2005 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Reports Discussion Thread

[jazzfan1247]

Everyone is entitled their "personal" opinion

But this doesn't mean that every opinion is equal.

Personally, I think it's disrespectful to disagree without sound reasoning or evidence, especially when the scientists have devoted a lot of time and energy to their work.

I'll explain myself a little further on this. I asked myself: if I were the one involved with the data and research behind this report, and I devoted say 100 hours to this, and I used all the modern knowledge and techniques that I could, and I put all of my graduate and doctorate, etc work to use........what if some civilians came up to me and just said "I disagree. I know there's a lot of evidence pointing to your conclusion, but there is still some doubt, so I just disagree." Would I feel disrespected? Yes, of course I would. I would feel like all the hard work I did, the education I've received...was all for nothing, because some decide to disagree without the proper science to back it up. And I suspect this is what's driving Derek nuts.

Well good luck in your pursuits; but that while making you more qualified in respect to knowledge of meteorology, it will render you no less fallible.

So basically, no matter how much education I get in meteorology, my opinion will still be more or less equal to someone who doesn't have any met education? Maybe I should just quit pursuing the profession right now...I mean what's the point of getting a met degree and doing graduate work if my opinion doesn't garner any more credibility than a mere weather hobbyist's?

What it states is that, for the time being, (and we KNOW those can change--and have) the plurality of what is present supports your position. Again, this does not signify that your position is THE most accurate one--only the one currently most widely accepted--as was the Cat 4 eval given Andrew in '92.

I'll agree with this. It is possible, however, to support one conclusion, but acknowledge there is a range of doubt...and express your willingness to go where the evidence leads you.

Your argument, as far as I can tell, is centered around the presence of some doubt....not on any actual hard scientific data. You could say "there's some doubt" about virtually anything in the world, but this is still not real evidence, and hence is not a good practice of science.

"Reasonable" doubt is really subjective. I'll admit that there is some amount of doubt, exactly how much I don't know. But to have an opinion, you must have real, objective evidence to back it up. You can't just back it up by saying "there's still *some* doubt, so I'll believe what I want to believe"...because that's not real evidence. If that kind of reasoning were applied everywhere else, nothing would get done.

I'll just end this post by saying...it is very possible to accept the findings of NHC, but acknowledge the inevitable presence of some doubt at the same time. Since there is nothing any of us can do about that doubt, though, no conclusions should be drawn from that doubt itself.

[ROCK]

Reasonable doubt?? you did not say that...did you? Oh no, now I have to jump back on the horse

It seems A2k, you and Pearl are the only ones discounting the NHC's report here. This is just a random guess given that fact that this thread is about 10 (against) to 2 (for) a Kat upgrade. I think Bob's point is that though you have reasonable doubt that the NHC screwed up this one, there is overwhelming / preponderance of evidence (since you have picked up on some legalese) that they nailed it.

Yeah sure, nothing is concrete in the world except taxes and death but the jury has spoken. You know this is just like a good court case. I would bring in experts (MET, NHC,), submit all evidence against an upgrade and you would bring in what???? your unbiased opinion based on a mayor in Sidell who wouldnt know a 20mph wind gust vs a 170mph..<non-disrespectful sarcasm>... puhlease....you would lose hands down and then you would have to pay my fee plus court costs.....

But I digress, you and your buddy Pearl (had to throw that in Pearl, sorry) will have an opinion even though it is based on nothing more than what you went through and /or still going through. I do feel for you guys over there but facts are facts...... before you go off on some wild thesaurus driven monologue, of which; I have to pull the dictionary every time I read you posts, remember; maybe just maybe you could be the one wrong here and not the people who do this for a living........

have a wonderful day....

Paul

[Pearl River]

ROCK wrote

Yeah sure, nothing is concrete in the world except taxes and death but the jury has spoken. You know this is just like a good court case. I would bring in experts (MET, NHC,), submit all evidence against an upgrade and you would bring in what???? your unbiased opinion based on a mayor in Sidell who wouldnt know a 20mph winds gust vs a 170mph..<non-disrespectful sarcasm>... puhlease....you would lose hands down and then you would have to pay my fee plus court costs.....

Well lets see. I did not say anything about Katrina being cat 4. Others in this thread and blog are the ones bringing in the cat 4 issue. I stated I disagreed with portions of the report, which I have a right to do.No where did I say that Katrina was a cat 4. I added information from the mayor, who was advised by the NWS about the wind speed. The mayor has not said it once, but several dozen times in the media and the NWS nor anyone else,has not, repeat not, refutted him on it.

