Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

Tropical Storm Erika


Recommended Posts

Despite the recent convective blow up, it's not going to a boon to Erika in terms of stacking the system or boosting vorticity. It looks like from IR and Martinique radar it's more of squall line type of convective system rather than the convergence based convection. Even worse, since it's moving east, and to the south of the LLC, the squall line is creating a anti-cyclonic wake to the north side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 826
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Despite the recent convective blow up, it's not going to a boon to Erika in terms of stacking the system or boosting vorticity. It looks like from IR and Martinique radar it's more of squall line type of convective system rather than the convergence based convection. Even worse, since it's moving east, and to the south of the LLC, the squall line is creating a anti-cyclonic wake to the north side.

 

Disagree. Looks like starting to cover center nicely. 

 

05L.GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest question is not really intensity, but track. The really big shift right in the models says that there is a pretty good chance this will not hit the US. We will see if this trend holds with the 00Z suite.

 

Hurricane models shift more then the ground in California. I wouldn't even consider a miss till it gets past PR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the pattern really supports a recurve in this situation, although as we have seen in the past, even a slight erosion of the western ATL ridge can cause a recurve. That said, I could certainly see a situation where we see a gradual northerly bend and an eventual landfall over the NC coastline. Perhaps on a NNE course. Of course anything is still possible, but there is no large incoming trough to deflect this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the recent convective blow up, it's not going to a boon to Erika in terms of stacking the system or boosting vorticity. It looks like from IR and Martinique radar it's more of squall line type of convective system rather than the convergence based convection. Even worse, since it's moving east, and to the south of the LLC, the squall line is creating a anti-cyclonic wake to the north side.

 

Saw a lot of out flow boundries eminating from the convection on visible today also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good thing is we have a ridge of high pressure

This isn't January with a 1046mb high sitting over downeast Maine and a -NAO block over Greenland.

 

In other words, I think the system slows down near the Carolinas but I am not buying a sharp curve East. If anything, it should slowly side North once the high gets out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't January with a 1046mb high sitting over downeast Maine and a -NAO block over Greenland. I agree with the part you said about it slowly sliding north as the high lifts off, but it is too far off to really know how and where it moves once the high pressure slides away

In other words, I think the system slows down near the Carolinas but I am not buying a sharp curve East. If anything, it should slowly side North once the high gets out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said multiple times in this thread that global models are very useful for determining large scale steering patterns, they are an essential tool no doubt. However the actual projection of a tropical cyclone in a global model is fairly dismal. I think the false alarm rate for RI is so high that the magnitude of the low in a global model projection shouldn't really be considered. Unfortunately the GFDL and HWRF have even worse false RI rates. Likewise there are numerous times where globals show a weak cyclone or open wave and it ends up being a hurricane.

 

We can all agree intensity forecasting for TCs is terrible, and has shown almost no improvement for the 2 decades I've been watching. If you can't forecast intensity then you can't forecast the TCs effects on the upper-levels, since the strength of a TC's upper-level anti-cyclone and Rossby Wave is directly connected to intensity. This results in innacurate representation of steering currents, and this effect butterflies out. Beyond 3 days track forecasting is quite poor, I think we're at the point where we can't produce better track forecasts until we solve the intensity problem. All models have this problem, but globals are particularly bad since they cant resolve the effects on steering. At least the GFDL and HWRF have enough resolution to produce the realistic upper-level features, if they can get the intensity right. Observations is another problem that feeds back into this, and might be the key to unlocking it.

 

The only time globals are quite useful is in the case of a large, mature hurricane. With something like Erika the results are abysmal.

HWRF is starting to show steady improvement through HFIP investment over the past 5 years, see for example slide 5 of the following:

https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/wwosc/documents/WWOSC_Tallapragada.pdf

 

I don't think that track forecasting is nearly as bad as you're making it out to be, and it continues to improve:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/figs/ALtkerrtrd_noTD.jpg

 

Present day 5 day track forecasts from NHC are as good as 3 day track forecasts were 2000.  Oh, and most of their track forecasting comes from taking model consensus, so the implication there is that track forecasts in the models also continue to improve.  This disagrees with your point that you "have to get the intensity" forecasting right in order to continue to improve track forecasts. 

 

We can agree to disagree on the last point.  The skill of track forecasting by global models will vary by storm (size, intensity, steering, etc.), but I don't think you can generalize as much as you are trying to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did...

 

Attached Images

 

post-7962-0-25226200-1440642661.png

 

I can't be totally positive, but I think cheeznado was referring to the actual 00Z cycle runs. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all of the runs listed in the 00Z model track guidance plot from TTB are based on an already completed cycle. For example, the 18Z GFS (listed as AVNI in red) is depicted with an offset of 6 hours. It's the same with the HWRF (list as HWFI in purple) and etc. It's a bit cluttered, but I couldn't find the Euro in there which is unfortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't January with a 1046mb high sitting over downeast Maine and a -NAO block over Greenland.

In other words, I think the system slows down near the Carolinas but I am not buying a sharp curve East. If anything, it should slowly side North once the high gets out of the way.

I agree with the last part, question is where does it go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Present day 5 day track forecasts from NHC are as good as 3 day track forecasts were 2000. Oh, and most of their track forecasting comes from taking model consensus, so the implication there is that track forecasts in the models also continue to improve. This disagrees with your point that you "have to get the intensity" forecasting right in order to continue to improve track forecasts.

I'm probably the furthest thing from an expert there is in here, but I don't see how the tropical model intensity forecasts, and the global model track forecasts, are anything but codependent. I mean, how can you trust an intensity forecast without the context of a track - there's obviously a lot more than internal dynamics at play (shearing, dry air, mountains - all track dependent). And, at the same time, as intensity shapes track (see recent debate on Danny), how can you forecast track without a good model of intensity?

Bottom line - and I'm sure this is a gross oversimplification of the middle ground between TH and DTK - but don't both global and tropical models have something useful to contribute to the forecasts that Mets derive from their analyses of both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably the furthest thing from an expert there is in here, but I don't see how the tropical model intensity forecasts, and the global model track forecasts, are anything but codependent. I mean, how can you trust an intensity forecast without the context of a track - there's obviously a lot more than internal dynamics at play (shearing, dry air, mountains - all track dependent). And, at the same time, as intensity shapes track (see recent debate on Danny), how can you forecast track without a good model of intensity?

Bottom line - and I'm sure this is a gross oversimplification of the middle ground between TH and DTK - but don't both global and tropical models have something useful to contribute to the forecasts that Mets derive from their analyses of both?

 

For the most part, I largely agree with your first paragraph.  However, there are factors that contribute to track prediction that are partly or wholly external to the intensity forecast itself.  These things continue to improve through better modeling, better DA, etc.  Undoubtedly, improved intensity predictions will further accelerate our improvements in track prediction. 

 

Yes, both global and regional/tropical specific models have their place in the forecast process (as do some statistical tools, btw).  I'm not arguing the utility of regional models (they are obviously useful and worth the investment)...I'm simply trying to make the point that global models are more useful than some are opining about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...