40/70 Benchmark Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 It's amazing to me how many people are more interested in "being right" first and obsessed with making a call instead of verbatim just enjoying the "chase" of landing a solid storm. Also amazing that so many people are willing to rule out an east coast landfall completely at this stage. This isn't a wintertime pattern. Things behave differently, especially tropical storms at our logitude. No I'm not saying to expect a strike. I'm not saying either way. I'm also not going to irresponsibly rule out any scenario. I'm not highlighting your posts right now but just a commentary in general. This whole guessing game of who is going to be right first is insufferable. Worst part is it will last right through winter. Some people like to hone their forecasting skills...and, you know.....getting it right kind of matters. You have discretion over which posts you choose to view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I saw it. I think individual forecasters should devise a forecast for themselves in a situation like this when you know it's BS. When I said "we" I meant general public. Luckily here on this board we can put out our own opinions, but overall the public and those that determine actions to be taken (think govt and EMs here) are slaves to the cone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 When I said "we" I meant general public. Luckily here on this board we can put out our own opinions, but overall the public and those that determine actions to be taken (think govt and EMs here) are slaves to the cone. Oh, I thought you meant "we" as in mets in general. Gov. agencies have no choice, agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Yup. The NHC has been able to get the media and EMs to be slaves to the cone - unlike any other maps/representation in the NWS. The problem is the cone is sometimes wildly unrepresentative of the actual forecast uncertainty. The NHC can't have it both ways. They can't tell everyone for decades to focus on the cone and then say... well, you should really read the discussion when the cone isn't a good representation of the threat. The NHC is doing the best they can but to be honest it seems like they're forecasting much more to reduce their error scores than forecasting what's actually the most likely scenario. It's been a nightmare for us trying to communicate. But they HAVE to. You know better than many how they get their funding. It goes to say that they desire to hedge things and not make drastic changes in forecasts because of the scrutiny they would come under. Congress right now is so damn fickle and constantly questioning NOAA funding that they have to be able to say they get things right even if it done in a vague way. Look at what kind of storm had to happen just to get some improvement in computing upgrades. they swing for the fences and get burned then I can see them being questioned as to why are we spending the money at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTWeatherFreak Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Theyd be better off using the 'Cone Of Silence' from the old Get Smart series! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Communication is and always will be a problem if numerical guidance differs on a potential major impact. The NHC has their philosophy and that's that. To communicate the issues at hand to people who don't understand weather is not easy. You try to go with most likely scenario and try to stress what could go wrong. If someone was saying the most likely scenario was NC based on model consensus, they would be right. You can't fault them, even if we all mentioned the elephant in the room. Of course we all mentioned the EC and the possibility of a bad GFS and other globals forecast which may happen. It started becoming more obvious yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 But they HAVE to. You know better than many how they get their funding. It goes to say that they desire to hedge things and not make drastic changes in forecasts because of the scrutiny they would come under. Congress right now is so damn fickle and constantly questioning NOAA funding that they have to be able to say they get things right even if it done in a vague way. Look at what kind of storm had to happen just to get some improvement in computing upgrades. they swing for the fences and get burned then I can see them being questioned as to why are we spending the money at all. I'm not saying the solution to the problem is dramatic swings in deterministic forecasts either. There are a lot of other things that can be done (variable cone size, more probabilistic forecast graphics, etc.) Unfortunately even the wind speed probability graphics don't really cut it. They've bounced back and forth with the track quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 But they HAVE to. You know better than many how they get their funding. It goes to say that they desire to hedge things and not make drastic changes in forecasts because of the scrutiny they would come under. Congress right now is so damn fickle and constantly questioning NOAA funding that they have to be able to say they get things right even if it done in a vague way. Look at what kind of storm had to happen just to get some improvement in computing upgrades. they swing for the fences and get burned then I can see them being questioned as to why are we spending the money at all. The GOP is nutty. They've tried to defund NASA Earth Science as well for malicious reasons. Feel free to move this post, had to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I'm not saying the solution to the problem is dramatic swings in deterministic forecasts either. There are a lot of other things that can be done (variable cone size, more probabilistic forecast graphics, etc.) Unfortunately even the wind speed probability graphics don't really cut it. They've bounced back and forth with the track quite a bit. Don't their cones already vary in size? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bostonseminole Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 NAM keeps the dream alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR Airglow Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Ryan's tweet appears pretty accurate: Ryan Hanrahan @ryanhanrahan 7m 7 minutes ago Serious question: Is the NHC aiming for the "most likely" scenario with their deterministic forecast or the one that reduces track error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlantStickers Anonymous Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 New cone points straight to the south coast. OCM's trying to emphasize that this isn't really representative of what's most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I've heard talk of variable cone size. I think it's a great idea. Adam Moyer was a big promoter of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Just like last winter when 90% of this forum was ruling it a dead ratter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 New cone points straight to the south coast. OCM's trying to emphasize that this isn't really representative of what's most likely. Even if it were to take that track, NBD by the time it reached us. Stakes aren't very high up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Good tweet Ryan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Some people like to hone their forecasting skills...and, you know.....getting it right kind of matters. You have discretion over which posts you choose to view. We both know there is far too much garbage on here. And we both know people do not even look at modeling while they spew it. It's completely irresponsible too. How many people read this forum? I'm done on the subject. Because I'm only clogging up the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlantStickers Anonymous Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Even if it were to take that track, NBD by the time it reached us. Stakes aren't very high up here. Oh I know, TS or minimal hurricane at most. It's not like '38 is on the table, even with a direct hit.Still, the general public sees coverage of a major hurricane and then a cone pointed straight toward the region, people are going to get concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Don't their cones already vary in size? No... they're fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I've heard talk of variable cone size. I think it's a great idea. Adam Moyer was a big promoter of this. I agree we need to look at it - hard to implement though since cone size is hardwired into all of our software that auto-plots hurricane tracks. From a coding perspective a variable cone size/orientation would be tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 New cone right to Tolland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 No... they're fixed. Oh, wow. Yea, that is a great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 New cone right to Tolland Should be my turn next advisory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Should be my turn next advisory.Dc to BOS in 24 hours. Helpful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 The eye punched right through one obscure little Bahamian island...probably not populated, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I have a weather forecasting job interview tomorrow. St. Johns, NL. Wish me luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailstoned Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Not just that. Some very knowledgeable people just won't admit this is a done deal Some IDIOTS have no concept of the complexities of the situation and the high stakes for millions of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeus Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 The eye punched right through one obscure little Bahamian island...probably not populated, though. Correct; Wikipedia indicates the island is uninhabited though it did previously support a permanent population up until halfway through the 20th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 The eye punched right through one obscure little Bahamian island...probably not populated, though. I'm guessing from yesterday's track that it was San Salvador? There is actually a tiny resort called Club Med. Could be wiped pretty clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Some IDIOTS have no concept of the complexities of the situation and the high stakes for millions of people. Thanks for capitalizing for emphasis. I hadn't thought of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.