Diggiebot Posted 44 minutes ago Share Posted 44 minutes ago 8 minutes ago, DirtySnowDen said: If you swinr your eyes. You can the eye form Meanwhile Hawaii is about to get three hurricanes in one year 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySnowDen Posted 41 minutes ago Share Posted 41 minutes ago 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySnowDen Posted 40 minutes ago Share Posted 40 minutes ago It’s Spanish for “The Niño” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWolf Posted 37 minutes ago Share Posted 37 minutes ago 1 hour ago, kdxken said: Yeah something strange is going on. Probably happened back in the 1700s too. Crock of shit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vortex95 Posted 30 minutes ago Share Posted 30 minutes ago 1 hour ago, WxWatcher007 said: Look at that first loop!!! That's 100% tropical. Look at that convection wrap tightly around the center. Beautiful. Riding right along the Gulf Stream. Perfect location. Did I get @WxWatcher007 as pumped as @ineedsnow here? See what I am saying here? My "rants" are not w/o merit as to NHC not acknowledging legit TCs. The Jan 2023 event is perhaps the most glaring I have ever seen, and this is when they have long broaden the definition of a TC (2005 forced everyone too!) and declare them more. This is good as we are calling things for what they are, but still, you get odd stuff like this that gets ignored operationally. Yes, I know the Jan 2023 thing got included in post-season analysis, but that's not the point. Why was it not declared operationally? My guess is that they did not want to name something in Jan close the East Coast b/c the media would freak, and NHC would have been overrun w/ calls and inquires, so they just deferred to post-season analysis. Sorry, that isn't an excuse. It's your job to monitor and designate TCs in the Atlantic and EPAC in real-time. The atmosphere doesn't care what the calendar says or about our rules or policies, it does what it does! So you see my concern about this current storm and how it may evolve and what may or may not be done from authority. This ST or T evolution is not a low-prob or far-fetched scenario, whether you look at it from a meteorological objective or subjective POV! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted 27 minutes ago Share Posted 27 minutes ago 2 hours ago, ineedsnow said: Thats an over performer here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted 26 minutes ago Share Posted 26 minutes ago 2 hours ago, CoastalWx said: OKX should have a high wind warning for LI and maybe even srn CT. JMHO. Many outages in portions of CT if that verified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySnowDen Posted 25 minutes ago Share Posted 25 minutes ago 3 minutes ago, vortex95 said: Did I get @WxWatcher007 as pumped as @ineedsnow here? See what I am saying here? My "rants" are not w/o merit as to NHC not acknowledging legit TCs. The Jan 2023 event is perhaps the most glaring I have ever seen, and this is when they have long broaden the definition of a TC (2005 forced everyone too!) and declare them more. This is good as we are calling things for what they are, but still, you get odd stuff like this that gets ignored operationally. Yes, I know the Jan 2023 thing got included in post-season analysis, but that's not the point. Why was it not declared operationally? My guess is that they did not want to name something in Jan close the East Coast b/c the media would freak, and NHC would have been overrun w/ calls and inquires, so they just deferred to post-season analysis. Sorry, that isn't an excuse. It's your job to monitor and designate TCs in the Atlantic and EPAC in real-time. The atmosphere doesn't care what the calendar says or about our rules or policies, it does what it does! So you see my concern about this current storm and how it may evolve and what may or may not be done from authority. This ST or T evolution is not a low-prob or far-fetched scenario, whether you look at it from a meteorological objective or subjective POV! No Sandy was. Because it wasn’t tropical, NHC “threw hands up” saying it’s ET. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySnowDen Posted 21 minutes ago Share Posted 21 minutes ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySnowDen Posted 19 minutes ago Share Posted 19 minutes ago Really curious what the Goofus does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vortex95 Posted 19 minutes ago Share Posted 19 minutes ago 7 minutes ago, DirtySnowDen said: No Sandy was. Because it wasn’t tropical, NHC “threw hands up” saying it’s ET. Don't even get me started w/ Sandy! I'll spare you all a rant write-up on that! One thing I will say, at a SNE conference I think 12 years ago, one of the BOX mets who is the resident WFO TC expert was talking about the reanalysis of big HUs that hit New England. And Sandy came up. He was asked if he thought it was still a TC at landfall, and he said, w/ his boss (MIC) on stage w/ him, "offline after a few beers, I say yes it was!" 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torch Tiger Posted 1 minute ago Share Posted 1 minute ago 0z NAM touches 979mb around 80-100mi south of LI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now