NeonPeon

It's very impressive, but it looks to be the most obvious RI we've ever seen. This storm has had the absolute perfect conditions and precocious structure. It has lead a charmed life. I'm interested to see how it will integrate it's one imperfection as it continues to deepen - that blob to the NE.

Fascinating watching this really get its act together. Helene was this big beast whose birth was this problematic asymmetrical chaos that was only exacerbated by dry air leading to all sorts of growing pains. Complicated adolescence and then unfortunately a real late bloomer. This thing is just in perfect conditions, small, and oddly consistent in convection close to the center, before it completely had one. In terms of structure it's always been precocious.

I think that's a lot to read out of a convective blob with little rotation, without seeing the other things you'd expect to see. It is ominously persistent. If we see it get organized at all ahead of schedule, Id imagine we will get consensus to the higher end solutions.

I think part of the reason is that the media (and some enthusiasts) keep score via wind due to how storms are categorized. In terms of damage "almost always" isn't needed here. It's always water.

A touch of Googling shows all sorts of negligent deferred maintenance on that dam.

If it had hit tampa, this would have been a katrina type situation. The story with every hurricane is the same though, surge, rain, whatever form it takes, it's always water. Wind is an inconvenience but since it's used to keep score...

Just as with the radar attenuation claims, I also can't remember a storm where people were satisfied with wind verification. This thing plowed into about the perfect place it could have in terms of population density. The real damage becomes evident later on, a slowly unfolding, less glamorous disaster, inland. Lots and lots of rain.

If this is so, why does a radar to the east of the storm in Tampa show the same as one in Tallahassee. The explanation makes no sense.

It's weird how the same area isn't filled in regardless of radar used, and that it isn't attenuating the area further away based on the radar location. It's a strange explanation that defies my understanding of how a radar functions, but it comes up every time we have one of these storms, which is why I remember they have this look.

I can't think of many land falling hurricanes in the Gulf that don't have this look in terms of a slightly open or ragged eye wall on the far side. You seem to need a real outlier not to get it.

It is the worst case scenario except for missing big population centers with the worst of it. Not much help to the people who are in its path, of course, and there are still many.

I don't really know what this means. I wasn't anticipating it having a giant CDO and then popping an eye. I definitely also wasn't expecting it to ingest as much dry air as it did, as dry air wasn't forecast to be an issue, or rather it was explicitly discussed as not being an issue. Given the combination of the system being so massive, and the dry air it ingested, it's organized itself quite rapidly, but it also left the cancun area in a sorry state and its core open. It also has thus far taken the RI off the table that was so strongly indicated. It may be getting its act together now, and its definitely steadily strengthening, but it still has the look of being lopsided. Some of the other large atlantic hurricanes in my memory solved the problem by having a really large clear eye at a similar stage in development. This has threatened to do that but hasn't really ever cleared it out and has wobbled. The uncertainty of RI is exactly why I'm imagining there is so much attention on it. That and its increased frequency due to climate change. It's why I find watching hurricanes so fascinating as they are at once incredibly fragile and incredibly strong.

It's never really hanging on to a stable core structure though. It never has loci of intense convection, just the one, and it hasn't had a stable symmetrical eye either. It keeps looking like it's going to, but can't quite clear itself out.

I think what is happening is what happens when relatively small differences make massive differences to your back yard. I.e. yes, there some shifts and uncertainty as there always is, but you haven't noticed them to the same degree because they are trivial when it isn't you. From a broad perspective this looks like a VERY well forecasted storm. Like, the track we are seeing now is more or less where it was forecast to end up several days ago, which is exactly what you want - tons of time to prepare, tons of time to raise awareness. That more or less matters much more if it's your back yard being affected more or less.

On the no explosion thing, this hurricane has improved in structure quite rapidly. I mean, about 14 hours ago it had very little convection around the eye. 12 hours ago it was a ragged spirally mess due to dry air etc. I think the rI is trivial compared to the structural stuff. It's just whether there is enough time left, and there seems to be, and not enough time for anything but strengthening.

It does look like the strongest stuff is exploding near or around the eye for the first time, and more symmetrically. I think it's beginning.

I don't know what you mean. Their prediction is on the upper envelope of the intensity guidance they have, and they reference that it could be higher. That's hardly hesitancy, it seems very reasonable. Lastly, it's the spectators that care whether it hits this or that imaginary threshold. In terms of the impact this thing is being painted as the monster it is. A lot of the numbers are trivia.

Many models show some horrific rotting band somewhere near transylvania county. NHC starting to show some 20" plus stuff there. Obviously the details of where it sets up are up in the air, but those are astonishing totals for an area that broadly is at massive flood risk in general (i.e.20%+ of properties at risk)

Can someone clarify something for the uneducated. The storm seems to have some dry air entrainment, but the general discussion has been that this was not likely to be an issue with this storm. Is what I'm seeing on satellite as dry air just subsidence from a storm that is lopsided, with an asymmetrical core? Are they one in the same?

Lawns don't like the vast majority of the United states in terms of climate, and they fail to outcompete anything if left alone. They are a colonial obsession aping European elite. They require an astonishing amount of maintenance.

How does it feel to have no soul?

Really nice snow in this last band but this is doing what it said on the package and not what I hoped. Somewhere around 1.5 peeped over my coffee mug. It's so pretty outside though, and Liverpool top of the league so I'm not arsed.

This is the first event where I'm thinking I'll overperform for some reason. And by that I mean advisory snow.

GPS has nothing, NAM nothing, ICON a trace, Euro a trace to an inch. I want to believe.

I read the study, not the gloss on the study. The study itself already responds to your point regarding the land and water temperatures, you don't have to find it convincing. I'm not really interested in the political implications based on the Paris Accord definition, or even the 1.5C "limit" both because it's clear we are going to sail right by it, and because it was established as a relatively arbitrary political tool, not as any scientific metric. The Paris starting point doesn't delineate a preindustrial world, it more has to do with when reliable temperature data began to be reported. Surely one of the points of this study is exploring another set of data that can be measured from before that starting point. It's just one more methodology and one more set of data. The data, as far as sampling goes seem reasonable enough. I'm not sure if it's a "relatively isolated area." The area seems to be limited to where this particular sea sponge lives and is accessible to divers. They could widen the sampling some, but we're talking about a very particular organism with a limited range. Depending on how well reviewed it is, the same methodology can be used to sample data elsewhere, but only where this organism lives, to which you could raise the same doubt. It might spark interest in growth rates with other organisms, but as the research specifies, they'd also have to be an organism that exhibits some very simple linear relationship with temperature that is recordable. I guess I'm more impressed with the good nuts-and-bolts science of this.