jpeters3

Meteorologist
  • Content Count

    655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jpeters3

  1. This is the inflow sounding to one of the HRRR projected cells in western IL. All of you who think this will be a bust are totally fried.
  2. I don't think this is entirely true. Both the GFS and the NAM/NAM nest, along with the euro intermittently showed solutions over the past few days akin to what the HRRR is showing today. There were certainly uncertainties going into this event, and it was never a "slam dunk." A lot of the hype originated from the HRRR runs before and at 00 UTC.
  3. FWIW, the 10 UTC HRRR is backing off a bit on junkvection and moving back toward a volatile environment in NW IL and NE IA. So those of you who think this needs to be backed down to a MRGL risk with 2 % tornado probabilities should settle down a bit...
  4. After a bit of staring at the NAM and RAP, i think I see what the difference is. The NAM (and consequently NAM NEST) develops more early morning convection/precip over AR/MO, which creates a subtle shortwave vort max in the jet. As this feature passes over the warm sector, there is a bunch of junkvection that forms. In contrast, the RAP (and consequently HRRR) seems to keep AR/MO comparatively clear of convection and has no commensurate shortwave feature. This leads to a less junkvectiony warm sector.
  5. Forecast sounding near the projected warm front in IA tomorrow from the NAM nest. Obv this is a difficult-to-believe forecast sounding, but it has to be the most incredible kinematic environment I have ever ever seen. 100+ kt of 0-6 km shear, combined with 500+ J/kg of 0-1 km SRH??? 48 kts of 0-1 km SR flow? Totally unreal.
  6. SST anomalies in the area that the storm RI'd are on the order of + 1-2 C. The storm had also been experiencing relatively large (e.g. 20 kt) shear during this time, so it's not like synoptic conditions were exceptionally favorable. You're probably right in that this system found a local "hole" in otherwise hostile conditions to intensify, but this was probably facilitated by warmer than normal SSTs.
  7. It is possible that the recent large number of cat 5s has something to do with warming SSTs. I would argue that this particular storm might be the most unusual out of the bunch given the intensity it achieved at such a northeasterly position relative to past storms. This may reflect SSTs being warmer in this part of the ocean than in the past, facilitating RI.
  8. how many weenies does it take to will a southward turn???
  9. Now that's a better view, and it does indeed look like we are in the beginning stages of an ERC. Kinda freaky how close this thing is to Miami.
  10. This doesn't really look like the textbook start to an ERC - there needs to me a more defined outer band of convection. Also, this is pretty far away from the radar site so it's hard to make conclusions. MW imagery is probably better at this point.
  11. This is a really good point. Wouldn't take an abnormally large model error to put an eyewall on the coast.
  12. From the paper I included, "along-track error" looks to be 50-70 km at these ranges, and total error is ~ 150 km. So 70 mi sounds about right.
  13. Take a look at this paper. Pretty good model verification resource. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WAF-D-17-0058.1
  14. GEFS and EURO are largely the leaders in terms of total track errors.
  15. Perhaps but it's objective and accurate. We've never seen a hurricane this intense this far north in the Atlantic Basin outside of the GOM in modern historical times. And Dorian may not be done. If it continues to drop pressure another 10-15mb under the influence of the ridge and above mean background pressures, the windspeeds are going to continue going up. Sorry, just teasing (Phil mainly). You're right. The last very intense hurricane in this area was Andrew, and we're several mb below Andrew's 922 mb, and poised to surpass andrew's 175 mph max.
  16. This is a little bit of a baseball stat ;-)
  17. Morning ensemble guidance has pretty much converged on a solution: (HWRF aside)
  18. This should end the discussion. There is absolutely no conceivable political motivation on their end for fudging the numbers. They are doing the best that they can given the current information. Regardless, the storm's intensity is what it is, regardless of the current best track estimate. If it is indeed a cat 5, calling it a cat 4 in the best track doesn't actually make the storm weaker. Post storm analysis will shed more light on the situation. Otherwise, get on with your nights.
  19. FWIW, the EURO and the GEFS tend to out-perform the UKMET. Source:
  20. Hurricane models are fine to use as track guidance. Generally, I believe the global models such as the GFS and ECMWF verify a little bit better - particularly at longer ranges. The most informative products to look at are probably the GEFS (GFS ensemble) and ECMWF ensembles, because they give you a sense for the uncertainties in possible outcomes. So I would probably start with these, and then refer to the hurricane models for corroboration on track, and for some additional insight into intensity. I like this site for ensemble tracks: https://www.weathernerds.org/tc_guidance/storm.html?tcid=AL05 Edit: it is also informative to look at run-to-run variations in the deterministic GFS and ECMWF (and the hurricane models for that matter). For instance, the Colorado State site shows spaghetti diagrams that shown runs initialized at multiple times for the deterministic global runs and for the hurricane models: http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/products/tc_realtime/storm_model_data.asp?storm_identifier=AL052019
  21. You're right on the "assigning agendas" comment. My apologies. The forecast should be viewed from a probabilistic, rather than deterministic standpoint at these lead times (I'm sure you would agree). My statement was simply that the dynamical guidance suggests a high probability of the center staying offshore of FL, and a low probability of a FL landfall. NHC (the experts) agree with this assessment. Yes, there remains a possibility that guidance will swing back south, but it's not the most likely outcome.
  22. I just re-read my post, and it sounded more informative than hysterical, so the "breathe into a paper bag" comment was largely uncalled for. I'm just trying to be objective here. There is nothing wrong with calling out cherry picking and wishcasting. It's probably beneficial for some of the forum readers to know when people are making emotional and unsubstantiated projections, rather than sound meteorological analyses.
  23. Any east coast surfers in this thread? The slow storm motion and potential northward track could mean an extended timeframe of really nice mid period swell for many locations.
  24. A lot better CDO symmetry since this morning.