vortex95

Talk about threading the needle. That anticyclonic cirrus shear plume is right on the doorstep of the core, and yet no shearing of the convection over the core. One thing about seasons like this, the TCs are often small. TD6 exemplifies this. At first glance in vacuum, you look at the EIR image below of the Atlantic, and go, "where is it?!" Areas of convection exists sig larger than TD6 here!

As much as they would not admit, sometimes that is a factor. Here is something similar. Recall the system S of New England Jan 2023? That was a hurricane, but they blew it off operationally. Yes, a few months later they included it as a 60 kt STS, but not operationally declaring it when it was clear was it was? So that suggests that if they can get away w/ not doing it operationally, and just let post-season analysis "deal w/ it," they will. Another motivation could have been that a hurricane close to the East Coast "out of blue" in Jan? The public and media would freak and perhaps they did not want to deal w/ all that, but again, we should not be summarily constrained by policy or social/political factors when it comes to operational meteorology and calling things for what they are. And this ended up impacting marine Canada, so it was not a "fish storm." And put it this way, we've seen far worse looking systems declared/called a TC. So where is the meteorological consistency here? Loop here: https://x.com/WxTca/status/1615532584016162822 Sfc and SST analysis https://x.com/burgwx/status/1615099242728628231 That is a clear eye and quite deep convection for Jan. I got T4.5 on it (77 kt) using Dvorak. Now granted, SSTs were 21-23 C, so that means less efficient mixing down of winds aloft, but still 65 kt is likely here. Notice when it approached Sable Island crossing a very sharp SST gradient, it actually looked best! The center passed just W of Sable island which recorded sustained winds of 49 kt. That was over much cooler SSTs, so again, when it was farther SW over 21-23 C, 65 kt would be easy. This is not armchair quarterbacking, nitpicking, or a borderline TC situation. This system's nature was obvious and screaming at you, and the model fcsts handled its ET to T transition warm seclusion very well), so this was not a "surprise." Like I have said, call wx phenomena for what they are in real-time. The atmosphere doesn't care about human-imposed rules or what we think, it does what it does, and we all look at the same data, so by doing this, you prevent push back/calling out/criticism to yourself! And I see on this forum, ppl sometimes say, "I can't believe it hasn't been declared yet" or "it obviously stronger (weaker) than that!" That's not just random complaints/musings all the time, many times such statements and observations have merit or are true! loop.mp4

@CoastalWxPT time in Weymouth? 00z GFS all in. WPC in their 7-day pcpn totals likes it! And that's a lot of CAPE for a Nor'easter. Lots of embedded tstms and good mixing down of BL high winds. Why not? It's Sep w/ SSTs highest and there is a sig area 100-150 mi S and E of CC of anomalies up to +4 C! @weatherwiz @ineedsnow getting ready. Sfc low not that deep but when it is 1004, 1033 high in Quebec due N, so outstanding gradient and fetch for a Sep nor'easter. I don't recall anything quite like this in Sep in recent times, but I'll let others chime in on that for historical context! Only thing missing is some isolate pockets of of 0 C at 850 in NNE, but it does get down to +3 C even in MA.

@WEATHER53, you are not wrong in your observation here. ----- Now, first let me say I don't want what I say below cause a flare-up b/c of the topical item was mentioned in the quoted posts above. I am listing objective, factual statistics below that provide context and perspective only and inform about some things some may not know or realize when it comes to TC records/stats in the Atlantic. ----- After the record 2005 season, things shutdown big time for landfalls in the CONUS, setting a record on the other end of the spectrum. After Wilma's landfall in Oct 2005, the CONUS went 11.5 years w/o a major hurricane landfall, which is the longest period on record going back to 1851. And the period 1995-2016? 3 of 32 hurricanes in the Atlantic had a CONUS major landfall 1995-2003, 7 of 13 2004-2005, and 0 of 29 from 2006-2016. So it was all focused in one big 2-year period, and atypically quiet either side for 20 seasons for CONUS landfalls. We hear plenty of talk on how active things have been recently, and it indeed has, but often I find little context and perspective given in reports, not only from a historical point-of-view, but also records that display atypical inactivity in recent decades. If you are going to talk about trends/changes, all relevant and reasonable information/data should be presented/provided, not cherry-picked. Facts are meaningless w/o context. I would also caution about falling into the recency bias trap when it comes to wx events. It is cognitive shortcut where people give more importance and weight to recent events, experiences, or information than to prior or historical data. Here is a good example: The 10-year period 2015-2024 had 25 CONUS hurricane landfalls. However, the record in a 10-year period is 27 1879-1888. So what has happened recently for CONUS hurricanes landfalls is not unprecedented. And if you look at events that occurred long ago that have no equal in recent decades? * Two category 3 hurricanes (both 110 kt) made landfall 23 hours apart in the U.S. in Sep 1933 (Jupiter FL and Brownsville TX). Nothing else even close to this exists in the record. * There are only 5 known Atlantic hurricanes to occur in May since 1851. Last time there was one was in 1970. The strongest was in 1863, which made landfall as category 2 in the FL Panhandle, making it the earliest landfall CONUS hurricane on record. * The last June CONUS hurricane landfall was in 1986. This is the longest stretch w/o a June CONUS landfall on record. * In June 1886, 3 hurricanes made landfall in the U.S. No other June has had more than 1. * New England had 5 hurricane landfalls in a 23-year period 1938-1960. None have occurred for 35 years 1991-2026, which is the longest period on record for the region.

