it gets confusing lol- because we have the old English system of mph and then we have the metric system with kmph and then we have knots. I dont know why there is so much resistance to the metric system here (we use it very comfortably for focal lengths and objective apertures of lenses and telescopes.....I could never imagine measuring focal length or objective aperture in "inches" lol)
It may be semantics, but someone is going to get hit hard by this hurricane. It's definitely NOT a weakening junk storm falling apart landfall like I thought it would be.
It's one more to add to the list of the RI storms we've had in the GoM this year. I didn't think it would be doing this either (no one did), it looks like the shear didn't affect it the way people thought it would.
Looks like they are going for a SE to NW pass. We should know definitively whether or not this has reached MH status prior to landfall.
It's Cat 3....111 weird lower threshold for Cat 3 should be 110 since all measurements get rounded to nearest 5 mph anyway.
Isn't this the worst direction for N.O. though? I always thought that storm surge flooding is worst for N. O. when storms pass just to their east and keep the city under a northerly flow, so they get surge from the lake. N. O. is too far away from the GoM to get a lot of surge from the south.
This is basically a Cat 3, the weird SS threshold of 111 notwithstanding. That scale needs to be rounded to the closest 5 mph just like the measurements are. It's a Cat 3.
and now I'm going to go off on the SS scale. There is literally no reason for Cat 3 to begin at 111 mph. No one measures winds at this speed- this is a Cat 3. They need to round out Cat numbers to 5 mph intervals....Cat 3 begins at 110 mph.....no reason for the weird number "111".
ouch! this would be a lock for below freezing lows areawide.....do you have a similar map showing the lows Monday and Tuesday morning?
Typically if the highs are 45 or below, the lows are guaranteed to be below freezing with clear skies.
Well, as you know, we can't go from 60 to 0 on a dime so I suspect there's a consensus developing about the transition curve....is it following along the IPCC guidelines (50% by 2030, 90% by 2040 and 100% by 2050, if I remember correctly)?
I saw the NYC discussion on that storm....someone should've posted them here- 6-10 inches was predicted for NYC! Ended up with 3" there and 1.5" here near JFK but 6" as close by as the Bronx and Newark. Probably the only time NYC will ever have a winter storm warning in October lol- then again we said that 30 inches would never again be predicted for NYC after the Jan 2015 debacle and then we had it again exactly one year later in Jan 2016 and that time it actually verified at JFK lol.
October 2011 reminds me in many ways of the April Fools Day storm in 1997. NYC ended up being the Fool lol..... 8-16 was predicted and we ended up with 1-2.
We may never see a winter storm warning in NYC again in October lol.....then again back in Jan 2015 Upton had a projected snowfall map with 30" of snow right over NYC and that was a big fail and we said we'd never see that again either and one short year later, in Jan 2016, the 30" maps were back and this time they verified (at JFK)
Ray if I remember correctly, it was 1.5" at JFK where I was at that time. 3" at Central Park and around 6" in the Bronx. Double digits were as close by as Bridgeport with ruined Halloween.....
I was surprised to see 1.5" inches of snow with that all the way to the south shore of Western Long Island. Might not see anything like that again in our lifetimes....then again who knows?