Reply With Quote
BTW latest GFS does curve Ike out to sea and does not make landfall on the East Coast much less take it into the Gulf.
First, its not an annular hurricane. It is not asymetric and it still has rain bands. It has a great ring of convection around the eye but thats not an indicator of an annular storm but mearly of a healthy and strong one. About 1% of storms in the Atlantic Basin are annular and people toss out the phrase far too much now.
Secondly, steering currents are what they are. Annular storms do not react any differently than any other low pressure system to the general 500mb steering currents. A trough will recurve an annular storm just as it will recurve any other storm.
Fay was indeed tough on the forcasts, but the Gustav was one of the best forcasts of all time. Look at how early the NHC had that one pegged down. Bad exmple for you to use. Hannah I haven't paid that much attention to but storms with a lack of stearing are generaly very difficult to forcast (see Fay). This is not the case with Ike. Its moving quite fast at the moment.
Anyway, Ike is likely to get recurved out to sea by a trough the same way Hannah will. The models are already trending this way, but so far they've been pegging the high as too strong for this to happen. Climatology disagrees with this by a large factor as you can see from the historical tracks. I haven't looked at the latest model runs but they're all pretty useless until Hannah actually gets moving, anyway. Right now the best indicator of future track is a mix of 500mb forcasts and historical data - not the models.
BTW latest GFS does curve Ike out to sea and does not make landfall on the East Coast much less take it into the Gulf.
This thread pegs the weather nerd scale.
All I need to know is: will my basement leak again?
Ike will likely curve a little bit to the north and strike somewhere around Miami and then shift south southwest as a result of a ridge on it's north side...
First of all, not every annular hurricane is going to fit the bill 100%. Hurricanes are not static objects obviously and they change throughout their life. It's a cat 4 with almost no outflow and a very tight eye. He's not symmetrical at the moment because he's encountering shear to his west. Not even perfect annular hurricane would remain so with a lot of shear (up to 30 knots over the next 48 hours).
Secondly, annular hurricanes have been shown to ignore environmental conditions. We don't know enough about standard hurricanes to make predictions 5-7 days in advance, and we know far less about annular storms.
Gustav showed an incredible flaw in the national forecast models. They originally had him landfalling in eastern Texas and even when he pushed East of the Isle of Youth instead of West, the forecast track was not updated. They just added more of a curvature into his later track. Accuweather did do a pretty good job of predicting where he would go, though.
Lastly, if the models are unsure how strong the high is going to be, I don't think you can automatically assume Ike will recurve just because it's what's happened in the past. Again, 90 years worth of data is a relatively microscopic amount. It was just three years ago that we saw our best forecasts rendered completely useless, not to mention shattering nearly every Atlantic hurricane record.
If he isn't annular, he at least has a number of annular features.
Ike is now up to 145 mph. Closing in on Cat 5 status.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 09-04-2008 at 10:31 AM.
is it common for a category 5 hurricane to form this far out in the ocean?
Interesting.
, I have family in Miami.
Dude, I can link you to the defenitive paper on Annular hurricanes if you want. Ike is not an annular storm and I'm not sure where you got the idea it was. It has spiral bands, is not fully symetrical, and it has indications of concentric eyewalls. Those are ALL features that do NOT show up in annular storms.
As for outflow, that has nothing to do with whether or not a hurricane is annular. And contrary to what you may believe, Ike has good outflow in 3 of the four quadrants. Based on you saying a Cat four storm has little outflow I'm not sure you fully understand what outflow from a storm is and I think you're confusing it with spiral banding.
The fact that shear is affecting this storm is ANOTHER strike against it being classified as annular. Look at hurricane epsilon from 2005. Thats a much stronger candidate to be considered annular. Under a ton of sheer it still maintained a great symetry. It was also in water usually too cold to support a hurricane.
Nothing about this storm says Annular unless you start classifying every storm with a solid CDO around an eye as annular and that isn't the case.
Look at this microwave pass from last night
That is anything BUT annular. Game over. Just don't bring it up anymore please. Its just flat out not the case.
Its like your trying to make statements that are so blatently false its killing me. Models aren't forcasts and they aren't perfect. There is a reason we have meterologists at the NHC and we don't just throw the models out there for everyone to see. Gustav was forcasts EXTREMELY well by the NHC and there is no other way to figure that.Gustav showed an incredible flaw in the national forecast models. They originally had him landfalling in eastern Texas and even when he pushed East of the Isle of Youth instead of West, the forecast track was not updated. They just added more of a curvature into his later track. Accuweather did do a pretty good job of predicting where he would go, though.
