I'm going to gripe right now

[soonertwister]

24 hours ago the NHC told us that Emily wouldn't strengthen beyond 105 knots.

It the meantime, she's gone through the replacement cycles from hell and emerged on the far side with 145 mph winds.

Earth to NHC. Just skip the intensity forecasts and treat every cane as a dangerous animal. Your intensity forecasting, and I understand that it is th hardest part, hasn't been worth a flip.

Now you are saying that Emily will drop from a category 4 hurricane to a category 2 hurricane on a 50 mile transverse over land.

Are we supposed to believe that? What's the MAX for this storm now? You never predicted winds this high from Emily, and once again your intensity forecast has been crap.

You've been superb on track forecasting, but unless you can get better on intensity, I think you should treat all hurricanes as extremely dangerous.

If you can explain to me why Emily exploded to above 105 knots I'll be willing to listen, but I won't be particularly comforted by your explanation if you also tell me that it is a rare event.

That's what you get paid for.


[Soonertwister, ranting and raving, really agitated, out]

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

True...They also said Dannis would not become a cat3 again...

The recon data is 170 mph flight level at 90 percent=155 mph. So yes there things to discuse.

[Galvestongirl]

I think this might fit in this thread,

When Dennis was in the gulf it was stated that a stronger hurricane moves poleward, why is this not true for emily? I am very confused.

[Mac]

If I understand it correctly, a more intense hurricane will naturally TEND to move poleward. But a high pressure system (ridge) will still prevent that from happening if it is in place. Even a powerful hurricane is no match for a high pressure system.

[rightbayou]

I think that the NHC has been pretty up front about the problems with intensity forecasts, but on the other hand, there track forecasts have by in large been pretty impressive. That puts the responsibility on us to take appropriate action if we are in the projected track.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

There is alot to discuse. Nothing is wrong with having a little discussion on there weakness. That is what could makes them better.


I personally think there weakness on track is falling the Gfs around to much

[Ivanhater]

to my understanding its all relative, she is gaining latitude because she is so strong, if she was weak she would be going due west if not a little south of that, the ridge is so strong that she cannot go nw or due north right now, so its all relative to the conditions

[soonertwister]

Galveston Girl,

I'd say worried would be more like it. The models are based on a moderate cane. Over and over again stronger storms have consistently tracked more toward the north.

I'm not saying you need to prepare right now, but you need to keep monitoring this gal until she's out of the equation.

[jasons2k]

So far the NHC has nailed the track.

They did a great job with Dennis too.

Intensity is another topic. It's just so hard to predict, especially with ERC's, etc. They admit that freely. I'm sure over the years it will get better.

Let's all be careful/mindful not to get too spoiled with the accuracy of the track forecast.

I'm sure a lot of us feel your frustration here but we can't really blame the NHC; they do the best job they can with what we have.

[Agua]

NHC and their representatives state repeatedly that the NHC has very little to NO skill in forcasting intensity, so don't rely on those forecasts when it comes to your safety and protecting your own property.

[jlauderdal]

24 hours ago the NHC told us that Emily wouldn't strengthen beyond 105 knots.

It the meantime, she's gone through the replacement cycles from hell and emerged on the far side with 145 mph winds.

Earth to NHC. Just skip the intensity forecasts and treat every cane as a dangerous animal. Your intensity forecasting, and I understand that it is th hardest part, hasn't been worth a flip.

Now you are saying that Emily will drop from a category 4 hurricane to a category 2 hurricane on a 50 mile transverse over land.

Are we supposed to believe that? What's the MAX for this storm now? You never predicted winds this high from Emily, and once again your intensity forecast has been crap.

You've been superb on track forecasting, but unless you can get better on intensity, I think you should treat all hurricanes as extremely dangerous.

If you can explain to me why Emily exploded to above 105 knots I'll be willing to listen, but I won't be particularly comforted by your explanation if you also tell me that it is a rare event.

That's what you get paid for.


[Soonertwister, ranting and raving, really agitated, out]

put a lid on it and don't pay attention to the intensity forecasts if you don't like them. they are consistently upfront about the problems with intensity forecasting. i couldnt count the number of times max has been on tv explaining that intensity forecasting is still a mystery and they try there best but be prepared for anything. your post is an insult to the nhc and the people that work there.

[Scorpion]

My gripe is the intensity stated for their advisories. Many times they have overestimated the winds on Emily, and now they are underestimating the winds.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

So far the NHC has nailed the track.