My opinion is not based totally on what I went through. It's just so funny that those same people, not you sir, that say the Katrina report is etched in stone, are also the same ones complaining about Wilma not being categorized higher. What are they baseing their opinions on? What they experienced.

I am also going with the stated fact, in the report, the NHC said that cat 4 winds may have briefly touched the La coast before landfall, and yes, I understand briefly. I also understand the coastline of La and depending on the angle of the coastline, landfall could have been minutes away.

So, in reference to your court case, I would bring in MET's that I know who disagree witht he report, also the NWS, who issued the statement the mayor gave. Oh, by the way, experts can't even agree with other experts on scientific evidence. Thats why the prosecution and defense have their own experts in a court case.

jazzfan wrote

So basically, no matter how much education I get in meteorology, my opinion will still be more or less equal to someone who doesn't have any met education? Maybe I should just quit pursuing the profession right now...I mean what's the point of getting a met degree and doing graduate work if my opinion doesn't garner any more credibility than a mere weather hobbyist's?

Actually I do have met education, so I can have an opinion if I so desire.

[ROCK]

Pearl, you don't have to come out and type Kat was a 4. Your opinion that the NHC and 99.9% of all METS are wrong (concerning landfall intensity) is proof enough.

[StormScanWx]

It seems A2k, you and Pearl are the only ones discounting the NHC's report here. This is just a random guess given that fact that this thread is about 10 (against) to 2 (for) a Kat upgrade. I think Bob's point is that though you have reasonable doubt that the NHC screwed up this one, there is overwhelming / preponderance of evidence (since you have picked up on some legalese) that they nailed it.[/quote]

I have to agree with them on this, IMO, I think Katrina should have been a Category 4/5 at landfall, however, I think what the NHC goes, and there was in fact data to back up a Category 3 at landfall.

[StormScanWx]

Switching back to the topic,

Anybody want to take a gander at what the next report out will be?

I'm thinking Emily, Beta, or Rita will be next.

[Pearl River]

ROCK wrote

Pearl, you don't have to come out and type Kat was a 4. Your opinion that the NHC and 99.9% of all METS are wrong (concerning landfall intensity) is proof enough.

You are gonna bash me, but the same METS and others non-METS are disagreeing with the NHC about Wilma. It's ok for them.

I have an issue with the report and thats that. I do have a background in meteorology and I do not have to prove it to you.

[Audrey2Katrina]

But this doesn't mean that every opinion is equal.

Yup, Orwell did teach us that some animals are more equal than others, didn't he?

jazzfan1247 wrote:
Personally, I think it's disrespectful to disagree without sound reasoning or evidence, especially when the scientists have devoted a lot of time and energy to their work.


I'll explain myself a little further on this. I asked myself: if I were the one involved with the data and research behind this report, and I devoted say 100 hours to this, and I used all the modern knowledge and techniques that I could, and I put all of my graduate and doctorate, etc work to use........what if some civilians came up to me and just said "I disagree. I know there's a lot of evidence pointing to your conclusion, but there is still some doubt, so I just disagree." Would I feel disrespected? Yes, of course I would. I would feel like all the hard work I did, the education I've received...was all for nothing, because some decide to disagree without the proper science to back it up. And I suspect this is what's driving Derek nuts.

Selective omission of my rebuttal to that statement; but regardless, your analogy is an incosequential argument. I'll give you only one very obvious example:

........what if some civilians (the very nerve!!!) came up to me and just said "I disagree. I know there's a lot of evidence pointing to your conclusion, but there is still some doubt, so I just disagree.

Red Herring: That's what YOU may perceive as going on; but I am quite certain that it involves just a tad bit more than my simply saying "I just disagree." That there is some doubt--is beyond doubt, that said, I and others have proposed numerous other explanations for our positions which you and others have managed to mischaracterize quite well--propaganda 101.

So basically, no matter how much education I get in meteorology, my opinion will still be more or less equal to someone who doesn't have any met education? Maybe I should just quit pursuing the profession right now...I mean what's the point of getting a met degree and doing graduate work if my opinion doesn't garner any more credibility than a mere weather hobbyist's?

Wow, smacks of a real self-esteem issue here!


I rest my case on the incredible hubris exhibited by some who simply can't stand the voice of dissent with their "expert" opinions handed down from Olympus. Additionally, this is simply transferring from the acceptable to the dubious in your logic. All that I stated was that you would still be fallible, as are we all in whatever profession we pursue. Just ask any of the others who've had their "hundreds of hours of work" later overturned by more careful scrutiny--it happens, people need to learn how to deal with it.

