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

[philnyc]

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!!

C'mon, FCI. This discussion made perfect sense to me. Guys like you who have been on these boards for a while may have understood this, but I never knew that any invest labeled from 90-99 is NOT NOT NOT a test. I REALLY don't want to have to guess whether the hurricane center considers an area suspect or not. Any more than I'd want to have to GUESS whether a recon flight really went into a hurricane or not!!! It's either true or it isn't. And now we know that ANY INVEST WITH A NUMBER FROM 90 to 99 IS NOT a TEST. YAY! I don't have to guess.

[SkeetoBite]

As mentioned in other threads, the NHC does not use the 90 series numbers for tests. Only 80 series numbers are for tests. Some of the tests are run for all the models, some are not. For the past several years, I think we've only seen a handful (less than 10) test runs.

These are the two tests we've received data on so far this year. I'm not sure if tests run sequentially like Invests.

[philnyc]

As mentioned in other threads, the NHC does not use the 90 series numbers for tests. Only 80 series numbers are for tests. Some of the tests are run for all the models, some are not. For the past several years, I think we've only seen a handful (less than 10) test runs.

These are the two tests we've received data on so far this year. I'm not sure if tests run sequentially like Invests.

Thanks, SkeetoBite. Science is in a way, a "guessing game", but it's definitely not supposed to be "guess if my report is a test run or a fact".

[Chris_in_Tampa]

It appears the test invests (80-89) are not sequential:

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

They are out of chronological order and missing some numbers. It would have made sense to have them sequential, but I suppose that part of the system is throughly tested. I suppose the focus is on other facets, like the models.

[Stratosphere747]

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.

IMO that is what 57 and others are trying to convey. It seems that some believe an accusation is being made that the NHC is "making up" these systems out of thin air. When they could be using certain systems as an opportunity to "test" out their own equipment and models. While a very plausible idea, it's only that, an idea/opinion.

[Normandy]

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.

People who think this are dense? Hahahaha you must be crazy. See im going to be nice and not belittle you for "various" reasons....ill just respond with why wxman57 and myself and many other respected mets (people who know MUCH more about weather than any of you) might have thought these invests were test runs.

1. The systems they chose (like 98L) were, to be honest and frank, jokes. They never had a shot at developing, and they didnt and wont develop. Heck, 98L is a frontal boundary....at BEST a extratropical entity....totally non-warm core and it does not exhibit tropical characteristics.

2. It makes SENSE! If they are just installing new software and they need to make sure it works, why not use disturbances to test their software? If they develop, they develop. But the chances for an invest like 98L to develop was like 0.1%, and the NHC knew it.

3. It keeps their minds of this debacle that they just went through perhaps? The season has been quiet after barry and andrea, and the proenza thing was a huge distraction....perhaps these invests were just a means of "getting it going again" before a SERIOUS threat developed.


Calling it a copout for not developing? Excuse me? What respectable pro met ever claimed that 98L would develop? Don't point out a S2K regular, show me a met (the people with their names in blue). Why would any of us make up something as a copout for something that didn't develop when noone ever CALLED for it to develop? Saying that wxman57 used this as an excuse is plain ridiculous.

Saying they were real invests because they had model support?............and? The wave in the gulf earlier this week had model support....what did it do? Did they make that an invest just because it had model support? No.

You guys are getting testy for a stupid, stupid reason. Can we truly prove that 98L was a test invest? No. Can you prove it wasn't? No. So please, move on. You guys are reading WAY WAY WAY to much into what people like wxman57 are saying....and questioning a pros credibility and making a topic purely to stand him up is pretty stupid....especially considering you guys are amatuers and he is a pro...His speculation as to the NHC's reasoning is legitimate, much moreso than this topic.

[philnyc]

"ill just respond with why wxman57 and myself and many other respected mets (people who know MUCH more about weather than any of you) might have thought these invests were test runs."

Whoa! That's outrageous. Who are you to tell me and anybody else out here that you and others know MUCH more about meteorology than we do? I think that's outrageous behavior. Where did you get that ego from? There may be a lot of us out here who MIGHT not know as much as you, but if you come at us with an attitude like that, who would want to learn anything from you? I specifically said I didn't want to be involved in a "hornet's nest" but really didn't know about "test invests". Sorry I'm not at your level.

