Joe B....GOM developement end of week??

[Stormcenter]

I see you're back for another year of fun and games.

>>From June 1 2004 to the formation of Alex on July 31st 2004, Joe B. forecast or mentioned the possibility of Atlantic Tropical development no less than 29 times (a conservative estimate as due to archive problems the last week of each month was not avaliable.)

And this has exactly what to do with the setup for possible SE Gulf development toward this weekend? Please pardon me if I missed the thread where you made this or any other call in this history of your bashing other posters and weather outlets for their mistakes.

>>All 29 of those predictions were a failure.

Incidentally, you put out none. But I do recall you harping on one of Accuweather's tracks before you more or less vanished for the season. And you went on and on about it. I also recall the slightest hint you put out was worse than what you criticized them for. Last I checked, two wrongs still didn't make a right nor did it give the one who was more wrong than the other any room to criticize the lesser wrong without appearing to be a complete hypocrite or wannabe (aka Weather Weenie). LMAO, and it's all still here in the S2k archives. Some of us around here are smart enough to know a spade when we see one and call it what it is. Others lap you up like you're some kind of guru because they're afraid to expose you for what you are or afraid you'll flame them. (Exhibit A: "So true, I remember you posting something about that last season.. This is what I meant with my post in the beginning of this thread.)


The day you actually come out and make a prediction, forecast track or ANYTHING that affords you the right to criticize anyone else, then I'll never respond negatively to another bogus criticism you have to offer.

>>He can't possibly miss having "called" anything that develops if he's mentioning development every two days

And again, you can't possibly expect anyone who knows any better to miss you having "called" anything when you haven't in 2 seasons. You're great at trashing other people to make yourself look good, but not so great when you add up the fact that at least something is better than nothing.

So once again in 2005, I'm going to offer a friendly suggestion that you either put up or shut up. I've read two posts by you this year - one bashing Derek Ortt, one bashing Joe Bastardi, neither of which was a particularly good flame much less a reasonable criticism.

Some talk. Others do. Talk - action = zero.

Love,

Steve

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wthrman13]

I don't have as much of a problem with Bastardi's wishcasts as I do with his doomsday hype of real systems that are actually threatening landfall. A good case in point is Jeanne last year. I was watching MSNBC when Jeanne was about 6-12 hours from landfall and holding steady at minimal Cat 3. He came on and immediately started talking about how the hurricane was rapidly intensifying and would likely reach Category 4 before landfall. He kept saying that it was getting much better organized and that the NHC was underforecasting the landfall intensity. In fact, it was obvious (at least to me) that it was not getting better organized but was in fact maintaining its current level of organization. This was confirmed by recon fixes which consistently were showing the minimum central pressure holding steady or slowly dropping. The NHC's forecast of landfall intensity from that time was very good. The forecast landfall intensity from 1500Z on September 25th was 110 kts, while the actual landfall intensity was around 105 kts (although it's not clear that any land areas actually experienced these winds). Now, it's one thing to report on a landfalling hurricane and warn the public to take it seriously, especially considering that that area of Florida had already had a significant hurricane strike earlier in the season, but it's another thing entirely to irresponsibly claim intensification trends that are not there, and scare a bunch of people even further that are already on edge. Just my opinion... At the time I recall I was so upset that I actually contemplated calling MSNBC and expressing my displeasure at that particular segment.

[Derecho]

I see you're back for another year of fun and games.

Hugs and kisses, Steve.

And this has exactly what to do with the setup for possible SE Gulf development toward this weekend?

The point is the perception of some sort of mystical abilities to forecast tropical development by JB; they don't exist. It's remarkable in all fields how difficult it is to convey to people that making LOTS of forecasts and having a few hits is not an accomplishment; there are always true believers that will carry forward the cherished memory of the hits and the misses are forgotten.

It's physically impossible for anything to develop without JB having mentioned it before it forms. As indicated last year (I don't know if I posted the full list on here, might have just been on Wright-Weather) JB spent the entirety of June and July saying "watch the Gulf" or "there could be tropical trouble due to a trough splitting in the W Carib" etc. etc. every two days.

But it's not demonstrating an actual skill.

And the problem with JB is now due to the subscription, the price increases for the subscription, and now the general hatred of and contempt for Accuweather that is snowballing because of the Senate bill, nobody is actually reading his entire discussions other than an ever-shrinking core of died-in-the-wool fanboys. I mean, I subscribed for the summer last year for the entertainment value but there's no way Joel Myers is getting a penny from me this year.

