Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Major Hurricane Irene live tracking


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

0Z 252hr shows a 961 mb hurricane heading for the Mobile, Biloxi, NO area. So the shift back to the east from the 18Z model run has occurred. That thing really bombs out in the warm Gulf waters on this model run. Lots of time to watch though.

Given a large number of previous runs had the storm hitting the EC, it would have been unlikely if not hard to believe for the 0z run to go west of 18z, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given a large number of previous runs had the storm hitting the EC, it would have been unlikely if not hard to believe for the 0z run to go west of 18z, right?

Who says? Just because a model had it hitting the east coast doesn't mean it can't go way west on a subsequent run. There models are not resolving the storm properly in all likelyhood. Large swings until there's something out there to initialize with better than an invest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says? Just because a model had it hitting the east coast doesn't mean it can't go way west on a subsequent run. There models are not resolving the storm properly in all likelyhood. Large swings until there's something out there to initialize with better than an invest.

I just think it's quite likely the 12z and 18z runs were two possible extremes in their own right (just a thought), so the likelihood is that 0z would have been somewhere in between. It's certainly possible 0z would have been west of 18z, but I wouldn't think it likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it's quite likely the 12z and 18z runs were two possible extremes in their own right (just a thought), so the likelihood is that 0z would have been somewhere in between. It's certainly possible 0z would have been west of 18z, but I wouldn't think it likely.

Why is it likely that 0z would have been somewhere in between? The models can and will jump around. This is modelology at its best (no offense). Just because two runs show two things doesn't mean the third has to be in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good over all shape-- so development much like 93L and emily appears to be quite likely further west. I'd say 55 west that this could become a depression and strengthen slowly, so a island chain dodger appears to be the track of this system.

South of 16/55=Mexicane--->More likely in my opinion.

North of 18/55=Recurve or maybe at best a far eastern portions of the east coast could get clipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mandarin

A LARGE TROPICAL WAVE LOCATED ABOUT 1125 MILES EAST OF THE LESSER ANTILLES CONTINUES TO PRODUCE LIMITED SHOWER ACTIVITY. NO SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS WAVE IS EXPECTED TODAY...BUT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BECOME INCREASINGLY CONDUCIVE AS THE DISTURBANCE APPROACHES THE LESSER ANTILLES ON SATURDAY. THIS SYSTEM HAS A MEDIUM CHANCE...30 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS AS IT MOVES WESTWARD AT 20 MPH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

240hr...rapid intensification between 228-240hr...looks like sub 980mb due south of Mobile, AL in the central Gulf.

Ya...thats not good..

These are the type of posts that end up hurting the quality of this thread. To imply rapid intensification on any model plot beyond truncation is rather ridiculous. Point of the matter is, and I'll continue to reiterate this, is that there is still quite a bit uncertainty until we have a concrete cyclone to follow even before the GFS truncates at 192 hours. Yes it is an ominous sign that most if not all of the models are pointing towards a landfall of a tropical cyclone somewhere along the United States and it is certainly alright to talk about the threat of the system impacting our region of the world.

However, it hurts discussion by spamming post 180 hour maps of various computer models without any substantive reason for doing so. You would be much better off on focusing away from the operational run (which has admittedly done pretty poorly over the past couple of weeks with tropical cyclone tracking and development) and look more towards the general trends indicated from the GFS ensemble suite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the type of posts that end up hurting the quality of this thread. To imply rapid intensification on any model plot beyond truncation is rather ridiculous. Point of the matter is, and I'll continue to reiterate this, is that there is still quite a bit uncertainty until we have a concrete cyclone to follow even before the GFS truncates at 192 hours. Yes it is an ominous sign that most if not all of the models are pointing towards a landfall of a tropical cyclone somewhere along the United States and it is certainly alright to talk about the threat of the system impacting our region of the world.

However, it hurts discussion by spamming post 180 hour maps of various computer models without any substantive reason for doing so. You would be much better off on focusing away from the operational run (which has admittedly done pretty poorly over the past couple of weeks with tropical cyclone tracking and development) and look more towards the general trends indicated from the GFS ensemble suite.

It's overwhelmingly clear that he was not trying to imply anything is certain, or his statements were a forecast. He was merely pointing out what was happening in the model as it was coming in. It's a common practice in most any weather system thread on this forum. You've called out one of the most knowledgeable and respectful hobbyist/met students we have on this board, who is a major contributor to the forum as a whole..... instead of calling out people that post things like the earlier comments such as "wake me up when this gets to 72-96 hrs out", etc. Unfair much???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the type of posts that end up hurting the quality of this thread. To imply rapid intensification on any model plot beyond truncation is rather ridiculous. Point of the matter is, and I'll continue to reiterate this, is that there is still quite a bit uncertainty until we have a concrete cyclone to follow even before the GFS truncates at 192 hours. Yes it is an ominous sign that most if not all of the models are pointing towards a landfall of a tropical cyclone somewhere along the United States and it is certainly alright to talk about the threat of the system impacting our region of the world.

