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

[Normandy]

^Right, and you also cannot disprove our reasoning, because the process our our speculation about these "test" invests is the same as naming a normal invest.

MEANING THIS: We think that yes, 98L was an invest, and yes I suppose it warranted the NHC's attention. But ask yourself this question: Have a Katrina entering the Gulf from the NW Carribean while 98L was there....do you honestly think the NHC would have paid any attention to 98L? Answer is pretty clear imo, and its NO. Since their is nothing else out there, that was the best possible system to label an invest, and so they did. Thats our reasoning.

You can ask the NHC: "Did you label Invest98L an invest to test your software" all you want. They aren't going to say yes, and for good reason. If you guys found out they did procedures like this in private you would feel they were'nt efficient and are not doing a good job on the tropics (when in reality, they are LOL). Point is, you guys really don't know what goes on internally in the NHC, but neither do we. So you cant prove us wrong, and we can't prove ourselves right. So what can we do? We can disagree, we can agree to disagree. What can't we do? Make attacks on members and not expect one of them to respond back, which I will ALWAYS do.

[fci]

OMG!!!!

Normandy; try as you may to instill some logic into this conversation and it goes to naught.

They do not seem to read or decide what to read and what not to.

Berwick and Miami Canes:
Maybe seeing ANOTHER S2K member saying the same thing as Normandy, for about the 10th time; will register to you.
So, PLEASE............... read carefully...........

The assertion that there were "test" Invests was made by a Pro Met. Weak as they were they were TRUE INVESTS Since they were TRUE INVESTS; they allowed the NHC to TEST their processes. NO ONE IS ASSERTING THAT THEY WERE MADE UP INVESTS!!!!!!!!!

Also, when you ask who Normandy thinks he is speaking for, it includes ME and I would suspect MANY OTHERS.

Ever hear the phrase; "Pole vaulting over mouse terds"?? I think it is appropriate here in your assessment of these Invests.

Oh, and a couple more things:
- Some of you have claimed that if these Invests were "suspect" in nature that it would be hurting the NHC's credibility.
That is hogwash. Re-read the defintions of Invests and read how the Pro Mets here treat them. They are essentially "internal" to the NHC which by virtue of the Internet and information age get shared with weather enthusiast like S2K'ers. NO WARNINGS or ADVISORIES are issued for them so they are fairly benign little designations for areas of disturbed weather.

Miami-Canes:
I stand by my earlier assertion that you are searching for conspiracies like Invests and Dr. Jeff Masters which you have still failed to back up with proof regarding his doctoring of his blog.

Why don't you just watch and analyze storms and stay away from "created controversies"????
You add value to conversations about storms and should stick to that and stop searching for things to complain about and stop making accusations!

Finally to Normandy for your reply:
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!!

[Bane]

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.

My goodness, some of you on here can be so dense. He states right here it could have been a test. No one, repeat NO ONE has stated anything about it being a BAD thing if they were going to be embedding new software testing while discussing an invest.

At least 4 mets here have stated they run new tests from time to time, even in invests, which aren't an actual classification or something to worry about.

It sure will be nice when we actually get a system here so some of you can look at a new topic. My only hope is you actually use reading comprehension skills in those topics as you sure have missed the boat on this one.

[caribepr]

Tsk tsk...ok, the game has gone too far. I think it's time for the pro mets and others who understand and have tried to explain (too many times, methinks) something so simple, in all of its facets, to admit that this IS a consipiracy. That those at the NHC are bored and need to invent things with the DELIBERATE aim of confusing the public about (shhhh) inside doings. C'mon, fess up! These others are on to you all and have almost figured out the REAL reasons for this game of test and seek...not to...oh, to use an example, get in your new car and take it out during a dry day, a rainy day, a snowy day to see how all the ABS stuff works and if it's working correctly, but to TRICK AND CONFUSE the guy who wishes he'd been hired at Ford Motor Co. but decided to build his own car anyway - and then wrote the president of the company to ask just HOW those brakes were made because the pres. has nothing else to do but help Joe Blow build his own car (are we convoluted enough yet here? and that is the ROYAL We...as I am not a pro met and don't even play one on tv). NOW - all you who just HAVE to know every little jot and tittle but didn't bother going to school to actually learn the subject (which could be partially because of a reading/learning disability, but HEY, everyone should get a CHANCE to be a pro even if they aren't!)...now...do you feel better? Can you go for a walk for about oh, say...four months? Because I have to say, I seriously dread what you might come up with when the real deal is breathing down our necks and I for one don't want the board crashing because of stuff like this.
As said in the VI's in moments of total consternation...cheese and bread!

