They have a weak system in a weak synoptic moving slowly over open ocean.
No need for emergency response precision yet. There are times when it isn't possible to predict precise tracks in iffy steering currents.
If you have followed NHC advice you are prepared to evacuate within 36 hours anyway...
I don't think the NHC's done a very good job w/ Irene...
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
Sanibel,
Let me take your points to another level then (all of which I understand and essentially agree with). What exactly is it that we want from the NHC? Because if a slow(er)-moving weak system in a weak synoptic setup shouldn't require best attention (albeit not the same level required for an imminent landfalling IH), why do they bother tracking these systems and putting out the information? It's my opinion that if you know x, y and z (not Jan
) and outcomes of a, b and c would lead one to a certain conclusion, why stick with something that we already know wasn't going to work? Is it just to have something to put out or do we demand best-efforts? Best efforts aren't tracking the BAM or the GFS Suites, the CMC, the UK Met or various combinations. The best efforts come from recognizing the pattern and deciding accordingly. Take a look at the 11am discussion put out by Stewart. He did caution for the future. IMHO, that was a quality discussion. The 8am graphics were garbage and didn't represent the threat that we may be facing.
Steve
Let me take your points to another level then (all of which I understand and essentially agree with). What exactly is it that we want from the NHC? Because if a slow(er)-moving weak system in a weak synoptic setup shouldn't require best attention (albeit not the same level required for an imminent landfalling IH), why do they bother tracking these systems and putting out the information? It's my opinion that if you know x, y and z (not Jan
) and outcomes of a, b and c would lead one to a certain conclusion, why stick with something that we already know wasn't going to work? Is it just to have something to put out or do we demand best-efforts? Best efforts aren't tracking the BAM or the GFS Suites, the CMC, the UK Met or various combinations. The best efforts come from recognizing the pattern and deciding accordingly. Take a look at the 11am discussion put out by Stewart. He did caution for the future. IMHO, that was a quality discussion. The 8am graphics were garbage and didn't represent the threat that we may be facing.
Steve
0 likes
-
deltadog03
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 3580
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:16 pm
- Location: Macon, GA
-
deltadog03
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 3580
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:16 pm
- Location: Macon, GA
-
MiamiensisWx
The following post is NOT an official forecast and should not be used as such. It is just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is NOT endorsed by any professional institution including storm2k.org For Official Information please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
If you look at the current tracks so far they have shifted westward, although not as a beeline for the Florida east coast. That, along with Irene's current position and strength, remind us that anything can happen. For the moment, I say a more westward movement and a later northward curve is most likely, although nothing can be written out of the question yet. A Florida landfall (as well as a Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, etc. one) is not out of the question.
0 likes
-
Steve Cosby
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 6:49 pm
- Location: Northwest Arkansas
Re: I don't think the NHC's done a very good job w/ Irene...
Steve wrote:JMO, but they seem to have fallen in the same old trap from seasons past with Irene after a mostly excellent job so far this season
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/re ... 4009.shtml?
Steve
I don't know that I agree. Watch the graphics loop and they've gotten right on the track pretty much all along.
I think you may be reading the discussions more than official advisory. The discussions include the other scenarios.
0 likes
Steve Cosby. As linked earlier in the thread, I was basing it off of their advisories. The discussions said what they said. The advisories what they said. There's a link in this thread to the record of both. My beef wasn't completely with the early recurvature scenario which did miss (not that it was or wasn't going to) but moreso with the intensity. My whole thing on this was if there was a 40 MPH storm that hadn't intensified by 72 hours (tomorrow morning), I wouldn't say another word about it. It hit 60 knots today, so that got me off the hook. Bear in mind this thread was from Wednesday and doesn't represent a knock on the NHC overall or even what they're putting out today, I just didn't think they had a good handle on Irene as of then. Forecaster Stewart confirmed that with the 11am advisory on Wed. morning.
Steve
Steve
0 likes
-
Steve Cosby
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 6:49 pm
- Location: Northwest Arkansas
Steve wrote:Steve Cosby. As linked earlier in the thread, I was basing it off of their advisories. The discussions said what they said. The advisories what they said. There's a link in this thread to the record of both. My beef wasn't completely with the early recurvature scenario which did miss (not that it was or wasn't going to) but moreso with the intensity. My whole thing on this was if there was a 40 MPH storm that hadn't intensified by 72 hours (tomorrow morning), I wouldn't say another word about it. It hit 60 knots today, so that got me off the hook. Bear in mind this thread was from Wednesday and doesn't represent a knock on the NHC overall or even what they're putting out today, I just didn't think they had a good handle on Irene as of then. Forecaster Stewart confirmed that with the 11am advisory on Wed. morning.
Steve
Your post focused on the busted "early recurvature scenario". Just simply playing the graphics loop tells you that they never subscribed to this theory.
0 likes
I see what you're saying - the forecast advisory rather than the ones issued with the discussion. Though it well may recurve, the early curvature scenario did not come into fruition. Last Friday's 21Z advisory had it up north at 28N crossing 56W. Saturday's had it up to 27N @ 58W. Sundays' had it at 32.5N and 58W. Monday's had it at 31.5N @ 67W. etc. The initial from the most recent forecast was 68.6W @ 30.1N. But what I said (as quoted from this thread) was,
There's no way Irene was going to follow their recurvature tracks from the last few days, and I HIGHLY doubt their current max wind forecast of 45 @ 72 hours. I think Irene's got far more potential than what they are affording it and people in coastal Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina well may be in for a surprise when they clue into this system this weekend.
How was that incorrect? A) Irene didn't follow their recurvature tracks from the last few days (as of when the thread was started), and B) I HIGHLY doubt their current max wind of 45 @ 72 hours. Now I wasn't worth squat in suggesting GA/SC/NC may be in for a surprise, but I was better with the intensity. But as for the early recurvature tracks, they were what they were. Just the same, if you wouldn't mind posting a link to the graphics loop, I don't have that one bookmarked and would be interested in checking it out. Thanks.
Steve
There's no way Irene was going to follow their recurvature tracks from the last few days, and I HIGHLY doubt their current max wind forecast of 45 @ 72 hours. I think Irene's got far more potential than what they are affording it and people in coastal Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina well may be in for a surprise when they clue into this system this weekend.
How was that incorrect? A) Irene didn't follow their recurvature tracks from the last few days (as of when the thread was started), and B) I HIGHLY doubt their current max wind of 45 @ 72 hours. Now I wasn't worth squat in suggesting GA/SC/NC may be in for a surprise, but I was better with the intensity. But as for the early recurvature tracks, they were what they were. Just the same, if you wouldn't mind posting a link to the graphics loop, I don't have that one bookmarked and would be interested in checking it out. Thanks.
Steve
0 likes
-
Matt-hurricanewatcher
Not true, Matt - as the others said, a weak, slow-moving system over the open ocean is not something that requires the to-the-mile accuracy and attention that a landfalling major hurricane needs.
There are forecast needs to the marine user which are taken care of in the high seas forecast, but, aside from that, a weak tropical system well out to sea is something that is usually more in a "monitoring" state than anything else.
Weak or ill-defined weather systems (whatever they may be) are always more difficult to forecast than well-defined situations - like anything else in life.
Frank
There are forecast needs to the marine user which are taken care of in the high seas forecast, but, aside from that, a weak tropical system well out to sea is something that is usually more in a "monitoring" state than anything else.
Weak or ill-defined weather systems (whatever they may be) are always more difficult to forecast than well-defined situations - like anything else in life.
Frank
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Cpv17, crownweather, Team Ghost and 54 guests