Wow....
I mean just wow. Really he has nothing to apologize for lol.
NHC running several test invests in 2007? Let's clear it up
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.
-
Stratosphere747
- Category 5
- Posts: 3772
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:34 pm
- Location: Surfside Beach/Freeport Tx
- Contact:
Re:
Normandy wrote:Wow....
I mean just wow. Really he has nothing to apologize for lol.
Let's just say his comments are growing quite tiresome. I don't think Chris/Wxman57 has anything to apologize about to anyone on this board. I'll leave it at that, and will not delve into the questionable comments against one of the few remaining/contributing pros on this board.
Scott
0 likes
Re: NHC running several test invests in 2007? Let's clear it up
Berwick:
I apologize for the length of this post but I am tired of mis-quotes, innuendo and assertions on this matter so ONCE AND FOR ALL; here are the facts.
You will see that wxman57 NEVER said that this was a "made up" Invest for testing purposes. Same conclusion that has been said A ZILLION times. This was a REAL INVEST that provided the opportunity to TEST!!!!
You said:
"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"- NOT TRUE. FIND IT IN THE TEXT BELOW!!!
You said:
"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."- I HARDLY THINK WXMAN51 IS RUNNING AWAY FROM YOU AND THE OTHER NAYSAYERS. PLUS YOU ARE OWED NO APOLOGY!!!!!
Berwick and the others:
READ THE TEXT BELOW AND PLEASE MOVE ON ALREADY!!!!
THIS is the quote made by wxman57:
I'm surprised they called this an invest, but it could be another test. Before anyone charges me with committing a federal crime by suggesting that the NHC doesn't REALLY think this is significant enough for an invest but they want to run more tests, just consider that such tests are good. They verify that everything works properly. Tests help protect the public. I'm not "accusing" them of doing anything bad. They're doing their job, working to protect the public. One clue is that the last discussion said absolutely nothing about this bob. Just keep in mind that they did make some major software changes in June with respect to the ingestion of model data (simplified description). The only way to really be sure that the software changes work well with real invest headers is to have an invest and test it. A test invest won't do, they need the real thing. So, it could be a test. No harm done, as these invests aren't broadcast to the public. You guys know about them because you're all hurricane nuts and you seek them out.
So if it's another test, that's good. It shows the NHC is preparing for the heart of the season and they want to make sure all is working properly. Better to find out the software upgrades don't work right now, when any threat is minimal, than later when a significant threat develops. Let's see what they say in the next outlook discussion. I suspect they'll mention the area but say development is unlikely.
The location of this quote is:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=96404&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40
which was followed up by this:
I hear what you're saying. Even though the NHC knows that these invests are not supposed to be general public knowledge, they realize that they "get out" to at least a small group of weather enthusiasts and the word may trickle to the media. So they would be careful to not call anything an invest that is any threat to land, just in case. That's why they wouldn't do this in the GoM. From what I understand, the software updates at the NHC could affect the way model data are ingested. To fully test it, a real invest is needed, with a real invest header. True, they could test on any thunderstorm complex (or even in clear air) out in the eastern Atlantic. Perhaps they just picked 96L and 98L because they were at least a slight risk of development but no threat to land. I don't know, I don't work there, I just was involved in the discussions about the software upgrade in June. Risky thing upgrading software during hurricane season, and I'm sure they'll feel better after some real-life tests that pose no threat to the public.
followed by this:
Good point, let's see what the next recon POD says and what the next outlook says. Really, I'm just looking at the facts and guessing what they're doing at the NHC. Predicting what the NHC is doing or what they'll do is harder than forecasting hurricanes. I told that to Chris Landsea at our AMS meeting in June.
and finally by this:
Like I said, we run similar tests pre-season and even during the season. Test invests have a different header than real invests. So software could work with the test headers but not with the real thing. We've experienced problems during real storms/disturbance that didn't occur with test-numbered storms/disturbances. So I suspect that the NHC isn't too concerned about this system (either developing and certainly affecting anyone) though it does give them an opportunity to work out any remaining bugs. Like you said, it's just my theory. Either way, it doesn't make much difference. This is one for the fishes.
