Welcome to American Weather

skierinvermont

Members
  • Content count

    9,721
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About skierinvermont

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Littleton, CO

Recent Profile Visitors

1,798 profile views
  1. If it doesn't move far enough inland on Cuba to really disrupt the core to cat 1 or lower, then the west trend is bad because if it emerges from Cuba as Cat 2/3 or higher it will have a significant time to restrengthen over some very warm waters. I'm not sure exactly when the sheer is supposed to increase...
  2. Euro makes landfall somewhere not too far south of Tampa maybe similar to Charley.
  3. Euro keeps this over or very near land for another 18 hours.
  4. Actually I think there is a 149kt SFMR reading. Does NHC use 10 sec or 30 sec FL winds for intensity?
  5. If I'm reading it right latest recon just found 145kt SFMR surface winds and 150kt FL. Probably hold the intensity at 150kt given the possibility of under sampling.
  6. Looks like an ERC on radar.
  7. It almost has to thread the needle NOT to be a major for FL. That is an exaggeration of course, but if it stays NE it misses Cuba and hits Miami. If it goes too far SW it will likely track up the west coast of FL giving more time for strengthening on 30-31C surface waters and exposing a large area to the right front quadrant. It would have to take a big chunk of Cuba but then turn north soon enough to hit far South FL.
  8. 30 hrs over Cuba will weaken it a lot even without mountains. Cat1 would be my guess maybe Cat2. But there's a big difference if it's just 10-20 miles farther north which would keep the eye right on the coast I think and not fully on land for most of the period. Could probably maintain Cat3 if the eye is not fully on land for more than 3-6 hours. Given how accurate the Euro has been and usually is, we will probably find out.
  9. So is there any explanation why the winds are so strong compared to the size of eye/cloud top temps/T number/central pressure?
  10. Is there any reason to doubt the SFMR readings the NHC used as the basis for the 180mph intensity? When I checked satellite this morning I was expecting 160-170mph based on the size of the eye and the warmer cloud tops than last night (also warmer compared to the strongest Cat5s on IR). So I was surprised to see the NHC had set the intensity to 180mph. The central pressure also seems a little high for a strong Cat5.
  11. OK I do get your point, the issue was more with a few of the other comments others have been making about models. Models aren't some basic formula that can be reduced down to some basic human logic. They're millions of variables all interacting simultaneously according to complex mathematics. It would take 1,000 mathematicians doing computations 24 hours a day for a century to produce a 24hr forecast as accurately as a modern computer. Then it would take another 9 centuries to produce the 10 day forecast. And that's probably a massive understatement of their complexity. Also from what I understand the bigger limiting factor for models in this day and age is the quality of the initialization data.
  12. Like the other poster said, this models are confused or wrong or humans are better nonsense needs to stop. Of course models are better than humans. No human can look at a real-time 500mb map or any combination of atmospheric parameters and make a 5+ day prediction about the weather any where close to as accurately as a computer model. They had accurate data in the 1970s and 1980s but they didn't even issue 5 day forecasts for hurricanes until 2003. And the track error today is less half what it was in the 1990s. It's not because humans were stupid in the 1990s or a lack of information. It's because no human can come even come close to a computer model for predicting the weather. Humans weren't even as good as computers in the 1990s. And models today are far better than the 1990s. Any human prediction today is almost entirely based upon model output. Which is why the NHC basically copies the model consensus for hurricane track. And insofar as the NHC track slightly differs from the model consensus track, the model consensus track usually wins.
  13. There's a reason NHC doesn't do 7 day forecasts yet. And it's closer to 8 days out depending on where it makes landfall. Not much more than a decade ago the NHC didn't even do 4 or 5 day forecasts (started publicly in 2003).
  14. Of course you can. It's a probabilistic forecast. You can make a probabilistic forecast for just about anything at any timescale. Sometimes the probabilities just aren't any different than climatology or chance. In this case, based on the present position and computer modelling of Irma, I think we can safely say the probability of a landfalling hurricane in the U.S. is higher than climatology for the 2nd week of September. I'd peg the %s something like this based on the GFS and Euro ensembles 50% FL to NC 10% VA to ME 25% OTS 15% south of FL/shredded Hispaniola
  15. People need to think before posting. This thread went from Miami to OTS to NC in the space of 10 minutes. Learn how to read models. There's still the trough so you should know it will make that north turn unless that trough is totally gone in a given model run. Then you should know the ridge will build over it and keep the heading NNW into the U.S. coast. If you look at the 168 map you should have a good idea that it's heading somewhere near the Carolinas not Miami and not OTS.