss that did, I'm sick and tired of the NHC slamming. Over and OVER the NHC said that intensity forecasting was not an exact science and in fact, inadequate to provide accurate landfall intensity of any tropical cyclone including Charley. The NHC went on to WARN all areas within the projection probabilties to prepare for this storm. There is no reason to make Max Mayfield bite the bullet after Charely like Bob Sheets did after Andrew. They did a superb job on this storm and they followed the right model. Until the public gets it in their thick skulls that we are talking about a spinning top on a spinning ball you go with "margins and probablities." Yes, they blew the 11AM update BUT would it have made a difference? No one, including Bastardi, a God to some people in here, predicted a CAT 4 hurricane at landfall!. The NHC always has said intensity forecasting has large margins of error. I have no sympathy whatsover for the NHC bashers in this case. The NHC did a damn fine job in my book and in fact, over and over the last few seasons have continued to put some of the "experts" in this room to shame. It's easy to eat humble pie on this message board. It's not so easy to cause a million people to evacuate and then say oops, sorry we blew it. No one in here, Accuwather or anyone else has to really live with the heat that's in that kitchen.
Well said.... At least Norcross went to bat for them... Not that he has too... During the Conference this year he got into a bit of a battle over the "cone" of probablity with Max... I am sure that will be revisted this coming Conference...
0 likes
I mostly agree with Norcross and his premise. I don't think the NHC does that much A+ work (they're best with big 'certain' storms) just the same. They do a good job and are the official source of information for Americans. However, he also puts the onus on media to disseminate the information appropriately. News stations with decent weather graphics people (ordinarilly the junior met or if they're lucky, a tech guru) can get you that. But the NHC could spruce up their output a bit. When the UM, Hurricane Alley, Accuweather, and even Storm2k are sometimes putting out better graphics, they should be called into question. I'm not going to indict them over Charley because I think the NHC did pretty well with that storm. But just the same, when people who haven't studied weather even a minute (outside of casual observation) can see flaws in their methodology, maybe they should consider a little self examination as well.
And for anyone to shoot that down ask yourself this. How many people thought that the track put out for TD #6 was even remotely close to reality? Or the second or third or fourth? Hopefully that makes the point. Also, they need to quit typing in capitals. That's been out since like 1985.
Steve
And for anyone to shoot that down ask yourself this. How many people thought that the track put out for TD #6 was even remotely close to reality? Or the second or third or fourth? Hopefully that makes the point. Also, they need to quit typing in capitals. That's been out since like 1985.
Steve
0 likes
>>Yes, they blew the 11AM update BUT would it have made a difference? No one, including Bastardi, a God to some people in here, predicted a CAT 4 hurricane at landfall!.
Correction. He said 930mb was worse case. He expected it to be around 940 and came right out and said he expected it to strengthen considerably before landfall. He also got that right with Alex but missed with Bonnie. Joe also has given the heads up that that's the type of pattern we're in this year where close in landfall can lead to explosive development rather than weakening. So someone got the message (if not necessarily you).
Just the same, you shouldn't compare Bastardi to the NHC. They are completely different animals that sometimes overlap. He doesn't play with close in stuff because that's not his game. He'll disagree when necessary but usually note that he's not going to touch it because of the risk of life and limb. If he disagrees with the NHC or sees something they're not telling you, he'll mention that with the caveat that they are the official source.
From what I've seen, he's got two major pet peeves with the NHC as recurring themes. The first is the capricious nature in which they choose to classify systems. Deny that happens if you want, but pretty much everyone could see that Frances was a tropical storm before 5 o'clock. Depending on the forecaster depends on what you get sometimes (my take, not his). His other issue is that they don't use a 5 day forecast nearly as well as the JTWC does. The NHC will sometimes note a wave is in somewhat favorable conditions. But the JTWC will issue a tropical cyclone formation alert for a similar storm if they believe something is going to cook. You tell me which is the better tool and use of science. Joe believes that if you're going to have a 5 day forecast model and schematic, you should issue 5 day forecasts when there is a chance for a threat. You might blow a couple, but what about a storm that forms close in and you don't have 5 days? You would never have known what they were thinking. Case in point - current MLC off the FL coast. Bastardi was talking about that potential last week with the evolution of the pattern. The TPC? If nothing forms, it was an alert that something might have happened. If it does, one source was superior in identifying the threat.
Joe B isn't God, but he puts out better stuff than any of his bashers do. That's the difference. I doubt many people take his word as Gospel or think he's God (probably a few do). - Just setting the record straight on your dig.
