Invest 98L in Western Atlantic

[ncupsscweather]

I don't think much is going to come out of this thing but i may be wrong...

[philnyc]

Looks subtropical at best to me...

That's a better statement than saying extratropical look to it, which conditions are not there to be extratropical.

Couldn't agree more. SSTs and surface map sure don't indicate extratropical. Although there's the upper trough we all know about, there's no dry or cool surface air there. So extratropical doesn't come to mind at this point.

[RL3AO]

2 of the first 3 being subtropical storms would be interesting.

[Berwick Bay]

Normandy said
This is an invest? Must have been a test of the software like wxman57 mentioned.....that thing looks extratropical.
__________________________________________________
Thats the trouble with 57's statement about "test invests", now its got you wonderin'! This charge about "test invests" should never have been brought to the board (at least not without proof). I personally don't believe it anyway. Most invests don't develop, and just because one or two don't, we shouldn't have to question the NHC about something like this. This statement about "test invests" was used to bolster an opinion that a given system had little chance to develop. But I think that was unfortunate, and that the NHC's standards of designating an invest or not should not have been brought into the discussion of whether or not a system will develop. Remember, most systems don't develop, and if this one doesn't it won't mean that it was only a "test invest".

[hial2]

I don't personally know 57,but I'm sure he wouldn't have brought to the board unverified information...

[HurricaneRobert]

These invests in the Atlantic are usually mentioned on tv weather forecasts. They don't only make it out to weather enthusiasts.

[RL3AO]

These invests in the Atlantic are usually mentioned on tv weather forecasts. They don't only make it out to weather enthusiasts.

But they don't say "This is invest 98L." They say something like "The NHC is monitoring this area".

[Berwick Bay]

Hial said
don't personally know 57,but I'm sure he wouldn't have brought to the board unverified information
___________________________________________________
Hial, you may very well be right. But in that case, it would mean that the last two invests were not real invests! Is that really where we want to be at the eve of the heart of the hurricane season? I think not. If true, this should never have been brought to the board (without proof). And remember, the "test invest" view was used on the board to back an opinion that a system would not develop. That also was an example of poor judgement. I personally won't believe this "test invest" charge unless its proved. Like I said, most suspect systems don't develop anyway, and to brand them "test invests" is very unfortunate.

[philnyc]

Hial said
don't personally know 57,but I'm sure he wouldn't have brought to the board unverified information
___________________________________________________
Hial, you may very well be right. But in that case, it would mean that the last two invests were not real invests! Is that really where we want to be at the eve of the heart of the hurricane season? I think not. If true, this should never have been brought to the board (without proof). And remember, the "test invest" view was used on the board to back an opinion that a system would not develop. That also was an example of poor judgement. I personally won't believe this "test invest" charge unless its proved. Like I said, most suspect systems don't develop anyway, and to brand them "test invests" is very unfortunate.

What is a "test invest"? I'd never heard of it before the other day in here. Is that an NHC term?

[Bane]

Normandy said
This is an invest? Must have been a test of the software like wxman57 mentioned.....that thing looks extratropical.
__________________________________________________
Thats the trouble with 57's statement about "test invests", now its got you wonderin'! This charge about "test invests" should never have been brought to the board (at least not without proof). I personally don't believe it anyway. Most invests don't develop, and just because one or two don't, we shouldn't have to question the NHC about something like this. This statement about "test invests" was used to bolster an opinion that a given system had little chance to develop. But I think that was unfortunate, and that the NHC's standards of designating an invest or not should not have been brought into the discussion of whether or not a system will develop. Remember, most systems don't develop, and if this one doesn't it won't mean that it was only a "test invest".

this is hilarious. i don't understand the outrage coming from some of you in regards to the nhc possibly running test invests. it isn't a big deal at all if they are. there is no harm that comes from this. i actually am glad and hope they would run several tests.

[Bane]

These invests in the Atlantic are usually mentioned on tv weather forecasts. They don't only make it out to weather enthusiasts.