I came on these boards to learn, and hopefully to teach others, not to be insulted by somebody who has some kind of "better" credentials that I have no way of checking.
BTW, I am a Penn State meteorology graduate and have been following weather and especially hurricanes for 30 years. My teachers happen to think I was a quality student.

[Normandy]

"ill just respond with why wxman57 and myself and many other respected mets (people who know MUCH more about weather than any of you) might have thought these invests were test runs."

Whoa! That's outrageous. Who are you to tell me and anybody else out here that you and others know MUCH more about meteorology than we do? I think that's outrageous behavior. Where did you get that ego from? There may be a lot of us out here who MIGHT not know as much as you, but if you come at us with an attitude like that, who would want to learn anything from you? I specifically said I didn't want to be involved in a "hornet's nest" but really didn't know about "test invests". Sorry I'm not at your level.

I came on these boards to learn, and hopefully to teach others, not to be insulted by somebody who has some kind of "better" credentials that I have no way of checking.
BTW, I am a Penn State meteorology graduate and have been following weather and especially hurricanes for 30 years. My teachers happen to think I was a quality student.

LOL i didn't mean to imply that I know more about weather then most people here (i was reffering the mets), but rest assured that many people who are making these claims (like people who call us stupid and dense) their knowledge of weather doesn't hold a candle to a professional mets knowledge of the weather....sorry for the misunderstanding.

And really my posts isn't necesarilly directed at you (notice i didnt quote you or say your name)...but the people who label us believers of the NHC running test invests as "dense" and "stupid"

[Normandy]

Philnyc, for posts that I was referring to with my statements, its ones like these:

"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."

"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."

[philnyc]

"ill just respond with why wxman57 and myself and many other respected mets (people who know MUCH more about weather than any of you) might have thought these invests were test runs."

Whoa! That's outrageous. Who are you to tell me and anybody else out here that you and others know MUCH more about meteorology than we do? I think that's outrageous behavior. Where did you get that ego from? There may be a lot of us out here who MIGHT not know as much as you, but if you come at us with an attitude like that, who would want to learn anything from you? I specifically said I didn't want to be involved in a "hornet's nest" but really didn't know about "test invests". Sorry I'm not at your level.

I came on these boards to learn, and hopefully to teach others, not to be insulted by somebody who has some kind of "better" credentials that I have no way of checking.
BTW, I am a Penn State meteorology graduate and have been following weather and especially hurricanes for 30 years. My teachers happen to think I was a quality student.

LOL i didn't mean to imply that I know more about weather then most people here (i was reffering the mets), but rest assured that many people who are making these claims (like people who call us stupid and dense) their knowledge of weather doesn't hold a candle to a professional mets knowledge of the weather....sorry for the misunderstanding.

And really my posts isn't necesarilly directed at you (notice i didnt quote you or say your name)...but the people who label us believers of the NHC running test invests as "dense" and "stupid"

Well then let's start over. I thought we had cleared this all up, and established that:

1. 80-89 sequence numbers are for tests, and they are not released to the public.
2. Any Invest with a 90-99 number is NOT A TEST INVEST.

That's all we need to know. They are rules. There's no guessing.

P.S. I just read your last post, and agree that no one should call anyone else in here stupid or dense or even imply it. That's not fair and it doesn't belong in here.

[Chris_in_Tampa]

ill just respond with why wxman57 and myself and many other respected mets (people who know MUCH more about weather than any of you) might have thought these invests were test runs.

That statement was confusing. It sounded like you were saying you were a meteorologist.

----------------------

I'm sure that there are many meteorologists out there that don't know that invests 80-89 are for testing purposes. There are some things that some people here, who may know very little about the weather, probably know that professional meteorologists do not. That should not be taken in any way as an insult, only to point out that you never stop learning, no matter what field you are in. Why should a meteorologist know about internal testing the NHC does regarding invests? If they are not involved with the NHC in some way, I don't see that as something many meteorologists would know.