Steve
Correction. He said 930mb was worse case. He expected it to be around 940 and came right out and said he expected it to strengthen considerably before landfall. He also got that right with Alex but missed with Bonnie. Joe also has given the heads up that that's the type of pattern we're in this year where close in landfall can lead to explosive development rather than weakening. So someone got the message (if not necessarily you).
Just the same, you shouldn't compare Bastardi to the NHC. They are completely different animals that sometimes overlap. He doesn't play with close in stuff because that's not his game. He'll disagree when necessary but usually note that he's not going to touch it because of the risk of life and limb. If he disagrees with the NHC or sees something they're not telling you, he'll mention that with the caveat that they are the official source.
From what I've seen, he's got two major pet peeves with the NHC as recurring themes. The first is the capricious nature in which they choose to classify systems. Deny that happens if you want, but pretty much everyone could see that Frances was a tropical storm before 5 o'clock. Depending on the forecaster depends on what you get sometimes (my take, not his). His other issue is that they don't use a 5 day forecast nearly as well as the JTWC does. The NHC will sometimes note a wave is in somewhat favorable conditions. But the JTWC will issue a tropical cyclone formation alert for a similar storm if they believe something is going to cook. You tell me which is the better tool and use of science. Joe believes that if you're going to have a 5 day forecast model and schematic, you should issue 5 day forecasts when there is a chance for a threat. You might blow a couple, but what about a storm that forms close in and you don't have 5 days? You would never have known what they were thinking. Case in point - current MLC off the FL coast. Bastardi was talking about that potential last week with the evolution of the pattern. The TPC? If nothing forms, it was an alert that something might have happened. If it does, one source was superior in identifying the threat.
Joe B isn't God, but he puts out better stuff than any of his bashers do. That's the difference. I doubt many people take his word as Gospel or think he's God (probably a few do). - Just setting the record straight on your dig.
Steve
0 likes
-
Rainband
I think until anyone can do any better they need to stop and think and respect the NHC. There is NO way they could have known about what was going to happen with Charley. When it comes to Mother nature, most times it's a guessing game and with all due respect. I would rather go with the experts guesses than anyone elses 
As for six I am sure they went with the information they had from the sophisticated equipment they use and not just guessing. In closing, Bastardi isn't even in the same league with the NHC
As for six I am sure they went with the information they had from the sophisticated equipment they use and not just guessing. In closing, Bastardi isn't even in the same league with the NHC
0 likes
That's your opinion Rainband, and you are entitled to it. All the sophisticated equipment in the world doesn't give us accuracy beyond even 70% in best case scenario. Models are tools and should be utilized as such as appropriate. But saying Joe B ain't in the same league isn't exactly accurate. He may not be a doctor, but he's proven his merit. Let's don't forget he gets paid by his clients for his work while the NHC is on the tax dole. No offense to them because they are ordinarilly the final authority for me too.
Steve
Steve
0 likes
-
Rainband
I respect thatSteve wrote:That's your opinion Rainband, and you are entitled to it. All the sophisticated equipment in the world doesn't give us accuracy beyond even 70% in best case scenario. Models are tools and should be utilized as such as appropriate. But saying Joe B ain't in the same league isn't exactly accurate. He may not be a doctor, but he's proven his merit. Let's don't forget he gets paid by his clients for his work while the NHC is on the tax dole. No offense to them because they are ordinarilly the final authority for me too.
Steve
Good point 
0 likes
-
caneman
Downdraft wrote:As someone that was indirectly party to the conference calls, meaning I didn't sit in on them but had a boss that did, I'm sick and tired of the NHC slamming. Over and OVER the NHC said that intensity forecasting was not an exact science and in fact, inadequate to provide accurate landfall intensity of any tropical cyclone including Charley. The NHC went on to WARN all areas within the projection probabilties to prepare for this storm. There is no reason to make Max Mayfield bite the bullet after Charely like Bob Sheets did after Andrew. They did a superb job on this storm and they followed the right model. Until the public gets it in their thick skulls that we are talking about a spinning top on a spinning ball you go with "margins and probablities." Yes, they blew the 11AM update BUT would it have made a difference? No one, including Bastardi, a God to some people in here, predicted a CAT 4 hurricane at landfall!. The NHC always has said intensity forecasting has large margins of error. I have no sympathy whatsover for the NHC bashers in this case. The NHC did a damn fine job in my book and in fact, over and over the last few seasons have continued to put some of the "experts" in this room to shame. It's easy to eat humble pie on this message board. It's not so easy to cause a million people to evacuate and then say oops, sorry we blew it. No one in here, Accuwather or anyone else has to really live with the heat that's in that kitchen.
