Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Chargers10
    Newest Member
    Chargers10
    Joined

TS Emily: 215 Miles SSE Of San Juan, PR


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 984
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I mentioned this on another thread. It does look like 2 distinct systems trying to get going.

Hurricane hunters are on the way to 91L.

It's funny kinda looks like two system trying to get going now. Wonder how this will effect 91L.

avn-l.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this be a threat to the EC North of Hatteras you guys think? It seems that the 12z GFS recurves this around the 180h time period.

We've been discussing the lack of EC threat for a while now. Just catch up with the thread and you will have the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this be a threat to the EC North of Hatteras you guys think? It seems that the 12z GFS recurves this around the 180h time period.

At this point. it's anyone's guess . The latest GFS has shifted significantly south and west. It appears it does lift out in time before hitting the US, but the south and west trend bears watching

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been discussing the lack of EC threat for a while now. Just catch up with the thread and you will have the answer.

A very close recurve is possible, I suppose. The trough will probably want to amplify and go more negative if Emily is near Florida in 180 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not impossible. Going to depend on how deep the through is.

Well it sure looks like a TD/TS now.

http://www.ssd.noaa..../flash-vis.html

Definite closed circulation with the Eastern cluster aloft, but look at the low cloud elements to the West of it. It isn't closed around the Eastern cluster yet at the surface unless it is small enough to be completely obscured by the cirrus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it possible that sicne this is breaking in two that the rear one becomes Emily while the front one becomes Franklin

They're too close. Situations like you described don't really happen because one twin will kill the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definite closed circulation with the Eastern cluster aloft, but look at the low cloud elements to the West of it. It isn't closed around the Eastern cluster yet at the surface unless it is small enough to be completely obscured by the cirrus.

Hard to tell. Recon will paint the picture in a few hrs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definite closed circulation with the Eastern cluster aloft, but look at the low cloud elements to the West of it. It isn't closed around the Eastern cluster yet at the surface unless it is small enough to be completely obscured by the cirrus.

In the sat loop, you can see a low-level vortex SW of the eastern complex. Looks transient to me and we should begin to see some consolidation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with that data is that it is using the NAO measurement on the day of the storm making a landfall. I would think the NAO phase either a week up to two weeks prior to landfall would be a more useful correlation, correct?

You're bringing up a good point. Actually, one week prior does appear to have a smaller partial correlation while two weeks prior appears to have little, if any, correlation. I count 26 (earlier I had 25 but I had missed one) nongrazing east coast hurricane hits from 1950-2010:

1) Avg. NAO day of hit: +0.3; 19 (73%) had +NAO and 7 (27%) had -NAO.

2) Avg. NAO seven days prior to hit: +0.2; 16 (62%) had +NAO and 10 (38%) had -NAO.

3) Avg. NAO 14 days prior to hit: 0.0 (right at neutral); 14 (54%) had +NAO and 12 (46%) had -NAO.

Seven days earlier, there were actually three with an NAO of less than -1 with the lowest at -1.786 (Cleo of 1964). Regarding 14 days earlier, there was only one below -1 although it was at -2.001 (Cleo of 1964). So, yes, these stats tell me that on occasion the NAO has been solidly negative 7-14 days earlier (3 of the 26 hurricanes). However, the NAO did increase a lot by the day of the hit for these three storms to +0.324 (Carol of 1954),

-.272 (Cleo of 1964), and -0.209 (Inez of 1966.

With the GFS ensemble mean maintaining its NAO prediction near -2 for days 7-10 and considering their recent verifications (also the Euro ensemble has a similar -NAO), it is pretty likely going to verify as a strongly -NAO when 91L would likely be in its critical position north of the Greater Antilles (assuming it doesn't stay in the Caribbean). So, despite the good point you mentioned, this all still tells me the chances of a nongrazing east coast hit are very slim because the NAO is almost definitely still going to be quite negative. Had the NAO forecast for 7-10 days out been for a rise to only slightly negative or greater as opposed to sinking to strongly negative, I wouldn't be using the NAO to make these east coast avoiding predictions for 91L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Western cluster has the colder cloud tops now. Which is too bad, the center of the Eastern cluster is already near 14ºN and would have an excellent chance of missing Hispaniola to the North if it goes anytime soon at all.

Eastern cluster clearly has the better defined mid level circulation.

post-138-0-01066800-1312132244.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fast mean storm motion combined with low wind sheer is essentially the same environment for a system as a slow mean storm motion and low wind sheer, since with the fast motion low sheer, the environment is essentially "moving with" the system. If anything, fast motion hinders upward mixing of cooler water due to less turbulent mixing of the oceanic surface layer, so I would suspect that, all else in the atmosphere being equal, faster storms may remain more intense over regions where the warm water layer is relatively shallow.

I doubt there are any studies that directly compare storm motion to rate of intensification, since it is more useful to look at factors like sheer and SST/oceanic heat content.

This is correct. There is no such thing as "storm-relative" shear, i.e. you don't subtract the storm motion from the shear vector and get something that's physically meaningful.

There have been studies that have shown some negative correlation (faster storm motion is associated with less likelihood of intensification), but given that storm motion is pretty well-correlated with shear, I highly doubt that the storm motion itself does much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...