EPAC: BARBARA - Remnants

[RL3AO]

This would be a first to survive the EPac to Atlantic passage correct? Like I said last night, it took the perfect path.

I believe the last time was in 1949.

Last time it was Northeast Pacific Hurricane Cosme that became Atlantic Tropical Storm Allison (June 1989).

Source: FAQ http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html
(german version: http://www.naturgewalten.de/hurrikan/hurrfaq.htm)

Thomas

Allison formed from Cosme's remnants. I'm talking about a system maintaining itself as a tropical cyclone from the Pacific basin to the Atlantic Basin.

[tolakram]

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/geo/index ... thod=jsani

You can see the LLC of Invest 91E in this live loop as well. So far I don't see any signs of an LLC left with Barbara.

[cycloneye]

Here is a video of the effects caused by Barbara in Mexico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... JBHnnKuCBw

[HurricaneBelle]

There is nothing where NHC put the center. Not sure how they got 95W. I wonder if they simply do not want this in the BOC since it should die soon anyways

This is the kind of thing I find galling about the NHC, which otherwise does a great job. There's no CoC at 95W, which is obvious from any satellite imagery. They're telling us up is down, black is white, etc., when the evidence is plain to see.

They just don't want to be bothered with having to open up a North Atlantic file on this, with advisories, etc. on a system that is likely to dissipate. But it hasn't dissipated yet and it's in the Gulf of Mexico, but instead they're fabricating a position for it that's inland.

And it also plays into their inherent conflict of interest where they are the entity that issues the forecasts and then verifies them by making the determination about how strong and (now in this instance, where) the cyclone is. I'm not imputing any kind of evil conspiracy here, and again they do a wonderful job overall, but this is just the natural inclination of any bureaucracy to take the path of least resistance.

[ozonepete]

I see an LLC (or almost all the way to the surface) on the loops. Here's where I see it using the RGB satellite.

[Riptide]

Barbara does not seem to be in a disruptive mode, the low level circulation is a bit elongated. It seems she survived the land battle but how will she deal with shear and dry air?

[vbhoutex]

There is nothing where NHC put the center. Not sure how they got 95W. I wonder if they simply do not want this in the BOC since it should die soon anyways

This is the kind of thing I find galling about the NHC, which otherwise does a great job. There's no CoC at 95W, which is obvious from any satellite imagery. They're telling us up is down, black is white, etc., when the evidence is plain to see.

They just don't want to be bothered with having to open up a North Atlantic file on this, with advisories, etc. on a system that is likely to dissipate. But it hasn't dissipated yet and it's in the Gulf of Mexico, but instead they're fabricating a position for it that's inland.

And it also plays into their inherent conflict of interest where they are the entity that issues the forecasts and then verifies them by making the determination about how strong and (now in this instance, where) the cyclone is. I'm not imputing any kind of evil conspiracy here, and again they do a wonderful job overall, but this is just the natural inclination of any bureaucracy to take the path of least resistance.

I have to disagree with the reasoning stated here. How do you know they don't want to open a file on it? Do you have an inside track to NHC we don't know about? If you aren't imputing a conspiracy here, then what are you imputing? Conflict of interest?? Come on, it is their job and it is not a conflict of interest. Many corporations/public agencies do their own verifications.

[ozonepete]

I have to agree. The NHC senior forecasters live for this stuff - they love it like we do and I would imagine they get just as excited as we do when possibly historic things like this occur. They are just being cautious. Who can blame them for wanting to be right? ...lol

[ozonepete]

Barbara does not seem to be in a disruptive mode, the low level circulation is a bit elongated. It seems she survived the land battle but how will she deal with shear and dry air?

Right now shear is very low over Barbara and dropping - see the attached shear and shear tendency chart from CIMSS. So if it remains nearly stationary or moves slowly shear won't be a problem for the next day or so. I haven't checked the mid level RH values for dry air but you would think air coming into the circulation from land, especially air drying as it descends the mountains, is keeping convection down. It's got to get a little further north.

[Kingarabian]

Good to see you Pete!

What time does the NHC update the ATCF files?

[HurricaneBelle]

I have to disagree with the reasoning stated here. How do you know they don't want to open a file on it? Do you have an inside track to NHC we don't know about? If you aren't imputing a conspiracy here, then what are you imputing? Conflict of interest?? Come on, it is their job and it is not a conflict of interest. Many corporations/public agencies do their own verifications.

1. They're still calling it a depression.
2. They're saying the center is inland at 95W. There's no objective support for that.

How else to reconcile #1 and #2? No, I'm not in the room at NHC, so I will gladly amend my comment to add "it seems" or "probably" with respect to my belief they don't want to open a North Atlantic file on it (and about 3-4 others upthread are wondering the same thing) But this isn't the first time I've seen questionable reports of the position or intensity of a storm in the dissipation phase that err on the side of what they had forecasted,.

I'll state again that 99% of the time, they do a great job and they're outstanding meteorologists who perform a valuable public service. But it seems there are occasionally political (in the bureaucratic sense) decisions that get made that don't seem to be 100% based on the science.

[Kingarabian]

You know hopefully once this re-emerges in the BOC we can get some Recon. It would be very helpful. Just one pass over the suggested center and see if anything exists. Then just measure the wind speed and we won't ever ever ever ask for Recon again.

[Riptide]

I have to disagree with the reasoning stated here. How do you know they don't want to open a file on it? Do you have an inside track to NHC we don't know about? If you aren't imputing a conspiracy here, then what are you imputing? Conflict of interest?? Come on, it is their job and it is not a conflict of interest. Many corporations/public agencies do their own verifications.

