08-10-2015, 03:29 PM
The national weather service (NWS) uses a statistical-based computer model for predictions. There are 18 other well-known models used by universities, militaries, and other countries.
The original NWS model showed Hilda making a huge northern loop over the islands. I was more interested in reading about the other 18 models, many of them showing a direct hit to the Big Island. The NWS did not modify their "cone" to match the other models until it actually happened. That was not the NWS agreeing with the other models, it was just the NWS reacting to reality.
The troubling part is that some of the models that predicted a direct hit to the BI also did not (and still don't) show the dramatic weakening the NWS models have been using.
I'm not the type of person who likes to shout out that the sky is falling, especially when there are 19 different computer models of the sky. But one might want to google the Wikipedia article about Iniki and pay special attention to this section:
The Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC) failed to issue tropical cyclone warnings and watches for the hurricane well in advance. For several days prior to the disaster, the CPHC and the news media forecast Iniki to remain well south of the island chain, with the only effect being some high surf conditions. Some of the standard international computer models were indicating a northward turn towards the populated Hawaiian Islands, but these were rejected by the CPHC forecasters. As late as early September 11, the CPHC suggested that Iniki would remain well to the south of the island group. It was not until a special bulletin was issued by the CPHC less than 24 hours before landfall—that any warning was given to the public.[3]
Again... don't panic... sky not falling... but the NWS so far hasn't had any degree of accuracy of Hilda compared to the other computer models.
This is just my opinion. My opinion was shaped by observing all the relevant data including the other computer models (all of which I posted early on in this thread).
The original NWS model showed Hilda making a huge northern loop over the islands. I was more interested in reading about the other 18 models, many of them showing a direct hit to the Big Island. The NWS did not modify their "cone" to match the other models until it actually happened. That was not the NWS agreeing with the other models, it was just the NWS reacting to reality.
The troubling part is that some of the models that predicted a direct hit to the BI also did not (and still don't) show the dramatic weakening the NWS models have been using.
I'm not the type of person who likes to shout out that the sky is falling, especially when there are 19 different computer models of the sky. But one might want to google the Wikipedia article about Iniki and pay special attention to this section:
The Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC) failed to issue tropical cyclone warnings and watches for the hurricane well in advance. For several days prior to the disaster, the CPHC and the news media forecast Iniki to remain well south of the island chain, with the only effect being some high surf conditions. Some of the standard international computer models were indicating a northward turn towards the populated Hawaiian Islands, but these were rejected by the CPHC forecasters. As late as early September 11, the CPHC suggested that Iniki would remain well to the south of the island group. It was not until a special bulletin was issued by the CPHC less than 24 hours before landfall—that any warning was given to the public.[3]
Again... don't panic... sky not falling... but the NWS so far hasn't had any degree of accuracy of Hilda compared to the other computer models.
This is just my opinion. My opinion was shaped by observing all the relevant data including the other computer models (all of which I posted early on in this thread).