I apologize for the length of this post but I am tired of mis-quotes, innuendo and assertions on this matter so ONCE AND FOR ALL; here are the facts.
You will see that wxman57 NEVER said that this was a "made up" Invest for testing purposes. Same conclusion that has been said A ZILLION times. This was a REAL INVEST that provided the opportunity to TEST!!!!
You said:
"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"- NOT TRUE. FIND IT IN THE TEXT BELOW!!!
You said:
"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."- I HARDLY THINK WXMAN51 IS RUNNING AWAY FROM YOU AND THE OTHER NAYSAYERS. PLUS YOU ARE OWED NO APOLOGY!!!!!
Berwick and the others:
READ THE TEXT BELOW AND PLEASE MOVE ON ALREADY!!!!
THIS is the quote made by wxman57:
I'm surprised they called this an invest, but it could be another test. Before anyone charges me with committing a federal crime by suggesting that the NHC doesn't REALLY think this is significant enough for an invest but they want to run more tests, just consider that such tests are good. They verify that everything works properly. Tests help protect the public. I'm not "accusing" them of doing anything bad. They're doing their job, working to protect the public. One clue is that the last discussion said absolutely nothing about this bob. Just keep in mind that they did make some major software changes in June with respect to the ingestion of model data (simplified description). The only way to really be sure that the software changes work well with real invest headers is to have an invest and test it. A test invest won't do, they need the real thing. So, it could be a test. No harm done, as these invests aren't broadcast to the public. You guys know about them because you're all hurricane nuts and you seek them out.
So if it's another test, that's good. It shows the NHC is preparing for the heart of the season and they want to make sure all is working properly. Better to find out the software upgrades don't work right now, when any threat is minimal, than later when a significant threat develops. Let's see what they say in the next outlook discussion. I suspect they'll mention the area but say development is unlikely.
The location of this quote is:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=96404&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40
which was followed up by this:
I hear what you're saying. Even though the NHC knows that these invests are not supposed to be general public knowledge, they realize that they "get out" to at least a small group of weather enthusiasts and the word may trickle to the media. So they would be careful to not call anything an invest that is any threat to land, just in case. That's why they wouldn't do this in the GoM. From what I understand, the software updates at the NHC could affect the way model data are ingested. To fully test it, a real invest is needed, with a real invest header. True, they could test on any thunderstorm complex (or even in clear air) out in the eastern Atlantic. Perhaps they just picked 96L and 98L because they were at least a slight risk of development but no threat to land. I don't know, I don't work there, I just was involved in the discussions about the software upgrade in June. Risky thing upgrading software during hurricane season, and I'm sure they'll feel better after some real-life tests that pose no threat to the public.
followed by this:
Good point, let's see what the next recon POD says and what the next outlook says. Really, I'm just looking at the facts and guessing what they're doing at the NHC. Predicting what the NHC is doing or what they'll do is harder than forecasting hurricanes. I told that to Chris Landsea at our AMS meeting in June.
and finally by this:
Like I said, we run similar tests pre-season and even during the season. Test invests have a different header than real invests. So software could work with the test headers but not with the real thing. We've experienced problems during real storms/disturbance that didn't occur with test-numbered storms/disturbances. So I suspect that the NHC isn't too concerned about this system (either developing and certainly affecting anyone) though it does give them an opportunity to work out any remaining bugs. Like you said, it's just my theory. Either way, it doesn't make much difference. This is one for the fishes.
0 likes
Re:
Cyclone1 wrote:This whole test crap has split the S2K community in half. Can we please move on?
No, because people still continue to post childish comments regarding the matter, and comments that have absolutely no truth in them.
0 likes
-
Berwick Bay
Re: NHC running several test invests in 2007? Let's clear it up
FCI that post was concerned with 98L. Notice he says "perhaps its just another test". That comment in itself actually cheapens the invest. But no matter, the original statement about the invest being conducted for the purpose of running a test was in regards to 97L. Thats why he says here "perhaps it just another test". I'm sorry, but it is, what it is.