Lastly, if the models are unsure how strong the high is going to be, I don't think you can automatically assume Ike will recurve just because it's what's happened in the past. Again, 90 years worth of data is a relatively microscopic amount. It was just three years ago that we saw our best forecasts rendered completely useless, not to mention shattering nearly every Atlantic hurricane record.
If he isn't annular, he at least has a number of annular features.
Ike is now up to 145 mph. Closing in on Cat 5 status.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008.../loop_5W.shtml
That link speaks for itself. The NHC's job on Gustav was one of the best they've ever done. The fact that you would bring up something as silly as a 300 mile margin of error on a five day tropical system forcast is flat out amazing to me. Once again, I'm not sure you realize the usual accuracy of hurricane forcasts over 3 days. If they had predicted an East Texas landfall (which they didn't but I'm going to humor the prospect to make a point) five days out they still would have been very accurate considering where landfall was made. As it was, the NHC never releasted a forcast landfall for the storm in Texas. In fact the forcast landfall didn't even seem to shift out of the same 100 mile area it made landfall in ANY of the NHC's forcast tracks.
I'm honestly floored you're trying to use Gustav as a case model for forcasts flaws.
Anyway, its entirely possible that Ike goes into Florida. I never said otherwise. I never ruled it out. I'm not sure what your point is.
Manny, looking at the historical data that shows virtually all the hurricanes on that track hooking fails to take into account if they were early or late season hurricanes. I'm not gonna look up the dates on all of them but as you probably know, this early in the season they tend to trend West (especially with the ridge that is present) and generally don't start the dramatic hooking back out into the Atlantic till later in the season. I have a feeling this guy is gonna tear up some expensive real estate.
Its not really early in the season. We're almost halfway through and we're nearing the peak. We're in prime Cape Verde season when storms form that far out. Typically they don't form in that area early in the season because the water temps aren't high enough at that point.
The historical data is accurate for this time of year. You have a good amount of troughs coming off the EC at this time of year and thats the reason why these storms rarely make landfall.
So will it hit FLA?
Or is it too early to well?
Models just updated. Looking more and more like a South Florida hit as a category 3.
No shingles on the roof and a leaky basement Shoog???? Sucks to get old Shoog....sucks to get old...
Sorry...
No shingles on the roof and a leaky basement Shoog???? Sucks to get old Shoog....sucks to get old...
Sorry...
What is interesting is that the 12z ecmwf takes it all the way to louisiana.There has been little change to the overall appearance of Ike during
the past few hours. Ike is maintaining a well-defined eye...though
cloud tops have warmed some in the eyewall recently. It is
interesting that while Ike started out as a large system...the
cloud canopy has noticeably shrunk today with few outer bands.
There has been only a small decrease in objective T-numbers...so
the initial intensity is reduced slightly to 115 kt. Strong
northeasterly shear is likely during the next day or so...which
should cause weakening. In fact...the SHIPS model responds to the
shear by weakening this system to a category one hurricane...though
the GFDL/HWRF are considerably higher. In a couple days...vertical
wind shear is forecast to weaken and...combined with rather warm
water waters east of the Bahamas...should result in
restrengthening. The hurricane's exact track is important because
it could be impacted by cooler waters upwelled by Hanna. The
official forecast is close to the previous one but is a little
lower for the first 36 hours out of respect for the SHIPS/lgem
models. Ike is expected to be a powerful hurricane as it
approaches the Bahamas in a couple of days.
The initial motion estimate is 285/12...slower than before and a
little to the left. Ridging from the central Atlantic is forecast
to build to the north and northwest of the tropical cyclone...
causing a west...and then west-southwest motion of Ike by late
tomorrow. The strength of the ridging between Ike and Hanna will
be critical to when an eventual turn toward the west-northwest will
occur in the long-range. There has been a noticeable westward
shift in almost all of the global model guidance today...with the
GFDL/ECMWF even taking the system as far southwest as Cuba. The
other models are pretty clustered on a track near or through the
central and northwestern Bahamas. The NHC forecast is shifted
westward and is pretty close to the HWRF model.
One should not focus on the exact 4 and 5 day forecast positions
because large uncertainties exist at those times.
