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

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
senorpepr
Military Met/Moderator
Military Met/Moderator
Posts: 12542
Age: 43
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:22 pm
Location: Mackenbach, Germany
Contact:

Re: Re:

#41 Postby senorpepr » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:45 am

miamicanes177 wrote: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.


You're putting too much emphases on that silly word--test. If it's a 90-series, it's a system. Will it develop into a tropical depression. Who knows? However, in the subjective world of meteorology, some "blobs" are made invests sooner than other similar blobs. If the tropics were hopping, would 98L have been an invest? Who knows? Less likely, probably, but who knows?

Here's the bottom-line. If it's a 90-series, look at it. Apply meteorology to it. Go from there.
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#42 Postby Derek Ortt » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:57 am

a system is not upgraded to an invest

To be honest, who cares if something is an "invest". It is not a formal classification, nor is something ever called an invest publicly. If it were formal, it would be stated as such on the main NHC site, not just a sentence in the TWO

It hurts the public in no way, shape, or form to call this an invest for testing purposes. If it confuses some on a message board... collateral damage is one way to look at it
0 likes   

Berwick Bay

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

#43 Postby Berwick Bay » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:32 am

Derek said
a system is not upgraded to an invest

To be honest, who cares if something is an "invest". It is not a formal classification, nor is something ever called an invest publicly. If it were formal, it would be stated as such on the main NHC site, not just a sentence in the TWO
_____________________________________________________
Thats where this whole "test invest" proposition has lead us. "Who cares if something is an invest"? Therefore the term should have no meaning to anyone on this site. So if thats the case, the posting of titles which read "invest" is useless, we shouldn't care about this designation. The word is now useless, having been devalued of meaning by those who propose that some invests are primarily done for testing and not for investigating a system that has a legitimate chance for development. I still don't believe that this is what the NHC is doing. At least I hope not! Chris in Tampa has sent out e-mails to get to the bottom of this. I hope to hear from him soon. What also angers me is that the whole proposition of a "test invest" or an invest primarily for testing information gathering systems was brought to the board without proof, and simply to reinforce an opinion that a storm was not likely to develop! To think that this very sensitive subject was brought here for a pretty frivolous purpose shows very poor judgement. Especially when one considers how far-fetched it sounds and the fact that there was, and probably never will be, any actua proof of this.
0 likes   

Chris_in_Tampa
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5077
Age: 42
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:06 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Contact:

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

#44 Postby Chris_in_Tampa » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:08 am

I sent off the following email to the ATCF coordinator at the National Hurricane Center. (I had some other questions I have been wondering about.) Hopefully I will hear back. For now, we can all focus on 99L, because it is one to watch carefully.

I have a few questions about the ATCF system. Whenever you happen to
get a chance, perhaps you could answer a few of them. I've been
discussing with some people about how invests are declared by the
National Hurricane Center. I could not find the answers online.

My first question is in regards to invests that are numbered 80-89.
Are the only tests that are ever performed done with these numbers? Or
are some weak areas that might not have been upgraded at the time to
an invest upgraded so that testing can take place?

My second question is in regards to what qualifications are necessary
for an area to be declared an invest and be given a number (90-99). Is
there a checklist for declaring invests? Is an invest declared
completely by a meteorologist or is there some automation to it? Is it
a somewhat subjective process?

My third question involves 6 hour position fixes. Is the center
position determined by a computer sometimes or is it always determined
by a meteorologist? Is the strength automatically estimated?

And in case you happen to easily know the answer to these:

Is "AN01" the GFS Ensemble -01 member?
Is "AC00" the GFS Ensemble Control?
What are the "DSNS" and "SHNS" models?

