• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jpeters3

  1. It's just simple formula - doesn't mean there is "something wrong with the plane" Also, planes are flying at different altitudes, which probably explains the different extrapolations.
  2. I don't think it's the plane per se, it's probably that the traditional reduction formula isn't very accurate in this situation.
  3. Got it. Apologize for my critical post.
  4. I was gonna say... I would sh*t my pants if i lived along the coast and was expecting a 13 foot storm surge.
  5. This logic is flawed. You seem to state that you need good organization to get good organization. But what you are failing to acknowledge is that there is a transitional time period between bad organization and good organization. Not saying that RI is imminent or even that it will definitively happen, but just that it is irresponsible to throw in the towel based on ill-concieved notions.
  6. You're hard pressed to find large scale anticyclone with very high RH in the middle troposphere within it... And large scale anticyclones are favorable regions for TC intensification.
  7. I suspect the comma shape was due to northerly shear. It's possible that this will go away as the shear abates.
  8. Every hot tower = RI, and every minor warming of the cloud tops or slight degradation of the satellite presentation = weakening.
  9. We've discussed the RH issue a bit. I don't think this will be a huge hinderance to strengthening so long as shear is low. Dynamically, the pulse-like nature is more connected to shear than to RH. Now, when shear is present, low RH probably has a more deleterious effect than high RH. But it does look like the system is trying to get its act together, in a way that It hasn't throughout the entirety of its life up to this point. For instance, the new pulses of convection are forming a concentric ring.
  10. Lol at how quickly this thread went from "There isn't going to be RI, it's probably not even going to make major" to "Bombs away!!!"
  11. Wait and see if it turns into an eye.
  12. While we are splitting hairs, it looks like the northward outflow is becoming less restricted, with CDO starting to blow off in that direction. So maybe the shear has wained.
  13. Also, shouldn't you be saying "she"???
  14. Turns out the air is dry in the eye. Who would have thought... There is a little bit too much obsession with dry air in here, IMO. It really takes shear to get dry air into the core of TCs, so it all points back to shear being the main hinderance. And I think there was clear evidence (at least earlier today) of some northerly shear. If shear does indeed drop below 5 kts, and if there is a closed eyewall by that point, I doubt dry air will have much of an effect on intensification.
  15. Model forecast is for it to relax for the next ~ 36 hours. We shall see.
  16. I think shear is the real culprit here. It shows up in the analysis, and in the visible loop as cirrus anvils being blown southward of convective cores to the north of the CDO.
  17. This is from Colorado state's / CIRA site. Makes sense given the satellite appearance. Here is the description of the product AMSU Area-Averaged Wind Shears and Layer Means These products use the balanced 3-D wind field derived from the AMSU temperature retrievals to estimate the area averaged vertical wind shear and mass weighted deep-layer mean wind in two layers (200 to 850hPa and 500 to 850Hpa). For these calculations the area averaging is calculated in the area contained within 0 to 600km from the center of the cyclone. These are displayed for each AMSU retrieval time available. These may be useful for detecting rapid changes in the synoptic wind field. The reliability of the vertical wind shear estimates is documented in Zehr et al. (2008).
  18. There is a roughly 1.5 day window for low shear and strengthening. Seems like this window is shrinking a bit given that there is currently still 15 kt of shear analyzed (slightly larger than model projections).
  19. Still experiencing ~ 15 kt of northerly shear, which seems like the likely culprit to me.
  20. It should certainly get mentioned more frequently than the 3 km NAM ;-)
  21. Gotta love how COAMPS only gets brought up here when it shows a favorable solution ;-)
  22. I suppose I made the wrong point. In the past, it seems like you need <920 hPa to get cat 5 winds in the gulf (though the sample size is pretty small). But my point was the level of disorganization up to this point in the storm's life has absolutely no bearing on what pressure is needed to achieve cat 5 winds.
  23. This doesn't really make sense. There have been several cat5 storms with pressure in the vicinity of 930 hPa. I don't get how "sloppy and loose" has anything to do with the pressure needed to achieve cat 5 winds. Obviously if it approaches cat 5, it won't be "sloppy and loose" anymore. Not saying that I think cat5 is likely. It is *possible,* but not the most probable outcome.
  24. You're probably best just rolling the dice on this one. It is certainly *possible,* but probably not the most likely outcome.