Please pardon me if I missed the thread where you made this or any other call in this history of your bashing other posters and weather outlets for their mistakes.

Oh please; this is the asinine argument you hear on sports talk radio, that absolutely nobody can comment on a sport or a player at all without having played that sport. Can a general or congressman be criticized by anyone that hasn't been a general or congressman?

I openly admit to not making forecasts; I also thus don't run around bragging about forecasts I didn't make. I'm really not interested in doing the sort of vague unverifiable forecasting (oops, it magically becomes "speculation" or "giving possibilities" when it doesn't verify) that Bastardi does; but I'm also not that interested in running yet another "I'm pretending to be NHC and putting out my own advisory!" website either.

I have forecasted in a formal way for some contests a few years back; found that most people didn't have the discipline to keep up with it so it ended being just me vs. one other person by the end each year. I keep meaning to revive it with a sophisticated website and easier entry of forecasts but never have really had the time.

I'm excellent at track but really had trouble (much more than NHC) at intensity.

But I do recall you harping on one of Accuweather's tracks before you more or less vanished for the season.

It was a graphic and text where Accuweather committed deliberate deception regarding their own track vs. NHC's track on Ivan.

And you went on and on about it. I also recall the slightest hint you put out was worse than what you criticized them for.

It wasn't that it was a bad forecast, it was that they lied in order to bash NHC. I didn't have to be doing my own forecasts to note that and certainly it doesn't require that I be doing my own forecasts to comment on it.

Now a couple years ago I was regarded as some sort of lone kook with a vendetta against AccuWeather saying stuff like that; but look around all the weather boards; the various deceptive press releases regarding the Senate Bill, the whole issue of witholding recon data (with that one, as is often the case regarding AccuWeather or Bastardi, it's quite difficult to tell if they were deliberately lying, or merely grossly incompetent) have caused a lot of pretty level headed people, lots of actual meteorologists, to basically start saying the same things I've been saying for years.

Others lap you up like you're some kind of guru because they're afraid to expose you for what you are or afraid you'll flame them.

Anyone that considers me a guru needs their head examined . I'm definitely not. There's no one individual person I regard as a guru regarding matters of science and nobody else should either, though for whatever emotional reason people seem to want to single someone out to "follow."

One weird thing I've noticed is that the fact I don't forecast somehow causes people to think I have some sort of secret super-accurate forecast I keep to myself, and thus get pestered for it in chat. The less I say the smarter I'm perceived to be. Very odd. Something I've been meaning to try to apply in real life however

(Exhibit A: "So true, I remember you posting something about that last season.

You call that lapping me up? Geez.......try looking at some of the posts about Derek...now THAT'S obsequious worship as some sort of guru. He was simply noting and remebering the fully detailed study of Bastardi's forecasts of tropical cyclogenesis last year which I mentioned in my post.

The day you actually come out and make a prediction, forecast track or ANYTHING that affords you the right to criticize anyone else, then I'll never respond negatively to another bogus criticism you have to offer.

You're under the very mistaken impression that I somehow yearn for the day where you no longer respond negatively to me, and dream of a time where I no longer live in terror of Steve's incisive criticism.

I really don't care if you respond negatively to me I need my entertainment.

And again, you can't possibly expect anyone who knows any better to miss you having "called" anything when you haven't in 2 seasons. You're great at trashing other people to make yourself look good, but not so great when you add up the fact that at least something is better than nothing.

OK, I'll start a thread here every two days from now through October titled "Watch the tropics for tropical mischief because of a trough splitting in front of a wave in (insert wherever tropical development is climatologically most likely that week)!" Then can I pretty please be allowed to criticize Bastardi by the Steve Pompous Morality Committee?

I've read two posts by you this year - one bashing Derek Ortt, one bashing Joe Bastardi, neither of which was a particularly good flame much less a reasonable criticism.

Bashing? Which Ortt post are you referring to? Wracking my brain and all I can remember is a reference to his unaccountable love for the Canadian which is mysterious because the objective verification numbers don't back him up, buried within a post.

