Thread:Bobnekaro/@comment-4074533-20170829191202

Hi Bob,

I recently read your userpage information and noted that you listed the NHC with a minus sign because they "underestimate storms, declare them post-tropical early, and take forever to initiate advisories". While I am not asking for a response to this message and I do apologize if I sound confrontational at times, I do hope you take the following thoughts into consideration.

At least to me, your tone is implying that the NHC forecasters do not know how to properly track storms and therefore are not doing their job. I hope you realize that there are many who utilize their resources to help them plan ahead for devastating hurricanes, and the NHC recognizes this necessity in their mission statement: "The NHC mission is to save lives, mitigate property loss, and improve economic efficiency by issuing the best watches, warnings, forecasts, and analyses of hazardous tropical weather and by increasing understanding of these hazards".

For example, the NHC continued issuing advisories on Sandy after it became post-tropical because they knew that so many lives were at risk from such an unprecedented threat. Had they not done so, the total amount of damages and number of fatalities might have been much higher.

Moreover, about the NHC underestimating storm intensities: If you read NHC forecast discussions, you should know that its forecasters do not randomly pull windspeed values out of thin air. They use Dvorak estimates from a few different sources and then average these values, taking into consideration other factors, such as the system in question's organization and/or recon data for land-threatening storms. Also, if you are referring to the storm forecast intensities, you should be aware that the NHC relies on forecast models (and not some magical procedure) to predict intensity and motion. At times, this requires compromising between two extreme model group scenarios (and some personal judgement), such as what occurred with Harvey when it was in the Caribbean. Furthermore, it is difficult for models to predict phenomena such as explosive intensification and annular hurricanes. Therefore, when it seems like the NHC badly underestimated the strength of a system, this is probably because the models failed to foresee some unexpected development in the said hurricane/storm's lifetime.

Next, I am not sure what you mean by when it is "too early" for the NHC to declare a system post-tropical. Keep in mind that in order for a system to be classified as a tropical, it must have a definable closed circulation. If the NHC can not locate that, they have to stop issuing advisories, even if this occurs well before expected. They can not pretend that a storm is still tropical (or subtropical) for the sake of "looking perfect" and avoiding forecast errors. Alternatively, if you are referring to the fact that the NHC "mysteriously" stops issuing advisories for some inland tropical cyclones, this is actually one of its policies. Once a tropical storm weakens to a tropical depression over the United States, the NHC no longer has responsibility to issue advisories on that system. The Weather Prediction Center does instead, which may make it seem like that the NHC is declaring a storm post-tropical early.

And finally, the reasoning that I explained above still applies to your comments about the NHC taking forever to start advisory packages. I can say from experience that I have felt frustrated with having to wait for an official storm designation (case in point Emily of 2011). However, from what I have seen, this has mostly been because they can not find a closed circulation. Again, the NHC can not fabricate some criteria for tropical/subtropical cyclone formation and then apply it to some ad hoc system just so that it appears that there is an active storm. A system without a closed circulation is not a tropical cyclone, period. Yes, I am aware that some of these nearly-developed systems may be close to land, but the NHC is starting to classify these as potential tropical cyclones so that they can emphasize the possible effects for potentially many individuals.

To make a long story short, you are free to say what you want about the NHC. But at the end of the day, to know that the NHC helped mitigate some catastrophe, even to a minor degree, seems to be far more important than some minor windspeed estimate error or how long a system was tracked.

-Andy 