[Normandy]

^This has been going on for a while pal....too many people here are so quick to jump on people its absurd, and when the people they jump on respond back they just continue to be stubborn and belittle. But hey, its fine, belittle me and ill belittle you...eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.

I mean, did you see the Camille debates and the Katrina ones? When Derek Orrt posted his findings about Katrina being a 3, people went crazy. While that situtation was a bit more crazy and emotinally charged (and for good reason), still the same thing happened. I mean, at least I understood why people got so angry about that back then, they had reason. But this? Its pure nonsense, and its an example of people just trying to attack the credibility of pro mets and other members of this board.

[DanKellFla]

"Can't we all just get along?"


caribepr, lol, funny stuff.

[senorpepr]

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.

Yes, while invests and WFDs, etc, are available to the public... it's still not public information. It's not geared for the public, but rather "unsecured" to reach meteorologists in a timely manner. Yes, you can access them, but they just simply aren't geared for John Q. Public on the streets. ...and for that manner, John Q. Public on the streets have no idea invests and WFDs even exist. That's the point.

[senorpepr]

The assertion that there were "test" Invests was made by a Pro Met. Weak as they were they were TRUE INVESTS Since they were TRUE INVESTS; they allowed the NHC to TEST their processes. NO ONE IS ASSERTING THAT THEY WERE MADE UP INVESTS!!!!!!!!!

I just had to requote this. Exactly, fci. I can't believe how many people are taking this word "test" so far. I think "test" was a bad word. People still can't get it through their heads that it was never mention to refer to some "fake system" simply so the NHC can have something to do. Yes, it's an actual tropical disturbance (of some sort). As fci said, true invests (especially in the absence of a tropical cyclone) can allow the NHC to simply test... or fine-tune... their processes. No one ever said it was just made up. C'mon folks... settle down.

[fci]

PLEASE, PLEASE people; read Senorpepr's last post and put this discussion to rest. Those of you who have been twisting words around to suit their weak arguements; read his post TWICE!!!

caribepr: Thank you for bringing some levity to the conversation.
Hope y'all are prepared down there for whatever Mother Nature has, or doesn't have (hopefully), in store for you, Luis and our other friends down there in one of the most beautiful places in the world.
Hope you are well, my friend!

[Berwick Bay]

I too am tired of argueing. I think I've made my points pretty clearly, so it looks to be time to let it go. But as a side issue, I just turned on the tv to see a local met here in Lafayette, La. (David Paul) Channel 10. His tropical weather map was labeled at the top "Invest AL99".

[NDG]

I don't mean to carry this on, but this whole thing was started because a pro-met said that 98L was started because it was "PROBABLY" a test to run their new software. I think this person was carried away by its personal view of the disturbance and thought that it was probably a test, because right before they came out with 98L, nothing was mentioned on the TWO and TWD by the NHC about the system, in fact this person thought for sure that in the next TWO, that if the disturbed area was going to be mentioned by the NHC that they were probably were going to say that "development was not expected to happen". Which would had given credibility to the "test" statement. But the contrary happened the following NHC's TWO stated: "THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT AS THE SYSTEM MOVES
NORTH-NORTHEASTWARD OVER THE NEXT DAY OR TWO"
Some people decided to attack him, some people decided to still believed in the test theory, and other people just ignored the statement as there was no credibility to the test theory after the TWO came out, or in another words there was no evidence to the theory, it was just a personal opinion, or least that's how I took it, no harm to me, I also have my personal opinions, which many times I am wrong, which many times because of pride it takes me a little long to fess up that I was wrong.

[fci]

And how funny is it that Invest 98 turns out not to just be a "test" but a Subtropical Depression or a Storm; at least for a short time!!!

[RL3AO]

Not bad for a test.

[Cyclone1]

It's a test depression.

[Normandy]

You can call it a test depression, we never did. Remember, reading is fundamental.

And really, its pointless to argue this any further....pro mets understand what were getting at and believe its a legitimate opinion...they know far more about weather and processes regarding weather than any of you who are going "LOLZ its a test depression LOLZ." So really it doesn't matter. The joke is on you guys.

