Hurricane Katia

[Chicago Storm]

This is what he posted on facebook:

Henry Margusity Fan ClubWhat bothers me about the next hurricane, the Euro model shows it right next to NYC on 9/11 which would be a terrible terrible thing to happen.

Henry Margusity Fan Club We have the Euro model out past 300 hours in the pro site

lol @ using the ECMWF EPS 300hrs out.

[yoda]

Cherry! 70 percent... that was fast

[Scorpion]

Cherry

SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS CONTINUE TO BECOME BETTER ORGANIZED IN

ASSOCIATION WITH A LOW PRESSURE AREA LOCATED ABOUT 400 MILES SOUTH

OF THE SOUTHERN CAPE VERDE ISLANDS. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS APPEAR

CONDUCIVE FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LOW...AND A TROPICAL

DEPRESSION COULD FORM DURING THE NEXT DAY OR TWO AS IT MOVES

WESTWARD AT 10 T0 15 MPH. THIS SYSTEM HAS A HIGH CHANCE...70

PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.

[atownwxwatcher]

Just for the record ..accuweather pro does have the ECM beyond 240 hours out. Matter of fact they have it monthly as well. They have all the MSLP maps etc showing where systems track etc. I believe he was just saying what the ECM was showing and that it would be a very bad thing to happen if it were to occur.

[Eyewall2005]

12z nogaps this afternoon has trended westward.

[Sunny and Warm]

Just for the record ..accuweather pro does have the ECM beyond 240 hours out. Matter of fact they have it monthly as well. They have all the MSLP maps etc showing where systems track etc. I believe he was just saying what the ECM was showing and that it would be a very bad thing to happen if it were to occur.

Doesn't matter if he is reading a model verbatim. It is irresponsible and reckless to quote a 300 hour model prog (that is often wrong at that distant time frame) and to do so while invoking 9/11. Nowhere does he tell his lambs that the Euro likely has a huge error margin at that range. It's akin to quoting the 384 GFS in winter. Sorry, but this should be a firing offense.

[HKY_WX]

These models are like fixes for drug addicts. Here we go again.

[Typhoon Tip]

I'm sorry, but this is borderline irresponsible. We know Henry M.'s tendencies, but the general public doesn't. It's one thing to show something like that for kicks, but to lead with "What bothers me about the next hurricane..." (it's an INVEST last I checked) is in poor taste. Is anyone else here "bothered" by a 300hr prog and, if so, would you feel the need to use a position of some influence to share it with everyone?

Not that anyone asked but imo this is not bordering anything - it is steeped in reproachfulness. Hugely irresponsible.

I was just having this discussion with a non-Met at work, where there is Weather, and then there is Meteorology, and now more than ever in an age with intense media coverage as big industry (or at any levels, those that practice exploitative weather coverage) the two have very little to do with one another. The former caries with it an emotional component, the latter is the scientific study of the atmosphere.

What statements like that are designed to do is tap into weather's personal, emotional...spiritual aspect, because let's face it, that is where the draw is. A very small ratio cares what Meteorology means as far as any next CV system; but just about everyone cares about the drama of the thing. So make a bold statement based purely on conjecture and couch it in a phrases that will touch everyone spiritually for generations, "9/11", and look out!

Mass media is just as guilty at times - although I kind of liked the way this was handled with Irene. Though the storm did under perform with intensity ideas from earlier on, the fact that several people lost their lives certainly validated the need for highlighting risk assessments/awareness for TCs in general. It's kind of a fine art - there's some happy intelligent medium in there where necessity and elaborateness is judiciously administered in importance relative to actual threat. Heh, therein is a problem, there is often valid threat that doesn't always cooperate. Kind of makes it a real tough game. Irene had lots of factors in favor, but managed to be a Cat 1/2 at best at actually impact. Yet she still took lives. For that alone I am glad there were actions taken such as State Of Emergency and so forth. Although, for the record some of those deaths were ...ah, shall we say, needless. I mean, you go surfing with a hurricane warning flying? Not to impressed with Irene as a life threatening scenario there.

At any rate, I really hope that J.Q. Public doesn't reflect on this with sentiments like, "Oh, okay - this is a hurricane then". For a lot of people, it wasn't. Very few sustained hurricane force in this. There were some hefty gusts.

[Typhoon Tip]

These models are like fixes for drug addicts. Here we go again.

Just as a general FYI, it is understandable that it is garnering awareness now, but the models have been on this 92L system for awhile now. The ECM, if you go back 5 cycles, that is when it first appeared to detect it and has been consistent for the most part with position and intensity since. I am willing to surmise that beyond 5 cycles ago, the contributing wave was too deep inside the African continent and not part of the "grid" so to speak. But that is speculation. The CMC and the GFS has equally been pegging this system going back several cycles, during which time our collective attention was rightfully distracted by events closer to home.

Indeed, here we go again...

It is obviously waaaay too early to speculate on re-curving or not for a system that merely looks impressive but has yet to even be modeled off the basis of actually existing yet. But, suffice it is to say, there are too many permutations to account for either way. Pure linear probability says that it would, but that's more a function of exposure - CV's are tough that way if you are an enthusiast. You're almost better off with Bahama Bombers or Caribbean Cruisers.

[Bluescat1]

These models are like fixes for drug addicts. Here we go again.

Ain't that the truth.

[wxsmwhrms]

Getting back to meteorology:

All the models are in pretty solid agreement now that this system is going to strongly develop. Looks like an abnormally strong STR is going to steer this system in a general W-WNW direction the next several days. After that, as usual, is a complete crapshoot. The op ECMWF looks like a fish, but it has a very strong upper trough developing over the eastern US at day 10 - much stronger than its overnight ensemble or operational run. The GFS ensemble generally shows a spread from the Bahamas to Bermuda at day 10-12. Obviously, not many storms that develop that far east make it all the way to the U.S. climatologically, but it does look like it will not be fishing out completely any time soon.

[QVectorman]

Mass media is just as guilty at times - although I kind of liked the way this was handled with Irene. Though the storm did under perform with intensity ideas from earlier on, the fact that several people lost their lives certainly validated the need for highlighting risk assessments/awareness for TCs in general. It's kind of a fine art - there's some happy intelligent medium in there where necessity and elaborateness is judiciously administered in importance relative to actual threat. Heh, therein is a problem, there is often valid threat that doesn't always cooperate. Kind of makes it a real tough game. Irene had lots of factors in favor, but managed to be a Cat 1/2 at best at actually impact. Yet she still took lives. For that alone I am glad there were actions taken such as State Of Emergency and so forth. Although, for the record some of those deaths were ...ah, shall we say, needless. I mean, you go surfing with a hurricane warning flying? Not to impressed with Irene as a life threatening scenario there.

At any rate, I really hope that J.Q. Public doesn't reflect on this with sentiments like, "Oh, okay - this is a hurricane then". For a lot of people, it wasn't. Very few sustained hurricane force in this. There were some hefty gusts.

I think 4 of 6 deaths were from trees falling on people, obviously if there wasn't a hurricane the trees won't have fallen; but it's not like they drown in the storm surge or they house blew away with them in it. I don't know how I feel about tree limbs being counted in theory.

[dtk]

I am willing to surmise that beyond 5 cycles ago, the contributing wave was too deep inside the African continent and not part of the "grid" so to speak. But that is speculation. The CMC and the GFS has equally been pegging this system going back several cycles, during which time our collective attention was rightfully distracted by events closer to home.

What the heck are you talking about? The EC, GFS, and CMC are all G L O B A L models.......

[Typhoon Tip]

I think 4 of 6 deaths were from trees falling on people, obviously if there wasn't a hurricane the trees won't have fallen; but it's not like they drown in the storm surge or they house blew away with them in it. I don't know how I feel about tree limbs being counted in theory.

I was just talking about that one person that drowned surfing - in that one case. Yeah, like I said, the deaths showed the need for the coverage.

[Typhoon Tip]

What the heck are you talking about? The EC, GFS, and CMC are all G L O B A L models.......

I know these are Global systems, but how dense is the sounding information over interior Africa?

[LakeEffectKing]

at least this time he didn't take LEK's map and just redraw it to smash into SNE without hitting any other land 1st.

LOL!

Hey since we are having a hype-fest....check out P010 at h+324!!!!!!!!!!!

(Edit: Or P001 at 372!!)

Have we not learned anything with models?????

[dtk]

I know these are Global systems, but how dense is the sounding information over interior Africa?

