2026 Atlantic Hurricane Season

[Windspeed]

Probably out of time, but it was a good effort lol.

Haha, yeah, Fay just got decapitated. Oh well...

[NorthHillsWx]

Valiant effort. Next. 

[wdrag]

Opinions this weekend 9/25-27: potential evolving hybrid subtropical storm affecting NYC metro-New England. More so EPS, but also a muted agreed signal in the GEFS. Any thoughts?  Current guidance is offering a pretty good chance of at least moderate CF, FGEN heavy rain, obviously 45+ wind gusts parts of this region. 

 

Or am I counting too much on the guidance as is, and it ends up weaker or further east. 

We've had spotty modeling of 5-8" rainfall by Sunday night for several days. 

Glad I'm not seafaring in the NY Biight-Bermuda this coming weekend. 

Thanks for the check. 

[MANDA]

1 hour ago, wdrag said:

Opinions this weekend 9/25-27: potential evolving hybrid subtropical storm affecting NYC metro-New England. More so EPS, but also a muted agreed signal in the GEFS. Any thoughts?  Current guidance is offering a pretty good chance of at least moderate CF, FGEN heavy rain, obviously 45+ wind gusts parts of this region. 

 

Or am I counting too much on the guidance as is, and it ends up weaker or further east. 

We've had spotty modeling of 5-8" rainfall by Sunday night for several days. 

Glad I'm not seafaring in the NY Biight-Bermuda this coming weekend. 

Thanks for the check. 

Walt!  So good to hear from you.  We miss you over on the NYC Metro forum.  Hope all well with you.

My opinion.  Minor to moderate coastal flooding especially LI Sound and Jersey beaches and SNE coast.  Any winds of note confined to more eastern sections NJ coast out to eastern LI and SNE especially.  Same with rainfall more coastal than inland. This is based on the modeling now.  Any ticks west this week and interior sections could be more affected by winds and rain. Something interesting to watch.

[MANDA]

With Fay falling just short we're back on track to keep the record going for latest developing hurricane.  Certainly within the realm of possibility now that we make it through September with no hurricanes for the season to date.

[WxWatcher007]

2 hours ago, wdrag said:

Opinions this weekend 9/25-27: potential evolving hybrid subtropical storm affecting NYC metro-New England. More so EPS, but also a muted agreed signal in the GEFS. Any thoughts?  Current guidance is offering a pretty good chance of at least moderate CF, FGEN heavy rain, obviously 45+ wind gusts parts of this region. 

 

Or am I counting too much on the guidance as is, and it ends up weaker or further east. 

We've had spotty modeling of 5-8" rainfall by Sunday night for several days. 

Glad I'm not seafaring in the NY Biight-Bermuda this coming weekend. 

Thanks for the check. 

Walt, it's good to hear from you. I hope all is well. 

As you know, the signal for something developing off the coast has been there for a few days now, and as we get closer in time I am becoming a touch more bullish. I think the odds are low that we see an officially designated subtropical storm, but I am intrigued by some of the guidance signals between the Google DeepMind, EPS, and Euro/GFS AI. 

This is a highly uncommon thing for us up in the Mid-Atlantic and New England to see in September, even if it remains non-tropical. Currently I think the impacts are around what you describe. If the Euro suite is to be believed, we would see strong winds, prolonged easterly fetch causing significant coastal flooding, especially if the storm is still potent around astronomical high tides later in the week, and potentially significant rainfall. I'll note that part of southern Connecticut has been inundated recently with rainfall and flash flooding, and although this rain would likely last over days, if it is potent with a tropical tap banding into the state could cause serious issues. 

This is one to watch IMO. Regardless of official designation. 

[NEG NAO]

as of today - most of the significant impact from the coastal LP will be further east BUT this could still change - stay tuned !

[rclab]

4 hours ago, wdrag said:

Opinions this weekend 9/25-27: potential evolving hybrid subtropical storm affecting NYC metro-New England. More so EPS, but also a muted agreed signal in the GEFS. Any thoughts?  Current guidance is offering a pretty good chance of at least moderate CF, FGEN heavy rain, obviously 45+ wind gusts parts of this region. 

