Definate Maybe

[drudd1]

At the risk of getting hammered, and I am sure I may, I have to make a few observations.

First let me say, that while considered an expert in two arenas, meteorology is not one of them. I am a lamen in every sense of the word, and look at everything on this forum with an open mind. Looking at it that way has also opened my eyes to several trends. Having spent many years in the Air Force analyzing intelligence, I am no rookie at sifting through data to reach a logical, although sometimes wrong conclusion. It is having this experience that has led me to some conclusions.

To begin with, I have noticed that there are quite a few folks that have been termed "people I disagree with". Those, who caught up in the excitement, are likely to be dissapointed by anything less than "looking down the barrell." What I have noticed, however, is that the "Professional Mets" are guilty of the same thing. They analyze the data, toss out what they don't like or feel is irrelevent, make a forecast, and "wishcast" it so to prove themselves right. Motives may differ a little, but it is -removed- none-the-less.

I think the thing that has really driven me nuts is that every statement by a professional is followed by an out, such as "Let's wait to see the input of the GIV data, or something of that nature." What this is really saying is, I think I am right, but I want a fall-back position. The fact of the matter is, predicting weather in general, and major storms in particular, is not an exact science. While each year, forecasting methods are honed and fine-tuned, in the end, it is still a "best guess" based on several influencing factors that may or may not come to fruition. Each storm season is a period of observation, data entry, study, and model improvement. Some theories are tossed, some adopted and later amended, etc. In the end, each major weather occurance is still just one step up in the learning curve. I think lot's of folks are forgetting this.

The fact is, no one out there knows for sure where this storm is going. While I do not have the expertise to even pretend to find fault in any of the projections, I do know, that for every prediction this way, I can find one going the other, and this from the folk's that have expertise in the field. I have read,"watch the models for trends", only to read later in the statement, that flight recon data may change it all. Does that mean that the models are based on inaccurate information now? If the models change based on the recon data, will they really be accurate, given that the information entered is only real time observations, and in no way predicts events six or eight days from now. The bottom line is, in the end, it is all just a best guess. Not one met out there would stake their reputation on predicting where this storm will impact land, if at all, hence, the qualifying statement at the end of each prediction.

I am just venting, so forgive me, but I am just one of many worried people. I am not knocking this forum at all, I think it is fantastic. The insights and opions given here are invaluable. I just want the novices to understand that the experts cannot tell your where the storm is going to hit or not hit, unless it is south of the storms current location. In addition, the novices are not -removed- when suggesting that the storm will hit a certain location or another. They are absorbing all the information, discarding what they do not agree with, and making a prediction, exactly as the mets are doing. Also, don't discredit gut feeling, it is un-scientific, but mets use it everyday when studying data, prior to forecasting.

Whew, I am off the "sope box" now. Had to vent. I'll go back now to reading each post with an open mind, sit back, and say, "Who the heck knows." In the end, all that counts is to be prepared, and if it passes you by, feel blessed, and pray for the ones in it's path.

[hurricanedude]

Hey say what you feel, I do....and usually get booted or banned (LOL DOLPHIN) but its a lot of guessing when it comes to nature and a lot of skill to, and to be honest it is best to end a statement with we have to wait and see because if we didnt that would leave what we say as edged in stone, and thats not we are doing

[bev1]

I find that predicting storms is as much an art form as a science. Many of the sciences rely on subjective data as well as objective data. As a healthcare professional I have seen this for years. Always is not a term we can use and the data does not always result in a correct diagnosis or prognosis in medicine and that is also true for weather prediction. I have total respect for those that take all the information and try to put together a forcast that will save lives but understand that they cannot predict with any certainty what will happen.
Just my humble opinion.
Bev

[mf_dolphin]

You make so valid points Drudd. (and Hurricanedude you usually deserved the boot when you got it ) While I wouldn't call some of the things -removed-, there are just too many variables for an exact accurate prediction. That is one thing that won't change in a couple of lifetimes Does the GIV data help the models? sure! the more accurate the data input the better the output. The data will either validate the assumptions put into the models or cause them to be adjusted. Rmember, there aren't any weather stations out there in the Atlantic LOL

[opera ghost]

Gut-feelings are often discarded when they shouldn't ~always~ be. The human brain is a marvelous marvelous thing and as someone in the top of the IQ bin- I find that a lot of things come naturally the LESS I think about them. Sometimes just looking at a map I can make a very out of the blue observation- and it turns out right- because my brain is processing faster than I do when I over think it.

But at the same time- sometimes what we're looking at isn't the whole picture, and that changes and influences observations. I can look at a water vapor and IR scan of Issy and make some pretty nifty ovservations about her immediate course. But while I'm making those observations I cannot factor in pressure, SST's, saharan dust, vector speed/direction of the eyewall (Actully I'm quite good at that- but not everyone is) and all the other little things that the pro's are taught to pay attention to and study.

And at the same time- my husband, a physics major and total vector/ wind movement geek, points out things that he's not sure the pro-mets are even paying attention to, because they dont' make sense with the models.

Even an amature can have a good grasp on what they *think* will happen- the pro's jsut have more experience and sometimes have better data and training. The point of all of this?

I agree with drudd1 wholeheartedly- it's GOOD to exhange ideas and observations- in the pool of knowledge we all ahve about Issy- the novices are learnign a GREAT deal jsut by learning to understand whatS being said by the people who've been around.

By the same token- Nothing is certain in the world of weather. Even the daily forcast of a 30% chance of rain is only a guess- leaning towards no rain- but leaving an option open for rain becaus eit could happen. This is so much farther out from predicting 1 or 2 day local forcasts it isn't even funny- puts and entirely new spin on uncertainity.

The fact is we don't have any truths about where Issy is going. Only predictions and guesses. I think most people here would agree I have little to worry about on Houston- but I've already double checked my supplies just in case!

[bev1]

I find that predicting storms is as much an art form as a science. Many of the sciences rely on subjective data as well as objective data. As a healthcare professional I have seen this for years. Always is not a term we can use and the data does not always result in a correct diagnosis or prognosis in medicine and that is also true for weather prediction. I have total respect for those that take all the information and try to put together a forcast that will save lives but understand that they cannot predict with any certainty what will happen.
Just my humble opinion.
Bev

[drudd1]

Points well made and taken. Thanks. I feel like I went from a Cat5 to a Cat2 by just venting! LOL

[Air Force Met]

I think you have some valid points. I also think you need to understand weather and the weatherman. I've been doing this biz for 16 years and it isn't an exact science. You are right...no wx man will stake their rep on where it is going right now. Why? Because it is impossible to say. However, I have in the past staked my rep on where storms would not go. I staked my rep last year (may have been 2001...it's been a long year )that a storm would not go into LA and insead of the FL Panhandle...he was -removed- for LA.

As far as Pro-Mets -removed-...yes they do. However...throwing out data that they don't like is not necessarily -removed-. That is an artform believe it or not. IT is data verification and initilization. Which data has performed and which do you trust? Some is taste and some is trend. I tend to like the Euro for pattern recognition. I tend to forcast hurricanes by pattern recognition when dealing with longrange forecasts (5 days out and more) and not where the models says they will be. Then...when we get closer...I start looking more at what the models says.

So...the reason we always say let's see it because we've been around long enough and been burned enough to know there is no sure thing in weather. We were young and bold once and got burned. Us older guys aren't stupid enough anymore to say "hey...it's going to hit _____ in 8 days and if it doesn't...you can take my diploma and flush it!" That just ain't gonna happen. Now...someone who just graduated may do that...but someone who's been at this for 16 years? I'll pass.

[bev1]

Experience counts for something and makes you more cautious.