Edit: Ah, now I remember the whole "Should NHC remove discussions from public view" thread. Heck, I wasn't the only person going after Derek on that thread......he got all excited over the NHC site redesign, thinking it implied they were removing public discussions, which was a silly observation at the time, and of course turned out to be wrong. He talks about it so much I can only draw the conclusion he's fantasizing about people doing the whole "Oooh, Derek, master of all secret inside weather information, pretty please drop me some hints of what the secret NHC discussion says!" shtick, or causing more people to have to rely on NorthWestSouthEast Hemispheric Tropical Center discussions. Color me guilty of not being quite the rabid Dortt fan many on the board are, for a variety of reasons; however he does share my intense dislike of all things AccuWeather, which is great.

And you're referring to me (accurately) noting the 29 failed JB forecasts of tropical development in June/July 2004 as "Bashing?"

Many reasons I'm not posting much these days, 1) being busy

2) Being strangely not as interested in the tropics as I have been for the last 10 years; really been spending free time reading up on seismology, volcanology, etc...I suspect I finally will get into it more in August but I'm not as rabid as I was, say, back in 1998 or so. People and their interests change though.

3) Is the general desire to turn S2K in to a warm-n-fuzzy hug fest where everyone tells everyone else how wunnferul they are. Profoundly boring to me. But it's reached the point where the slightest disagreement sends the Care Bear Police into a frenetic tizzy. (Actually this seems to be a problem with society at large as well). Pretty sad if boring posts such as mine you mention are considered "bashing" by anybody. Though I'm sure you (and for all I know, the mods, but they let your lovenote to me through so I guess I'm fair game to be "bashed") will have an apocalyptic fit over my Accuweather/JB comments above; noting they have a problem with lying and incompetence isn't "bashing" it's merely an accurate observation.

[Derecho]

He came on and immediately started talking about how the hurricane was rapidly intensifying and would likely reach Category 4 before landfall.

That's a standard move...

1) It's what his fanbase wants to hear

2) There's about a 50% chance of something landfalling weaker than an NHC forecast, and 50% chance of landfalling stronger than an NHC forecast. He's got a 50% chance of NHC calling the intensity low, thus generating material for yet another Myers press release. (Though I have profound difficulty finding any actual JB or AccuWeather intensity forecasts to objectively verify.)

[mobilebay]

He came on and immediately started talking about how the hurricane was rapidly intensifying and would likely reach Category 4 before landfall.

That's a standard move...

1) It's what his fanbase wants to hear

2) There's about a 50% chance of something landfalling weaker than an NHC forecast, and 50% chance of landfalling stronger than an NHC forecast. He's got a 50% chance of NHC calling the intensity low, thus generating material for yet another Myers press release. (Though I have profound difficulty finding any actual JB or AccuWeather intensity forecasts to objectively verify.)

I'm like a lot of other people here. When are you going to make a forecast or predict something. All I have ever seen you do was criticize other people's posts. It gets old and we are all onto your game. I remember you ripped me last year because I said Ivan was going to stay on a more westerly coarse (which it did). I want to say I don't like JB at all and this has nothing to do with that. I'm just tired of these corrections you make to everyones predictions, when you don't make one at all.

[Steve]

lmao

That was actually pretty entertaining. I ain't going tit for tat, but I do (surprisingly) appreciate the candor of the post. Hey, I ain't one to deny when I'm wrong and maybe I was wrong about you all along in thinking you were a troll rather than someone who was just a little straight forward.

>>I need my entertainment.

Indeed. Btw, thanks for the post, seriously.

Steve

[rainydaze]

Derecho,

Speaking of entertainment.....sigh...I miss wxrisk.

[Steve]

>>...apocalyptic fit over my Accuweather/JB comments above; noting they have a problem with lying and incompetence isn't "bashing" it's merely an accurate observation.

Speaking of which, do yourself a favor and watch the first 2 or 3 minutes of Bastardi's Tropical Update today. You won't regret it. He says he's no longer going to discuss the NHC in his columns because he knows what's going on over there and may even stop referring to named storms by their name and instead, use things like "Tropical Cyclone of Hurricane Strength." I usually don't pick on him too much, but that stuff is over the top. They've all got agendas.

Steve

[wxcrazytwo]

Does it really matter? Who cares if he does it for drama or not? I mean as long as he gets it kinda right.

[loon]

Oh please; this is the asinine argument you hear on sports talk radio, that absolutely nobody can comment on a sport or a player at all without having played that sport. Can a general or congressman be criticized by anyone that hasn't been a general or congressman?

wholeheartly agree...