0 likes
-
harmclan
- Tropical Depression
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:28 pm
- Location: Tampa,Hudson - Florida
- Contact:
Re: NHC running several test invests in 2007? Let's clear it up
I emailed Chris Sisko, who is a meteorologist at NHC, and he had this to say:
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.
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.
0 likes
Re: NHC running several test invests in 2007? Let's clear it up
harmclan wrote:I emailed Chris Sisko, who is a meteorologist at NHC, and he had this to say:
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.
So the invest may not always be initiated by NHC interests and the NHC does not run "test invests" on their own but perhaps the Navy or Air Force does. Am I understanding this correctly?
0 likes
Re: NHC running several test invests in 2007? Let's clear it up
Berwick Bay wrote:FCI that post was concerned with 98L. Notice he says "perhaps its just another test". That comment in itself actually cheapens the invest. But no matter, the original statement about the invest being conducted for the purpose of running a test was in regards to 97L. Thats why he says here "perhaps it just another test". I'm sorry, but it is, what it is.
OK, Berwick.
Here is what wxman57 wrote about on Invest 97.
AGAIN I WILL CHALLENGE YOU TO SEE WHERE HE SAID IT WAS A MADE UP INVEST OR WHERE HE SHOULD APOLOGIZE.:
"Honestly, I haven't a clue what the NHC is doing with this invest. There's nothing of significance there but some sheared convection east of an upper low. There is no surface trof east of Bermuda at all, that trof/front is along the east U.S. Coast. Pressures around Bermuda are 1020mb, even higher where the invest is.
Here's a 00Z surface plot with the red crosshairs at the point of the invest. Nothing there at the surface but high pressure, folks. Development chances are about zero. Remember that the models think that there is a circulation center and predict intensification accordingly. On that, they're wrong, and the predictions are wrong. I suspect the NHC is running more tests with the new software that was installed a month or so ago. They haven't had anything to test it on since the upgrade, and real threats will be developing soon."
and then this:
"I'm not "charging" the NHC with anything, and I certainly don't have any inside info as to what they're doing. It's just the only thing that might explain calling something like this (or a similarly weak previous system) an invest. Their job is to protect the public. They made some significant software changes last month and they really need a shake-down system to test it. Testing their software/procedures IS protecting the public. And such tests can in no way harm anyone. So what's the big deal? We run such tests all the time. It's a GOOD thing to run such tests. That's it, I'm out of here. Discuss this thing all you want."
So, he was questioning whether this system would ever develop and never said it was "made up".
Also, why would you say:
"That comment in itself actually cheapens the invest"
What exactly are they cheapening???
An Invest is simply an area to investigate.
It is no high and mighty being that we fear to "cheapen"
How many times (I'm guessing maybe 200-250) times do the sane members of S2K have to bring this up to you and your friends before you will understand this issue (actually a non-issue) and stop mis-quoting and accusing people (particularly a Pro Met like wxman57) of things. We are lucky Pro Mets like wxman57 even frequent this board; so PLEASE back off. Think about this; and the next time you and your friends consider attacking a Pro Met go punch a wall or something and don't post!!!
Berwick, Miami Canes and the rest of the group:
KNOW WHEN TO SAY WHEN
Perhaps you owe all of US an apology!!!!!
0 likes
Re: NHC running several test invests in 2007? Let's clear it up
Berwick Bay wrote:FCI that post was concerned with 98L. Notice he says "perhaps its just another test". That comment in itself actually cheapens the invest. But no matter, the original statement about the invest being conducted for the purpose of running a test was in regards to 97L. Thats why he says here "perhaps it just another test". I'm sorry, but it is, what it is.
I think you need to better understand reading comprehension when others post. Conitnued attacks at a pro met, who definitely knows what he is talking about, further erodes the credibilty you gained by guessing when a storm was going to form.
0 likes
Re: NHC running several test invests in 2007? Let's clear it up
Just a little warning that this thread is being closely monitored by staff. There's no need to attack, insult, or patronize anyone.
Anything of the sort will get this thread locked.
Anything of the sort will get this thread locked.
0 likes
-
DESTRUCTION5
- Category 5
- Posts: 4423
- Age: 43
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:25 am
- Location: Stuart, FL
Re: NHC running several test invests in 2007? Let's clear it up
Regit wrote:Just a little warning that this thread is being closely monitored by staff. There's no need to attack, insult, or patronize anyone.
Anything of the sort will get this thread locked.
This thread should have been killed a long time ago..The answer camr right from the horses(NHC) mouth! ...All responses after that post should have been thankyous..
0 likes
-
djones65
- 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
FCI,
You have questioned several person's capabilities at reading comprehension.
In your last post you quoted wxman57's post regarding Tropical Storm Chantal's original designation as Invest 98L.
Please tell me what you comprehended him say?
I scored pretty highly on my SAT exam and my "comprehension" of what wxman57 was stating was that Invest 98L should NOT have been designated. He stated there was no surface trough, surface pressures were higher where the Invest 98L was designated, and stated models are assuming there is a surface circulation which is wrong. He theorized that perhaps this "sheared convection east of an upper level circulation" could be another test.
I respect Chris/wxman57 very much, but like all persons he is not error-proof. The NHC at the time the invest 98L was assigned stated in the following TWO that there was a low pressure area. His opinion differed from the NHC which in my opinion is fine. However, when he conjectured that it may only be a "test subject," since there was not any surface circulation nor lower pressures is when I believe many persons became confused.
Wxman57 is a very valuable resource for us at Storm2k and I enjoy his thoughts and opinions greatly. In this situation, however, I personally believe and believed then as well that there actually was a broad surface circulation which warranted an Invest designation. Just like he questioned the NHC's analysis and forecast I believe we have the right to have alternative views to anyone's opinions and thoughts.
I just wanted to state I am glad we have definitive information on the differences between Invests and "tests," and that the NHC does not do tests with invests numbered 90-99.
But I did not appreciate being insulted by questioning my reading comprehension when I interpreted his words correctly. And like I said previously, I believe that as adults we all are capable of speaking for ourselves and someone else telling me what ANOTHER person meant makes absolutely no sense to me. I think you crossed the line without a doubt. Now I am done posting in this thread.
You have questioned several person's capabilities at reading comprehension.
In your last post you quoted wxman57's post regarding Tropical Storm Chantal's original designation as Invest 98L.
Please tell me what you comprehended him say?
I scored pretty highly on my SAT exam and my "comprehension" of what wxman57 was stating was that Invest 98L should NOT have been designated. He stated there was no surface trough, surface pressures were higher where the Invest 98L was designated, and stated models are assuming there is a surface circulation which is wrong. He theorized that perhaps this "sheared convection east of an upper level circulation" could be another test.
I respect Chris/wxman57 very much, but like all persons he is not error-proof. The NHC at the time the invest 98L was assigned stated in the following TWO that there was a low pressure area. His opinion differed from the NHC which in my opinion is fine. However, when he conjectured that it may only be a "test subject," since there was not any surface circulation nor lower pressures is when I believe many persons became confused.
Wxman57 is a very valuable resource for us at Storm2k and I enjoy his thoughts and opinions greatly. In this situation, however, I personally believe and believed then as well that there actually was a broad surface circulation which warranted an Invest designation. Just like he questioned the NHC's analysis and forecast I believe we have the right to have alternative views to anyone's opinions and thoughts.
I just wanted to state I am glad we have definitive information on the differences between Invests and "tests," and that the NHC does not do tests with invests numbered 90-99.
But I did not appreciate being insulted by questioning my reading comprehension when I interpreted his words correctly. And like I said previously, I believe that as adults we all are capable of speaking for ourselves and someone else telling me what ANOTHER person meant makes absolutely no sense to me. I think you crossed the line without a doubt. Now I am done posting in this thread.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests