Hey, there! Log in / Register

Change of plans for Matthew: We're no longer in the Cone of Probability

The National Hurricane Center's 11 p.m. report now shows Matthew skirting New England on Sunday, which means we might get some rain and wind, but not a direct hit. Of course, things could change again.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

The five day models are dreadful on this storm. We should know better by Friday.

up
Voting closed 0

This is excellent news!!!

up
Voting closed 0

Good morning to all. That is welcome news.

up
Voting closed 0

a 1980's Donald Trump penthouse party.

up
Voting closed 0

What am I going to do with 72 loaves of bread and 300 gallons of water?

up
Voting closed 0

I'll trade you half the bread for twelve dozen eggs and 500 rolls of toilet paper.

up
Voting closed 0

You are a fool if you think we are out of danger in any way.

The emergency management system for the state is meeting all day today - they ain't buying it, you shouldn't either.

up
Voting closed 0

The only reason we are no longer in the cone of probability is that the storm has slowed down significantly. Once the storm goes back out over the ocean after striking the southeast US coastline, there's a high potential for it to strengthen again.

And MEMA is simply being responsible and prudent by not letting their guard down at this point. Which is precisely what a public emergency management agency should be doing.

up
Voting closed 0

Read the 11 a.m. discussion by the National Hurricane Center, you know, the people who spend their days going over the results from computer models based on the latest satellite, buoy and dropsonde data;

Some track models keep the hurricane moving eastward across the Atlantic while the GFS and the ECMWF reduce the hurricane's forward speed with a southward turn. This change in these two valuable models is reflected in the current NHC forecast.

Or if you simply don't trust government professionals, there's always Dr. Jeff Masters at Weather Underground, who also says the storm might head south to hit Florida and the Bahamas again:

Thanks to my advancing years and a low-stress lifestyle that features daily meditation, there’s not much that can move me to profanity—except the occasional low-skill driver who endangers my life on the road. But this morning while looking at the latest weather model runs, multiple very bad words escaped my lips. I’ve been a meteorologist for 35 years, and am not easily startled by a fresh set of model results: situations in 2005 and 1992 are the only ones that come to mind. However, this morning’s depiction by our top models—the GFS, European, and UKMET—of Matthew missing getting picked up by the trough to its north this weekend and looping back to potentially punish The Bahamas and Florida next week was worthy of profuse profanity. While a loop back towards Florida and The Bahamas next week is not yet a sure thing, the increasing trend of our top models in that direction is a strong indication that Matthew will be around for a very long time. Long-range forecasts of wind shear are not very reliable, but this morning’s wind shear forecast from the 00Z run of the European model does show a low to moderate shear environment over the Bahamas and waters surrounding South Florida late next week, potentially supportive of a hurricane--if Matthew survives the high wind shear of 50+ knots expected to affect the storm early next week. The bottom line is that it currently appears that Matthew will not recurve out to sea early next week, and The Bahamas and Florida may have to deal with the storm again next week.

One of the interesting things about reading up on hurricanes (at least for me, YMMV) is learning that hurricanes just don't go where they want, that there are other large, even if generally benign, forces out there that really guide where the hurricanes go. It becomes a giant morass of moving pieces that can be difficult to figure out, especially over the long term (like, say, five days or more), and makes you better appreciate the need to throw some supercomputers at the issue.

up
Voting closed 0

Anyone ever read the accounts of why there was no warning? A junior forecaster thought it was going to do what it did. A senior forecaster overruled him because he was sure it was going to curve out to sea.

Matthew has 1938 capability.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, the storm could change path. But they didn't have satellites back then.

up
Voting closed 0

Those models are much much better than what we had available even a decade ago (especially the EU's - they've really jumped ahead of us in this field, thanks primarily to our perennially-deadlocked Congress with its high number of near-Luddite conservo-critters).

up
Voting closed 0

As William Manchester recounts in "The Glory and the Dream," the US Weather Bureau (as it was called then) also lacked things like radar scopes and jet-propelled aerial surveillance -- "its chief devices were the 16th-century thermometer, the 17th-century mercurial barometer, and the medieval weather vane." The bureau also had a serious need for oceanographic information -- they had to rely on voluntary reports from merchant ships and aircraft (because it was the Depression, Manchester notes, the government "wasn't going to let weathermen fly around in expensive planes of their own").
But Manchester also traces the bureau's shortcomings to a lack of training in studying wind velocity and barometric readings to estimate the approach of a storm -- skills that all licensed navigators had to have. And, as the hurricane progressed, key meteorologists didn't even try to phone each other to compare notes.
"Not to put too fine a point on it," he writes, "the Weather Bureau was a slack outfit."

up
Voting closed 0