I know very little about the weather, but I am absolutely confident that the NHC would not release a test invest with a number between 90-99. Can you imagine what it would be like if meteorologists had to guess whether an invest was a test? I've seen mainstream print media mention invests (90-99) by their number.

The wording from the NHC indicated it had a chance to develop. It still says it might have a chance in the next few days to develop. (and may not be tropical) Please do not confuse people into thinking we are talking about something that is already done with. Or if you want to do that, add a disclaimer and try to form your argument better.

The Navy thought it had a chance to develop. (Although their wording was rather strong in my opinion, but I am not an expert, that is my opinion)

The NHC scheduled a recon flight for 98L. Yes, it was canceled, but they would not schedule recon because it was a test.

Once an area meets certain conditions, it becomes an invest. I don't know all the reasoning behind it, but I believe, but cannot prove, that they would not hold back making something an invest just because they thought it might not develop further. If something meets certain conditions at a specific moment in time, it may be true at that specific moment, but not so hours later.

In my opinion, your statement which includes the following percentage, "0.1%," should be supported by facts. Anytime someone states a percentage, it should be backed up with facts. (but even then, must be handled cautiously.)

From July 28 18Z until July 29 06Z, the computer estimated genesis probabilities:

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/genesis.html

Were between 0.7 and 1%.

They still can be seen in the Java loop here:
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/gp ... _loop.html

But of course that product has so many flaws. But still, it is at least supporting evidence.

----------------------

And now point by point...

1.

The systems they chose (like 98L) were, to be honest and frank, jokes. They never had a shot at developing, and they didnt and wont develop. Heck, 98L is a frontal boundary....at BEST a extratropical entity....totally non-warm core and it does not exhibit tropical characteristics.

If any such statements should ever have a disclaimer, it should be ones like these. I won't go into the first part but to simply say this: The NHC says it could still form in the next few days. (it might be sub tropical) You can discuss the accuracy of whether something should have been an invest or not and if this will or will not develop, but this is too far. (you're mad, I get it, but people are reading this and should not be confused)

Emphasis on:

Heck, 98L is a frontal boundary....at BEST a extratropical entity....totally non-warm core and it does not exhibit tropical characteristics.

This is your opinion and you are entitled to make it. This should be a basis for why you think 98L should not have been delcared an invest and why you think it will not develop. Develop that point more and leave out some of the rest. (or add a disclaimer, but even then, you are still confusing people)

2.

just installing new software and they need to make sure it works

They have the numbers 80-89.

3.

perhaps these invests were just a means of "getting it going again"

They have numbers for testing.

----------------------

The NHC does run test invests, but only with the numbers 80-89.

90-99 are always real. You can disagree about whether something should have received a number, but when it comes down to it, they are not making things up and they are not simply testing the system. This point should be abundantly clear to people. You can debate certain aspects, but this point is important to be clarified.

If you want absolute clarification, contact the NHC ATCF coordinator:
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/atcf_web/doc ... Sites.html

Who is listed here as working for the NHC:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutstaff.shtml

----------------------

However, to finally close this argument, I provide definitive evidence from the National Hurricane Operations Plan:
http://www.ofcm.gov/nhop/07/nhop07.htm

Numbers 80 through 89 are reserved for training, exercises and testing.

Numbers 90 through 99 are reserved for tropical disturbances which have the potential to become tropical or subtropical cyclones. Although not required, the 90’s should be assigned sequentially and reused throughout the calendar year.

(from section 4.3.3)

I believe any future posts that seriously claim that invests numbered 90-99 can also be tests should be removed. It only serves to confuse people.

Continue with opinions on why you think it should not be an invest and will not develop, but there is no purpose to pushing the argument that they can be tests.

----------------------

I want to add that the reason I am being a bit harsh is that people come here to learn. Lets try to make sure they do not get confused.

[Normandy]

Look this is ridiculous. You guys are getting offended and testy for NO REASON. When wxman57 and others said these were test invests, we did not mean this literally (Or at least I didnt). Refer to this post:

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.

This is what we meant. Perhaps we should have worded it better, sure? But nonetheless, this nonsense needs to stop and people really should stop being so uptight. Its annoying.

