Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

Tropical Season 2017


40/70 Benchmark

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

it's kind of funny in a way.. 

i just mused over that 18z gfs run from yesterday.  it's like the models keep spit-balling distant visions of perfection for storm enthusiasts up here, ...as tho on purpose for deviant entertainment.  on stage, the beleaguered bum-bruised enthusiast is none-the-wiser they are being deliberately set up for a week's worth of mind f games...  ha!

i lamented a few days ago, that of all facets in the greater encyclopedia of weather phenomenon that people could specifically focus their interests in ... the tropics have got to be the most penetrating arsenal into the failing walls of the fabled hearts there is...   jesus... and the evil is that you need the extended leads, because when you have these 200 mph corkscrews with eyes like wormholes to the after worlds looking to suck away as many lives as blithely possible... even considering the inaccuracy something has to be better than nothing.  

fascinating actually.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm not saying 860 mb is likely ....?  

however, we are at < 930 mb and 175 mph winds, which is ahead of schedule and surpassing models and man's typical conceit of attempting to out wit the models, by a goodly margin of time. 

i think something more historic is certainly still on the table... and if the pressure does somehow plumb to < 900... or even 890 mb ...that's close enough that those models are vindicated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

i'm not saying 860 mb is likely ....?  

however, we are at < 930 mb and 175 mph winds, which is ahead of schedule and surpassing models and man's typical conceit of attempting to out wit the models, by a goodly margin of time. 

i think something more historic is certainly still on the table... and if the pressure does somehow plumb to < 900... or even 890 mb ...that's close enough that those models are vindicated. 

We know it's not.  That would shatter the record for an Atlantic Basin storm by almost 20mb.  Sub 900mb could happen under ideal conditions though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

We know it's not.  That would shatter the record for an Atlantic Basin storm by almost 20mb.  Sub 900mb could happen under ideal conditions though.

the post was specifically in deference to those "spiking" the models are bias balls ...  i wasn't suggesting anyone thinks that's likely - either 

to re-iterate, the storm is ahead of schedule for barometric pressure depth as it is.   seems a bit presumptuous... whatever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

The euro according to Brian Tang's site is doing very well with location, but puking on itself for intensity. Do we know if the site is using lower res stuff or is the model really being that bad for intensity? That seems strange to me.

Yeah my guess is he isnt using the hires euro in his error charts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

The euro according to Brian Tang's site is doing very well with location, but puking on itself for intensity. Do we know if the site is using lower res stuff or is the model really being that bad for intensity? That seems strange to me.

Actually the hi-res initialized at 959, so it isn't handling things all that great pressure wise. That's not to say the GFS in the 940s means it is right about eventual pressure either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Actually the hi-res initialized at 959, so it isn't handling things all that great pressure wise. That's not to say the GFS in the 940s means it is right about eventual pressure either.

That graph on his site is showing the EC performing extremely bad intensity wise. I mean I can see some intensity issues...but it doesn't pass the sniff test with the model doing so well position wise, but so bad intensity wise. Maybe it is correct...but it just seemed odd to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

That graph on his site is showing the EC performing extremely bad intensity wise. I mean I can see some intensity issues...but it doesn't pass the sniff test with the model doing so well position wise, but so bad intensity wise. Maybe it is correct...but it just seemed odd to me.

Our "hi-res" in AWIPS is 986 (ha), and the low-res version is 999. Ouch.

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...