Look here. NHC isn't above the need to be constantly improving. Just like any other business. I believe they did a good job with track and understand it is difficult to forecast intensity and also agree the people should follow the cones. But why stick to 3 hour updates if the public demands more current info. Don't believe so? Why is it so difficult to get on current satellite images as a storm threatens. Why were people working in Kissimmee the day the storm hit? Reason? We work in FLorida around Tropical Storms. A difference of 50 to 100 miles can mean the difference between closing up shop and working thru it. It is imperative to have up to date info as employers and employees use this info to make their decisions. The extra couple hours notification by local mets helped people get home from work, pick up kids, etc.. and ultimatley off the roads. If there is never criticism how is one to improve? How do businesses improve? You either change and go with what is needed or demanded or you deny and stand on the corner wondering how you lost business share, why you can't get a girlfriend,etc... NHC isn't above the need for improvement and sometimes that need is seen better from outside than it is from the inside.
0 likes
-
Wallcloud
Umm, Two days before Charley crossed Cuba JoeB said on his video segment that he was not buying the turn at it was going to be an Allen and head to Texas. JoeB is usually correct in his mind becuase somehow in his seven minute clip he will list all the possibilites for a storm and that usually includes landfall from Mexico to Canada.
0 likes
>>Umm, Two days before Charley crossed Cuba JoeB said on his video segment that he was not buying the turn at it was going to be an Allen and head to Texas. JoeB is usually correct in his mind becuase somehow in his seven minute clip he will list all the possibilites for a storm and that usually includes landfall from Mexico to Canada.
Umm, that was a plausible explanation at the time. Bonnie didn't strengthen and pull a ridge in behind her landfall; Charlie didn't stall from the first trough. Joe was wrong. Of course he admitted it (nice change of pace for everyone to admit he or she is wrong when they are). On the morning of landfall, he did a good job of explaining the threat of the frictional effect between a strengthening eye and its intersection with the landmass of the Florida Peninsula to its east and how this could lead to a more southerly landfall in Florida.
As far as saying a specific storm is going to landfall anywhere between Canada and Mexico, that's kind of a ridiculous mischaracterization (which I'm sure you know). More realistically (and what he said yesterday) was that he felt TD 6 had 3 options - 1) recurvature, 2) move to the NW and a bent track westward, 3) a more southerly moving storm missing a weakness and staying underneath ridging to its north. Those are reasonable explanations. He cautioned his options with the fact that if #6 took the bent track scenario and stayed below x degrees N at 60 W, there was an excellent shot of a US landfall by a potentially major cane. On the flip side, you got the call from last week posted on this site about possible pattern telegraphed development off the SE Coast if a LLC got going. What I don't understand about a lot of people who make sarcastic comments about Bastardi is that comparing him to the NHC is apples to pears. Yeah, there are some similarities but many more differences. And while the NHC gets the endgame, Bastardi was probably discussing a probability (remote, hyped or otherwise) a week earlier.
Rainband,
It's all good. You know I respect your opinion as well. Peace
Steve
Umm, that was a plausible explanation at the time. Bonnie didn't strengthen and pull a ridge in behind her landfall; Charlie didn't stall from the first trough. Joe was wrong. Of course he admitted it (nice change of pace for everyone to admit he or she is wrong when they are). On the morning of landfall, he did a good job of explaining the threat of the frictional effect between a strengthening eye and its intersection with the landmass of the Florida Peninsula to its east and how this could lead to a more southerly landfall in Florida.
As far as saying a specific storm is going to landfall anywhere between Canada and Mexico, that's kind of a ridiculous mischaracterization (which I'm sure you know). More realistically (and what he said yesterday) was that he felt TD 6 had 3 options - 1) recurvature, 2) move to the NW and a bent track westward, 3) a more southerly moving storm missing a weakness and staying underneath ridging to its north. Those are reasonable explanations. He cautioned his options with the fact that if #6 took the bent track scenario and stayed below x degrees N at 60 W, there was an excellent shot of a US landfall by a potentially major cane. On the flip side, you got the call from last week posted on this site about possible pattern telegraphed development off the SE Coast if a LLC got going. What I don't understand about a lot of people who make sarcastic comments about Bastardi is that comparing him to the NHC is apples to pears. Yeah, there are some similarities but many more differences. And while the NHC gets the endgame, Bastardi was probably discussing a probability (remote, hyped or otherwise) a week earlier.
Rainband,
It's all good. You know I respect your opinion as well. Peace
Steve
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 322 guests