• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jpeters3

  1. 5 minutes ago, friedmators said:

    Hope recon fixes their pressure sensor.

    I still maintain that if they had a pressure sensor issue, they would not be flying.  This is a pretty serious aviation hazard.  So this has to be something to do with the algorithm that they are using to calculate the reduction.

    • Like 1

  2. Just now, CoastalWx said:

    Pretty darn far from both sites. Would be nice to get some shots from the hunters flying around.

    I think the fact that it shows up in the same spot from multiple radars, and it's consistent with southeasterly shear that we know is in the vicinity of the storms, suggests that it is a real feature.

  3. 2 minutes ago, KPITSnow said:

    I am not a met but isn't this common since radar can't generally pick up the far side of a storm like this?

    The center is close enough that attenuation or beam overshoot shouldn't be an issue.

    This gap also shows up on multiple radars in the same spot.

  4. 7 minutes ago, vortex95 said:

    Exactly, the first RI is often the most intense part of the TC.  After that, the ERCs expand the wind field, so it is hard to really tighten them up again b/c of the internal stability of a larger vortex (I think that is the reason).  Not saying you can't get re-intensification and RI after the first RI ((look at Hugo in Sep 1989 that last day leading up to landfall), but typically you won't get a pinhole eye which usually has the absolute highest winds.  You'll have a large eye with the overall wind field spread out, not all focused tightly right around the eye.

    Laura doesn't have a pinhole eye I think b/c of its latitude.  It's hard to get pinhole eyes outside the deep tropics since Coriolis is higher at say 30N vs. 15N.


    I'm don't think this is accurate.  I think the eye size has more to do with the history of the TC (intensity fluctuations, ERCs, land interaction), than the latitude.  Remember, Charlie had a pinhole at a similar latitude.

    Edit: TC cores are very close to cyclostrophic balance, so the Coriolis doesn't have much of a practical effect in the eyewall.

  5. 1 minute ago, Wmsptwx said:

    Houston is safe, this is a Port Arthur to Lake Charles event.

    He's not completely insane in the observation that if continued NW motion were to occur, this thing would make landfall smack dab on Galveston.  What should be emphasized is that models show a more northward turn which should take it toward Port Arthur.  But there is nothing in the current trajectory that suggests Houston is "safe."

    • Like 1

  6. 1 minute ago, Baltimorewx said:

    Its just about already to Houstons latitude and moving North west....

    Uh, if it were at Houston's latitude, it would have made landfall already...

    Edit: I suspect you are seeing Corpus Christi on the map. 

  7. 1 hour ago, burrel2 said:

    140 knots at 930mb on that eyewall drop!

    Where's the guy that simply said "No" when someone asked if there was a chance this storm could hit Cat 5 status this morning? lol

    That was me...

    (where is the Picard facepalm meme when you need it...) :facepalm:

    EDIT by jburns.  Here you go.

    • Haha 6

  8. 2 minutes ago, mappy said:

    to be fair, the poster who made that guess should have added context to it. i agree though, making guesses is fine. just be clear with the values you are posting so others don't get confused. 

    and be nicer ;) 

    Ok, I will be nicer.

    I was feeling a bit defensive of the person they jumped on because they were only responding (in good fun) to my suggestion for guesses.

  9. Just now, wxeyeNH said:

    Please don't post irresponsibly like 928/162  or guessing what the storm might or might not be.  Read more and post less as this thread is very busy.  Take banter to the other thread.  If your not a Met or your knowledge of tropical meteorology is limited just read and watch

    Go poop on somebody else's parade.  There is room for a little bit of responsible fun here.

    • Like 4
    • Weenie 2

  10. 2 minutes ago, mappy said:

    It -- hurricanes are things not people, not he or she. 

    Thank you for saying what we were all thinking.

    I don't want to get started with how I feel about posters calling them "canes" either...

    • Like 4
    • Haha 1

  11. 5 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

    Lol. Yes. I'm just saying something is obviously off. Its not normal for the extrap to be that off. Maybe they're reducing from the wrong pressure level. Hurricane eyes are fairly well behaved thermodynamically. 

    I actually have to back off my initial statement.  Back of the envelope calculation says that you need a 10 K difference in mean layer temperature to get pressure differences that large.  That can't be explained by the planes flying at different altitudes.  So something is wrong...

  12. 1 minute ago, OSUmetstud said:

    Hmm. I thought they were flying at the same height. 

    Though, if you are right about the pressure sensor being off, then they might actually be at the same heights...

    Makes sense that they would make passes at different altitudes though.  Don't want a mid-air collision in the middle of a hurricane...

    • Haha 1

  13. 4 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

    I know what the hypsometric equation is. Its 10mb different than the other plane flying in the storm at the same time. Its off. 

    I find it highly unlikely that the airplane's pressure sensor is that off.  If it is, they have bigger problems.  The aircraft are flying at different altitudes, and the most likely explanation is that the standard extrapolation formula is simply inaccurate in this particular hurricane.  There are known biases with these formulas.

    Edit: if you know the hypsometric equation, than you know they must make assumptions about the thermodynamic structure below the plane.  So if these assumptions are off, the extrapolation is off.