TS Ernesto: Sat Pics, Models, Analysis Thread XI (#11)
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
- AtlanticWind
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 1894
- Age: 66
- Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 9:57 pm
- Location: Plantation,Fla
- CalmBeforeStorm
- Category 2
- Posts: 600
- Age: 71
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 7:55 pm
- Location: Stuart, Florida
mvtrucking wrote:gopherfan21 wrote:For the last time, ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT LISTENING TO THE PRO METS!?!?!?!?!?!?
The GFS is WRONG
It has used Incorrect Initializations and is basically plowing Ernesto through a ridge!
I am curious if that is still their opinion's? They have been quiet the last
many pages. I really would like to get their ideas right about now..
By the way, the 18z UKMET has the system tightly under the cuban coast, really only about 75 miles south of the GFS solution. Even the official NHC position at 72 hours is only 125 miles off the GFS. I really don't see why people think this is such a radical model right now.
0 likes
- AJC3
- Admin
- Posts: 4008
- Age: 61
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:04 pm
- Location: Ballston Spa, New York
- Contact:
mvtrucking wrote:gopherfan21 wrote:For the last time, ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT LISTENING TO THE PRO METS!?!?!?!?!?!?
The GFS is WRONG
It has used Incorrect Initializations and is basically plowing Ernesto through a ridge!
I am curious if that is still their opinion's? They have been quiet the last
many pages. I really would like to get their ideas right about now..
I don't think the 12Z GFS solution of the center moving NNW over eastern Cuba will verify, hence I see the threat of potential effects to peninsular south FL as minimal right now. Of course, that doesn't mean anyone in south FL should cease to keep track of the system.
While still several days away, the consensus of a northward turn into the eastern GOMEX landfall looks reasonable. Still a long way off though.
Last edited by AJC3 on Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
- CalmBeforeStorm
- Category 2
- Posts: 600
- Age: 71
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 7:55 pm
- Location: Stuart, Florida
-
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:03 pm
As models trend east (and I somewhat suspect another slightly eastern shift by the NHC at 11 pm), it looks like the track may really spend some time along Cuba. Look at the 3 day cone. If it rides the northern section it could spend upwards of 1 day over Cuba. Probably not enough to kill it, but any thoughts on how fast it could re-intensify over the GOM? Looking at SST's and heat content, I'd say pretty fast.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphic ... shtml?5day
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphic ... shtml?5day
Last edited by Furious George on Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
-
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:23 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
- ConvergenceZone
- Category 5
- Posts: 5194
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:40 am
- Location: Northern California
- AJC3
- Admin
- Posts: 4008
- Age: 61
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:04 pm
- Location: Ballston Spa, New York
- Contact:
CalmBeforeStorm wrote:mvtrucking wrote:gopherfan21 wrote:For the last time, ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT LISTENING TO THE PRO METS!?!?!?!?!?!?
The GFS is WRONG
It has used Incorrect Initializations and is basically plowing Ernesto through a ridge!
I am curious if that is still their opinion's? They have been quiet the last
many pages. I really would like to get their ideas right about now..
By the way, the 18z UKMET has the system tightly under the cuban coast, really only about 75 miles south of the GFS solution. Even the official NHC position at 72 hours is only 125 miles off the GFS. I really don't see why people think this is such a radical model right now.
I don't think the 12Z GFS was "radical". It simply made a change and became a right outlier with IMO little chance of verifying within the first 60 hours. UKMET looks pretty reasonable to me.
0 likes
- canetracker
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 751
- Age: 62
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:49 pm
- Location: Suburbia New Orleans...Harahan, LA
SouthFloridawx wrote:Brent wrote:SouthFloridawx wrote:gopherfan21 wrote:For the last time, ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT LISTENING TO THE PRO METS!?!?!?!?!?!?
The GFS is WRONG
It has used Incorrect Initializations and is basically plowing Ernesto through a ridge!
I read absolutely nothing in the NHC discussion where they said they were discounting the gfs.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MI ... 2105.shtml
Well to be fair:
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE GFS SOLUTION OF
BRINGING THE LOW-LEVEL CENTER OF ERNESTO TO SOUTH FLORIDA LOOKS
DUBIOUS...AS THE 500 MB CENTER STAYS WELL TO THE SOUTH OVER CUBA.
That doesn't make sense and won't happen.
Well that would indicate that the low level and mid level circulation will decouple. However they did NOT say they were toally discounting the GFS.
By mentioning the word dubious (of doubtful promise or outcome; questionable or suspect as to true nature or quality .....source Meriam Webster Dictionary) I think they meant that they are discounting the GFS.
0 likes
- ConvergenceZone
- Category 5
- Posts: 5194
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:40 am
- Location: Northern California
- Extremeweatherguy
- Category 5
- Posts: 11095
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
- Location: Florida
It still amazes me when people buy into a model (the GFS) when it initializes the system as a 1008mb low! That is nearly 11mb stronger than it actually is. I think the reason we are seeing another crazy path this time is because this is an 18Z run (based off the 12Z)...I will be much more interested in what the 0Z guidance has to say.
0 likes
- BonesXL
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Homestead, Florida
- Contact:
well having it be off of the Tampa coast is much better than it plowing into Tampa anyway, so that's good news.
Wow..I agree with u your so awesome and caring your the very best man...you are tops in my book...


Last edited by BonesXL on Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 likes
AJC3 wrote:CalmBeforeStorm wrote:mvtrucking wrote:gopherfan21 wrote:For the last time, ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT LISTENING TO THE PRO METS!?!?!?!?!?!?
The GFS is WRONG
It has used Incorrect Initializations and is basically plowing Ernesto through a ridge!
I am curious if that is still their opinion's? They have been quiet the last
many pages. I really would like to get their ideas right about now..
By the way, the 18z UKMET has the system tightly under the cuban coast, really only about 75 miles south of the GFS solution. Even the official NHC position at 72 hours is only 125 miles off the GFS. I really don't see why people think this is such a radical model right now.
I don't think the 12Z GFS was "radical". It simply made a change and became a right outlier with IMO little chance of verifying within the first 60 hours. UKMET looks pretty reasonable to me.
Does the UKMET have a new solution now? Where is it now predicting landfall?
0 likes
Extremeweatherguy wrote:It still amazes me when people buy into a model (the GFS) when it initializes the system as a 1008mb low! That is nearly 11mb stronger than it actually is. I think the reason we are seeing another crazy path this time is because this is an 18Z run (based off the 12Z)...I will be much more interested in what the 0Z guidance has to say.
The GFS always will initialize much higher than the actual pressure. I would think the GFS is actually pretty close here with its current intensity.
0 likes
-
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:23 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
- AJC3
- Admin
- Posts: 4008
- Age: 61
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:04 pm
- Location: Ballston Spa, New York
- Contact:
Weatherfreak000 wrote:AJC3 wrote:CalmBeforeStorm wrote:mvtrucking wrote:gopherfan21 wrote:For the last time, ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT LISTENING TO THE PRO METS!?!?!?!?!?!?
The GFS is WRONG
It has used Incorrect Initializations and is basically plowing Ernesto through a ridge!
I am curious if that is still their opinion's? They have been quiet the last
many pages. I really would like to get their ideas right about now..
By the way, the 18z UKMET has the system tightly under the cuban coast, really only about 75 miles south of the GFS solution. Even the official NHC position at 72 hours is only 125 miles off the GFS. I really don't see why people think this is such a radical model right now.
I don't think the 12Z GFS was "radical". It simply made a change and became a right outlier with IMO little chance of verifying within the first 60 hours. UKMET looks pretty reasonable to me.
Does the UKMET have a new solution now? Where is it now predicting landfall?
Dunno, but the idea of a close pass underneath Cuba is what looks reasonable to me. I've been trying to focus on what I think will happen in the next 2-3 days.
0 likes
- ConvergenceZone
- Category 5
- Posts: 5194
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:40 am
- Location: Northern California
Noles2006 wrote:Stratosphere -- sorry, didn't mean to offend you... however, I was just saying that if Convergence could make that conclusion about Floridians, then I could do the same about Texans... see, there's only one or two Floridians that are "hyping" a Florida hit.
I didn't mean that in a bad way. I"m just saying that it's easy to have a bias if you live in a specific area, only because you focus on the model depicting it coming your way moreso than the models that say it's not going to come your way. ..
0 likes
- Extremeweatherguy
- Category 5
- Posts: 11095
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
- Location: Florida
- storms in NC
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 2338
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:58 pm
- Location: Wallace,NC 40 miles NE of Wilm
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 40 guests