Your argument, as far as I can tell, is centered around the presence of some doubt....not on any actual hard scientific data. You could say "there's some doubt" about virtually anything in the world, but this is still not real evidence, and hence is not a good practice of science.

Actually, it has been centered around a LOT of doubt; but as stated over and over and over again, we're beating a dead horse. Being a "met" student, I'm sure you've heard of the Kaplan-DeMaria inland decay series. For one thing, the findings of this report fly in the face of that product of "hundreds and hundreds" of hours of work by folks with doctorates etc. etc. ad nauseum. Do the findings of the NHC Katrina report "disrespect" those of Kaplan DeMaria? OHH, excuse me, THOSE are other met pros, and THEY are allowed to question each other. Well simply put, I'll lend credence to the data and info I've perused which goes well beyond simple "doubt" (and much has been posted BY meteorologists) and you go with your pro-met colleagues--all good to me.

I'll just end this post by saying...it is very possible to accept the findings of NHC, but acknowledge the inevitable presence of some doubt at the same time. Since there is nothing any of us can do about that doubt, though, no conclusions should be drawn from that doubt itself.

On this point we are in total accord!

Hopefully ending on a happy note:

A2K

[Pearl River]

Storm, I hope it's Emily to see if they upgrade her.

[WindRunner]

Everyone here, on both sides, needs to remember that there will always be some amount of doubt present in these reports. Never will the doubt be completely eliminated, and thus doubt is something we must come to learn to accept in most everything in our lives. The NHC never claims to be perfect or exact; no one can be and no one ever will be. If we continue to argue over imperfections in people and the things they do, well, we'd be here forever. The NHC is going to publish what they think is the most accurate possible analysis of the data they have, and they aren't going to use data they don't have or make interpolations from the data they do have. Why? Because that would put even more doubt into there report, making more and more people want to argue over it. Never will everyone be happy because never will this world be doubt-free. And until it is, people will continue to argue pointlessly over things they can't and never will be able to change.

Just something to think about.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Rock said:
It seems A2k, you and Pearl are the only ones discounting the NHC's report here. This is just a random guess given that fact that this thread is about 10 (against) to 2 (for) a Kat upgrade. I think Bob's point is that though you have reasonable doubt that the NHC screwed up this one, there is overwhelming / preponderance of evidence (since you have picked up on some legalese) that they nailed it.

Actually, we're undoubtedly the most vociferous in HERE; but there have been many others who, while acceeding to the NHC report do "take issue" with its findings, hence there are many more than just two wo do not agree with its findings.
As far as Bob's point, one may claim that "overwhelming/preponderance" of evidence is present, while another on the same jury, may disagree. Right?

Yeah sure, nothing is concrete in the world except taxes and death but the jury has spoken. You know this is just like a good court case. I would bring in experts (MET, NHC,), submit all evidence against an upgrade and you would bring in what???? your unbiased opinion based on a mayor in Sidell who wouldnt know a 20mph wind gust vs a 170mph..<non-disrespectful sarcasm>... puhlease....you would lose hands down and then you would have to pay my fee plus court costs

Ummm, I don't believe anyone is "basing" their opinions on the Mayor of Slidell who may or may not know the difference between a gentle breeze and a gale; it was merely cited (and NOT by me, for the record), that he quoted a NWS report as an aside; but in good court redirect, you've managed to mischaracterise what was said/implied. Incidentally, court cases CAN be appealed, AND overturned. And I feel that given enough time, this one will, so don't be banking all those court costs just yet.

But I digress, you and your buddy Pearl (had to throw that in Pearl, sorry) will have an opinion even though it is based on nothing more than what you went through and /or still going through.

Non-Sequitur (I sincerely hope a law student doesn't need a thesaurus to figure that one out ) If you honestly believe that our opinions are based on "nothing more than what [we] went through" then you have indeed not been properly reviewing all the case data.

maybe just maybe you could be the one wrong here and not the people who do this for a living

I've actually mentioned that on several posts before; equally, maybe, just maybe, the people who do this for a living (some) are the ones who are wrong. Not all "meteorologists" are apologists for this report by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks for the wishes, and same to you, have a good one!

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Point well taken, WR, and something to ponder; but the discussion/debate has been, well, interesting anyway.

A2K

[Pearl River]

Wind, good point. I have always said science is not exact and never will be. Some people believe if it's not on paper or in a book, it couldn't have occurred. I simply don't believe that. Have a good one.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

There are a lot of complex factors that go into these reports. Amazing...and
interesting debate...