Now a couple years ago I was regarded as some sort of lone kook with a vendetta against AccuWeather saying stuff like that; but look around all the weather boards; the various deceptive press releases regarding the Senate Bill, the whole issue of witholding recon data (with that one, as is often the case regarding AccuWeather or Bastardi, it's quite difficult to tell if they were deliberately lying, or merely grossly incompetent) have caused a lot of pretty level headed people, lots of actual meteorologists, to basically start saying the same things I've been saying for years.

again...agreed...

There's no one individual person I regard as a guru regarding matters of science and nobody else should either, though for whatever emotional reason people seem to want to single someone out to "follow."

Agreed again...however! me agreeing will probably be taken in the same context of exactly what you speak of, so whatever...heh

Is the general desire to turn S2K in to a warm-n-fuzzy hug fest where everyone tells everyone else how wunnferul they are. Profoundly boring to me. But it's reached the point where the slightest disagreement sends the Care Bear Police into a frenetic tizzy. (Actually this seems to be a problem with society at large as well). Pretty sad if boring posts such as mine you mention are considered "bashing" by anybody. Though I'm sure you (and for all I know, the mods, but they let your lovenote to me through so I guess I'm fair game to be "bashed") will have an apocalyptic fit over my Accuweather/JB comments above; noting they have a problem with lying and incompetence isn't "bashing" it's merely an accurate observation.

Agreed again...

All and all, I'd have to say, on the score card, Id say

Steve 1
Derecho 1

with Derecho getting a +.5 for a well written response to what was nothing more than a slam from Steve. (in Steve's defense, he thought he was dealing with a troll, as he stated later...making his first response somewhat status quo in the "forums" business)

All and all, this was a great thread...there should be a hall of fame...

cheers
loon

[MWatkins]

>>...apocalyptic fit over my Accuweather/JB comments above; noting they have a problem with lying and incompetence isn't "bashing" it's merely an accurate observation.

Speaking of which, do yourself a favor and watch the first 2 or 3 minutes of Bastardi's Tropical Update today. You won't regret it. He says he's no longer going to discuss the NHC in his columns because he knows what's going on over there and may even stop referring to named storms by their name and instead, use things like "Tropical Cyclone of Hurricane Strength." I usually don't pick on him too much, but that stuff is over the top. They've all got agendas.

Steve

What, on earth, is he talking about? That awful mess last week that had no resemblence to anything tropical that he "called" a tropical storm? Is that "what's going on"?

Yep, the NHC is intentionally not naming systems so that his multi-colored rainbow convoluted landfall forecasts don't verify? Is that what he's getting at? That the hurricane specialists sit down, look at a system and say "Gee, that sure looks like a tropical storm, but we beter hold off on naming it because that one guy over there at that private company will be right"?

I believe, and I am not kidding about this at all, it is quite possible that he has gone mad.

MW

[x-y-no]

>>...apocalyptic fit over my Accuweather/JB comments above; noting they have a problem with lying and incompetence isn't "bashing" it's merely an accurate observation.

Speaking of which, do yourself a favor and watch the first 2 or 3 minutes of Bastardi's Tropical Update today. You won't regret it. He says he's no longer going to discuss the NHC in his columns because he knows what's going on over there and may even stop referring to named storms by their name and instead, use things like "Tropical Cyclone of Hurricane Strength." I usually don't pick on him too much, but that stuff is over the top. They've all got agendas.

Steve

Oh, boy ...

I'm an old reader of JB, although I haven't subscribed in nearly a year and a half by now. I learned a fair amount from him, so I never felt the outright hostility some have. Even back then, though, the jabs at NHC were a bit much, I thought. Sure, he (and anybody else for that matter) have a right to do hurricane forecasts, but there is an interest in having a recognized official forecast source, and clearly that should be NHC.

And with this years escalation to trying to use Santorum's bill to make a power grab, and the outright lies they're telling in order to justify it, I'm developing that outright hostility I didn't have before.

Jan

[x-y-no]

Yep, the NHC is intentionally not naming systems so that his multi-colored rainbow convoluted landfall forecasts don't verify? Is that what he's getting at? That the hurricane specialists sit down, look at a system and say "Gee, that sure looks like a tropical storm, but we beter hold off on naming it because that one guy over there at that private company will be right"?

I believe, and I am not kidding about this at all, it is quite possible that he has gone mad.

MW

There was a pretty paranoid ring about some of that, wasn't there?

Somehow, I think the forecasters at NHC have enough things on their mind without worrying about whether they might accidentally make Accuweather look good.

Jan