Forecast Gripe Thread!!!

[clfenwi]

Disagree with the forecast??? Hate it with a passion??? Think it's the greatest thing since The Weather Channel??? Roses and brickbats here, please...don't clutter the advisory thread... I'll offer my thoughts here in a bit...

[Rainband]

The National Hurricane Centers forecast?? No one can hold a candle to them with all due respect. If anyone has gripes then I want to personally see them do better. IMHO.

[dwg71]

The National Hurricane Centers forecast?? No one can hold a candle to them with all due respect. If anyone has gripes then I want to personally see them do better. IMHO.

Well said...

I put a one week self imposed ban from posting against anybody who says Galveston and I get the border. Give or take 50 miles.. You have to do the same... any takers...

[stormie_skies]

The National Hurricane Centers forecast?? No one can hold a candle to them with all due respect. If anyone has gripes then I want to personally see them do better. IMHO.

I don't think one should have to "do better" to have questions about anyone's forecast. Forecasting the path of a tropical system is not an exact science.... most of the pro mets on here have disagreed with the NHC from time to time....sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes they are right.

I think NHC bashing for its own sake is silly and pointless, and I agree that the NHC does a wonderful job - if I didn't, why on earth would I be waiting with baited breath for every advisory and discussion? But they have been wrong before... and what fun is a forum on tropical systems without people raising questions, trying to interpret the data themselves and, occasionally, learning something in the process?

Those who are too bold and brash about criticizing the NHC's track will be served a heaping plate of crow in the end if they are wrong...we all know that!

[hicksta]

I personally think they are overestimating the ridge... i think landfall will be from corpus-matagorda bay. just my 2 cents.

[dwg71]

I personally think they are overestimating the ridge... i think landfall will be from corpus-matagorda bay. just my 2 cents.

The trend this year has been underestimating the ridge, time will tell..

[hicksta]

The upper low is expected to weaken, but there will still be a weakness over Texas. Where that weakness is the key to Emily's move northward. quoted from my local met.

[deltadog03]

I personally think they are overestimating the ridge... i think landfall will be from corpus-matagorda bay. just my 2 cents.

The trend this year has been underestimating the ridge, time will tell..

actually they have overforecast the ridge....case and point DENNIS!!!!

[Stormcenter]

The National Hurricane Centers forecast?? No one can hold a candle to them with all due respect. If anyone has gripes then I want to personally see them do better. IMHO.

Yes but they do have the resources and computers that NONE of us have to assist them. But I still give them kudos for great job considering what they are up against.

[hicksta]

I just see so many possobillities for change. the chances of the models nailing it 5 days out. who knows we should know sunday

[Agua]

actually they have overforecast the ridge....case and point DENNIS!!!!

Well, the models definitely haven't been overestimating the ridge so far with this storm.

[Rainband]

The National Hurricane Centers forecast?? No one can hold a candle to them with all due respect. If anyone has gripes then I want to personally see them do better. IMHO.

I don't think one should have to "do better" to have questions about anyone's forecast. Forecasting the path of a tropical system is not an exact science.... most of the pro mets on here have disagreed with the NHC from time to time....sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes they are right.

I think NHC bashing for its own sake is silly and pointless, and I agree that the NHC does a wonderful job - if I didn't, why on earth would I be waiting with baited breath for every advisory and discussion? But they have been wrong before... and what fun is a forum on tropical systems without people raising questions, trying to interpret the data themselves and, occasionally, learning something in the process?

Those who are too bold and brash about criticizing the NHC's track will be served a heaping plate of crow in the end if they are wrong...we all know that!

My point was they are allowed to make mistakes. We ALL do.

[deltadog03]

the weakness, IF** one, won't be until off the coast of texas...not here

[fci]

I agree.
They will be wrong sometimes since this is not an exact science and may never be.
Besides, if it were an EXACT science; these forums would be simply boring!
Conjecture, prognosticating, being wrong 90% of the time and correct 10% of the time is what keeps us coming back.
It's like golf, when you are a hacker and ready to quit the game; you hit a Par 3 green 5 feet from the cup and come back again for more!
Same, with this for us; we nail a projection we keep making them.
And they are FUN to make!
But... for the NHC, they are like Tiger who is expected to hit them straight every time and sometimes fails.

[stormie_skies]

The National Hurricane Centers forecast?? No one can hold a candle to them with all due respect. If anyone has gripes then I want to personally see them do better. IMHO.

I don't think one should have to "do better" to have questions about anyone's forecast. Forecasting the path of a tropical system is not an exact science.... most of the pro mets on here have disagreed with the NHC from time to time....sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes they are right.

I think NHC bashing for its own sake is silly and pointless, and I agree that the NHC does a wonderful job - if I didn't, why on earth would I be waiting with baited breath for every advisory and discussion? But they have been wrong before... and what fun is a forum on tropical systems without people raising questions, trying to interpret the data themselves and, occasionally, learning something in the process?

Those who are too bold and brash about criticizing the NHC's track will be served a heaping plate of crow in the end if they are wrong...we all know that!

My point was they are allowed to make mistakes. We ALL do.

Well that we can certainly agree on...they are better than anyone out there overall, and people should cut them some slack

I was under the impression that you were saying people shouldn't disagree with them....Im glad to see I read you wrong!

[Rainband]

The National Hurricane Centers forecast?? No one can hold a candle to them with all due respect. If anyone has gripes then I want to personally see them do better. IMHO.

