Score another one for the NHC

[drudd1]

All in all I'd have to say the NHC sets a bencmark for credibility the rest of the U.S. government should only hope to achieve.

Indeed. It's amazing what can happen when decisions and judgments are based on science and facts.

Absolutely, no media HYPE, no clown shooting his mouth off and then forgetting ALL the wrong calls he's made, no T.V. met's that couldn't tell it's raining outside without a window in the office. Just some very quiet scientists doing what they do with aging equipment, aircrews flying through the worst mother nature has to offer when the planes they fly in should have been retired 20 years ago. Working with models that have incomplete data in them because the one gulfstream they have needs maintenance when another could have been flying. No political pressure from the White House, the State Houses or city officials like mayors and city attorney's that cover their own a@@'s before they cover the people. Science and facts, honesty and truth. I have to question the judgement of someone that wants to pay 9.95 a month when the very best is available for free. Of course P.T. Barnum did say, "a fool and his money are soon parted."

[Cookiely]

I'm not sure what the pay scale is for the NHC personnel but it can't be enough for the hours they put in the last two seasons.

[chris_fit]

Great Post OP...

I totally agree. Amazing track by NHC so far out.

[inotherwords]

I have no problem with commercial weather services. If they can find an audience that will support them, then good for them.

What I object to is if this is our only alternative. I also object when those commercial entities make the NHC a target and lobby for their dissolution. If you don't think this could happen, take a moment to read this article:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/conte ... _0421.html

We've all seen what's happened to news in the last 15 or so years, if this same thing happens to weather then lives will be put in jeopardy.

Thank god for the NHC and let's all write our representatives asap to keep them flying and the scientists paid well for their incredibly hard work. We should all stop and remember how far they've come in just the past five years in forecasting storm tracks. They had an amazing record this year and they should be all given the massive credit that's due.

[abajan]

Great Post OP...

I totally agree. Amazing track by NHC so far out.

Yep. A couple days ago, how many of us really believed that Wilma would make that dramatic turn to the east-northeast and slam into south Florida's coast?

I'm sure many of us thought that it would more likely cross the panhandle region of Florida instead.

Not only did the NHC nail where it would go but pretty much when it would get there! Amazing.

[Ivanhater]

Thank god for the NHC and let's all write our representatives asap to keep them flying and the scientists paid well for their incredibly hard work.

, i agree

[Derecho]

He has nailed numerous tropical storm developments far in advance. This is just information that you cannot get from anywhere else.

Sigh.

Man, I wish they'd teach the basics of how to logically analyze predictions in school.

1) The number of tropical development predictions he's made that have not formed storms greatly exceeds the number that have. Heck, just in June and July 2004 alone he had more failed development predictions than there have been named storms in 2005.

2) For any given week, he will have a standing "watch for tropical development!" prediction made the previous week for every single climatologically favorable area of the Atlantic for that time of the year; hence, it's physically impossible for him not to have predicted any tropical development. For example, in a given June, he'll have a standing "watch the Gulf of Mexico for Tropical Trouble blah blah blah ventilation blah blah blah teleconnection blah blah blah" prediction every single week.

There's about a 50% chance of a named storm developing in June in the Atlantic every June; most of these storms are in the Gulf. Since he has the whole month covered by predictions of formation, he has a 50% chance of a successful prediction of tropical development.

Yet it's rather difficult to explain to people regarding any sort of prediction (earthquake, TS formations, etc.) that huge numbers of predictions and few hits is completely worthless and displays no skill.

3) The "information you can not get anywhere else" is actually information you can get EVERYWHERE else; JB simply makes it look like it requires his special "pattern recognition" skills.

Far from educating people, I've noticed that JB actually stunts the understanding of weather for most of his fans; instead of thinking for themselves, every post begins with "JB Said blah blah blah!." The education is also stunted by the incredible number of falsehoods he spews out...that a given pressure in a hurricane must correspond to a given windspeed, etc.

And when he really hypes tropical development, it's not because he's brilliantly discerned how some Typhoon in Korea will affect the pattern over Alaska which then creates a high that ventilates some area; it's because there are 2 or more computer models showing development. If he hasn't started hyping development off Nicaragua next week already, I assure you he will...because a bunch of computer models are showing it.

