NHC Inflating Storm Count?

[nsj]

Dr. Neil Frank says yes; NHC Director Bill Read says no.

Rush to Name Storms May Be Costing You Money: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html

Discuss.

[MOCR]

My sigline says it all...

[WxWiz]

So according to the NHC, technology has become ‘better’ so they ARE naming more storms that may not have been named in the past.

[kmfdmatt]

It is hard not to imagine the storm count being inflated, but only if a situation is borderline. Without even getting into the GW debate, these hurricane outlooks get a lot of publicity and much more of the credibility of researchers is at stake than should be. They've become the equivalent of hype so there's much more pressure to measure up.

[rdale]

That would only be a valid argument if NHC was connected to the seasonal forecasts. They have nothing to do with the seasonal forecasts...

[kmfdmatt]

While that's literally true.... oh screw it... we can't change your mind on anything.

[OU_Met]

I personally say yes. Here is my logic:

The NWS is rated on the threat score principle of verifying warnings. I have personally seen NWS locations where they will not issue a tornado warning unless there is confirmation of one on the ground. I have also seen a NWS office that would not say a tornado touched down even though I had VIDEO PROOF that I took of a tornado on the ground. Well surprise they had no tornado warning on that storm. Finally this same office found a tornado on every storm they warned. I was underneath the updraft base and can guarantee a tornado did not touch down, yet they would find an F-0 that was on the ground for 20 feet. Unfortunately this is the reality we live in now. My guess is the reason the NHC is doing this is to verify the long range forecasts.

[Golfball_Size_Hail]

While that's literally true.... oh screw it... we can't change your mind on anything.

I think he changed his mind from the EURO this week...he's been ignoring me, and I think that's a good thing. :shifty:

[rdale]

I'm all about the Euro - and no I don't believe the forecasters at NHC are jacking up the number of named storms to match the NOAA forecast.

The GFS SUCKED with this storm, anyone not buying the Euro looked foolish...

I'm honored that you consider your life's purpose to change my mind, but it's not really necessary. And wouldn't be good, otherwise I'd be forecasting rain for Saturday night like Miguel :>

[Golfball_Size_Hail]

I'm glad you have a sense of humor rdale. I just feel as I did before the EURO was rather warm, and as you said before, there would be no storm this weekend. I don't remember the GFS wavering much with this one. The only one wavering the most with this system, other than the models, seems to be you.

Mad love and respect to you though Rob, we all know you're great and work hard for the money.:loveyou: :rockon:

Just a little disargreement on this one.

[Stormtracker_Tony]

I personally say yes. Here is my logic:

The NWS is rated on the threat score principle of verifying warnings. I have personally seen NWS locations where they will not issue a tornado warning unless there is confirmation of one on the ground. I have also seen a NWS office that would not say a tornado touched down even though I had VIDEO PROOF that I took of a tornado on the ground. Well surprise they had no tornado warning on that storm. Finally this same office found a tornado on every storm they warned. I was underneath the updraft base and can guarantee a tornado did not touch down, yet they would find an F-0 that was on the ground for 20 feet. Unfortunately this is the reality we live in now. My guess is the reason the NHC is doing this is to verify the long range forecasts.

I didn't know you chased in the CAE warning area! :D Sadly, I've witnessed MANY similar situations to that with that office....However, I honestly don't believe that NHC is doing this practice..I can't testify to that, as I don't work there and can't read their minds...but I really don't think that's the case..Everything they've named, seemed to be accurate based on the information I've seen....(unless they calibrated the recons to report false data and satellites to over-estimate things)...and I would go so far as to say that I recall one or two systems this past season that were never named, but sure had a good circulation--(ie. they could have "gotten away" with briefly naming it to boost the total, but never did)

[OU_Met]

I didn't know you chased in the CAE warning area! :D Sadly, I've witnessed MANY similar situations to that with that office....However, I honestly don't believe that NHC is doing this practice..I can't testify to that, as I don't work there and can't read their minds...but I really don't think that's the case..Everything they've named, seemed to be accurate based on the information I've seen....(unless they calibrated the recons to report false data and satellites to over-estimate things)...and I would go so far as to say that I recall one or two systems this past season that were never named, but sure had a good circulation--(ie. they could have "gotten away" with briefly naming it to boost the total, but never did)

The problem is that media will take these forecasts as fact. We know that. So why continue to offer up the info. Any idea what AW's forecast was this season?

[Nyquist]

I recall it being along the lines of this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468988/plotsummary :D

Off-hand I think it was 13-15 storms with 3 major hurricanes.

[Hoser, eh?]

Talk about bad timing, NHC just posthumously upgraded Karen to a hurricane.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45690/story.htm