But they don't say "This is invest 98L." They say something like "The NHC is monitoring this area".

exactly

[Bane]

Hial said
don't personally know 57,but I'm sure he wouldn't have brought to the board unverified information
___________________________________________________
Hial, you may very well be right. But in that case, it would mean that the last two invests were not real invests! Is that really where we want to be at the eve of the heart of the hurricane season? I think not. If true, this should never have been brought to the board (without proof). And remember, the "test invest" view was used on the board to back an opinion that a system would not develop. That also was an example of poor judgement. I personally won't believe this "test invest" charge unless its proved. Like I said, most suspect systems don't develop anyway, and to brand them "test invests" is very unfortunate.

you're making a mountain out of an ant hill. if true, it just isn't a big deal nor does it change the trust we have in the nhc.

[fci]

I completely agree with Bane.

I have stated the same thing in other threads about the prior Invest.
WHO CARES????

It is just an Invest which means that they plan to further investigate the area.

It does NOTHING to erode credibility and is really only known by weather enthusiasts like ourselves. Yes, the media will say that the NHC is "watching" an area but that is it.

Thanks Bane for continuing my quest to calm people down about invests and tests of invests.... It really is a non-issue.

The season will start soon enough and Invests will be inconsequential when we start getting TD's and named systems.

[Berwick Bay]

Phil asked
What is a "test invest"? I'd never heard of it before the other day in here. Is that an NHC term?
_____________________________________________________
None of us had heard of it either Phil, until a week or so ago when it was brought up in regards to Invest 97L, the system near Bermuda. One of the posters thought that there was very little chance of development, and to help justify his opinion he stated that the 97L might not be a real invest, but only a "test". I believe this statement might have been brought up again in regards to the current invest 98L (not a real invest only a test). I have a hard time believing it, and even if true, I don't think that it should have been brought to the board. As for what it is, I think its supposed to be a dry run of new information gathering technology by the NHC and that they need the "invest" label with all that it signifies to run the "test". But really I don't know, and I don't think anyone else here does either. You should probably ask the poster who brought it up.

[philnyc]

Phil asked
What is a "test invest"? I'd never heard of it before the other day in here. Is that an NHC term?
_____________________________________________________
None of us had heard of it either Phil, until a week or so ago when it was brought up in regards to Invest 97L, the system near Bermuda. One of the posters thought that there was very little chance of development, and to help justify his opinion he stated that the 97L might not be a real invest, but only a "test". I believe this statement might have been brought up again in regards to the current invest 98L (not a real invest only a test). I have a hard time believing it, and even if true, I don't think that it should have been brought to the board. As for what it is, I think its supposed to be a dry run of new information gathering technology by the NHC and that they need the "invest" label with all that it signifies to run the "test". But really I don't know, and I don't think anyone else here does either. You should probably ask the poster who brought it up.

Well I'd rather not step into a hornet's nest, thanks. But I would like it clarified if there really is such a thing, because I am relatively new on these boards, and one of the most valuable things we learn here is how the NHC really operates, so that we can learn what goes into their analyses and procedures from the pros. Obviously I don't want to learn things that are incorrect, and worse still, I could wind up passing it on to others.

[Normandy]

The assertion Wxman57 brought up is valid.....I mean seriously to you honestly think the NHC SERIOUSLY believes that this had any chance to become a tropical entity?

[RL3AO]

I mean seriously to you honestly think the NHC SERIOUSLY believes that this had any chance to become a tropical entity?

Yes.

[Normandy]

Well we can agree to disagree.

[hurricanetrack]

For those who think this is just a test, have you been reading the TWOs? Those certainly aren't tests and the GFS does develop this thing in just a few short days as it lifts out. Are we THAT bored? My goodness....

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Invest=area of watch or interest. 2 out of every 3 time nothing more. Do all invests develop, no. Was there models forecasting this to develop with the hurricane models yes. In fact many models still do. So yes it was a real invest. So the nhc, Nrl issued the number 98L to give us models and insight into a area that needs to be watched. Yeah it maybe a frontal low, but some times frontal lows can develop, look at the the unnamed system or Beryl. Many more could be added to that list. Lets just say that systems this time of year can develop fast. Bertha about 5-6 years ago went from nothing to a cyclone in 12 hours. There is NO test invests. From time to time you might see a test cyclone.