This has nothing to do with the "model grid", then, and you're trying to get at model initialization.

But to answer your question, I think there are only like 20 regular radiosonde locations on the African continent. However, there is a ton of useful satellite data, such as AMVs (satellite derived winds), satellite radiances (such as AMSU-A), as well as surface data, aircraft obs, and space-based radio occultation profiles.

[#NoPoles]

Beltzer: Hey, you guys want to wrap this up pretty soon?

Bill: What?

Beltzer: Oh, nothing. I was just wondering if you wanted to chase this tornado, or if you just wanted to catch the next one.

Bill: ****!

[Typhoon Tip]

This has nothing to do with the "model grid", then, and you're trying to get at model initialization.

But to answer your question, I think there are only like 20 regular radiosonde locations on the African continent. However, there is a ton of useful satellite data, such as AMVs (satellite derived winds), satellite radiances (such as AMSU-A), as well as surface data, aircraft obs, and space-based radio occultation profiles.

You're right of course. I should have speculated on whether enough valid data get into the initialization of the model's grid.

Do you have an opinion about the accuracy of Satellite derived data?

I'm asking because those, along with interpolations fill the lesser sampled areas of the Pacific Domain; It seems more than not, systems that are then subsequently sampled over land over the west coast, rather abruptly are modeled differently out in time over eastern North America. It is almost as though there are subtle inaccuracies in that method of input while over the ocean.

[thewxmann]

Personally, I'm not very excited about 92L. Irene has "left behind" a TUTT so to speak (due to TC outflow-TUTT interaction) that extends across much of the ctrl and wrn ATL. The GFS at least shows this feature sticking around for another week. Not only do models underestimate how long TUTTs stick around, they tend to underestimate how much of a weakness TUTTs leave behind.

Any latitude that "Katia" gains will bring it very close to strong shear over the next few days, and it will likely run into problems with the TUTT in about a week. If that doesn't shear it significantly, it would probably be enough to recurve the storm.

[Lookout]

Kush and Tip, please take your discussion of writing skills to off topic. This isn't the place for it and folks are complaining about it.

[Typhoon Tip]

Kush and Tip, please take your discussion of writing skills to off topic. This isn't the place for it and folks are complaining about it.

I agree, can you please delete any of my non-Meteorological related posts in this thread?

- or I'll do it either way.

Apologies folks.

[dtk]

You're right of course. I should have speculated on whether enough valid data get into the initialization of the model's grid.

Do you have an opinion about the accuracy of Satellite derived data?

I'm asking because those, along with interpolations fill the lesser sampled areas of the Pacific Domain; It seems more than not, systems that are then subsequently sampled over land over the west coast, rather abruptly are modeled differently out in time over eastern North America. It is almost as though there are subtle inaccuracies in that method of input while over the ocean.

Obviously the (high resolution) vertical profiles we get (particularly of wind) from radiosondes are extremely valuable. This kind of information can be particularly useful for high impact, highly sensitive forecasts (where it's vital to get the exact position/intensity/depth of a particular shortwave, for example).

Each observation type has its own set of issues:

satellite derived winds: pretty good data, but typical issue is related to height assignment

satellite radiances: many channels are extremely accurate, and the issues have more to do with modeling/radiative transfer (satellites effectively measure upwelling radiation at a variety of frequencies, which have information/sensitivity to various depths/components of the atmosphere). I could spend paragraphs on the details for various channels (surface emissivity issues over land/snow/ice, effects of clouds/precipitation on infrared, oversampling/redundancy of information, observation bias correction, and so on).

There is actually work being done right now to prepare for space-based (lidar retrieval) observations of wind profiles ... which I think has potential to fill a huge void in the current observing system. Additionally, we are working very hard on better assimilation of radiances in cloudy/precipitating (i.e. "interesting", active) regions.

Okay, this thread has gone way OT. Maybe I can get into some more details once I get a chance to start a thread on discussing NWP and data assimilation (question/answers).

[phil882]

Obviously the (high resolution) vertical profiles we get (particularly of wind) from radiosondes are extremely valuable. This kind of information can be particularly useful for high impact, highly sensitive forecasts (where it's vital to get the exact position/intensity/depth of a particular shortwave, for example).

Each observation type has its own set of issues:

satellite derived winds: pretty good data, but typical issue is related to height assignment

satellite radiances: many channels are extremely accurate, and the issues have more to do with modeling/radiative transfer (satellites effectively measure upwelling radiation at a variety of frequencies, which have information/sensitivity to various depths/components of the atmosphere). I could spend paragraphs on the details for various channels (surface emissivity issues over land/snow/ice, effects of clouds/precipitation on infrared, oversampling/redundancy of information, observation bias correction, and so on).

There is actually work being done right now to prepare for space-based (lidar retrieval) observations of wind profiles ... which I think has potential to fill a huge void in the current observing system. Additionally, we are working very hard on better assimilation of radiances in cloudy/precipitating (i.e. "interesting", active) regions.

Okay, this thread has gone way OT. Maybe I can get into some more details once I get a chance to start a thread on discussing NWP and data assimilation (question/answers).

That is an awesome idea dtk. your knowledge-base would be an excellent resource to tap in a designated thread

Back to 92L... development not imminent, but it looks like organization continues.

[Typhoon Tip]

That is an awesome idea dtk. your knowledge-base would be an excellent resource to tap in a designated thread

Back to 92L... development not imminent, but it looks like organization continues.

Hey Phil,

...I was following this over the last couple of days for no other reason, because the reliable operational model types were all in agreement for robust development. The resolution of my sources, though, don't really point out too well which part of that activity does the deed. What I am getting at, the part that you just posted is definitely interesting, but that cluster of convection closer to Sierra Leone had an impressively intense looking cyclonic gyre associated with it this time yesterday, but over land of course... It seems the CMC for example uses this feature, because it close off a low level circulation not until 48-54 hours from now, S of the lead wave.

What is interesting is that both are favored.

[phil882]

Hey Phil,

...I was following this over the last couple of day for no other reason, because the reliable operational model types were all in agreement for robust development. The resolution of my sources, though, don't really point out too well which part of that activity does the deed. What I am getting at, the part that you just posted is definitely interesting, but that cluster of convection closer to Sierra Leone had an impressively intense looking cyclonic gyre associated with it this time yesterday, but over land of course... It seems the CMC for example uses this feature, because it close off a low level circulation not until 48-54 hours from now, S of the lead wave.

What is interesting is that both are favored.

Yea, for a change the ECWMF has been more bullish with initial development over the GFS. The GFS shows both of these lobes of vorticity interacting with one another before a concrete center can form into a TC. The ECWMF has generally done better with development this year with most TC's in comparison to the GFS, but I'm curious to see if this interaction will slow development like the GFS is suggesting the next 24-48 hours.

[Typhoon Tip]

Yea, for a change the ECWMF has been more bullish with initial development over the GFS. The GFS shows both of these lobes of vorticity interacting with one another before a concrete center can form into a TC. The ECWMF has generally done better with development this year with most TC's in comparison to the GFS, but I'm curious to see if this interaction will slow development like the GFS is suggesting the next 24-48 hours.

Oh, is that what it is - fascinating. I wrote a senior paper back in the day about dominant vorticity fields subsuming in the tropics. I don't have access to that resolution of the GFS - wish I'd seen that. That's cool!

Here are the two in question, 1 is the more impressive of the two currently, but the 2nd one in Phil's merger scenario is numbered 2:

<br>

[phil882]

Oh, is that what it is - fascinating. I wrote a senior paper back in the day about dominant vorticity fields subsuming in the tropics. I don't have access to that resolution of the GFS - wish I'd seen that. That's cool!

Here are are the two in question, 1 is the more impressive of the two currently, but the 2nd one in Phil's merger scenario is numbered 2:

  <br><br>I noted yesterday that this one had a more compact but fairly potent identity over land yesterday.<br>

You can see the GFS showing this process in action on NCEP

It starts interaction by 12 hours and completes the merger at 48 hours. It likely could be considered one single TC by 36 hours.

[brad1551]

I agree 100% on TD 11 in the next 36 hours. Abosolutly favorable conditions. Not alot of dry air working in.NAM models are favorable as well as the EURO and GFS for the development in 36hrs.Most of all the wave is impressive.

[Indystorm]

Read somewhere today (forgot where), that former NHC Director Max Mayfield says this could be a legitimate threat to the East Coast in ten days.