[Chris_in_Tampa]

I still disagree. It implies that the NHC might be running model data and tracking an area for technical purposes rather than based upon meeting the requirements of becoming an invest. Using the word "test" has a negative connotation, whether intended or not, that might make people think that that the invest, in comparison with other invests, would not normally meet the requirements to hold that status if it had not been a test conducted by the NHC. Suggesting that in any manner simply confuses people. If people want to make a joke about it, it needs to be clear that it is a joke so it does not confuse people.

I'm going to quote the following from the message found here:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=96404&p=1576732&hilit=#p1576732

Aren't test systems numbered from 80 to 89?

FWIW, test invests on actual weather systems will still get a 90-series number. Completely fake systems, such as fake hurricanes that are "developed" for evacuation preparedness, etc. will receive an 80-series number.

That's the point I was trying to make. Using fake storms "80" series as tests won't fully test a system for readiness. The NHC would probably want to find a semi-interesting system that poses no threat to land to run through its procedures with real "90" series headers. I suspect that's what they were doing with this invest. Yeah, it had a small (very small) chance at development, so the test was somewhat realistic. I've been receiving quite a few test messages in my email (from the NHC's new system which was installed June 4-5) over the past week. If I were them, I'd want to do a few run-throughs on an actual disturbance with the proper headers to make sure there were no bugs when the public may really be threatened. We do that all the time. I've been testing software upgrades daily since March. What's the harm? Invests aren't broadcast to the public. The only "harm" is in over-inflating some of your hopes that this system really had a significant shot at developing. Don't take it out on me if I've deflated your hopes. I've always said that when I see a system with a real shot at developing that I'd yell it from the highest mountain. 98L isn't the system. So if they're using 98L to fully prepare for the season, great! Good for the NHC. Better discover the bugs now than when a Cat 3 is heading at Florida.

What I am trying to say is that 98L was an invest. The NHC would not say that we need to run a test so even though this area does not technically meet the requirements to become an invest, we will make it one anyways. Where is the proof that says they would do that? I quote NHOP once again:

Numbers 90 through 99 are reserved for tropical disturbances which have the potential to become tropical or subtropical cyclones. Although not required, the 90’s should be assigned sequentially and reused throughout the calendar year.

The NHC can test their systems using the 80 series. Invests are sometimes discussed by the media. I'm not just talking about disturbed areas in the ATWO that happen to be invests. I have heard actual invest numbers mentioned, so the public does get this information, not just people following tropical weather closely. They can't test things publicly using the 90 series. 98L could have posed a threat to Bermuda. The Navy was warning about the chance of a significant cyclone developing. If the 90 series was used for testing, this purported fact would be very well published, but it is not.

And these tests were not done on hurricanes...

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

87L was not even a tropical depression in the test.

I have to respectfully disagree with the meteorologist on this issue. If they have bugs to get out, they can do it with the 80 series. When the first real invest happens of the season, a 90 series, they can work out any bugs they have if there are any, but it is doubtful they would have any. You can test things internally in an environment that mimics the real online server. These are not amateurs. I'm not saying that something can't go wrong, but they could rely on a working backup system if something happened to the operational system. There is nothing in the quote above of the two meteorologists that indicates to me that they know for sure that the NHC runs test invests on 90 series. Everything contradicts that.

98L met the qualifications to become an invest and remains an invest:
ftp://ftp.tpc.ncep.noaa.gov/atcf/tcweb/ ... 007.invest

Unless someone can provide documented proof, 90 series invests are always areas that meet the qualifications of becoming an invest.

[senorpepr]

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.

That's really not true. A 90-series invest CAN be a test. See, there's a difference between an 80-series test and a 90-series test. 80-series are fake systems for testing purposes (sometimes training). 90-series are true systems, but can also be used for testing models than really investigating a potential cyclone.

For instance, they (fill in that blank) want to test a new model. An area of convection poses a slim chance for development. Meteorologically, it's not expected, but they assign it a 90-series invest number to run models on it. The forecasters are pretty certain the invest won't form, but they still want to go through all the motions.

