ATL: DANNY - Models

[tolakram]

[Dean4Storms]

Correct if I'm wrong but didn't the ECM from a few days ago failed in even developing this much at all? From experience if a model had problems with it ever developing they usually are late in catching up to the reality.

[SeminoleWind]

looks like the Euro keeps it fairly weak kind of Surprised to see that given the NHC forecast

[tolakram]

looks like the Euro keeps it fairly weak kind of Surprised to see that given the NHC forecast

It was strong at 12Z yesterday, weaker at 0Z, and weaker still this run. The problem, as I think Alyono alluded too, is it's modelling a tiny little storm and already TD4 is of significant size. Maybe it shrinks?

[tolakram]

Weatherbell plot shows it hitting the islands at 1004MB

[drezee]

Other interesting point is it is farther S than 24 hours ago...closer to the Columbian Heat Low, which may open up the SW quad. Also, it looks to miss Hispaniola.

[tolakram]

Deepens to 1003MB at 162 hours.

[tolakram]

[PTrackerLA]

Doesn't look like it will survive this run but barely passing south of DR.

[tolakram]

I'm done posting maps. Looks like it falls apart quickly after 162 hours.

[drezee]

Energy may still be there. The ridge is strong and would push whatever is left W to WNW into the GOM or C Amer...then the flow would push moisture potentially NW. If there was anything left...

[gatorcane]

The TVCN (NHC model consensus) is now right (north of the official track) and pointing more at the Northern Leewards. I wonder if they will nudge the official track a bit more right for the 5pm EST? Notice the UKMET is more to the right still with the WNW bend with the system passing NE of the Leewards. Perhaps it is correct as it may be correctly forecasting a larger system? It does have support from the GFDL on the more northern track.

My feeling is that the ECMWF track is too far south in the medium to long-range because it is showing too tiny of a system. A blend of the GFS/GFDL/UKMET may be more prudent to consider.

[Alyono]

The TVCN (NHC model consensus) is now right (north of the official track) and pointing more at the Northern Leewards. I wonder if they will nudge the official track a bit more right for the 5pm EST? Notice the UKMET is more to the right still with the WNW bend with the system passing NE of the Leewards. Perhaps it is correct as it may be correctly forecasting a larger system? It does have support from the GFDL on the more northern track.

My feeling is that the ECMWF track is too far south in the medium to long-range because it is showing too tiny of a system. A blend of the GFS/GFDL/UKMET may be more prudent to consider.

the MU is so unrealistic with it having this go stationary, that I rejected it in its entirety for the 4 PM AST forecast. The low level wind field is too well defined for this to go through a complex merger with the systems behind it, resulting in a stalling. I threw out all of the other MU based guidance as well

[gatorcane]

Yeah I forgot about the GFS going stationary which seems unrealistic.

[LarryWx]

I thought I remembered it under performing intensity last season and the season before but I could be wrong.

I followed it closely in 2010 and 2011 (soon after an upgrade) and actually compiled some stats. The Euro was way too strong for a good number of storms though admittedly the worst performance was north of 25N. I did not do the same analysis in 2013-4, the years to which you refer. So, I admittedly can't comment on those two years, alone.

Though I can't prove it, I am suspecting that the Euro may have a bias of making storms too compact, which would possibly be related.

[NCSTORMMAN]

I thought I remembered it under performing intensity last season and the season before but I could be wrong.

I followed it closely in 2010 and 2011 (soon after an upgrade) and actually compiled some stats. The Euro was way too strong for a good number of storms though admittedly the worst performance was north of 25N. I did not do the same analysis in 2013-4, the years to which you refer. So, I admittedly can't comment on those two years, alone.

Like I said I am not sure either and thanks for the stats always good to learn if you are mistaken or not that is the key to wisdom right? I thought I remembered it being that way the past two seasons. Especially with Arthur.

[tolakram]

In general the dynamical models show no good skill in intensity and less than the statistical, which are better but still pretty bad.

[PTrackerLA]

The TVCN (NHC model consensus) is now right (north of the official track) and pointing more at the Northern Leewards. I wonder if they will nudge the official track a bit more right for the 5pm EST? Notice the UKMET is more to the right still with the WNW bend with the system passing NE of the Leewards. Perhaps it is correct as it may be correctly forecasting a larger system? It does have support from the GFDL on the more northern track.

My feeling is that the ECMWF track is too far south in the medium to long-range because it is showing too tiny of a system. A blend of the GFS/GFDL/UKMET may be more prudent to consider.

the MU is so unrealistic with it having this go stationary, that I rejected it in its entirety for the 4 PM AST forecast. The low level wind field is too well defined for this to go through a complex merger with the systems behind it, resulting in a stalling. I threw out all of the other MU based guidance as well

Care to share your thoughts/forecast?

[Frank2]

I've been away from the board for only 2 hours, but the posts have definitely cooled from the earlier model comments...

[TheStormExpert]

18z Model Guidance


18z Intensity Guidance