None of those appear in "techlist.dat"



Thanks for the help,
Christopher Hollis
0 likes   

miamicanes177
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:53 pm

Re:

#45 Postby miamicanes177 » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:45 am

Derek Ortt wrote:a system is not upgraded to an invest

To be honest, who cares if something is an "invest". It is not a formal classification, nor is something ever called an invest publicly. If it were formal, it would be stated as such on the main NHC site, not just a sentence in the TWO

It hurts the public in no way, shape, or form to call this an invest for testing purposes. If it confuses some on a message board... collateral damage is one way to look at it
As I said, if it's on the internet and it does not require a password to access it, then it's public information. Why? Welcome to 2007. This is the world of youtube, google, and apple. Times have changed and NHC is well aware that regular folks like me can be aware of an invest as soon as a pro met can.
0 likes   

User avatar
fci
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:29 am
Location: Lake Worth, FL

#46 Postby fci » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:55 am

Sure seems to me that this question has been answered when you put together several responses together.

The past two Invests probably had little chance to develop.
But; since they were there and had some modicom of a chance to strengthen, the NHC decided to call them Invests so that they could do a dry run of sorts during a pretty quiet time.

"Test" per se; where the system simply does not exist?
Seems to me from parsing together different responses; that these are strictly numbered 80-89; they do not exist at all; figments of ones imagination TRUE TESTS.

A weak system that has limited potential for development but allows for use of the resources to "test" on a REAL SYSTEM is what; IN MY OPINION; is what occured.

Folks, read carefully what the Pro Mets have been saying in their responses!
They concur that getting worked up over Invests is pretty fruitless (to paraphrase what I am interpreting).

BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IT REALLY, TRULY, HONESTLY, DOES NOT MATTER.

Sorry, conspiracy theorists; there is none here and to assert that the NHC loses ANY credibility here is, TO ME; an irresoponsible assertion.

Good fodder for discussion during quiet time.
0 likes   

User avatar
Recurve
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:59 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

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

#47 Postby Recurve » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:07 am

Goodness. This is worse than arguments over weather Ivan (or was it Dennis?) really came back and reformed or whether 10L became Katrina.

As an amateur, I'm not at all confused by a possible test invest or less-than-serious invest or not-a-very-good-looking invest. What might less informed people do? Put up their shutters? Evacutate?

Even if Max Mayfield and Bob Sheets swore on a stack of Bibles that the NHC would never never never declare an "90" series invest for testing purposes -- that doesn't make an opinion that this particular invest may have been a test "wrong." It was an opinion. Some don't think it was a valid one. OK. I think I get it. But I do wish those who are so adamant would stop calling out one of this board's most respected (and helpful, incredibly, generously helpful) members, expecting some kind of retraction or to be declared "right."

I'm going back to discuss the current invests. Something real to look at.
0 likes   

Chris_in_Tampa
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5077
Age: 42
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:06 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Contact:

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

#48 Postby Chris_in_Tampa » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:24 am

Already got a response from the NHC...

Chris,

I can only quickly answer some of these based on time.

My response to someone else today, which somewhere along the line I
guess generated some debate, not certain why or why this is important
but see down below.


> As outlined in the National Hurricane Operations Plan in section
> 4.3.3, the numbering system is as follows:
>
> 01-49 Fixed Cyclone Numbers (tropical and subtropical)
> 50-79 Reserved use for the responsible TC Forecast Center
> 80-89 Test or Training - most processing ignores these, not always.
> 90-99 Invests or simply put areas of interest.
>
> Invests are generally, not always assigned by the duly appointed TC
> Forecast Center; however, DOD (such as the Navy or Air Force) also has
> the ability to assign an Invest, track it or update it. This is per
> agreement in inter-agency Memorandums of Agreement or Understanding
> (MOAs or MOUs) dating back close to a decade and routinely updated every
> year at several inter-agency (DOC, DOD, DHS, etc) conferences and
> working groups.
>
> So in a nutshell, Invests are basically areas of interest controlled
> by either primarily NWS or DOD or both depending upon their respective
> need. NHC and CPHC does not conduct or utilize 90-series as tests per
> established rules, maybe the Navy or someone else did in the Atlantic
> and if so, I was unaware of such a test. I would have to find out if
> Pearl Harbor USN NMFC or Norfolk USN NMFA.
>
> As for 80-series, you never see them because they are internal and
> generally deal with comms checks, quick training, model initialization
> or model end to end checks, etc. Although, you might see some of those
> decks appear on the public ftp sites - this is by design to ensure data
> gets to the different end distribution points.


> My second question is in regards to what qualifications are necessary
> for an area to be declared an invest and be given a number (90-99). Is
> there a checklist for declaring invests? Is an invest declared
> completely by a meteorologist or is there some automation to it? Is it
> a somewhat subjective process?

At NHC and CPHC, we do have internal Duty Manuals that outline
procedures to declare Invests along agreements with DOD on how this is
approached - these are more specific than NWS Directives, etc. Invests
to some extent have some threshold that needs to be reached, persistence
of convection, wind speeds or some other factors. But this also enters
into the subjective call area and thats where the experience of the
forecaster enters into the equation.


DSNS - decay SHIPS *not* using IR profile predictors
SHNS - SHIPS *not* using IR profile predictors

The IR predictors from GOES and Meteosat have greatest positive impact
within the first 48 hrs. Think of DSNS and SHNS as controls that allow
us post-season to analyze the impact of the satellite assimilation into
SHIPS. Again, we tell people to look closely at the verification of all
models. This is quite important and performance is rigorously evaluated
here on all relevant TC related forecast models (statistical and
dynamical). As a side note, some model information in the ATCF data
sets are either prototype or parallel test run stuff, when it says do
not use, then its very wise to not use it since there is generally no
statistics on the performance.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/index.shtml

> Is "AN01" the GFS Ensemble -01 member?
> Is "AC00" the GFS Ensemble Control?

Yes, and sorry, I need to update the public version of the techlist. My
fault on that one, I will update that as time permits.


> My third question involves 6 hour position fixes. Is the center
> position determined by a computer sometimes or is it always determined
> by a meteorologist? Is the strength automatically estimated?
>

Please clarify? Do you mean how they arrive at the 6 hour best track
points, intensity and structure? If that is the case, that is arrived
at using subjective and objective techniques/analyses and the forecaster
can use either a blended approach or make a judgment call using their
experience since they know the strengths and weaknesses of all these
methods. We utilize object best tracking algorithms, but due to
sampling issues and other limitations, these methods can not generally
match the skill of an experienced forecaster at times. As just a junior
forecaster and programmer with 8 years here, the experience factor is a
big factor and the forecaster provides added value.

Ok, thats the quick take and is much as I can add given my time
constraints. I hope that helps a bit.

Good luck.

-- Chris Sisko

0 likes   

philnyc
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:14 am
Location: Brooklyn, New York City, New York
Contact:

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

#49 Postby philnyc » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:55 am

Excellent. Thanks Chris. And thank Mr. Sisko for us. It was obvious there is a system to all of this - the NWS and DOD would not be naming invests by the seat of their pants. I love to follow invests - for people like me who love meteorolgy and love to learn, they are a way to learn what our best tropical forecasters (among the best in the world) are thinking. Invests are another way we can learn, and now I know a lot more about them.
0 likes   

miamicanes177
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:53 pm

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

#50 Postby miamicanes177 » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:57 am

Thanks for getting the infro Chris_in_Tampa. No 90 series invest is a test. Case closed and we can now put this behind us.
0 likes   

User avatar
fci
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:29 am
Location: Lake Worth, FL

#51 Postby fci » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:25 am

Thank you Chris for getting the information for all of us!
0 likes   

User avatar
terstorm1012
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1314
Age: 43
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Millersburg, PA

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

#52 Postby terstorm1012 » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:04 pm

awesome. Thank you Chris!
0 likes   

Berwick Bay

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

#53 Postby Berwick Bay » Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:02 pm

Thank you so much Chris for clearing up what really is an important matter in regards to credibility of our weather agencies. An invest is in fact an invest. I had no doubt about (never buying into this test nonsense). This was a pretty serious allegation brought against the NHC, but I doubt that you'll hear any apology by those who made the initial charge (and the charge was made to back up an opinion of non-development???huh??). Also think of this, the words conspiracy theorist have been thrown around lately. Well seems to me that would fit those who believed in "test invests" and other fantasies. Those of us who took the NHC and other weather authorities at their word, were not the conspiracy theorists, but rather that shoe is definitely on the other foot. And finally, don't expect an apology from anyone who made this serious allegation.
0 likes   

kevin

#54 Postby kevin » Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:38 pm

That's hilarious. I love it.
0 likes   

User avatar
Normandy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Houston, TX

