weatherguru18 wrote:Not to mention the former Director of the NHC...Dr. Neil Frank even said himself that the ULL *MAY* change things. I'd like to see you guys argue with him.
As has been noted above, many folks will actually say that the ULL *MAY* change things. However, I think the chance that it will lead to a significant gain in latitude for Dean is minimal.
My updated probabilities:
Chance of hitting Yucatan: 95%
Chance of missing Yucatan: 5%
Probability of hitting mainland Mexico: 90%
Probability of hitting southeastern Texas coast: 10%
Probability of hitting coast east of Galveston: negligible (~0%)
Yes, I believe there *is* a chance that Dean could turn northwestward in the Bay of Campeche and make landfall near Brownsville.
However, I strongly believe this chance is very small, though still perhaps worth mentioning. In this manner, the use of probabilities allows one to address outliers and those more remote possibilities, while also being realistic on the overall threat. Regardless of where it hits, I suspect that Dean will make it back into the Bay of Campeche very significantly weaker, possibly even as only a tropical storm (though I anticipate it'll end re-emerge as a Cat 1 hurricane).
Still surprised cloud tops are relatively warm over much of the storm. Certainly nothing like some Cat 4-5 storms from years past.
Also, I see a lot of "*** FL winds means *** surface winds", and I've cautioned against this several times in the past couple of days. The 90% rule is only a very rough
rule-of-thumb, and it's probably an overestimate much more often than an underestimate. In fact, some studies have shown that the sfc winds typically are only actually 65-75% of the 700mb flight-level winds. In addition, the reduction factor can very significant across different parts of the storm, so one part of the storm may see a 90% reduction factor while another part only sees a 70% reduction factor. So,if there are not other data to suppose a particular surface wind speed, don't expect one flight-level datum point used in a 90% reduction factor to support a Cat 5 upgrade.
EDIT: Didn't see Derek's post above mine until after I submitted this one. So, my last paragraph is a little redundant, but it bears repeating since the 90% rule-of-thumb seems to be relied upon heavily by some folks looking for an upgrade.