JB going the distance on SW Carib wave

[Steve]

>>Exactly Jan - the NHC keeps an even keel and does not senationalize the weather.

In all fairness, they also underplay it pretty often depending on the personallity. If Stewart is in there, you're going to get the bells and whistles. Dr. Avilla used to just ignore anything that amateurs were all over stating "tropical development is not expected through _3_ days later" only to have someone come up the next shift or two stating some possible development.

Let's be consistent because they do deserve a little chagrin - not much, but there are enough examples where you had to find an NOAA mention of something everyone was already talking about that you'd never find in an Outlook. I'm not bashing NHC, I'm just saying that the even keel stuff does have its drawbacks.

Steve

[dhweather]

it is bold... and he's been right on so far this year...
we'll see how this one turns out... he's out on a limb...

I have to disagree. He has not been "right on" this year.
There was no system last week, as he indicated there would be.
There's others he's missed as well.


Calling for a named storm and landfall location when nothing is
there right now is ridiculous.

you said there was "no system last week..."

were where you last week....

ummmm... NAMED STORM CALLED BRET

Last week was Sunday, June 19 through Saturday, June 25.
This week is Sunday, June 26 though Saturday, July 2nd.
Next week is Sunday, July 3rd to Saturday, July 9th.

On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 2200Z, the NHC initiated advisories on
TD Two, which became Bret. The final advisory was issued on
Thursday, June 30, at 0300Z. That was this week.

Last week, there were no tropical depressions, storms, or hurricanes
in the Atlantic basin. JB had previously stated there would be one last
week. There was not.

[Portastorm]

Sometimes it is a very thin line between alarming the public unneccesarily and playing it too safe. The good men and women at NHC walk that line every day. I'm sure it can't be easy, so they have my respect.

But yes, the personality of the forecaster can come into play in these instances. We've all seen (read) it.

To his credit, JB seemed legitimately concerned in his video about holiday action on the Gulf Coast and a rapidly developing system. I'm sure NHC is as well and is watching closely.

[dhweather]

>>Exactly Jan - the NHC keeps an even keel and does not senationalize the weather.

In all fairness, they also underplay it pretty often depending on the personallity. If Stewart is in there, you're going to get the bells and whistles. Dr. Avilla used to just ignore anything that amateurs were all over stating "tropical development is not expected through _3_ days later" only to have someone come up the next shift or two stating some possible development.

Let's be consistent because they do deserve a little chagrin - not much, but there are enough examples where you had to find an NOAA mention of something everyone was already talking about that you'd never find in an Outlook. I'm not bashing NHC, I'm just saying that the even keel stuff does have its drawbacks.

Steve

The big difference is the NHC does not go on camera every day
"pumping up" the audience. Sure, the NHC forecasters do have
a variance in personalities, but in all, they keep a very even
keel.

For example, the TWO just came out:

TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1130 AM EDT FRI JUL 1 2005

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...

A LARGE AREA OF DISORGANIZED CLOUDINESS AND THUNDERSTORMS CONTINUES
OVER PORTIONS OF THE CENTRAL AND SOUTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN
SEA...PRIMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH A WESTWARD MOVING TROPICAL WAVE.
THERE ARE NO SIGNS OF A SURFACE CIRCULATION...BUT UPPER-LEVEL WINDS
ARE BECOMING A LITTLE MORE FAVORABLE FOR SOME DEVELOPMENT DURING
THE NEXT DAY OR TWO...AS THE SYSTEM MOVES OVER THE WESTERN
CARIBBEAN SEA.

ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL STORM FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED THROUGH
SATURDAY.

FORECASTER AVILA


Avila said all that needs to be said - its a large area of thunderstorms
that should move into a little more favorable environment as it moves
into the western caribbean sea. There is no point in pumping up
anyone based on "this might develop", "major hurricane", "north central
gulf coast" - it is absurd to even suggest anything other than "might develop".

That is the difference in the NHC and JB.

[feederband]

JB!!!JB!!!JB!!!JB!!!JB!!!JB!! Ok I'll stop...