#55 Postby Normandy » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:10 pm

Berwick Bay wrote:Thank you so much Chris for clearing up what really is an important matter in regards to credibility of our weather agencies. An invest is in fact an invest. I had no doubt about (never buying into this test nonsense). This was a pretty serious allegation brought against the NHC, but I doubt that you'll hear any apology by those who made the initial charge (and the charge was made to back up an opinion of non-development???huh??). Also think of this, the words conspiracy theorist have been thrown around lately. Well seems to me that would fit those who believed in "test invests" and other fantasies. Those of us who took the NHC and other weather authorities at their word, were not the conspiracy theorists, but rather that shoe is definitely on the other foot. And finally, don't expect an apology from anyone who made this serious allegation.


Boy you guys really reallly annoy me with your lack of reading sometimes. Berwick, understand that the tone of this message is warranted due to the tone of your message, so don't cry foul that im bashing you:



"Thank you so much Chris for clearing up what really is an important matter in regards to credibility of our weather agencies. An invest is in fact an invest. I had no doubt about (never buying into this test nonsense)."

If you would have read the explanations behind us believing this was a test, you would MUCH BETTER understand our opinions on the matter, and wouldn't refer to this as "test nonsense." And where did we attack the credibility of our weather agency? No, we didn't. See, whats happening here is you are attacking the credibility of us who made these claims, and now, I will attack (in a nice and coherent way) the credibility of you good sir. I would like you to refer to this quote, which you should have read and im sure you didn't before hitting the reply button and posting what you did:

"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."

Does this make any sense to you Berwick? Read this. Read it twice. Then maybe youll understand our position, something you clearly don't understand right now.



"This was a pretty serious allegation brought against the NHC, but I doubt that you'll hear any apology by those who made the initial charge (and the charge was made to back up an opinion of non-development???huh??)."

Again CLEARLY you didn't read any of our responses regarding the matter before you decided to hit the reply button. A serious allegation? We ARENT SAYING THE NHC DID SOMETHING WRONG....WE SUPPORTED THEM when we speculated that they were running a "test" on invest 98L. We NEVER SAID THEY DID ANYTHING WRONG, so therefore i have absolutely no reason to apologize to anybody on this board, INCLUDING you buddy. Not sorry....deal with it. The charge was created to back up an opinion of non-development? NO, WE NEVER SAID THIS. S2K members who did not read our posts, just like you, speculated our reasoning and passed it as true. They said that we were making this fantasy up as a means of explaining our calls for non-development, which makes no sense at all. If you would have read our responses you would have known that this was NOT OUR REASONING. Not even close.



"Also think of this, the words conspiracy theorist have been thrown around lately. Well seems to me that would fit those who believed in "test invests" and other fantasies. Those of us who took the NHC and other weather authorities at their word, were not the conspiracy theorists, but rather that shoe is definitely on the other foot. And finally, don't expect an apology from anyone who made this serious allegation"

Again, you must not have read anything that we posted when trying to defend ourselves from this S2K witch hunt. We believe there is no conspiracy at the NHC, and NEVER did we say so. Why would testing your software on weak "Invests" be a conspiracy? Thats ridiculous, and its another product of some S2K'ers passing off information about our thoughts regarding the matter as truth, and doing so wrongfully. Their are no fantasies here buddy....only justified and completely logical speculation and discussion....the only fantasy is the one you seem to have about us being these evil conspirators that want to bring down the NHC. LOL, thats ABSURD! An apology? You must be crazy.




Now, moving on from that nonsense:
Chris, appreciate you doing the good work of contacting the NHC (seriously though, not joking). They said this in regard to you questioning the qualifications of determinging invests:

"At NHC and CPHC, we do have internal Duty Manuals that outline
procedures to declare Invests along agreements with DOD on how this is
approached - these are more specific than NWS Directives, etc. Invests
to some extent have some threshold that needs to be reached, persistence
of convection, wind speeds or some other factors. But this also enters
into the subjective call area and thats where the experience of the
forecaster enters into the equation."