I don't think one should have to "do better" to have questions about anyone's forecast. Forecasting the path of a tropical system is not an exact science.... most of the pro mets on here have disagreed with the NHC from time to time....sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes they are right.

I think NHC bashing for its own sake is silly and pointless, and I agree that the NHC does a wonderful job - if I didn't, why on earth would I be waiting with baited breath for every advisory and discussion? But they have been wrong before... and what fun is a forum on tropical systems without people raising questions, trying to interpret the data themselves and, occasionally, learning something in the process?

Those who are too bold and brash about criticizing the NHC's track will be served a heaping plate of crow in the end if they are wrong...we all know that!

My point was they are allowed to make mistakes. We ALL do.

Well that we can certainly agree on...they are better than anyone out there overall, and people should cut them some slack

I was under the impression that you were saying people shouldn't disagree with them....Im glad to see I read you wrong!

No Problem BTW Very good post.

[joseph01]

I agree with rainband, that there isn't much room to gripe here, but I'm still glad to see a thread where people can do just that, and see what they're thinking.

[stormie_skies]

The National Hurricane Centers forecast?? No one can hold a candle to them with all due respect. If anyone has gripes then I want to personally see them do better. IMHO.

I don't think one should have to "do better" to have questions about anyone's forecast. Forecasting the path of a tropical system is not an exact science.... most of the pro mets on here have disagreed with the NHC from time to time....sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes they are right.

I think NHC bashing for its own sake is silly and pointless, and I agree that the NHC does a wonderful job - if I didn't, why on earth would I be waiting with baited breath for every advisory and discussion? But they have been wrong before... and what fun is a forum on tropical systems without people raising questions, trying to interpret the data themselves and, occasionally, learning something in the process?

Those who are too bold and brash about criticizing the NHC's track will be served a heaping plate of crow in the end if they are wrong...we all know that!

My point was they are allowed to make mistakes. We ALL do.

Well that we can certainly agree on...they are better than anyone out there overall, and people should cut them some slack

I was under the impression that you were saying people shouldn't disagree with them....Im glad to see I read you wrong!

No Problem BTW Very good post.

TY!

[Rainband]

Why are you embarssed

[clfenwi]

The National Hurricane Centers forecast?? No one can hold a candle to them with all due respect. If anyone has gripes then I want to personally see them do better. IMHO.

Yeah, gripes was a bit of an overheated word... I threw this up because the moment the advisory package came across, arguing started over the forecast. Doing that kind of thing in the advisory thread makes the thread less useful, becuase it forces people to scroll through conversations/arguments when they are looking to quickly reference a discussion/forecast/advisory. A better subject may have been "Calm and reasoned discourse upon the National Hurricane Center forecast". However, as it was gripes that I was trying to pull from the advisories thread, gripes was the word used here....


...now for my thoughts on the forecast... there are things to like about it (even if you don't like these reasons, you still have to accept the reality that the NHC faces).

-It gives them a reasonable amount of room to move the forecast in either direction in later advisories without breaking continuity with previous forecasts.

-It makes it clear that a threat to south Texas is a real possibility without unduly hyping it.

-It is reasonably well supported by guidance.

Now, having acknowledged those realities, here is what I don't like about it:

- It is straight on the model consenus ( http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/con ... html#track ), both that of the global models and that of the limited area ones.

Now there are times that I would like a forecast along the consensus. If the models are offering a wide spread and/or the individual models are being inconsistent with themselves from run to run, then going with the consensus is the smart move. Doing that usually helps account for all of the biases and smooth them into something that reflects reality (this can also be seen in forecasting contests that have a large number of participants from different areas. The biases of everyone cancel eachother out and the result is a forecast that pretty reliably beats the models, NWS, and nearly every individual forecaster).

However, I don't think it is wise to go with the consensus with these two circumstances present:

1. The consensus is reached with models that have been wrong consistently in an identical manner in the past with the storm. The limited area models in particular have, for just about the whole time Emily has been around, turned Emily too soon. To put your forecast along the same path they offer is to have faith in them becoming dead-on suddenly after an extended period where they have been wrong.

2. There are two models that have been offering consistent and accurate tracks for Emily since Tuesday morning: The European and NOGAPS. I posted on the 12Z model thread this morning a comparision of the models' 72 h forecast from Tuesday morning. As you can probably guess, NOGAPS and European were both very close to the verifying position. The GFS was close enough for government work. UKMET was off, and the Canadian was worse. Neither the European or NOGAPS have been selling a false course. Also, the forecast of Tuesday morning was pretty much the forecast of Wednesday and Thursday morning as well. Last night's run was the first time either shifted significantly north. They have since retreated back towards their original track, and given the trend today, they may go all the way back.

I think that unless you can find specific flaws in their forecast, errors in initialization, significant under/overdevelopment of key features, etc then you go with those models and favor them over their consenus.

NHC had been doing that starting on Tuesday or so. I don't see the compelling reason for them to change course.

With all that said, I admit this amounts to fairly small stuff. NHC could easily adjust to this position in the next package. As I said earlier, one advantage of this forecast is that they have room to move in either direction.

As I stated in the beginning of this post, I didn't start this thread to air deep grievances about the forecast; none are here, in the big picutre, this are but small quibbles. I started the thread because people were turning the advisory thread into an argument thread and I felt that it would be worthwhile to try to redirect the argument to a place that wouldn't interfere with the flow of useful, official information.