[fci]

I think everyone is getting just a little too TESTY!!!

(humble apologies from fci for his despicable little pun) he is hearby forbidden from posting in this thread ever again.......)

[Chris_in_Tampa]

Perhaps the point I was trying to make clear wasn't. I give it a go one more time.

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

Lets assume two situations...

Situation 1 - When a "test" is performed
Step 1: An area is declared an invest because it has the opportunity to develop and meets the qualifications of an invest based on the conditions of the disturbed area
Step 2: The NHC installed a new system and they can use this opportunity to perform a test on the system, a real invest.
Step 3: Models are run.

Situation 2 - When a "test" is not performed
Step 1: An area is declared an invest because it has the opportunity to develop and meets the qualifications of an invest based on the conditions of the disturbed area
Step 2: Models are run.

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

My point is that step 1 is always the same. I do not believe the following situation would ever intentionally be the case...

Situation 3
Step 1: An area is declared an invest because it has the opportunity to develop and closely meets the qualifications of an invest based on the conditions of the disturbed area
Step 2: The NHC installed a new system and is using this opportunity to perform a test on the system.
Step 3: Models are run.

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

Does that clear things up? Let me go further...

"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"

I understand what some of the people here have been saying. I just don't agree with implying that it might go through the forecaster's mind something like: It might ordinarily be one qualification short of being declared an invest but since it can't hurt to test the system and because it has the chance to develop, we might as well run the test.

It could be perceived that it is implying that the NHC would base the decision on not just the facts related to weather, but also adds in doing it for technical reasons. I realize we're not talking about the NHC putting out an invest that is not real or that it had no chance to develop. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy.

And of course I can't say that it has never crossed a forecasters mind to do that. I only wanted to clarify, or at least try to, that it was not an established procedure.

I think "test" was a bad word. People still can't get it through their heads that it was never mention to refer to some "fake system" simply so the NHC can have something to do. Yes, it's an actual tropical disturbance (of some sort). As fci said, true invests (especially in the absence of a tropical cyclone) can allow the NHC to simply test... or fine-tune... their processes. No one ever said it was just made up.

I understand that completely. I agree, "test" was misinterpreted. But that is my point. It is a real area, but by associating it in any way with the word "test" makes it sound as if it less real than it is. It is as real as any other invest numbered 90-99L. And I just didn't want people to be confused by that.

Cause and effect...
The cause: it was declared an invest because it met the requirements.
The effect: in the case where the system could use a test, we get an actual test performed on a real system.

And not:
Cause and effect...
The cause: we need to test our system.
The effect: we test our system on an area that might not be quite what we would normally define as an invest, but it does have the opportunity to develop.

It's just that the word "test" seems to have thrown more than a few people. And that is why I wanted to get clarification to try to make sure people really understood things.

Perhaps "test" could not be used in the future? I think it is a point of contention that just serves to confuse. (i.e. it takes too much time to explain what was meant)

[Normandy]

Good post, im in agreement.
You seem to much better understand where we are coming from then others in this thread.

And sure, perhaps the word "test" should not be used....or better yet, maybe people should just read what people say before shooting off at the mouth. Point is, if people would have read what we were saying and took time to understand it (heck we reiterated ourselves more than needed really) then this whole mess would not have started to begin with.

[Cyclone1]

You can call it a test depression, we never did. Remember, reading is fundamental.

And really, its pointless to argue this any further....pro mets understand what were getting at and believe its a legitimate opinion...they know far more about weather and processes regarding weather than any of you who are going "LOLZ its a test depression LOLZ." So really it doesn't matter. The joke is on you guys.

I was making... a joke...

[Berwick Bay]

Yes Chris, its really not all that complicated. Anyone who really wants to, can see exactly what your talking about. This was my whole point from the beginning. An NHC Invest is based on solid criteria which have determined that a system has a significant possibility of development. With the Invest established they may also want to run tests on given software. Thats fine. But thats not the situation which was brought up by some on this board. According to them, the Invest was a RESULT of wanting to do a dry run on software and not because an Invest was warranted by the actual weather in the tropics. That would violate the purpose and spirit of the Invest, cheapening and devaluing what an Invest actually is. Its not really that difficult to understand. And the person who made the original comment about an invest primarily for the purpose of a test, has run from this thread. I knew we wouldn't get an apology.