You can look at all the global models yourself and see the same thing in far less time than it takes to wade through another incoherent JB column. But a lot of people hate computer models and hate the idea that they work and enjoy JB pretending that he goes by his human-based seat-of-the-pants pattern recognition, rather than the reality that he's as big a model-hugger as anyone.

[Dave R]

Here's another reason why I susbscribe... a few years ago (can't remember the exact year) the Mid-Atlantic states were experiencing a severe drought. It was around the middle of September when JB predicted that the drought was going to end in the October. At first, I thought "How could a drought end in October which is historically a very dry month for the Hampton Roads area?" The thunderstorm season is over and the extra-tropical storms usually track well to our north. Without troical cyclones (or their remnants), October can be very dry. Sure enough, that October turned out to be extremely wet and the drought was over. He based his forecast on the water temperatures off the east coast, and probably some teleconections somewhere in the Pacific. There were probably other factors involved too like the SOI. I did not hear or see that prediction anywhere else, whether it be t.v. meteorologists, on the internet, etc. So, without reading his posts, I would not have known that the drought was nearing an end. That is just one instance...there are plenty more. He has a good handle on long range forecasting.

[Downdraft]

I didn't mean for this thread to become an AccuWx vs. NHC post. I do wonder though what would have happened had the NHC called for a direct hit by a major hurricane on Tampa last week like AccuWx's icon did? Shouts for heads would be rolling across the halls of Congress. You can say anything you want when your not held responsible for what you say. I'm sure they didn't get any new subscribers in Pinellas and Hernado counties after making that claim and then watching Wilma head for the Yucatan and eventually into SW Florida.

[terstorm1012]

I am literally startled with the accuracy of the forecasts they've been putting out this year. The science is progressing very well.

Their track forecasts have been great since at least 2003's Isabel, which also was a storm that did as it was forecast to do, (for the most part)

[Dave R]

If I'm not mistaken, they nailed Isabel's landfall from almost five days out. The models are getting better and better. I wonder when/if the day will come that they will always be right from five days out or is the atmosphere just too complex. [/url]

[terstorm1012]

The only real problem appears to be intensity....and I bet with better sampling of the atmosphere by Gulfstreams or even unmanned drones even this mystery could come clear to us.

[WxGuy1]

He has nailed numerous tropical storm developments far in advance. This is just information that you cannot get from anywhere else.

Sigh.

Man, I wish they'd teach the basics of how to logically analyze predictions in school.

1) The number of tropical development predictions he's made that have not formed storms greatly exceeds the number that have. Heck, just in June and July 2004 alone he had more failed development predictions than there have been named storms in 2005.

2) For any given week, he will have a standing "watch for tropical development!" prediction made the previous week for every single climatologically favorable area of the Atlantic for that time of the year; hence, it's physically impossible for him not to have predicted any tropical development. For example, in a given June, he'll have a standing "watch the Gulf of Mexico for Tropical Trouble blah blah blah ventilation blah blah blah teleconnection blah blah blah" prediction every single week.

3) The "information you can not get anywhere else" is actually information you can get EVERYWHERE else; JB simply makes it look like it requires his special "pattern recognition" skills.

You can look at all the global models yourself and see the same thing in far less time than it takes to wade through another incoherent JB column. But a lot of people hate computer models and hate the idea that they work and enjoy JB pretending that he goes by his human-based seat-of-the-pants pattern recognition, rather than the reality that he's as big a model-hugger as anyone.

