NHC running several test invests in 2007? Let's clear it up

[miamicanes177]

This is the thread to clear this up once and for all. Several members have suggested that a few invests this season have simply been "tests". They suggest the NHC was designating a system as "invest ##L" in order to either "break in the new guys" or "test new equipment". So, let's get to the bottom of this. I don't have the answers, but I do have questions. Does the NHC inform the public if they are simply running a test? I would think they would let people know so as not to mislead anyone. Why would they want to be so secretive about it? For those who say invests are not intended for the public, I say this is 2007. If it's on the internet and it doesn't require a password, it's public. Rather than having a whole lot of people wondering if it's a test or not they should come right out and inform everyone. The TWO mentions possible development for 98L, and I'm curious as to why they would hint at development for an invest that is only a "test". My belief as of right now is that 98L and the other invests this year were the read deal. I don't believe they were tests. I could be wrong. However, I've not heard of any credible evidence from the crowd who propose 98L and others this year were only tests.

I'm interested to see what cycloneye has to say because I did some digging and found an interesting post from him dated June 8, 2006:

If the members remember,there haved been two invests,90L for an area in the South Atlantic in March and 91L which was a test invest in April.So I guess that they decided to go to the 90L again and eliminated those two from the record.

I wanted to create a new thread for this topic so that in the future we don't have to have 5 pages of arguing whether or not it is a test invest. Let's settle it all right here.

[RL3AO]

I don't think 98L was a test.

[Cyclone1]

I highly, highly doubt we've seen any tests this year. Just because it dies before reaching depression strength, doesn't simply make it a test. A test is kind of a lame excuse for the non-development of an invest, IMO.

[Cyclone1]

Ehh, I heard that 95L may have been used to practice recon, though....

[Stratosphere747]

I can assure you that 57' is not the only respected met that has mused about the possibility of some of the invests being what could be considered "tests".

Not sure why it bothers folks so much anyways.....

[Cyclone1]

I can assure you that 57' is not the only respected met that has mused about the possibility of some of the invests being what could be considered "tests".

Not sure why it bothers folks so much anyways.....

What bugs me is it can be used as a lame scapegoat. "98L didn't form because it was only a test." But I'll keep my mouth shut, it's a useless argument.

[Weatherfreak14]

I can assure you that 57' is not the only respected met that has mused about the possibility of some of the invests being what could be considered "tests".

Not sure why it bothers folks so much anyways.....

What bugs me is it can be used as a lame scapegoat. "98L didn't form because it was only a test." But I'll keep my mouth shut, it's a useless argument.

Haha, this is one of the most stupid debates this forum has seen in a while, I mean if it was a test Invest it would not be on a real system and it wouldnt be on the TWO. and from what i saw from when it was named 98L it had the right to be a Invest for sure, and just because it isnt now does not mean its a test, not to be mean, but people who think its a test and still thinks is a tense is a little *dense* or needs to read the reply posts better.

[miamicanes177]

I can assure you that 57' is not the only respected met that has mused about the possibility of some of the invests being what could be considered "tests".

Not sure why it bothers folks so much anyways.....

The only thing that bothers me is not having facts. I don't want to have to guess if an invest is a test every time we have one. If we're having a bunch of tests and not being told so from the NHC then that is unfortunate. It's not about a mets respectability. I think it would benefit the board to know how to identify a test from the real thing.

[Cyclone1]

I agree, let's never say the word test again. I'm not being sarcastic. It's a pointless argument.

[wxmann_91]

Right, this is a pointless argument. The public knows nothing about invests. So let's not censor the word "test". If someone thinks it is, let them share their opinion.

[Stratosphere747]

I can assure you that 57' is not the only respected met that has mused about the possibility of some of the invests being what could be considered "tests".

Not sure why it bothers folks so much anyways.....

What bugs me is it can be used as a lame scapegoat. "98L didn't form because it was only a test." But I'll keep my mouth shut, it's a useless argument.

Haha, this is one of the most stupid debates this forum has seen in a while, I mean if it was a test Invest it would not be on a real system and it wouldnt be on the TWO. and from what i saw from when it was named 98L it had the right to be a Invest for sure, and just because it isnt now does not mean its a test, not to be mean, but people who think its a test and still thinks is a tense is a little *dense* or needs to read the reply posts better.

Not sure if you are directing your comments as being *dense* in my direction....

If so, maybe understanding the definition of "mused" and "possibility" would help you and others that seem to find this topic "stupid."

[Chris_in_Tampa]

Invests that have the number 90 to 99L are NOT tests. Proof:

ftp://ftp.tpc.ncep.noaa.gov/atcf/README

Regarding storm numbers....

01 - 30
"numbered storms with forecasts issued and numbers are *not* recycled until the next season."

90 - 99
"Invest, areas of interest watched by forecasters for possible development and these numbers are re-used periodically throughout the season"

80 - 89
"Internal training storm numbers which are to always be ignored"

I would also note that there can be more than 30. (2005)

Invest 87L:
ftp://ftp.tpc.ncep.noaa.gov/atcf/tcweb/ ... 007.invest

This was a test and was run on July 22-23. Those are tests.

Compare that test file to the latest real invest:
ftp://ftp.tpc.ncep.noaa.gov/atcf/tcweb/ ... 007.invest

Notice how 87L has "TEST" right in the file.

[philnyc]

I can assure you that 57' is not the only respected met that has mused about the possibility of some of the invests being what could be considered "tests".

Not sure why it bothers folks so much anyways.....