[Steve]

Agreed on that point that he did say what needed to be said. But in the past, he had been almost stubborn in his insistance that nothing was going to develop when someone else had to come in and mop it up. Another difference is that these guys represent the government. There are a lot of considerations that go into making mention of development. I think I read somwhere here once where an evacuation can cost millions and millions of dollars if issued unnecessarily. JB, on the other hand, only has to play to his clients and subscribers. That's who he owes his alliegence too. No doubt he's a foaming-out-the-mouth fanatic and goes nuts like most of us here do at the possibilities which sometimes gets him in trouble for overhyping. But he's kind of a like a security blanket too. You get to bounce stuff off of him (which I used to do when I paid for the service in 2004 and 2003) and also can use him as a barometer for what some in the professional community are saying.

Hey, the video is free just like the NHCWX stuff. You can view it and critique it. I happen to disagree with him on what apparently he believes will be Cindy. But still, I appreciate his take on it and weight it along with everyone else. Sure he busts, but he's pretty good too. As for last week, let's don't forget that there was a near subtropical storm that pretty much ran up the mid-Atlantic through New England. I think that's the one he called the enegizer bunny. Many here on this site said it was possibly an STD or TD at some point. It just never cranked all the way to official classification. The discernable entity was there though.

Steve

[dhweather]

Agreed on that point that he did say what needed to be said. But in the past, he had been almost stubborn in his insistance that nothing was going to develop when someone else had to come in and mop it up. Another difference is that these guys represent the government. There are a lot of considerations that go into making mention of development. I think I read somwhere here once where an evacuation can cost millions and millions of dollars if issued unnecessarily. JB, on the other hand, only has to play to his clients and subscribers. That's who he owes his alliegence too. No doubt he's a foaming-out-the-mouth fanatic and goes nuts like most of us here do at the possibilities which sometimes gets him in trouble for overhyping. But he's kind of a like a security blanket too. You get to bounce stuff off of him (which I used to do when I paid for the service in 2004 and 2003) and also can use him as a barometer for what some in the professional community are saying.

Hey, the video is free just like the NHCWX stuff. You can view it and critique it. I happen to disagree with him on what apparently he believes will be Cindy. But still, I appreciate his take on it and weight it along with everyone else. Sure he busts, but he's pretty good too. As for last week, let's don't forget that there was a near subtropical storm that pretty much ran up the mid-Atlantic through New England. I think that's the one he called the enegizer bunny. Many here on this site said it was possibly an STD or TD at some point. It just never cranked all the way to official classification. The discernable entity was there though.

Steve

You've just touched on the biggest key to all of this, and toss in senate bill 786, then we have a disaster in the making.

Right now, the NHC has the responsiblity and the authority to issue
watches and warnings for tropical cyclones affecting the US and its
territories. They have a great deal of communication and a well
established system for working with other federal, state, and local
emergency officials to protect life and property. When they do
make the call, it does cost millions of dollars to spin up the
evacuation process, and there's millions of more dollars that
are lost in local economies as businesses suffer losses.
NOAA and the NHC are held responsible by the legislative and
executive branches of the United States Government.
After last year, dialouge between legislators and NOAA reveled
that more data bouys would help a great deal in forecasting.
Congress funded and mandated that NOAA spend millions and
have the six new bouys operational for the 2005 hurricane season.


If Senate Bill 786 does pass, all of this will change, and for the worst.
Accuweather and others only want the authority but not the responsibility.
You can not have one without the other and be effective.

Accuweather only answers to shareholders, not the taxpayers of the
US Government that funded everything that is in place today for
meterological and oceanographic data observation, collection, and dissemination.
Taxpayers deserve free and uncontrolled access to the tremendous resources they have already paid for.

If we end up with Accuweather calling the shots, how many times
will the public tolerate JB in his "chicken little" mode of operations?
Will the states and other businesses economically impacted by
them be allowed to sue for damages?

Privitization of ANYTHING to do with NOAA is fundamentally wrong,
without exception.

[Thunder44]

>>Exactly Jan - the NHC keeps an even keel and does not senationalize the weather.

In all fairness, they also underplay it pretty often depending on the personallity. If Stewart is in there, you're going to get the bells and whistles. Dr. Avilla used to just ignore anything that amateurs were all over stating "tropical development is not expected through _3_ days later" only to have someone come up the next shift or two stating some possible development.

Let's be consistent because they do deserve a little chagrin - not much, but there are enough examples where you had to find an NOAA mention of something everyone was already talking about that you'd never find in an Outlook. I'm not bashing NHC, I'm just saying that the even keel stuff does have its drawbacks.

Steve

The big difference is the NHC does not go on camera every day
"pumping up" the audience. Sure, the NHC forecasters do have
a variance in personalities, but in all, they keep a very even
keel.

For example, the TWO just came out:

TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1130 AM EDT FRI JUL 1 2005

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...

A LARGE AREA OF DISORGANIZED CLOUDINESS AND THUNDERSTORMS CONTINUES
OVER PORTIONS OF THE CENTRAL AND SOUTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN
SEA...PRIMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH A WESTWARD MOVING TROPICAL WAVE.
THERE ARE NO SIGNS OF A SURFACE CIRCULATION...BUT UPPER-LEVEL WINDS
ARE BECOMING A LITTLE MORE FAVORABLE FOR SOME DEVELOPMENT DURING
THE NEXT DAY OR TWO...AS THE SYSTEM MOVES OVER THE WESTERN
CARIBBEAN SEA.

ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL STORM FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED THROUGH
SATURDAY.

FORECASTER AVILA


Avila said all that needs to be said - its a large area of thunderstorms
that should move into a little more favorable environment as it moves
into the western caribbean sea. There is no point in pumping up
anyone based on "this might develop", "major hurricane", "north central
gulf coast" - it is absurd to even suggest anything other than "might develop".

That is the difference in the NHC and JB.

Stewart from TPC said last night on MW's show that it is not that they don't speculate themselves what will happen in the future, but that their TWO's they are restrained in only what could develop and be a threat within 36 or 48 hours. Perhaps that is best for them, since they always have the official word on systems, but I really don't mind at all anyone with a decent knowledge of weather speculating beyond that. It's been done so much here by a number of the forecasters here, one more recently with that tropical wave in the Atlantic that hasn't . Somehow JB is being irresponsible but they aren't? That's more absurd to me.

[timNms]

I'm with you, MW. Anyone can make such a prediction. I could say that "If anything forms and enters the Gulf, it will make landfall somewhere along the Mexican coastline or along the US coastline anywhere from Texas to the Florida peninsula" and be correct We all know that once a system gets into the Gulf, there's no way out other than making landfall somewhere (unless the storm somehow manages to move between southern Florida and Cuba, but the chances of it missing the Keys are slim. Or, it could die a slow death in the open waters of the gulf.) In other words, the odds are high that the system would make landfall somewhere.

While I agree that JB is very intelligent, like others have said, the difference in what he does and what the NHC does is this: JB is in it for the money while the NHC is in it to save lives. I also think we can rest assured that those people who are vacationing along the gulf realize that a hurricane is nothing to play around with. Sometimes we don't give people enough credit. Folks are smarter than we think. I don't believe that any vacationers would be foolish enough to stay along the coast if an evacuation notice was given. The NHC, in my opinion, is the agency to turn to when there is a hurricane, tropical storm, depression, or tropical wave out there that has the potential to affect the US. Say what you want to about them, but if you think about it, they are the ones who ultimately have the responsibility to protect lives. Based on their projections, areas are evacuated. Can you imagine what it would be like without them? What would people do who were unable to afford to pay for services that the NHC provides? That's when you would see greater losses of life.

Again I'll say that JB is a very intelligent person, but if I had to gamble with my life, I'd go with what the NHC says anyday over what JB hypes.

[Steve]

I agree with that post. I don't like the idea of privatization. We did get the bouys but the director was in front of congress recently since they got their budget slashed by 7.6% in a recent Senate budget. Now I'm all for slashing the budget and reigning in congress and the White House Budget Office, but some things are more important than pork-barrel projects. This is one of 'em. Bush and the Senate should have recognized that if they're funnelling 200B into Iraq the last 2 years, that a couple of billion is actually money worth spending for the REAL safety of Americans, many of which live on our country's coastlines.

You can find the story on a google news search. Many members of the house are opposed to the cut so we'll have to see how it all plays out in the conference committees once each chamber approves its version.

Steve

[Air Force Met]

If Senate Bill 786 does pass, all of this will change, and for the worst.
Accuweather and others only want the authority but not the responsibility.
You can not have one without the other and be effective.

I'm no fan of 786...but let's be real. "All of this" will not change if 786 passes. The NWS and the NHC will still have responsibility over issuing warnings and watches...that will not change per Sec 2.a.1 and 2.a.4 of the bill.

Let's be real on what the problem with this is...which is the private companies getting to make more money without having to pay for the data whichi is used to make the forecast possible. Let us not, however (as the other side is doing) make this bill say things it doesn't say. The only thing that would change with the NHC is they would have to release more of their internal data...the fact they put out the warnings and the forecasts for tropical cyclones would not change...per section 2.a.5 of the bill...and the above sections...especially 2.a.1.

BTW...when I talked to the good senator's office a few weeks ago...I mentioned that the bill was very poorly written...and needed a lot of work...and should be canned. I said that the very reason we have problems in the courts today is because bills are not written specifically enough and the loopholes in them allow people to drive trucks right through...and that section 2.b of the bill was just asking for trouble if it wasn't changed or deleted.

edited to add last paragraph.

[Derek Ortt]

the two's are supposed to be only focusing on the immediate future. Just as any nwhhc outlook is (ours are even more restricted, only for the next 36 hours, I believe NHC's are 48 hours).

Does this mean that we do not speculate at the office? Of course not. Got a call from Cangialosi from a conference on Boulder and I told him we had a TS, 5 hours before it was confirmed by recon. Would I state that publicly... of course not!

[dhweather]

Off topic but associated - I am beyond disgusted with the pork spending.

Things like new weather satellites and observation systems are much
more important than a lot of the garbage that gets snuck into each
budget.

There was a list of "kings of pork" last year, Robert Byrd (D, WV)
and Trent Lott (R, MS) were the top two "pork spenders"

So yes, I agree that the budget is wayout of control and needs to
be reeled back in.

[dhweather]

If Senate Bill 786 does pass, all of this will change, and for the worst.
Accuweather and others only want the authority but not the responsibility.
You can not have one without the other and be effective.

I'm no fan of 786...but let's be real. "All of this" will not change if 786 passes. The NWS and the NHC will still have responsibility over issuing warnings and watches...that will not change per Sec 2.a.1 and 2.a.4 of the bill.

Let's be real on what the problem with this is...which is the private companies getting to make more money without having to pay for the data whichi is used to make the forecast possible. Let us not, however (as the other side is doing) make this bill say things it doesn't say. The only thing that would change with the NHC is they would have to release more of their internal data...the fact they put out the warnings and the forecasts for tropical cyclones would not change...per section 2.a.5 of the bill...and the above sections...especially 2.a.1.

BTW...when I talked to the good senator's office a few weeks ago...I mentioned that the bill was very poorly written...and needed a lot of work...and should be canned. I said that the very reason we have problems in the courts today is because bills are not written specifically enough and the loopholes in them allow people to drive trucks right through...and that section 2.b of the bill was just asking for trouble if it wasn't changed or deleted.

edited to add last paragraph.

Yes the NHC will still issue watches and warnings, but the bill is so vague
that we really don't know who will be responsible for dissemination
of information. I too have grave concern over how the courts will
interpret this.

S786 just needs to die and go away for ever.

[x-y-no]

If Senate Bill 786 does pass, all of this will change, and for the worst.
Accuweather and others only want the authority but not the responsibility.
You can not have one without the other and be effective.