1. They're still calling it a depression.
2. They're saying the center is inland at 95W. There's no objective support for that.

How else to reconcile #1 and #2? No, I'm not in the room at NHC, so I will gladly amend my comment to add "it seems" or "probably" with respect to my belief they don't want to open a North Atlantic file on it (and about 3-4 others upthread are wondering the same thing) But this isn't the first time I've seen questionable reports of the position or intensity of a storm in the dissipation phase that err on the side of what they had forecasted,.

I'll state again that 99% of the time, they do a great job and they're outstanding meteorologists who perform a valuable public service. But it seems there are occasionally political (in the bureaucratic sense) decisions that get made that don't seem to be 100% based on the science.

Perhaps one could blame the general population for the new mindset of the NHC. They changed their forecasting scheme to allow hurricane warnings to remain in the event that a tropical cyclone becomes extratropical before landfall (Hurricane Sandy). However, I think it's not good to rush to conclusion. Mid-level vorticies can be deceiving and there may not be an LLC.

The 100% scientific approach appears to be unpopular because of the human factor.

[cycloneye]

18z Best Track. Downgraded from TD.

EP, 02, 2013053018, , BEST, 0, 185N, 945W, 20, 1005, DB

ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/atcf/tcweb/inves ... 013.invest

[Kingarabian]

18z Best Track.

EP, 02, 2013053018, , BEST, 0, 185N, 945W, 25, 1005, TD

ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/atcf/tcweb/inves ... 013.invest

EP, 02, 2013053018, , BEST, 0, 185N, 945W, 20, 1005, DB

I guess she's gone.

[cycloneye]

18z Best Track.

EP, 02, 2013053018, , BEST, 0, 185N, 945W, 25, 1005, TD

ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/atcf/tcweb/inves ... 013.invest

EP, 02, 2013053018, , BEST, 0, 185N, 945W, 20, 1005, DB

I guess she's gone.

Yes,I noted the change in minutes after I posted and is fixed.Hasta la vista.

[tolakram]

1. They're still calling it a depression.
2. They're saying the center is inland at 95W. There's no objective support for that.

How else to reconcile #1 and #2? No, I'm not in the room at NHC, so I will gladly amend my comment to add "it seems" or "probably" with respect to my belief they don't want to open a North Atlantic file on it (and about 3-4 others upthread are wondering the same thing) But this isn't the first time I've seen questionable reports of the position or intensity of a storm in the dissipation phase that err on the side of what they had forecasted,.

I'll state again that 99% of the time, they do a great job and they're outstanding meteorologists who perform a valuable public service. But it seems there are occasionally political (in the bureaucratic sense) decisions that get made that don't seem to be 100% based on the science.

I think you're crossing the line on this one without any data to back it up.

Here is the discussion:

FINDING THE LOW-LEVEL CENTER OF THE CYCLONE HAS BEEN A REAL
CHALLENGE THIS MORNING. THE CENTER OF ROTATION THAT IS EVIDENT ON
VISIBLE SATELLITE IMAGERY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SURFACE WIND
OBSERVATIONS FROM STANDARD AND AUTOMATED MEXICAN WEATHER STATIONS.
IN FACT...THERE IS SOME DOUBT THAT A WELL-DEFINED SURFACE CENTER
EVEN EXISTS. HOWEVER...WE THINK THE MOST PRUDENT ACTION AT THIS
TIME IS TO MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM AS A DEPRESSION UNTIL ADDITIONAL
VISIBLE IMAGES AND SURFACE DATA BECOME AVAILABLE. THE CURRENT
ADVISORY POSITION IS IN REASONABLE AGREEMENT WITH THE SURFACE WIND
DATA.

Are you questioning the surface wind data, or can you show surface wind data that contradicts the above statement? In addition without reliable data, the position may well follow forecast positions for continuity sake.

[ozonepete]

Good to see you Pete!

What time does the NHC update the ATCF files?

Good to see you again, King! (I guess you got your answer.)

[ozonepete]

I wouldn't call Bones yet. It's gotten more symmetric and some convection is flaring. This is also climatologically a good area for formation or maintenance at this time of year and there is virtually no shear over it. Of course if it does come back it probably won't survive long anyway, but it looks like it's got a window here to get to TS before the shouting is over.

[thetruesms]

Actually, I think the fairly strange placement of the center (which I think has slightly more to do with surface obs than satellite imagery) is not a reluctance to move Barbara over, but rather to keep her.

Pretty simply, I don't see anything at the surface at all right now, especially when you consider surface obs. But - there might be in the future with some luck since there's still some midlevel spin and obviously some low level convergence over the water where convection is flaring. So, for continuity's sake, they'll keep Barbara around for one more advisory and see what happens. This is nothing new from NHC.

But that introduces a problem - where do you put her? There's not really anything to pin it to. So, do you move her to the Atlantic in case she beats the odds and pulls something together in the Bay of Campeche? You could, but it's probably a whole lot of work, and if you don't really think it's going to pull together over water, kind of pointless. Or since you're picking a conservative route to begin with, do you stay conservative, and keep her in the EPac over land and see what happens? It looks like they used some surface obs (namely an "apparent land breeze" where there should be a sea breeze) to pick something over land to the west of where a new center over water might form.

I don't think either is technically right; for that you'd probably call the circulation opened, declare Barbara done, and start up Andrea if something comes back together at the surface. And that's also precisely what you'd do if you didn't want to shift Barbara to the Atlantic. The fact that she's still around says more to me of their willingness, rather than reluctance to open the Atlantic season with a B storm.