It bothers me because I'm trying to learn on these boards. I need to know what official policy is and what we are really looking at. If I never know whether I'm looking at a "fake" interest in a disturbed area or a real one, why would I ever take an invest seriously? At that point I would have to look at all invests as made-up for testing purposes, or all as real. It's pure science to speculate, but it's pure hooey for an official agency to present soemthing and say "try to guess whether we're serious or not"! I don't think it's very scientific to leave us guessing. And all of these 80 series or 90 series discssions are not clarifying anything for me right now. Could one of the people who really know for 100% sure settle this?

i.e. Where is the official documentation on an official site that we can link to on the internet?

[wxmann_91]

I think test in the context that wxman57 uses is referring to globs of convection that are clearly do not have much chance to develop, but warrant enough of an opportunity for testing of equipment, models, etc, and seeing if they are working correctly.

[philnyc]

I can assure you that 57' is not the only respected met that has mused about the possibility of some of the invests being what could be considered "tests".

Not sure why it bothers folks so much anyways.....

It bothers me because I'm trying to learn on these boards. I need to know what official policy is and what we are really looking at. If I never know whether I'm looking at a "fake" interest in a disturbed area or a real one, why would I ever take an invest seriously? At that point I would have to look at all invests as made-up for testing purposes, or all as real. It's pure science to speculate, but it's pure hooey for an official agency to present soemthing and say "try to guess whether we're serious or not"! I don't think it's very scientific to leave us guessing. And all of these 80 series or 90 series discssions are not clarifying anything for me right now. Could one of the people who really know for 100% sure settle this?

i.e. Where is the official documentation on an official site that we can link to on the internet?

OK, at least we got that TPC doc above from Chris in Tampa. So if we see an 80-89 number we should ignore it. God, can't they do their test in private like everybody else?

[Chris_in_Tampa]

I'll try to explain it better.

The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Monterey, whose tropical site most are familiar with:

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/tc_home.html

Developed a system called the Automated Tropical Cyclone Forecasting System (ATCF). Make sure you read about that here:

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/atcf_web/

The National Hurricane Center (NHC) uses that software to handle storms. Up until this year, the database was available on the NHC's own site here:

ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/atcf/

This confirms that:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurrdatasession/NHC.pdf

(No longer available on NHC site.)

Starting this year the ATCF database was moved to a faster NOAA FTP server. (NOAA, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, is the parent agency of the NHC)

From this file on NOAA's site:
ftp://ftp.tpc.ncep.noaa.gov/atcf/NOTICE

You see this message:

Posted as of Feb 28, 2007
-------------------------
FTP Access to ATCF data is now available from NCEP high-speed/high availablity public
ftp servers. This will provide public users with more reliable and faster access.
The new Anonymous ftp service for ATCF data is now available at "ftp.tpc.ncep.noaa.gov/atcf"

FTP ATCF access from the NHC anonymous ftp servers will be discontinued on June 1, 2007.
This means that ATCF data will no longer be available from "ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/atcf"

I'm not sure how to prove it is an official source, only to say that it is on NOAA's servers.

If you look at the file that talks about the numbers 80-89, you see that those are tests and that 90-99 is reserved for actual invests. If anyone ever says that 90-99 is used for some tests, they are either kidding because the invest is poorly defined and they are saying it should have never been declared or they honestly do not know how it actually works.

Perhaps those who say invests from 90-99 are tests should quit joking. This should not be a confusing issue.

[Chris_in_Tampa]

So if we see an 80-89 number we should ignore it. God, can't they do their test in private like everybody else?

They do all their testing privately. You will never see this appear on any site. I have my own software systems that use the ATCF database and all that testing data is filtered out. Every site does that. You will NEVER see an invest numbered 80-89 on any site.

They should be, as the ATCF README file states, always be ignored. I know of no site that ever talks about test invests. I seriously doubt they have ever been mentioned on this site as being real.

[fci]

While there are no real systems to follow this is as good a topic as any to raise.

However, there seems to be just too much "serious" interest in a topic that, in my opinion; is not important.

Someone, preferably the author of the thread; please explain what difference this all REALLY makes? Please skip the "this is the Internet" so everyone knows about the Invest.

Who is REALLY being misled?
Weather enthusiasts like ourselves who follow every system with keen interest?
Big deal.

I look at an invest as an area that is of interest.
Most will never amount to anything so who cares?

Do you prefer simply, the phrase "an area of disturbed weather"?
No Invests at all?

One last thing to the author of this thread:
Do you see conspiracy in everything?
On another thread you accused Dr. Jeff Masters of editing his posts in a devious way. I did not see a response when I called you on it in that thread: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=96404&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=260

Now it is the NHC for its handling of Invests?

Personally, I wish we would talk about the Tropical Systems and leave conspiracy theories to Oliver Stone and others!!

[Cyclone1]

Besides... 98L is actually looking pretty good recently...

[philnyc]

So if we see an 80-89 number we should ignore it. God, can't they do their test in private like everybody else?

They do all their testing privately. You will never see this appear on any site. I have my own software systems that use the ATCF database and all that testing data is filtered out. Every site does that. You will NEVER see an invest numbered 80-89 on any site.

They should be, as the ATCF README file states, always be ignored. I know of no site that ever talks about test invests. I seriously doubt they have ever been mentioned on this site as being real.

Thanks for explaining that Chris. Unless anybody wants to dispute it, that seems fine with me. So a 90-99 number is never a test. That's all I wanted to know. OK. Thanks for clearing that up.