00z analysis gives 99L 30 kt and 1015 mb. Convection is better for overall coverage, but is still is disorganized w/ pulsing. You can see an anticyclonic jet plume starting to impinge on the srn part of the system. Also, on WV, the overall circulation has become more elongated since 18z. That is not a positive sign. Objectively, it is TD I think, but given the surrounding environmental trends, NHC may not do anything at 03z.

I am not sure AI models would do well for systems in this part of the Atlantic since TCs are not nearly as common as in other parts of the Atlantic.

Edouard was named a TS at 00z 9/1. So it depends on what type of time you use if it formed in Sep or not! And if you go by when it was declared a TC, that is in August solidly.

If was close to land, odds are they would declare it a TD as well. I do not agree w/ such a policy. Treat all systems the same regardless of location or risk in terms of calling it for what it actually is. One could call this a TD taking a snapshot as it is right now, but I go back to the persistence factor of convection and the marginal environment.

No I hadn't . What model is this? I was looking at the various primarily model outputs for intensity fcst (see attachment). The operational GFS and ECMWF do very little w/ the system. ECMWF brings it down to 1012 mb and makes it a TD. Since the overall environment is marginal and fcst to gradually degrade, I am not optimistic at this time more than a TD. That being said, the convection that has developed on the N side in the last few hours is more organized, but we need to see if it persists. The dry air present makes it prone to pulsing up and down. This makes it hard to pull the trigger and declare. At 03z, it could look quite good and get declared, and then all the convection could collapse, and we are back at square one. So NHC tends to hold off until clear trend or consistency exists. These kind of high-latitude systems are often a challenge!