 

Or am I counting too much on the guidance as is, and it ends up weaker or further east. 

We've had spotty modeling of 5-8" rainfall by Sunday night for several days. 

Glad I'm not seafaring in the NY Biight-Bermuda this coming weekend. 

Thanks for the check. 

Unlike the responses from well versed forum members, I can only offer that I am very happy to see a post from you. Stay well and please if possible visit again. As always …. 

[Eskimo Joe]

3 hours ago, MANDA said:

With Fay falling just short we're back on track to keep the record going for latest developing hurricane.  Certainly within the realm of possibility now that we make it through September with no hurricanes for the season to date.

We stand a legitimate chance of no hurricanes in the Atlantic basin this year. 

[Amped]

15 hours ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Probably out of time, but it was a good effort lol.

Futility achieved. Only 1914 didn't have a cane at this point.

[vortex95]

5 hours ago, Amped said:

Futility achieved. Only 1914 didn't have a cane at this point.

This short paper from 2007 (attached) from Chris Landsea of NHC summaries well the issues w/ "missing" TCs in the Atlantic.

Counting Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Back to 1900

From the paper:
In particular, Landsea et al. [2004] esti-
mated an undercount bias of zero to six
tropical cyclones per year between 1851 and
1885 and zero to four per year between 1886
and 1910. These undercounts roughly take
into account the typical size of tropical
cyclones, the density of shipping tracks over
the Atlantic basin, and the amount of popu-
lated coastline. As one goes back further in
time, the numbers of ships and shipping
lanes decreases and fewer people live in the
tropical and subtropical coastal regions.
These factors make it increasingly likely that
some tropical cyclones would not be
counted the farther back in time examined.


I like how he compared 1933 to 2005, which is #1 and #2 for most ACE in a season.  Look at the gap out in the cntrl and ern Atlantic.  The 20 storms in 1933 I bet is at least 5-8 too low.  We saw what happened in 2005 when everything went "right."  We were getting late- season oddballs Oct-Dec often cntrl and ern Atlantic, and that season redefined what we call a TC and expanded what was possible!

He said that as to hurricanes from 1851 to about 1940, anywhere from 0 to 4 hurricanes in the Atlantic were likely missed in any given year, w/ the avg being likely close to 1.  Meaning that 1914 probably had a hurricane, just never detected.  When you see something like Fay recently, and tiny systems like Oscar even when not in the middle of nowhere, you see how the probability is quite high here.

It is fascinating stuff to look at history and do "sleuthing!"  The Hurricane Reanalysis Project displays this best.  I wish other agencies would do this for TC basin worldwide.  There is *lot* of data out there that could be gathered, analyzed, and much to be found. 

And you do not have to go the far back.  Full geostationary sat coverage did not exist in the western Pacific until 1987 and not until 1989 over the IO.  However, for over 25 years up to this point, we had plenty of polar imagery, and as I mentioned, the delays in transmission of polar imagery in those days was several hours or more, so it could not be used operationally to assign proper TC intensity.  It's the main reason why if you want to look at trends for TCs in the IO, you really can't start until 1990, and by extension, global TCs are well.  The SIO is the second most active basin globally for ACE per year.
 

landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

[vortex95]

I just posted this on another forum. Food for thought for the upcoming E Coast storm!

For several days now, the global models have been indicating an atypically strong

non-tropical low for September developing off the U.S. Mid-Atlantic/New England

coasts by this weekend.  High winds, coastal flooding, and excessive rains are 

becoming more likely, especially in southern New England.

 

Some models, such as the ECMWF and UKMET, are showing a strong warm seclusion

evolving when the low slows down and stalls for a time not far S of New England.  I 

attached the 850, 700, and 500 heights/temp valid 09z September 27 from the 22/00z 
ECMWF that clearly shows the warm seclusion.

 

SSTs S of New England are running anywhere between 2-4 C above average and are

22-25 C in the region where the low is forecast to slow/stall, more than enough for

subtropical development, and with such SSTs we have seen full tropical transition 

before.

 

Now I know this sounds like I am getting ahead of myself here, but one has to 

proactively think in the abstract and outside the box here, especially 
when it comes to atypical/outlier events forecast and their impacts.
 

I know of no case where a strong non-tropical low transitioned to subtropical or 

tropical in this area of the Atlantic so close to the Mid-Atlantic or New England 

coasts.  There was an intense non-tropical low that impacted this region in October

2021 that eventually became TS Wanda, but not until far out of sea in the central 

Atlantic.

 

The conundrum I see is that if such a transition occurs, it may be while significant

non-tropical land impacts from wind/rain/coastal flooding are ongoing.  So that 

implies non-tropical wind warnings would have to be switched to tropical wind 

warnings.  This presents a problem in messaging, among other things.

 

We have policy/procedures in place when a tropical system transitions to PT/ET  --

the capability to continue pre-existing tropical wind warnings, but what about when

you have an ET low going to subtropical/tropical?  There is no sensible weather

difference between gale/storm warnings and tropical storm warnings, but a 

significant amount of the public does not realize or understand that.  Going from

an unnamed system to a named system?  Well, I don't have to say how the

media (social and otherwise) reacts when a subtropical/tropical system is named.

But the meteorology operationally just can't be ignored either.  A system is what

it is.

 

This is further complicated by the fact that days before non-tropical low develops, a 

strong pressure gradient from high pressure over southeastern Canada will result in

gale force E and NE winds as early as late today over the marine zone waters off the 

Mid-Atlantic and New England coast.
 

In my opinion, the above is a non-trivial from a logistical and social point-of-view if

such a non-tropical to ST/T transition occur in said region.  A similar modern day 

event that did not fit or work within any current policies/produces at the time occurred 

with Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, which was also this very same region.  The 

ante this time is not forecast to be on the level of Sandy, but nevertheless is significant.

[bigtenfan]

Doesn’t this distinction between tropical and non tropical damage become an insurance deductible issue for coastal homeowners?

I remember that there were some people who thought that the so called transition from tropical to non tropical by Sandy just prior to landfall in Brigantine NJ was more insurance/ politics related than science related.


.

[Windspeed]

Doesn’t this distinction between tropical and non tropical damage become an insurance deductible issue for coastal homeowners?

I remember that there were some people who thought that the so called transition from tropical to non tropical by Sandy just prior to landfall in Brigantine NJ was more insurance/ politics related than science related.


.

Regardless of the inadequacies of insurance policy, Sandy transitioned prior to landfall, and this was even confirmed in post-analysis. The mets at the NHC aren't going to get involved in politics, and they do not undermine their scientific work for the benefit of the private sector despite any conspiracies to the contrary. Granted, you didn't present this as your own opinion, but that of some others, but let us squash that discussion before it begins.

[NorthHillsWx]

On 9/20/2026 at 4:04 PM, Boston Bulldog said:

Looks great under the hood and from space. Fay will be a hurricane, if not by 5pm then certainly by 11pm

I know Fay operationally came just short and there likely will not be enough data for a post-season upgrade, but around the time and shortly after these images were taken it would not surprise me if the storm became a brief hurricane. 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

11 hours ago, vortex95 said:

This short paper from 2007 (attached) from Chris Landsea of NHC summaries well the issues w/ "missing" TCs in the Atlantic.

Counting Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Back to 1900

From the paper:
In particular, Landsea et al. [2004] esti-
mated an undercount bias of zero to six
tropical cyclones per year between 1851 and
1885 and zero to four per year between 1886
and 1910. These undercounts roughly take
into account the typical size of tropical
cyclones, the density of shipping tracks over
the Atlantic basin, and the amount of popu-
lated coastline. As one goes back further in
time, the numbers of ships and shipping
lanes decreases and fewer people live in the
tropical and subtropical coastal regions.
These factors make it increasingly likely that
some tropical cyclones would not be
counted the farther back in time examined.


I like how he compared 1933 to 2005, which is #1 and #2 for most ACE in a season.  Look at the gap out in the cntrl and ern Atlantic.  The 20 storms in 1933 I bet is at least 5-8 too low.  We saw what happened in 2005 when everything went "right."  We were getting late- season oddballs Oct-Dec often cntrl and ern Atlantic, and that season redefined what we call a TC and expanded what was possible!

He said that as to hurricanes from 1851 to about 1940, anywhere from 0 to 4 hurricanes in the Atlantic were likely missed in any given year, w/ the avg being likely close to 1.  Meaning that 1914 probably had a hurricane, just never detected.  When you see something like Fay recently, and tiny systems like Oscar even when not in the middle of nowhere, you see how the probability is quite high here.

It is fascinating stuff to look at history and do "sleuthing!"  The Hurricane Reanalysis Project displays this best.  I wish other agencies would do this for TC basin worldwide.  There is *lot* of data out there that could be gathered, analyzed, and much to be found. 

And you do not have to go the far back.  Full geostationary sat coverage did not exist in the western Pacific until 1987 and not until 1989 over the IO.  However, for over 25 years up to this point, we had plenty of polar imagery, and as I mentioned, the delays in transmission of polar imagery in those days was several hours or more, so it could not be used operationally to assign proper TC intensity.  It's the main reason why if you want to look at trends for TCs in the IO, you really can't start until 1990, and by extension, global TCs are well.  The SIO is the second most active basin globally for ACE per year.
 

landsea-eos-may012007.pdf 457.5 kB · 0 downloads

Definitely agree that we need to take the earlier seasons with a grain of salt because the technology wasn't as good. For 2005, we can say for certainty that the ACE value was between 245 and 250. [In 2024, I did a calculation on this season, and it came out to be 247.65, which is #1] 1933 has a wider variance, between 213 and 258. [In the same 2024 calculation, I got 235.785, which is #2]. I actually think the 258 value from NOAA is an overestimate.

Here are the Top 11 ACE seasons from my 2024 calculations:

1            2005      247.65

2            1933      235.785

3            1893      231.0738

4            1995      227.5513

5            1950      227.1413

6            2004      226.94

7            1926      225.7788

8            2017      224.8775           

9            1961      196.95

10          1998      181.8838

11          2020      180.3725

As for 1914, the mid-September storm was the biggest one for that season (that was almost Hurricane strength). I believe they did a reanalysis in 2005 (oddly enough, the most active season), and they couldn't find anything more. There might have been another one or two more storms, but I'm almost certain none were as big as the mid-September storm.

[MANDA]

2026 Atlantic Season to date:

Pretty feeble.  Nothing much is likely to change before the end of the month.  We'll tack on another tenth or two of ACE before Fay gives up the ghost.  The lack of a hurricane this season looks like a lock to continue for balance of September.  Will be up to October / November to produce a hurricane.

[vortex95]

1 hour ago, bigtenfan said:

Doesn’t this distinction between tropical and non tropical damage become an insurance deductible issue for coastal homeowners?

I remember that there were some people who thought that the so called transition from tropical to non tropical by Sandy just prior to landfall in Brigantine NJ was more insurance/ politics related than science related.


.

Yes, one of many things that can be different, depending on the state or county, and unquestionably this has been a factor at times.

Sandy's classification at landfall I think was political/economic.  The decisions not to go w/ tropical watches/warnings N of ORF was ridiculous given what the models were showing, and when it actually went more tropical that day of landfall, they still did not back off.  Also, tropical storm force winds occurred on the coast before it was declared PT, so there you go.  

It was still solid warm cold up to 200 mb at landfall,  Looking at the AMSU polar pass show this clearly.

Hurricanes don't just go PT/ET in an instant,  It is gradual process most of the time.  It like when JTWC says in their advisories "becoming extratropical."  Sandy's inner core was weakening at landfall, but it had not dissipated completely.   Pressure was up only 6 mb at landfall from the 940 mb peak. 

And the argument that fronts has made its to the center is weak.  We have seen a number of times NHC declare a system that has fronts a TC when it was clear from satellite it still had fronts attached to the center.  And we've seen systems that looked far less tropical that Sandy at landfall and they are called/declared TCs.  So they are not always consistent/meteorologically objective.

I recall a NWS tropical met from a WFO in the Northeast at a conference some time ago.  He thought Sandy was still a hurricane at landfall and just in transition phase, like almost all hurricanes that hit New England.  You don't see them stop being called hurricanes just before landfall.

