GOM and 92L

clfenwi · #61 Postby **clfenwi** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:49 pm

Steve wrote:Take it up with Clark, not me. He's the research scientist. I'm not sure in what context he's discussing nor in comparison to what sample. I'm sure he'd hook you up. I'll go ahead and call him over (he may have an account here, if not, he can create one). Maybe he'll explain what he was saying.

Steve

I wasn't directing my comments at you and apologize if you feel that you were being questioned in any way... I know that those weren't your remarks.

#62 Postby **Steve** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:52 pm

It's all good. You guys are over my head in all honesty on that discussion. I sent him a PM at CFHC. Hopefully he'll respond back and/or come over here. I appreciate the post anyway, but I gotta beg off in the debate since I'm not qualified. /no worries

Steve

#63 Postby **Steve** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:14 pm

Here's the reply I got clf..

I'm going off of what the people in charge of the Superensemble showed me for track errors off of their PowerPoint presentations. One of the forecasters from the NHC -- either Jack Beven or James Franklin -- backed up the 2003 claim as well, as they mentioned in their talk here about the 2004 season. It is worth noting that the 2003 presentation given does not reference the Superensemble in its charts or discussion at all. I can put that poster in contact with someone who has the official numbers if they like...

The Superensemble was not as timely as the NHC may have liked, but it was always there in time for the advisory packages (if just so). That has been corrected with last year's guidance -- and even moreso with this year's packages. It wasn't anything on our end that could be dealt with; it was a problem of getting the model data in enough time to determine the forecast, as the NHC advisory packages are already pretty cramped for time with the release of the model guidance.

-Clark

This is his profile link - not sure if you need to be logged in to view since I already am, but:

http://flhurricane.com/cyclone/showprof ... art=1&vc=1

Hopefully the person he can put you in touch with will set some of the record straight.

Peace

Steve

#64 Postby **deltadog03** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:22 pm

MOST OF THE GUIDANCE NOW TAKES THE SYSTEM THROUGH THE FL STRAITS
INTO THE ERN GULF OF MEXICO

ok...from the same topics....whats up with that?????

clfenwi · #65 Postby **clfenwi** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:34 pm

Steve wrote:Here's the reply I got clf..

I'm going off of what the people in charge of the Superensemble showed me for track errors off of their PowerPoint presentations. One of the forecasters from the NHC -- either Jack Beven or James Franklin -- backed up the 2003 claim as well, as they mentioned in their talk here about the 2004 season. It is worth noting that the 2003 presentation given does not reference the Superensemble in its charts or discussion at all. I can put that poster in contact with someone who has the official numbers if they like...

The Superensemble was not as timely as the NHC may have liked, but it was always there in time for the advisory packages (if just so). That has been corrected with last year's guidance -- and even moreso with this year's packages. It wasn't anything on our end that could be dealt with; it was a problem of getting the model data in enough time to determine the forecast, as the NHC advisory packages are already pretty cramped for time with the release of the model guidance.

-Clark

This is his profile link - not sure if you need to be logged in to view since I already am, but:

http://flhurricane.com/cyclone/showprof ... art=1&vc=1

Hopefully the person he can put you in touch with will set some of the record straight.

Peace

Steve

Thanks for passing that long, Steve.

Just one thing for the record here: The remark that no model has been tops two years in the row was from a talk by James Franklin entitled "NHC Forecasts: Current Verifications and a New Probability Product" (it mostly mirrored the 2004 verification document that I linked to in my original post).

#66 Postby **Steve** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:04 pm

Gotcha. Maybe he was playing to the audience over at FSU if it was him and not Bevin?

clfenwi · #67 Postby **clfenwi** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:06 pm

deltadog03 wrote:MOST OF THE GUIDANCE NOW TAKES THE SYSTEM THROUGH THE FL STRAITS
INTO THE ERN GULF OF MEXICO

ok...from the same topics....whats up with that?????

No idea. If anyone has a link to a model indicating FL straits passage, throw it up here. The leftmost model I've seen was the 12Z NOGAPS, which indicated a mid-peninsula strike. UKMET and GEM (Canadian) were keeping their developed systems east of Florida and the GFS was doing similar things with its open wave. As I posted above, when you look at the HPC comment and their forecast, it looks like the European keeps it out of the FL Straits as well.

#68 Postby **deltadog03** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:10 pm

hey, its posted in the other thread...page 4 i believe....at the end of there runs most of them look to head W....

clfenwi · #69 Postby **clfenwi** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:19 pm

deltadog03 wrote:hey, its posted in the other thread...page 4 i believe....at the end of there runs most of them look to head W....

Looked at it... only one of those that one could possibly extrapolate a FL Straits passage from is the LBAR (with the BAMM coming close). All of the others suggest a peninsula hit or a miss for Florida.

So you have one or two limited area models out of four (I exclude the GFDL since it continues to kill the system off) and then zero out of five global models running the system into the Straits.... that yields 1 or 2 out of nine... that is far from 'most of the guidance'.

So, to repeat my last post, I really don't know what the basis for the HPC remark is.

GOM and 92L

Who is online