Now, under our speculation all of this STILL holds true. The invests that we suspected did have persistant convection and had some minimal chance at developing (not really a good one and the NHC even noted this). All we are saying is that it gave the NHC another chance to "test" their software and something worth testing it on. That may include their protocol for calling invests, etc etc. This assertion holds water because they havn't had any legitimate disturbances since the Proenza debacle, and it would make sense that they designate an invest to keep the ball rolling and move on from this Proenza debacle....it really does make sense and I don't see why people thinks its some crazy notion of conspiracy (LOL still laughing at that one).

There is my analogy Berwick. Expect another one.
0 likes   

djones65
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 264
Age: 59
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:05 am
Location: Ocean Springs, MS

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

#56 Postby djones65 » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:23 pm

Normandy,

Who are the "we" you are speaking for?
I think you seem to be protesting a bit too much.
Perhaps your defensiveness is result of Berwick's remarks being too close to the truth?

You are speaking for other persons, are they not capable of speaking for themselves?
0 likes   

miamicanes177
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:53 pm

Re:

#57 Postby miamicanes177 » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:25 pm

Normandy wrote:Now, under our speculation all of this STILL holds true. The invests that we suspected did have persistant convection and had some minimal chance at developing (not really a good one and the NHC even noted this). All we are saying is that it gave the NHC another chance to "test" their software and something worth testing it on. That may include their protocol for calling invests, etc etc. This assertion holds water because they havn't had any legitimate disturbances since the Proenza debacle, and it would make sense that they designate an invest to keep the ball rolling and move on from this Proenza debacle....it really does make sense and I don't see why people thinks its some crazy notion of conspiracy (LOL still laughing at that one).
This is 100% inaccurate and I reject your hypothesis. An invest that is designated with a 90 series # is never a test. Chris has the email with the facts to back it up and it is posted above as you are aware. The only tests run are done so with numbers labeled 80-89. According to the rules in place, it is not possible for the NHC to run a test invest on a 90-99 series number. If you have proof of otherwise, please share it with the board. Otherwise, there is no need for the continued speculation.
0 likes   

miamicanes177
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:53 pm

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

#58 Postby miamicanes177 » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:30 pm

The final ruling is as follows:
#'s 80-89: Test or Training
#'s 90-99: Real Invests

This thread can now be locked as we have settled this dispute once and for all. Thanks to everyone who contributed.
Last edited by miamicanes177 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
Normandy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Houston, TX

#59 Postby Normandy » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:34 pm

Djones,
I wont name names, but look back through this post and you will see some. I don't think u in particular really did much, and still I stand by my post. Many people of misinterpreted what we were trying to say and passed it off as true...when really it wasn't close to what we were trying to get at. That lead to posts such as Berwicks. Really I don't post messages like my response to Berwick unless I have a good reason, and people here disrespecting people for speculating on something really is uncalled for.

Miamicanes,
Again, no its not an OFFICIAL test, and we never said that it was. Other S2K'ers assumed this and ran with it. My assertion is not 100% incorrect, and its very plausible. And even still, if I asked the NHC "did you just pick this invest to run software tests and whatnot" do you honestly think they will say yes? I wouldn't, because the same posters who created this mass controversy for no reason would think the NHC were careless. I can't prove my reasoning, but it is plausible and logical....and in no way does the facts Chris posted refute my claim, as my claim would entail all the processes noted in the NHC response.

EDIT...and miamicanes, by your last post I still feel you really don't understand our position.
0 likes   

miamicanes177
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:53 pm

Re:

#60 Postby miamicanes177 » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:44 pm

Normandy wrote:EDIT...and miamicanes, by your last post I still feel you really don't understand our position.
Your position is that despite running an invest labeled 90-99, the NHC might still be only running a test. The reason they could be doing so is the wave has a small chance of developing and they have new equipment their eager to play with. So they just call it an invest and go through the motions. I understand that is what your saying. I'm saying that is speculation and it can not be backed up with any evidence.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 23 guests