Exactly. I can't stand AccuWeather. Everything they do seems to be in the name of undermining everyone else (particularly gov't agencies such as NWS and NHC), not to mention the debacle that is the Santorum bill. This isn't a slam on private weather agencies, since I certainly feel that there is a place for private meteorological entities (forecasting for energy companies, for example), but the crap that Accuweather does is incredible. Their forecasts aren't always bad, but they are often misleading. A 14-day forecast? Give me a break. Slamming the NHC forecast because the official 5-day forecast missed? Give me a break. Accuweather busts much more often than NHC from my observations, yet they are the first to put out a scathing press release about how much better they are than the NHC in the isolated cases where the Accu forecast verifies better than the NHC forecast. JB is more willing to move his forecasts more liberally based on a 1-run model shift. Since most folks don't keep track of verification, and Accu pounds their chests when one of their forecasts is better than an NHC/NWS forecast, Accu ends in the favorable position of not having to answer to anyone should their forecast fail. When an NHC forecast fails, and people die from that, Congress comes a-knocking. When an Accu forecast fails, nobody cares, thus the reason why they are able to go out on a limb more often.

Ah, now that I got that off my chest... I agree, NHC has nailed this one, just as they nailed Katrina after she emerged into the Gulf. Are they perfect? Heck no. I do think their forecasting practices can provide lessons for others -- such as not shifting forecasts based on single model runs. The've done well in the past, IMO, becuase they have been stubborn to shift the track forecast by much. Sure, this means they miss some forecasts, but this also means that they hit more often IMO.

As far as intensity forecasting is concerned, it's not just a problem of the lack of observations. The fact is that there is a lot we don't understand about the intensity cycle, particularly when it comes to rapid intensity changes. Better numerical models will help, but further research should help us understand some of the details of tropical cyclones that we currently just don't know. It hurts to say, but there is a lot that we don't know what it comes to hurricanes.

[terstorm1012]

Excellent series of posts on this topic.

I think (and this is not a bash) that if Accuweather really wanted to compete with the NHC, they could buy their own Gulfstream, outfit it with meteorological instruments, and do their own recon with their own pilots. As far as I know there's no law that says they can't. They can even base it at State College---the state paid a lot of money to upgrade that airport in recent years. I think that's more constructive then bashing, IMO.

[Derek Ortt]

there is only one private set of forecasts that are publicly available (that I know of) that can quailify as decent... and there sure as heck do not come from State College

[Downdraft]

there is only one private set of forecasts that are publicly available (that I know of) that can quailify as decent... and there sure as heck do not come from State College

Derek, one of the things I admire about you and others on here are that you're not afraid to publish verification data on your own analysis. More than just telling us how good you did it tells YOU how good you have done and gives you a basis to study, learn and do better in the future. From what I see anyone in this business that won't publish verificatons on their own forecasts is not to be taken seriously. Oh, wait a minute that includes AccuWeather doesn't it? They won't publish it will they?

Good job this year Derek if you ever start a company and sell stock I'd buy some!

[Dave R]

Speaking of intensity forecasts...Why didn't the shear weaken Wilma as it was forecast to do...and what about the oceanic heat content? It just seems that there are other factors at play here that we don't even know about. Things such as latent heat given off by condesation may play a larger role than we currently think. And, maybe those strong southwesterly winds (aka shear) ahead of the trough were actually helping Wilma maintain herself as she approached Florida because they were help her ventilate the air riising up from the surface...just some thoughts.

[Recurve]

Wasn't it interesting that during the runup to Wilma's landfall, CNN runs a story about how "some companies use private forecasters so there's no chance of error." The teaser was the most misleading, false advertising of a business partner I've ever heard. They were basically telling people, hey, if you want the kind of accuracy that companies pay for, there's something better than the NHC. I'm pretty sure companies pay for private forecasts of specific things not covered by the NHC. When it comes to hurricanes, no company pays Accuweather or anybody else to get a "better" forecast than the NHC. Stations pay Accuweather for face-time and on-air crap, not "better" forecasts.

CNN better start disclosing what financial arrangements it has with Accuweather or they are going to get in ethical hot water. If they are running "news" stories touting Accuweather, and getting their services in return, that's a gross violation of journalism ethics.

I did meet a nice Accuweather meteorologist while I was evacuated in Orlando. I have nothing against the company or the fact that there are private forecasting firms. But the relentless, misleading attempt to score points at the expense of the NHC is bad.

Oh, and the NHC track forecast for Wilma: Astounding. That track, and the service's track record, convinced me to evacuate. I'd kiss Max Mayfield on the lips if I saw him.