[vortex95]

2 hours ago, Windspeed said:

2 hours ago, bigtenfan said:

Doesn’t this distinction between tropical and non tropical damage become an insurance deductible issue for coastal homeowners?

I remember that there were some people who thought that the so called transition from tropical to non tropical by Sandy just prior to landfall in Brigantine NJ was more insurance/ politics related than science related.


.

Regardless of the inadequacies of insurance policy, Sandy transitioned prior to landfall, and this was even confirmed in post-analysis. The mets at the NHC aren't going to get involved in politics, and they do not undermine their scientific work for the benefit of the private sector despite any conspiracies to the contrary. Granted, you didn't present this as your own opinion, but that of some others, but let us squash that discussion before it begins.

NHC has at times.  The Perfect Storm in Oct-Nov 1991.  That clearly transitioned to a hurricane and they actually had a recon in it and confirmed it was a hurricane.  Yet they did not declare it operationally.  Yes, in post-season analysis they did, but was clear what it was operationally, and they did not declare/name it.  That's being unscientific and not meteorologically objective.  Call a system for what it is.  If one doesn't, that suggests other factors outside the met science.

I can give other examples less obvious but still suspect.  This doesn't mean they are "bad" or otherwise, just it is the reality of things.  Not all decisions in wx are made independent of external non-scientific factors.

[vortex95]

2 hours ago, NorthHillsWx said:

I know Fay operationally came just short and there likely will not be enough data for a post-season upgrade, but around the time and shortly after these images were taken it would not surprise me if the storm became a brief hurricane. 

Look at the loop here that shows the evolution before and after the time of the image you showed.
https://rammb-data.cira.colostate.edu/tc_realtime/loop.asp?product=4kmirimg&storm_identifier=al062026&starting_image=2026al06_4kmirimg_202609201250.gif&ending_image=2026al06_4kmirimg_202609202220.gif

That's not a real eye, just a residual dry slot that happens to look like one.  You can see the continuous dry slot poke in towards the center before the feature forms, end then that feature goes away almost  immediately.  You have to be careful taking single images in such a case when TCs are developing and dry air is in proximity.

[Windspeed]

NHC has at times.  The Perfect Storm in Oct-Nov 1991.  That clearly transitioned to a hurricane and they actually had a recon in it and confirmed it was a hurricane.  Yet they did not declare it operationally.  Yes, in post-season analysis they did, but was clear what it was operationally, and they did not declare/name it.  That's being unscientific and not meteorologically objective.  Call a system for what it is.  If one doesn't, that suggests other factors outside the met science.

I can give other examples less obvious but still suspect.  This doesn't mean they are "bad" or otherwise, just it is the reality of things.  Not all decisions in wx are made independent of external non-scientific factors.

Has at times with respect to what? Declare something tropical or non-tropical to help insurance deductibles? Look, I am not going to get into the debate or semantics over if or if not something is classified by the NHC. Whatever their reasons back in 1991 for or against classification in a large hybrid system that gains an inner symmetrical tropical surface low. But I sure as hell will squash conspiracies with regards to the private sector or politics.

Edit: I will add that I don't agree with their operational calls sometimes. I concede they are the best for a reason, but nobody is perfect. They do miss. I will be the first to question, and I am sure you have seen it in my posts about systems on occasion. But it's about scientific mistakes, not about outside influences. The moment that occurs is an integrity problem. That undermines the entire department, and those folks spend way too much time being thorough and independent from the political apparatus and private sector to destroy decades of credibility and research.

[MANDA]

38 minutes ago, vortex95 said:

Yes, one of many things that can be different, depending on the state or county, and unquestionably this has been a factor at times.

Sandy's classification at landfall I think was political/economic.  The decisions not to go w/ tropical watches/warnings N of ORF was ridiculous given what the models were showing, and when it actually went more tropical that day of landfall, they still did not back off.  Also, tropical storm force winds occurred on the coast before it was declared PT, so there you go.  

It was still solid warm cold up to 200 mb at landfall,  Looking at the AMSU polar pass show this clearly.