Forecast positions and Max winds
initial 04/2100z 23.6n 58.2w 115 kt
12hr VT 05/0600z 23.9n 60.0w 105 kt
24hr VT 05/1800z 23.7n 62.5w 95 kt
36hr VT 06/0600z 23.2n 65.1w 95 kt
48hr VT 06/1800z 22.7n 67.7w 100 kt
72hr VT 07/1800z 22.5n 72.5w 105 kt
96hr VT 08/1800z 24.0n 76.0w 110 kt
120hr VT 09/1800z 25.5n 79.0w 110 kt
$$
forecaster Blake
You might want to go tell the folks over at accuweather that it's not annular. You know, they don't know much, they're just the guys with degrees in meteorology. By all means go ahead and argue with them, if you feel so inclined to prove your point. Several of them have openly stated that they feel it is (or was) an annular hurricane. There is no denying that it's characteristics were somewhat annular in origin at the very least. The chart shows it to be a mostly symmetrical storm and that's WITH sheer coming from the North and West.
You're missing the point. The point was that when Gustav shifted, they did not shift the forecast track with it. They maintained that it was going to strike far West of where he actually made landfall, despite his track being on the opposite side of the isle of youth, hitting Cuba dead on instead of skirting it, and moving much faster than he was forecast to. The NHC held to it's original landfall predictions for a full 48 hours until the evidence that their track was extremely out of date. Only after the obvious was staring them in the face did they shift the track east.Its like your trying to make statements that are so blatently false its killing me. Models aren't forcasts and they aren't perfect. There is a reason we have meterologists at the NHC and we don't just throw the models out there for everyone to see. Gustav was forcasts EXTREMELY well by the NHC and there is no other way to figure that.
Wow, so first you said that you know to a very high degree of probability where Ike is going to go, now you're saying that a 300 mile degree of error is negligible? 300 miles is huge when you are talking about where a hurricane will be in 10 days. If he was 300 miles south of where he is now, that would alter the forecast just a "little".http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008.../loop_5W.shtml
That link speaks for itself. The NHC's job on Gustav was one of the best they've ever done. The fact that you would bring up something as silly as a 300 mile margin of error on a five day tropical system forcast is flat out amazing to me.
They predicted it going west of the Isle of youth and skirting Cuba. It did neither, and they did not change their forecast to match this until 48 hours after the fact. That's a huge flaw in the forecast system and needs to be corrected. If I say Ike is going to hit Florida by going straight into the state from it's current location, and he loops around the southern part of Cuba, backs into the Gulf, moves back up through the eastern seaboard, loops around again, and then slams Florida, does that mean I accurately forecasted Ike's landfall?
FYI, Gustav made landfall 36 hours prior to the time that he was predicted to. Yeah, 300 miles and 36 hours is no difference. At all. :roll
You also said, "By far the most likely scenario is a recurve out to sea."Anyway, its entirely possible that Ike goes into Florida. I never said otherwise. I never ruled it out. I'm not sure what your point is.
Wait, I thought we didn't know much about forecasting hurricanes 5+ days in advance? All -I- said was I don't think we can peg anything as "highly likely" yet. It was highly likely that Ike wouldn't make cat 4 status.
What annular characteristics Cry? Does it have spiral rain bands? Yes. Does it have a large eye? No. Does it have equal symmetry around each possible axis? No. What characteristics make it annular?
Just name them for me please. The only thing you have is that was mostly symmetrical and that some accuweather (LOL) met told you it was.
I'm not going to go in circles with you anymore. You apparently heard or think you heard some Met say this storm was annular so now you're stuck on that. http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/annularhurr.pdf Just go read up on them or not, but I'm done arguing that an asymetrical storm with concentric eye walls and a visible spiral structure is annular. Its just a re ed notion.
You're such a horrible debater man. Just bad.
#1 I never assigned numerical values to probabilities of any possible landfall on any location other than purposely vague indicators that it was more likely the storm would recurve out to sea before any landfalls. Yet somehow you're grilling me over this. Ok?
#2 Your insistence to use what any person who knows about the NHC, its history, and the history of forecasting tropical systems would regard as an amazing forecast as an indicator of flaws in forecasting by the NHC is mind boggling.
