ATL: CRISTOBAL - Post-Tropical - Discussion

[Hoops]

Is there a website that translates the 4-letter spaghetti model acronyms into Euro, etc?

[wxman57]

With the ECMWF and GFS ensembles all over SFL, I smell Debby 2.0 with the NHC track.

2000 Debby (which died east of Florida)? Or 2012 Debby which was in the Gulf?

[wxman57]

Is there a website that translates the 4-letter spaghetti model acronyms into Euro, etc?

Try the NHC website: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutmodels.shtml

[artist]

Note - the cone represents only where the storm center path could track - not the entire size of the storm. Remember that hazardous weather occurs outside the center of the storm.

Great important point Artist! Hope you're doing well.

I am, thank you. Hope you are as well.

Yes, there is a great misconception of what the cone actually represents. Fortunately, the NHC, itself is now including a similar statement on the top of their cone forecast now.

[meriland23]

Even if it does hit land it likely won't be anything but a TS.

[richartm]

the cone is solely based upon climatology. No model guidance is included in the cone

That just doesn't sound right to me. Could you please explain?

[psyclone]

the NHC site has a cone primer. this should clear up any confusion.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutcone.shtml

[toad strangler]

Even if it does hit land it likely won't be anything but a TS.

why?

[meriland23]

Even if it does hit land it likely won't be anything but a TS.

why?

It is too large to strengthen at the pace it needs to. Its already close to land.

[sunnyday]

Is this it now after being told a million diff things about where "it" might hit? If so, looks like S Fl dodged another bullet, right? That is, unless more changes in track are coming up.

[artist]

the cone is solely based upon climatology. No model guidance is included in the cone

That just doesn't sound right to me. Could you please explain?

My understanding is it does include model guidance, but also includes historical data.
IF it didn't take models into account, then we wouldn't need models. Just my understanding.

[floridasun78]

wfor weather making look like south fl we in clear

[Aric Dunn]

well on its way now...

[srva80]

It's amazing listening to the local news down here.. I swear some of them are idiots.. he was confident this wouldn't effect us because we weren't "in the cone", especially with the difficult forecast Td4 has given thus far..

[wxman57]

the cone is solely based upon climatology. No model guidance is included in the cone

That just doesn't sound right to me. Could you please explain?

My understanding is it does include model guidance, but also includes historical data.
IF it didn't take models into account, then we wouldn't need models. Just my understanding.

The error cone includes no model guidance at all. It is absolutely the same size for all storms and all advisories (this year). The cone represents the 66.7% error calculated in the years 2009-2013. Basically, based upon NHC errors over the past 5 years, the cone represents a 66.7% chance that the center will track within it.

[bahamaswx]

Even if it does hit land it likely won't be anything but a TS.

why?

It is too large to strengthen at the pace it needs to. Its already close to land.

It is easily far enough from Florida/the East Coast to strengthen considerably.

[artist]

That just doesn't sound right to me. Could you please explain?

My understanding is it does include model guidance, but also includes historical data.
IF it didn't take models into account, then we wouldn't need models. Just my understanding.

The error cone includes no model guidance at all. It is absolutely the same size for all storms and all advisories (this year). The cone represents the 66.7% error calculated in the years 2009-2013. Basically, based upon NHC errors over the past 5 years, the cone represents a 66.7% chance that the center will track within it.

thanks for the correction. So where do models come in, if not in helping determine a storms path? Also, I do understand the size remains the same.

[Alyono]

the cone is solely based upon climatology. No model guidance is included in the cone

That just doesn't sound right to me. Could you please explain?

My understanding is it does include model guidance, but also includes historical data.
IF it didn't take models into account, then we wouldn't need models. Just my understanding.

The cone is SOLELY based upon the 5 year mean error. No model guidance is included.

I believe there are private companies that do include forecast uncertainty in their cones, however

[bahamaswx]

Deep convection popping up now over the LLC.

[SouthDadeFish]

Convection bursting over the LLC with cloud tops < -70 C: