It used to be fun.....

[dixiebreeze]

some years ago, trying to out guess the Mets at the NHC, but now they've gotten so good at forecasting the tropics, it's hard to second guess them. Anyone agree -- or disagree?

[shaggy]

agreed

[WindRunner]

Agree, the only fun left is coming up with completely ridiculous tracks for storms like Irene (ones with low-confidence forecasts).

[gkrangers]

Agree, the only fun left is coming up with completely ridiculous tracks for storms like Irene (ones with low-confidence forecasts).

Its gonna hit Rhode Island.

[WeatherEmperor]

Ive given that up a long time ago.

<RICKY>

[Hurricaneman]

Hard to compete with them

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

You still can out guest them...

[djtil]

absolutely agree, and while its still fun and harmless to try on boards like this it borders on irresponsibility that some "trusted" media outlets try it.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

You can sometimes figure stuff out and get it right, like with Jeanne's momentum preventing the N. turn from occuring early as the NHC thought. I spotted that momentum and predicted Jeanne would stay further west of track---> A good educated guess you might say

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

The NHC is getting better and better though.

[Derecho]

Well, particularly in data-poor areas of the Eastern Atlantic, or for horribly sheared storms, you're going to see some pretty massive deviations from NHC forecast tracks.

Unless you yourself are making 120 hour track forecasts with specific lat-longs and calculated verifications, over long periods of time, not individual storms, people shouldn't be kidding themselves about "beating" NHC though.

And still nobody is any good at intensity forecasting.

However, I've wondered if the recent accuracy of NHC tracks for strong storms that are close to the US is beginning to bore people; for some it seems the only excitement or enjoyment they get out of the tropics is ranting against some horrible NHC error they imagine is occuring. In fact, I wonder if a lot of people aren't rooting for NHC to blow their track forecast.

[kevin]

It excites me to watch this science grow yearly. I don't care about the amatuers who occassionally get something right. The watch I don't wear anymore is right on the minute 1/720th of the time.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Not bashing NHC, they are certainly much better than I am, but sometimes other people notice little things and shifts and add this to discussion. If a person is bashing NHC, then that is wrong. But if someone just wants to point something out, that's okay. It all depends on the intent.

[WindRunner]

It excites me to watch this science grow yearly. I don't care about the amatuers who occassionally get something right. The watch I don't wear anymore is right on the minute 1/720th of the time.

what

[FloridaDiver]

"{snip}.... it's hard to second guess them. Anyone agree -- or disagree? {/snip}

Unless one is a professional MET it was and still is hard to second guess the NHC. However, I agree with your "idea", given that the equipment they use is getting better and with each passing season the NHC learns just a little bit more...

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Intensity is still up in the air, and thus fun. Track however is pretty much a non issue these days. My hat is off to the folks at the NHC/NWS they have really done a great job over the decades on the research that has brought us to this point.


Hybridstorm_November2001

[wxmann_91]

*****BTW NOT BASHING NHC HERE*****
(wanted to clarify that before you read my post)

NHC can make mistakes still. Dr. Avila bombed the Emily forecast while it was weakened from a Cat 4 to 2, and hurricane warnings for the lesser Antilles were lifted a few advisories before Emily unexpectedly strengthened to a hurrifcane, and they underestimated Dennis's weakening over Cuba and underestimated its restrengthening over the GOM. Also, the NHC bombed the track for Cindy though its center was relocated north. Franklin at the beginning also.

There have been many other mishaps but I am just mentioning the ones that occurred this year. The truth is that NHC makes the most mistakes with systems that reform their centers often (like Irene) and systems that are small and rapidly fluctuate intensities (like Dennis/Emily).

So yes, we can outguess them. But we must always keep in mind that we are amateurs and they are pros that are paid to make the most correct forecast they can. (Remember, right before Emily started to rapidly deepen into a hurricane east of the Lesser Antilles everybody here was saying that it was a wave and that after Dennis exited Cuba nobody here thought it had a chance.)

[cvalkan4]

It excites me to watch this science grow yearly. I don't care about the amatuers who occassionally get something right. The watch I don't wear anymore is right on the minute 1/720th of the time.

what

Another way of saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.

[cvalkan4]

It excites me to watch this science grow yearly. I don't care about the amatuers who occassionally get something right. The watch I don't wear anymore is right on the minute 1/720th of the time.

what

Another way of saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.

[Brent]

some years ago, trying to out guess the Mets at the NHC, but now they've gotten so good at forecasting the tropics, it's hard to second guess them. Anyone agree -- or disagree?

ABSOLUTELY!