They did a great job with Dennis too.

Intensity is another topic. It's just so hard to predict, especially with ERC's, etc. They admit that freely. I'm sure over the years it will get better.

Let's all be careful/mindful not to get too spoiled with the accuracy of the track forecast.

I'm sure a lot of us feel your frustration here but we can't really blame the NHC; they do the best job they can with what we have.

Not perfect on track!!! They never forecasted it to go through central Cuba for 18 hours then weaken to a cat1!!!

Then they where forecasting Mobile up intill the last hour or so. With a small storm like dennis that is huge.

[jasons2k]

So far the NHC has nailed the track.

They did a great job with Dennis too.

Intensity is another topic. It's just so hard to predict, especially with ERC's, etc. They admit that freely. I'm sure over the years it will get better.

Let's all be careful/mindful not to get too spoiled with the accuracy of the track forecast.

I'm sure a lot of us feel your frustration here but we can't really blame the NHC; they do the best job they can with what we have.

Not perfect on track!!! They never forecasted it to go through central Cuba for 18 hours then weaken to a cat1!!!

Then they where forecasting Mobile up intill the last hour or so. With a small storm like dennis that is huge.

I didn't say it was "perfect".

Overall they did a great job.

[Ivanhater]

they didnt have it at mobile the whole time, most of the time it was the florida alabama line, then nudged it a little left and right from there, the farthest west they had it was mobile bay i believe and farthest east they had it was around fort walton i think, they did a great job

[soonertwister]

I expected to get a lot of flack about this post, and a DO appreciate NHC's obvious accuracy in recent years on track.

But a day has been lost of preparation time because the NHC insisted that the conditions for strenghthening didn't exist.

I'm more worried about Emily turning south than north. I don't think the folks in Central America really need another round of Mitch.

But by staying near track, we have another really unpleasant possibility.

If Emily comes ashore in south Texas that's a good thing. If Emily comes ashore south of there and stalls in the vicinity of Monterrey likke Gilbert, I don't think I'm going to be at all happy.

The visions of a bus being violently propelled at 30 mph through the floodwaters there, while people screamed from almost every window to save them, is not an image I care to relive. Mitch was horrible, Gilbert was bad. It only took bad Gilbert to create that image in my mind.

[vbhoutex]

MAtt, you are wrong!!! The distance to landfall from Mobile was less than 50 miles. If someone is expecting to be in the RFQ of a Cat3 hurricane and less than 50 miles from the landfall point, they darn well better be hunkered down and boarded up!!!! That is not huge, it is MINISCULE ON THE SCALE THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

As stated above intensity is another thing and the NHC freely admits it over and over and over again.

If any of you can do nearly as good, fgo for it!!! Post your forecasts right here and STORM2K. Just be sure to use the disclaimer. Then wehn it is all over we can do a verification and see who comes out closest overall. I DARE SAY THE NHC WILL MAKE 99% OF US LOOK LIKE FOOLS!!!! The ones that they don't make luck like fools will be our professionals.

[Windy]

It's true that the NHC freely admits that it's intensity forecasts are subject to wide error. I guess to me the question is: why publish a number if it's probably going to be wrong? At some point publishing a number becomes misinformation. The public at large doesn't understand anything about the wide gulf between forecast and reality when it comes to intensityy... all they see is the number.

[Thunder44]

It's true that the NHC freely admits that it's intensity forecasts are subject to wide error. I guess to me the question is: why publish a number if it's probably going to be wrong? At some point publishing a number becomes misinformation. The public at large doesn't understand anything about the wide gulf between forecast and reality when it comes to intensityy... all they see is the number.

I totally agree. I think they should get rid of it, and just focus on the track of storms. The errors in the intensity forecasts are just too great.

[CajunMama]

The NHC is FORECASTING. They admit their errors and faults, they are human. Boy I wish I could get through a day without any errors. Please don't be so critical of the NHC. A forecast is not set in stone as I believe some here think it should be. I personally have 100% trust in the NHC. Kudos to them! Keep up the good work guys (and gals!)

fore·cast ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrkst, fr-)
v. fore·cast, or fore·cast·ed fore·cast·ing, fore·casts
v. tr.
To estimate or calculate in advance, especially to predict (weather conditions) by analysis of meteorological data. See Synonyms at predict.
To serve as an advance indication of; foreshadow: price increases that forecast inflation.

v. intr.
To calculate or estimate something in advance; predict the future.

n.
A prediction, as of coming events or conditions.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forecast