[Pearl River]

NHC Katrina Report

It is worth noting that Katrina was likely at Category 4 strength with maximum sustained winds of about 115 kt near 0900 UTC 29 August, a couple of hours before the center made landfall near Buras, LA. Due to the large (~25-30 n mi) radius of maximum winds, it is possible that sustained winds of Category 4 strength briefly impacted the extreme southeastern tip of Louisiana in advance of landfall of the center.

At 4:00 am cdt center of Katrina was 90 miles sse of New Orleans. Buras, LA, landfall, is 70 miles sse of New Orleans, so the eye was approx. 20 miles from the coast. Radius of winds 25-30 n mi. Movement North @ 15 mph. So it appears there could have been a landfall at cat 4.

Also, note the statement" was likely cat 4 strength". Does this mean they did not have an aircraft in there at the time to measure or as the next statementThis estimate is still about 10% greater than the maximum surface winds from the dropwindsondes and SFMR, accounting for the possibility that these instruments did not sample the maximum wind.
did they not measure the strongest surface winds.

Even the NHC had doubts.

[jazzfan1247]

So basically, no matter how much education I get in meteorology, my opinion will still be more or less equal to someone who doesn't have any met education? Maybe I should just quit pursuing the profession right now...I mean what's the point of getting a met degree and doing graduate work if my opinion doesn't garner any more credibility than a mere weather hobbyist's?

...All that I stated was that you would still be fallible, as are we all in whatever profession we pursue. Just ask any of the others who've had their "hundreds of hours of work" later overturned by more careful scrutiny--it happens, people need to learn how to deal with it.

Well, I'll show you what you said:

Well good luck in your pursuits; but that while making you more qualified in respect to knowledge of meteorology, it will render you no less fallible.

How else am I supposed to interpret that?

In any case, I responded in this thread initially because of the usage of the Slidell radar velocity data issue. Can we at least establish that this data was used in both Cindy and Katrina, and in the same manner? I posted numerous times explaining why, so please read carefully before you respond lol

[ROCK]

ROCK wrote

Pearl, you don't have to come out and type Kat was a 4. Your opinion that the NHC and 99.9% of all METS are wrong (concerning landfall intensity) is proof enough.

You are gonna bash me, but the same METS and others non-METS are disagreeing with the NHC about Wilma. It's ok for them.

I have an issue with the report and thats that. I do have a background in meteorology and I do not have to prove it to you.

Psst, Pearl over here.... I wasn't bashing you. The point was that you might not have technically said Kat was a 4 but all your posts point that you believe she was. You have a issue with the report? Would that issue be you think she should be upgraded? If so; then that would make her a 4 thus even though you didn't type it you still believe it to be true.

Furthermore, I never asked you to prove anything. I think its great you have some Met schooling behind you. I don't... So I envy you.....

Peace be with you....

[Pearl River]

Hey Rock...Sorry...

I feel there are discrepencies with the way the report is written. Could be, maybe, might, but nah. It's not straight cut, I guess what I'm trying to say.

Look, I don't give a hoot if it was a depression. Lots of lives were lost and several hundred thousand are still without homes, my father included. If she was a cat 3, then say it without all the maybe, possibilty, but no, thrown into the equation.

Have a good one

[Audrey2Katrina]

...All that I stated was that you would still be fallible, as are we all in whatever profession we pursue. Just ask any of the others who've had their "hundreds of hours of work" later overturned by more careful scrutiny--it happens, people need to learn how to deal with it.


Well, I'll show you what you said:

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
Well good luck in your pursuits; but that while making you more qualified in respect to knowledge of meteorology, it will render you no less fallible.

Hmmm... seems like that's exactly what I said I'd stated

How else am I supposed to interpret that?

However you wish; but I feel that I've explained my point lucidly. I certainly only meant to wish you well in your endeavor, and added that its achievement would not render you, or anyone else for that matter, any less fallible.

In any case, I responded in this thread initially because of the usage of the Slidell radar velocity data issue. Can we at least establish that this data was used in both Cindy and Katrina, and in the same manner? I posted numerous times explaining why, so please read carefully before you respond

In the interest of peace and amity, yes, we can establish the data was used in both. albeit used differently.. ROFL sorry I couldn't resist.

Have a good day

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I know, I know... used "differently" is a semantic argument that I mentioned merely tongue-in-cheek. Interpolation of all data for all storms will be different, just to set the record straight.

A2K