Now, I'm not saying (nor have I recently said) that any system this year was a test system. I haven't been following everything close enough to venture a guess. However, as a meteorologist, these things (90-series test invests) DO happen. Not often, but occasionally on systems that pose limited threat for development.

[Hyperstorm]

You guys are thinking too much about this.

The answer:

Ask the NHC directly.

[miamicanes177]

That's really not true. A 90-series invest CAN be a test. See, there's a difference between an 80-series test and a 90-series test. 80-series are fake systems for testing purposes (sometimes training). 90-series are true systems, but can also be used for testing models than really investigating a potential cyclone.

For instance, they (fill in that blank) want to test a new model. An area of convection poses a slim chance for development. Meteorologically, it's not expected, but they assign it a 90-series invest number to run models on it. The forecasters are pretty certain the invest won't form, but they still want to go through all the motions.

Now, I'm not saying (nor have I recently said) that any system this year was a test system. I haven't been following everything close enough to venture a guess. However, as a meteorologist, these things (90-series test invests) DO happen. Not often, but occasionally on systems that pose limited threat for development.

Ok, so how do know then if the 90 series invest is a test or the real thing? If an area poses a slim chance of development and NHC wants to watch it more closely, they will call it an invest. To become an invest an area does not need to have the potential to become Katrina. It's seems like your trying to compromise and call it test when a 90 series invest is designated as such when it clearly has a remote possibility of development. I think that is reading too much into the minds of the forecasters without any direct first hand knowledge or proof to back it up. If you have a link to a website with this information then I would like to see it. You could be right because Cyclone seems to have said something similar to this in my first post quote. I'm hoping he will reply and let us know how he found out that invest he referred to was a test.

[Chris_in_Tampa]

I understand that 80 series are fake systems and that 90 series are real systems. But they run models on 80 series as well:
ftp://ftp.tpc.ncep.noaa.gov/atcf/aid_public

Are you saying that an area that would not normally be considered an invest would be given a number for testing purposes? I just don't see how the NHC could do something like that. How could the NHC explain upgrading disturbed weather to an invest for testing purposes?

Why do you think all testing can't be performed using just the 80 series invest numbers? Or that testing cannot take place with real invests, invests that were upgraded based upon the requirements necessary to become an invest. You can do testing on a live system if you have a backup ready to be put in place at any time.

I am also wondering if you know for a fact that the NHC has in the past upgraded an area to an invest for testing purposes, meaning that if a test was not needed, the invest would not have been declared at the time it was, if at all. Any information online?

I've sent an email to the ATCF coordinator at the National Hurricane Center. Hopefully I will get an official answer from them.

[miamicanes177]

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.

The difference is that I and others would like to know how to distinguish in the future a test from the real thing. It shouldn't be something that we have to guess on. I'm pretty sure the NHC would not make it this difficult so there must be a simple answer. Encouragingly, we are getting closer. Right now it appears the 80 series #'s are test. I've not seen any legitimate facts from anyone else as to why a 90 series # can be a test.

[senorpepr]

Why do you think all testing can't be performed using just the 80 series invest numbers? Or that testing cannot take place with real invests, invests that were upgraded based upon the requirements necessary to become an invest. You can do testing on a live system if you have a backup ready to be put in place at any time.

I am also wondering if you know for a fact that the NHC has in the past upgraded an area to an invest for testing purposes, meaning that if a test was not needed, the invest would not have been declared at the time it was, if at all. Any information online?

I've sent an email to the ATCF coordinator at the National Hurricane Center. Hopefully I will get an official answer from them.

I've never said that a storm would be "upgraded" only for testing purposes.

I'm taking about a difference between a system that gets the forecasters going, "eh... sure, why not" versus "this needs to be an invest." I'm taking about, "yeah, this could develop, I guess. Go ahead and make it an invest. We can tune some models on it."

And, it would be awkward if an 80-series invest was upgraded to a 90-series invest. Too much emphases has been placed on that one word.

[Aquawind]

Ohh My.. Testy.. or is it fakey..ohh that's right it's a conspricy.. It's frustrating when everyones action or descision isn't documented and forced by a set of rules..

If there is a threat we will be notified of such.