TAFB now analyzing 1012 MB low!

mobilebay · #1 Postby **mobilebay** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:21 am

The NHC forecasters are saying there is surface low with 99L.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MI ... 0202.shtml

While TAFB does not seem to be very impressed with this system. In fact they have not even analyzed a low in the area. Also the 0205 Am discussion is less than bullish.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MI ... 0557.shtml?
What gives?

Edit- Changed title as TAFB is now in agreement..
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb_latest/TSA_latestBW.gif

Matt-hurricanewatcher · #2 Postby **Matt-hurricanewatcher** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:23 am

I would trust the nhc forecasters.

mobilebay · #3 Postby **mobilebay** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:24 am

Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote:I would trust the nhc forecasters.

We are in total agreement!

mobilebay · #4 Postby **mobilebay** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:37 am

Also, they analyzed the wave along 30W. What? Thats 5 degrees east of the convection. On this nightime Visible you can clearly see low cloud elements rushing in under the convection along 35-36W. They misplaced a wave earlier today and I think they have done it again. JMHO
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/flt/t1/loop-ir2.html

Thunder44 · #5 Postby **Thunder44** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:56 am

TPC and TAFB are both branches of the NHC. TPC forecasters are responsible for classifying tropical cylcones when they exist and issuing advisories on them. TAFB is more responsible for doing a more general surface analysis of the atlantic basin and issue forecasts.

#6 Postby **cycloneye** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:39 am

The question is why there is a difference,one branch saying there is surface low and the other not mentioning any low.Maybe the resident pro mets of storm2k can help to clarify this.

#7 Postby **bvigal** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:47 am

I have posted a couple of examples in the 99L thread illustrating this, so I won't repost them here. But I'd sure like to hear an expert opinion. We depend heavily on TAFB products out here in the islands, and they are a terrific tool with high credibility.

Derek Ortt · #8 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:59 am

It depends upon who the individual forecasters on duty are. Not all forecasters will agree with each other

#9 Postby **Air Force Met** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:06 am

Derek Ortt wrote:It depends upon who the individual forecasters on duty are. Not all forecasters will agree with each other

You're wrong....

#10 Postby **Air Force Met** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:06 am

Air Force Met wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote:It depends upon who the individual forecasters on duty are. Not all forecasters will agree with each other

You're wrong....

Cyclenall · #11 Postby **Cyclenall** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:18 am

Derek Ortt wrote:It depends upon who the individual forecasters on duty are. Not all forecasters will agree with each other

Are you sure about that? If they didn't agree with each other, we would have major problems. I doubt they disagree.

You're wrong....

#12 Postby **Air Force Met** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:28 am

Cyclenall wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote:It depends upon who the individual forecasters on duty are. Not all forecasters will agree with each other

Are you sure about that? If they didn't agree with each other, we would have major problems. I doubt they disagree.

You're wrong....

Heck...forecasters disagree all the time. You should see the battles in our office when we are deciding whether or not to issue a warning on something and it is not cut and dried.

Usually you present a unified front...but the in-house battles can be very vocal...so it is a fact that seasoned...veteran foercasters disagree.

It happens all the time...epsecially when there isn't a real answer.

Cyclenall · #13 Postby **Cyclenall** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:36 am

Air Force Met wrote:Heck...forecasters disagree all the time. You should see the battles in our office when we are deciding whether or not to issue a warning on something and it is not cut and dried.

Usually you present a unified front...but the in-house battles can be very vocal...so it is a fact that seasoned...veteran foercasters disagree.

It happens all the time...epsecially when there isn't a real answer.

Ok I get it. That one post you made was a joke. If forecasters disagree at the NHC, then what do they do to solve the issue?

Extremeweatherguy · #14 Postby **Extremeweatherguy** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:36 am

Air Force Met wrote:
Cyclenall wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote:It depends upon who the individual forecasters on duty are. Not all forecasters will agree with each other

Are you sure about that? If they didn't agree with each other, we would have major problems. I doubt they disagree.

You're wrong....

Heck...forecasters disagree all the time. You should see the battles in our office when we are deciding whether or not to issue a warning on something and it is not cut and dried.

Usually you present a unified front...but the in-house battles can be very vocal...so it is a fact that seasoned...veteran foercasters disagree.

It happens all the time...epsecially when there isn't a real answer.

lol. No wonder I got a huge thank you via email went I sent a large hail report into the NWS. They said I had verified their warning for them. I also probably ended a debate. :lol:

#15 Postby **windycity** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:48 am

All you pro mets are like Doctors, who challenge each other,which is a good thing. :wink:

#16 Postby **bvigal** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:50 am

Air Force Met wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote:It depends upon who the individual forecasters on duty are. Not all forecasters will agree with each other

You're wrong....

:hehe:

mobilebay · #17 Postby **mobilebay** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:20 pm

Thanks for all the replies. TAFB is now analyzing a 1012 MB low as of 00Z.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb_latest/TSA_latestBW.gif

TAFB now analyzing 1012 MB low!

TAFB now analyzing 1012 MB low!

Who is online