I'm no fan of 786...but let's be real. "All of this" will not change if 786 passes. The NWS and the NHC will still have responsibility over issuing warnings and watches...that will not change per Sec 2.a.1 and 2.a.4 of the bill.

Let's be real on what the problem with this is...which is the private companies getting to make more money without having to pay for the data whichi is used to make the forecast possible. Let us not, however (as the other side is doing) make this bill say things it doesn't say. The only thing that would change with the NHC is they would have to release more of their internal data...the fact they put out the warnings and the forecasts for tropical cyclones would not change...per section 2.a.5 of the bill...and the above sections...especially 2.a.1.

Right. S. 786 explicitly leaves emergency and aviation forecasts in place.

What the bill is about (IMHO) is restricting the government from issuing all the intermediate products (their own internal forecast products, sattelite imagery, radar imagery, model output, etc) and a lot of stuff that's easily derived from it (producing model-based local forecasts like they do is trivial once you've already developed and run the models) so that private companies can make bucks delivering the same thing.

If you want to see exactly how much territory is covered by what private entities are "willing" to deliver for a fee, take a tour of Accuweather's Pro site. Sure, there's added value there - but the vast majority is just the goverment's product repackaged.

The annoying thing (or one of many, really) is that the backers of this legislation are implying that NOAA is expending a lot of effort on stuff just to compete with private providers. The truth is that they can't fulfill the emergency, maritime and aviation mission without doing 99% of everything they're doing anyway. So the real point of this bill is not saving government cost or focusing them on the mission (they already are) but *stopping* them from conveniently providing the product of their efforts to the average person.

Jan

[Air Force Met]

Jan...that's what it's about. The old proverb always holds true...follow the money. Those companies want to sell those products without having to pay for the R&D it takes to produce them.

The bill is a bad bill because it is not well defined and because of section 2.b. If the "REAL" reason the people at accuweather wanted this bill is because they want realtime access to all the data...then fine...there is a way to write the bill that way. The very fact they say that is what it is all about really infuriates me...because nobody I know has a problem with making all the data public...realtime (except some on the NWS...and I know some personally who do have a problem...names withheld of course). I don't have a problem with it. But again...let's ALL be real. The reason section 2.b is there is the whole reason the bill is being written. If you take 2.b out of the bill, then accuweather would not support it or even care about it...and that is hypocritical seeing how they say they care only about 2.d.

[Agua]

the two's are supposed to be only focusing on the immediate future. Just as any nwhhc outlook is (ours are even more restricted, only for the next 36 hours, I believe NHC's are 48 hours).

Does this mean that we do not speculate at the office? Of course not. Got a call from Cangialosi from a conference on Boulder and I told him we had a TS, 5 hours before it was confirmed by recon. Would I state that publicly... of course not!

There ya go. People are criticizing NHC and JB alike without understanding their respective foci. JB is *very* *very* good at recognizing patterns which result in development from several days out. His calls as to landfall that far out are *not* as impressive as his development recognition skill, BUT, he gets sort of ballpark with it. Are the individual forecasters at NHC pretty good at this? Probably they are, BUT, that's not their focus. Their focus is 36 hours out for the TWOs because, as advised by Stewart last night on NHCWX, that is the limit of what they believe they can forecast as far as development goes.

[gkrangers]

People are missing the point here.

The NHC is charged with saving lives and not alarming the public unnecessarily.

JB's job is to sell subscriptions. By making outlandish predictions, he'll do just that.

They are both doing what's in their job description...

[jax]

and JB probably makes the 5x the total combined salary
and NHC and NOAA combined...

[Stormcenter]

People are missing the point here.

The NHC is charged with saving lives and not alarming the public unnecessarily.

JB's job is to sell subscriptions. By making outlandish predictions, he'll do just that.

They are both doing what's in their job description...

I'm sorry but I would not describe JB's predictions as outlandish. The man is VERY animated with his description
of the weather patterns and that's it.