However, it hurts discussion by spamming post 180 hour maps of various computer models without any substantive reason for doing so. You would be much better off on focusing away from the operational run (which has admittedly done pretty poorly over the past couple of weeks with tropical cyclone tracking and development) and look more towards the general trends indicated from the GFS ensemble suite.

I think it is OK to post maps- as each run may show a trend- the trend right now seems to be east . Of course people should not say things like "look out Miami" etc, but showing what the runs show is pretty harmless IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's overwhelmingly clear that he was not trying to imply anything is certain, or his statements were a forecast. He was merely pointing out what was happening in the model as it was coming in. It's a common practice in most any weather system thread on this forum. You've called out one of the most knowledgeable and respectful hobbyist/met students we have on this board, who is a major contributor to the forum as a whole..... instead of calling out people that post things like the earlier comments such as "wake me up when this gets to 72-96 hrs out", etc. Unfair much???

That's a bit of a double standard. If anyone talked about a potential Nor' Easter in a serious manner beyond day 7, they would be laughed at and ridiculed beyond belief. Given that NWP guidance is worse with tropical cyclones compared to mid-latitude cold season systems, this is a fair criticism to say the least. I do agree his intention wasn't to say the model was going to be correct or anything like that, but its still hyperbole and not fact to say there is nothing wrong at all with posting D8-9 GFS images for tropical cyclones. I think the message should mostly be "there's still a system there with potential" and not worry about its exact track at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bit of a double standard. If anyone talked about a potential Nor' Easter in a serious manner beyond day 7, they would be laughed at and ridiculed beyond belief. Given that NWP guidance is worse with tropical cyclones compared to mid-latitude cold season systems, this is a fair criticism to say the least. I do agree his intention wasn't to say the model was going to be correct or anything like that, but its still hyperbole and not fact to say there is nothing wrong at all with posting D8-9 GFS images for tropical cyclones. I think the message should mostly be "there's still a system there with potential" and not worry about its exact track at this stage.

My only issue was.... if you're going to single someone out for causing a degradation of the thread and discussion.... single out the people that are causing the true disruption. That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the type of posts that end up hurting the quality of this thread. To imply rapid intensification on any model plot beyond truncation is rather ridiculous. Point of the matter is, and I'll continue to reiterate this, is that there is still quite a bit uncertainty until we have a concrete cyclone to follow even before the GFS truncates at 192 hours. Yes it is an ominous sign that most if not all of the models are pointing towards a landfall of a tropical cyclone somewhere along the United States and it is certainly alright to talk about the threat of the system impacting our region of the world.

However, it hurts discussion by spamming post 180 hour maps of various computer models without any substantive reason for doing so. You would be much better off on focusing away from the operational run (which has admittedly done pretty poorly over the past couple of weeks with tropical cyclone tracking and development) and look more towards the general trends indicated from the GFS ensemble suite.

Did I say it was going to happen??? No....

I didn't know saying what one model was doing or showed was hurting a thread and hurting the discussion. Next time know who you are calling out and try to find the people who don't contribute a damn thing to this forum.

I post a few maps from a select model run and this happens. Just as hostile in the EC coast threads if your winter storm doesn't pan out :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's overwhelmingly clear that he was not trying to imply anything is certain, or his statements were a forecast. He was merely pointing out what was happening in the model as it was coming in. It's a common practice in most any weather system thread on this forum. You've called out one of the most knowledgeable and respectful hobbyist/met students we have on this board, who is a major contributor to the forum as a whole..... instead of calling out people that post things like the earlier comments such as "wake me up when this gets to 72-96 hrs out", etc. Unfair much???

I think it is OK to post maps- as each run may show a trend- the trend right now seems to be east . Of course people should not say things like "look out Miami" etc, but showing what the runs show is pretty harmless IMO

Its okay to post maps up to a point, but its nearly useless to decern anything about a storm's structure or intensity beyond truncation. You can't really tell if there is rapid intensification occurring nor even how strong a storm is by that period of time because of the poor resolution. Sure its ok to look at the overall pattern to see whether or not its a favorable one for a tropical cyclone landfall, but then again you can get that same information and much more by just looking at the ensemble guidance.

I'm not trying to annoy anybody here, I just want to see the discussion be steered in a positive direction, not focus on details on one particular model run solution that has a pretty low percentage of occurring.

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...