Former NHC Directory Speaks Up On Questionable Storm Naming

Indy · #1 11-30-2007, 04:57 PM

It is about time someone had the round ones to speak up on the issue of naming very suspect storms. Former National Hurricane Center Dr. Neil Frank does just that. And he is spot on. There is just so much dishonesty these days in all things related to NOAA unfortunately. In this case it applies to the NHC.

QUOTE

Quote:

Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status.

"They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six."

Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure — another measure of intensity — suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems.[/b]

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html

Dr. Frank knows his stuff. He was directory for 13 years and worked during a period of time when the job was about science and not politics. People who somehow thing storm activity has picked up because of "Global Warming" need to stop and think for a minute and listen to what Dr. Frank has to say. If he says something is BS it really is BS.

BigNeerav · #2 12-01-2007, 01:43 PM

I think the NHC is so desperate to see an active tropical system that they made up a category of "subtropical" systems as an extension of the category or criteria to name storms. This is a scan that should be stopped. In the 16 and a half years that I have been following the weather, because I do agree that there were storms that even my Forecasting Staff and I thought were questionable as to whether they should be named or should still have the TD characteristics.

Hence, there should be four categories fo tropical systems:
1) Invest (tropical wave/disturbance)
2) Tropical Depression
3) Tropical Storm
4) Hurricane

The new "subtropical storm" category was made up as an extension of Tropical Storm, and that should not be done, period. I hope the six "questionable" storms get recategorized correctly depending on what thier peak strength was, even if it lowers the number of named tropical systems for the 2007 Atlantic Hurricane season.

EDIT: Shouldn't this thread be in the Tropics Forum instead of the weather discussion forum?

Indy · #3 12-01-2007, 10:04 PM

Ok I moved the thread. I swear I am so retarded today. I was getting ready to post a request for someone to move the thread.

#4 12-02-2007, 02:36 AM

What it seems to me if a storm is in the Gulf it will be named but if it is elsewhere it will not be named. I've seen this so many times. Andrea should not had been classified.

Matthew · #5 12-02-2007, 04:50 AM

Let me defend the nhc. The nhc was right one million freaking percent to name every storm this season. I don't see one system that did not deserve to be upgraded, in fact on 95L was not upgraded. In easly should of been, just more BS from some one that has little idea on what they are talking about.

Indy · #6 12-02-2007, 05:17 AM

QUOTE (Matthew @ Dec 2 2007, 12:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quote:

Let me defend the nhc. The nhc was right one million freaking percent to name every storm this season. I don't see one system that did not deserve to be upgraded, in fact on 95L was not upgraded. In easly should of been, just more BS from some one that has little idea on what they are talking about.[/b]

Little idea of what they are talking about? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Frank is the former freakin director of the NHC. He was for 13 years. I think he is a bit more qualified than you or anyone else currently at the NHC. Most of us know the NHC is bull**** these days.

cbell74 · #7 12-02-2007, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (Indy @ Dec 2 2007, 01:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quote:

Most of us know the NHC is bull**** these days.[/b]

Please explain.

Why do most of us "know" the NHC is bull****?

After a congressional investigation into Hurricane Katrina, the NHC received the highest marks from both democrats and republicans for service to the country.

"I think he is a bit more qualified than you or anyone else currently at the NHC."

Why? Just because someone runs an NWS office doesn't mean that they know more than everyone else at the office. Being a good manager doesn't automatically make you a better forecaster than anyone else at the office. A few of the NHC forecasters have been there for many years and are extremely sharp.

Based on some of your other posts, it appears you feel that the NWS is trying to change climate data for global warming purposes. As I posted on the "F vs. EF scale" thread, the NWS has been one of the most conservative public organizations when it comes to climate change. Many NWS meteorologists are very skeptical of the doom and gloom of some climate scientists. We have been criticised by many other organizations for not being more "pro"-climate change.

Charles

Frozen_Signal · #8 12-02-2007, 06:52 PM

gotta give you that charles in respect of the NWS and NOAA being conservative ...and so far not really caving in on the climate change pimps...

but IMO i think the storms that are subtropical shouldnt be given a name but maybe a number and if true tropical characteristics develop then issue a name for the storm...
but thats just me....

Indy · #9 12-02-2007, 10:40 PM

QUOTE (Frozen_Signal @ Dec 2 2007, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quote:

gotta give you that charles in respect of the NWS and NOAA being conservative ...and so far not really caving in on the climate change pimps...

but IMO i think the storms that are subtropical shouldnt be given a name but maybe a number and if true tropical characteristics develop then issue a name for the storm...
but thats just me....[/b]

It is all about money. They have to justify a budget just like everyone else. The more fear they can cook up the better they are. And if there is a perception that things are getting worse they can justify an increase in the budget. Back in the day you could count on NHC advisories as being accurate. Dr. Frank was the guy in charge back in those days. Now we more storms lacking tropical characteristics getting named and storms that barely qualify as depressions getting upgraded to storms. You do NOT find any surface wind reports that match what the NHC is reporting. For the most part you won't find a wind gust as high as what the NHC reports as a sustained wind.

Heck it was a few years back when they sunk to a new level of naming a storm without a closed circulation. I remember this because it actually stated it in the discussion. It certainly isn't a tropical storm. Would this even qualify as a depression? You can usually take whatever the NHC reports as a sustained wind and shave off 15% to 20% and get the real strength.

Martinsville Weather · #10 12-03-2007, 03:17 AM

Still, regardless of what the total number of storms is in a season, if most of them are weak tropical storms and there are few to no landfalls, the general public isn't going to pay any attention to them.