Great questions and critical thinking above. That's the right thing to in practicing good science -- asks lots of questions! See this paper 2011 paper (pdf attached): On the Classification of Extreme Atlantic Hurricanes Utilizing Mid-Twentieth-Century Monitoring Capabilities* A methodology is created to determine how many of these 10 recent Category 5 hurricanes likely would have been recorded as Category 5 if they had occurred during this period using only the observations that likely would have been available with existing technology and observational networks. Late-1940s and early- 1950s best-track intensities are determined for the entire lifetime of these 10 recent Category 5 hurricanes. It is found that likely only 2 of these 10—both Category 5 landfalling hurricanes—would have been recorded as Category 5 hurricanes if they had occurred during the late-1940s period. The results suggest that intensity estimates for extreme tropical cyclones prior to the satellite era are unreliable for trend and variability analysis. So it virtually certain due to limitations of tech, esp. prior to the satellite era, many cat 4s even some cat 3s documented were actually cat 5s. The hurricane reanalysis project has found solid evidence of cat 5sifor some system, and that has been corrected in HURDAT, but due to the mesoscale nature or the inner cores of these beasts, you just can't tell many times. Also, hurricanes do not remain at cat 5 strength very long, so that makes them even harder to detect historically. Even today, some are missed in the absence of recon since Dvorak estimates work best for systems 60 to 105 kt. This means two things. One, many TDs are actually weak TSs and two, many intense HUs are underestimated. There is very little difference on satellite what a strong cat 4 and a minimal Cat 5 looks like, and Dvorak cannot account for storm size, RMW, environmental pres gradient, storm forward motions, and other factors that go into actual wind speed of a TC. As an example, take HU Patrica from 2015. If not for recon, it likely would have been capped at 160 kt. I have yet to see NHC assign a HU in their AOR above 160 kt in the absence of recon or other in situ data. Even JTWC rarely goes above 160 kt. Patricia was rather small, and Dvorak does not do well for small TCs (underestimates). Now we did have recon, and initial obs were 175 kt. when it was 880 mb. However, the next recon, over 6 hr later, and it found 879 mb, but the satellite signature had weakened a bit, so recon missed Patricia’s absolute peak intensity. They gave Patricia and estimated 872 mb pressure, but it could have been lower. And on post-season analysis, the found Patricia peak winds were actually 185 kt! So you see how tricky and elusive these beasts can be, even when recon is available! I know Patricia was a cat 5 all along, but see the margin of error there w/ in actual in situ obs? The first official cat 5 in the Atlantic is not until 1924. Does that mean there were none prior? Of course not, just it was very hard to get actual obs to verify something that intense the further you go back, An unfortunate ship would have to survive getting into the core of these things or a land station would have to be at the just the right location and the instruments survive to verify a cat 5. Also, GFS dropsondes were not put into used until 1998, and the SFMR not until 2004. These were game changers as to recons to get a much better idea of the winds sfc and aloft in a TC. They way they got sfc winds prior? They would take about 90% of the FL (700 mb) winds, and go w/ that that. That works often, but not all the time. It can vary quite a bit as GPS dropsondes and the SFMR have shown! So really, using data prior to the 1990s for overall trends in intense hurricanes is not an apples to apples comparison. Our detection and documentation, technology, and knowledge/understanding has improved immensely in the last 30 years alone, giving us a much better idea of reality for TCs, esp. for the intense ones! And 30 years is too short of period to determine TC trends, esp. the in Atlantic since the AMO cycles are approx 25-45 years in length. And the idea that hurricanes are getting stronger overall? That notion is partially artificial b/c of the above. Non-wx/climate factors play a big role here. We are better than ever in observing and measuring the wx, getting better all the time, so we have been seeing things in recent decades due to better tech that were always there, just not able to be detected prior (go back to how the first cat 5 in the Atlantic is not until 1924). And the odds of seeing more absolute extremed and setting new records go up b/c of this tech factor as well. jcliD1100420 4461..4475 - hagen-landsea-jclimate-2012.pdf

Convection has not been persistent enough. For developing systems, you do not want irregular blobs pulsing. There has been no curved banding evident yet for the system. 1016 mb c.p. shows a high environmental pressure field w/ synoptic gradient weak from the high centers to its NE and W 99L is in a very narrow margin area. Look at the WV loop attached, Strong shear evident t toe S, more starting to press in from the NW, and deformation zones N-W-S. 18z SHIPS output environment is not good. Shear is high and 700-500 RH quite low.. https://hurricanes.ral.ucar.edu/realtime/plots/northatlantic/2026/al992026/stext/26091818AL9926_ships.txt Intensity models usually for nascent systems are bullish in taking them to min TS quickly, but about half of them currently do not even do that. A testament to this Atlantic season I suppose when nothing can go "right!" TD status appears mdt-high, but TS is more of challenge.

They are reachin' stating it never really went away. And parsing it down to just cntrl NH,as if adjacent watersheds that flow into the area mean nothing and ignoring the overall no drought state of much NNE at the time.

They had "SKEWL" that day? After Andrew and esp. the Bliz of 93, the wx hype train has arrived for good, and you'd think a HU as intense as Floyd coming up the coast (yes, I know it weakened a lot, but that's not how the media acts!), across the board cancellations! Any tropical watches or warmings, the do not hesitate these days! I thought by 1999 that would have been the case as well. When TS David impacted New England in early Sep 1979, schools were not closed that day. Even though it was way W tracking up through cntrl NY, it was the best TC duration wind I have ever seen in New England outside a HU landfall, and surprising windy all the way to ern MA w/ gusts to 70-75 mph. I recall how windy it was at recess, and how much stronger the winds were second recess! And the trees whipping right next to the recess area. Branches could have easily fallen on us! And its turns out my observations from that event had something behind it. Check this paper out. Not you typical evolution for a TC at this latitude! @weatherwiz be like, "WE NEED THIS AGAIN!!!" Postlandfall Tropical Cyclone Reintensification in a Weakly Baroclinic Environment: A Case Study of Hurricane David (September 1979) https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/123/11/1520-0493_1995_123_3268_ptcria_2_0_co_2.xml

Time to nit... 1) "North East"?? 2) 55N/Gulf of AK is not "Arctic" 3) "new Polar stream high" - random improper capitalization It's bad enough you have all these "social-meteorologists" who lack basic wx knowledge, but add on sloppiness in their actual wording in posts?