Cry, listen and try to understand this. Gustav was extremely well forecast. EXTREMELY. Constantly bringing it up and trying to point to errors to make some weird point about forecast accuracy is complete idiocy. Find me anyone with the tiniest bit of credibility who believes the NHC did a poor job. Go for it.
If you can't see the difference between the saying it is far more likely to curve out to sea and laying down a forcast track accurate to within 500 miles in regards to landfall locations then I'm not sure what to tell you. You just don't seem to grasp many of the concepts at work here.
Owwwww . . .No shingles on the roof and a leaky basement Shoog???? Sucks to get old Shoog....sucks to get old...
Sorry...
I know when to shut up and take my whippin.
First of all, it's obvious that Ike is not an annular hurricane anymore, or has ceased to show many of his annular characteristics.
Wow. Yes. Laugh at someone who has a degree on the subject matter. Clearly you are the expert here.
Thanks! I feel the same way about you.You're such a horrible debater man. Just bad.
So wait... a "very high degree" of probability lets you off the hook because you didn't list statistically defined percentages? Wow. In that case, I'll predict every hurricane to 100% accuracy from now on using this criteria, because it if goes against the "very high degree" of probability, I have an out that gives me a chance to be right!#1 I never assigned numerical values to probabilities of any possible landfall on any location other than purposely vague indicators that it was more likely the storm would recurve out to sea before any landfalls. Yet somehow you're grilling me over this. Ok?
Go to the accuweather forums. They're as surprised as I am by how conservative the NHC has been this year. They originally predicted Gustav to be a max cat 2. He almost went cat 5. They missed his landfall by THIRTY-SIX HOURS. If you think a "great forecast" is missing a landfall by a day and a half, well it's easy to see why you think they did a fantastic job. Would 72 hours and 800 miles be "okay"? Would 140 hours off the landfall be "acceptable"?#2 Your insistence to use what any person who knows about the NHC, its history, and the history of forecasting tropical systems would regard as an amazing forecast as an indicator of flaws in forecasting by the NHC is mind boggling.
Cry, listen and try to understand this. Gustav was extremely well forecast. EXTREMELY. Constantly bringing it up and trying to point to errors to make some weird point about forecast accuracy is complete idiocy.
Consider that there are numerous Meteorologists on the site who are disappointed in the NHC this year. They aren't out looking to rip on them, they're just flatly stating they have been lousy with forecasting the Atlantic hurricane season this year.
See, now that's rich. Anyone I submit as in agreement with me that's not directly affiliated with the government (SUCH a trustworthy en y, btw) you are going to insult and pass off as an idiot.Find me anyone with the tiniest bit of credibility who believes the NHC did a poor job. Go for it.
But what the , I'll humor you. Met Mike18xx states:
"They did a crappy job with Gustav too, pre-Jamaica. In fact, Ike is the only storm this year (outside of possibly Bertha, which I didn't pay any attention to) they've really had a handle on. None of the usual wide-right BS they do with most storms in the central Atlantic -- no, they were right on the money calling for west. It's as if a meeting was called somewhere after the recent fiascos, bureaucrats were threatened with job security, and they leaned heavy on programmers to apply some simple-rule code band-aids to the models to get them to at least appear to function properly on mid-ocean TCs. (It's fun to fantacize, but alas, it doesn't explain Hannah's run toward Haiti.)"
--
Beyond this, go actually read the Gustav thread. It's full of educated people who are simply baffled at the way he was forecast to develop and move. In fact, the ONLY thing they got within a marginal range of being correct on was his final landfall position. They missed his intensity forecast about as poorly as is possible. They missed his location as he hit the Isle of Youth. They completely bombed the forecast track for Cuba. They missed his landfall time by 36 hours.
So again, do you care to address any of these points, or are you simply going to attempt to insult me? Fine quality of someone who knows what they're talking about, by the way.
Met Mike18xx huh? Is this your myspace or facebook buddy?
I think I once read a paper published by Met John17yy. Maybe they've worked together in the past?
Yes, because the screenname "MannyIsGod" gives you a LOT of credibility.Met Mike18xx huh? Is this your myspace or facebook buddy?
I think I once read a paper published by Met John17yy. Maybe they've worked together in the past?You're awesome at this. Anyone who disagrees with you is insulted and cast out of hand. Must be a pretty simple way to go about believing you're right.
Met Mike18xx
The incredible irony here is what's funny. You're laughing at someone for talking about weather on an internet forum. Just think about that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