Hurricanes don't just go PT/ET in an instant,  It is gradual process most of the time.  It like when JTWC says in their advisories "becoming extratropical."  Sandy's inner core was weakening at landfall, but it had not dissipated completely.   Pressure was up only 6 mb at landfall from the 940 mb peak. 

And the argument that fronts has made its to the center is weak.  We have seen a number of times NHC declare a system that has fronts a TC when it was clear from satellite it still had fronts attached to the center.  And we've seen systems that looked far less tropical that Sandy at landfall and they are called/declared TCs.  So they are not always consistent/meteorologically objective.

I recall a NWS tropical met from a WFO in the Northeast at a conference some time ago.  He thought Sandy was still a hurricane at landfall and just in transition phase, like almost all hurricanes that hit New England.  You don't see them stop being called hurricanes just before landfall.

Thank you!  Totally agree!

[vortex95]

Just now, Windspeed said:

Has at times with respect to what? Declare something tropical or non-tropical to help insurance deductibles? Look, I am not going to get into the debate or semantics over if or if not something is classified by the NHC. Whatever their reasons in 1991 for a large hybrid system that gains an inner symmetrical tropical surface low. But I sure as hell will squash conspiracies with regards to the private sector.

I hope you are not upset.  Debate/discussion is what science is all about, so talking about this all is not a counterproductive notion.

I was talking in general as how things are not always done by meteorological standards only and there are many external factors out there.  That's not a conspiracy, that's just how society is, and not unique to the wx field.

I don't know specific reason(s) why Sandy called what is was at landfall, but something doesn't jibe w/ empirical observations and standard/practices done w/ many other TCs in the similar state of transition, and it is not just me who have questioned things.  And we are talking about what it is called (tropical or not), not specific reasons why, and just that it is not always objective or supports the evidence.

You wrote:
"Whatever their reasons in 1991 for a large hybrid system that gains an inner symmetrical tropical surface low."

Sandy was very similar to this.  It was a large hybrid system once it got to the Bahamas, then then on the day of landfall, and inner symmetrical tropical sfc low developed.   So I go back to the consistency of standard/practices here.  As I have said, we've seen many times NHC keep a TC tropical when it clearly not anymore, or declare something that does not fit the definition of a TC, but it is close to land.  Whether it is close to land or not should be irrelevant.  I mentioned this w/ Fay, when another noted they seemed to delay calling it even a TD when it was likely it was since it was no threat to land.
 

Semantics do count. What something is called officially or not has significant impact, such as in the legal profession.  And exact details/meanings count in the sciences.  An ET low and TC has a number of similarities, but also sig differences.  Same thing for a mesocyclonic tornado and landspout.  And they way things are, what something is called or not does matter outside the met sciences in the social/economic/political realms and their influences are there.
 

[Windspeed]

I hope you are not upset.  Debate/discussion is what science is all about, so talking about this all is not a counterproductive notion.

I was talking in general as how things are not always done by meteorological standards only and there are many external factors out there.  That's not a conspiracy, that's just how society is, and not unique to the wx field.

I don't know specific reason(s) why Sandy called what is was at landfall, but something doesn't jibe w/ empirical observations and standard/practices done w/ many other TCs in the similar state of transition, and it is not just me who have questioned things.  And we are talking about what it is called (tropical or not), not specific reasons why, and just that it is not always objective or supports the evidence.
You wrote:
"Whatever their reasons in 1991 for a large hybrid system that gains an inner symmetrical tropical surface low."

Sandy was very similar to this.  It was a large hybrid system once it got to the Bahamas, then then on the day of landfall, and inner symmetrical tropical sfc low developed.   So I go back to the consistency of standard/practices here.  As I have said, we've seen many times NHC keep a TC tropical when it clearly not anymore, or declare something that does not fit the definition of a TC, but it is close to land.  Whether it is close to land or not should be irrelevant.  I mentioned this w/ Fay, when another noted they seemed to delay calling it even a TD when it was likely it was since it was no threat to land.
 
Semantics do count. What something is called officially or not has significant impact, such as in the legal profession.  And exact details/meanings count in the sciences.  An ET low and TC has a number of similarities, but also sig differences.  Same thing for a mesocyclonic tornado and landspout.  And they way things are, what something is called or not does matter outside the met sciences in the social/economic/political realms and their influences are there.
 

See my edit. I'm not upset at all. I just need to be clear.

[vortex95]

29 minutes ago, MANDA said:

Thank you!  Totally agree!

To clarify, I don't know for sure the exact reasons why Sandy was not called a hurricane at landfall, but I think one reason is there were no hurricanes warnings in effect N of ORF.  How does that look from a agency PR standpoint?  No warnings?  You know how that sentiment goes in the public's eye.

Yes, there were non-tropical warnings out by local WFOs covering the dangerous conditions, but really, which do you think the public would react to more and take seriously, gale/storm/high wind warnings, or hurricane warnings?   And this was not doing it for the sake of jacking up the level or warnings for public safety, there was a significant chance that Sandy would still be a hurricane at landfall, and NHC has a relatively low threshold policy for model probabilities when they issue tropical watches/warnings. You can see this often and I'm sure some notice at times.  TS warning that far away or in that location and you ask yourself, "are the chances for sustained 34 kt winds that probable?"  You can see this a lot for systems passing offshore from the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, where you can't apply the same reasoning to TC wind fields here as in the tropical and subtropics since TCs become asymmetrical and move faster at mid-latitudes

And we knew the storm surge alone was going be very high/record impact in NJ and NYC.  Sandy is one of the few times truly the absolute intense hype days ahead of time IMHO was warranted for this region, since a NW moving, large hurricane making landfall in NJ was unheard of prior.

[vortex95]

25 minutes ago, Windspeed said:

31 minutes ago, vortex95 said:

I hope you are not upset.  Debate/discussion is what science is all about, so talking about this all is not a counterproductive notion.

I was talking in general as how things are not always done by meteorological standards only and there are many external factors out there.  That's not a conspiracy, that's just how society is, and not unique to the wx field.

I don't know specific reason(s) why Sandy called what is was at landfall, but something doesn't jibe w/ empirical observations and standard/practices done w/ many other TCs in the similar state of transition, and it is not just me who have questioned things.  And we are talking about what it is called (tropical or not), not specific reasons why, and just that it is not always objective or supports the evidence.
You wrote:
"Whatever their reasons in 1991 for a large hybrid system that gains an inner symmetrical tropical surface low."

Sandy was very similar to this.  It was a large hybrid system once it got to the Bahamas, then then on the day of landfall, and inner symmetrical tropical sfc low developed.   So I go back to the consistency of standard/practices here.  As I have said, we've seen many times NHC keep a TC tropical when it clearly not anymore, or declare something that does not fit the definition of a TC, but it is close to land.  Whether it is close to land or not should be irrelevant.  I mentioned this w/ Fay, when another noted they seemed to delay calling it even a TD when it was likely it was since it was no threat to land.
 
Semantics do count. What something is called officially or not has significant impact, such as in the legal profession.  And exact details/meanings count in the sciences.  An ET low and TC has a number of similarities, but also sig differences.  Same thing for a mesocyclonic tornado and landspout.  And they way things are, what something is called or not does matter outside the met sciences in the social/economic/political realms and their influences are there.
 

See my edit. I'm not upset at all. I just need to be clear.

That's ok.  Being clear on social media is not always easy.  Context and tone is often challenge!  I think that's were emojis come in.
 

[wdrag]

On 9/21/2026 at 9:37 AM, wdrag said:

Opinions this weekend 9/25-27: potential evolving hybrid subtropical storm affecting NYC metro-New England. More so EPS, but also a muted agreed signal in the GEFS. Any thoughts?  Current guidance is offering a pretty good chance of at least moderate CF, FGEN heavy rain, obviously 45+ wind gusts parts of this region. 

 

Or am I counting too much on the guidance as is, and it ends up weaker or further east. 

We've had spotty modeling of 5-8" rainfall by Sunday night for several days. 

Glad I'm not seafaring in the NY Biight-Bermuda this coming weekend. 

Thanks for the check. 

Am in Walmart Parking Lot checking 12z/22 EC AI FS.   Sooooo different from other modeling.  I’ll stay with this quote and think it’s good to heads up for an interrupting storm for the NY bight this weekend. May not be right but it seems a player