This is the kind of stuff I dont like about ..........

Ola · #1 Postby **Ola** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:10 pm

It is not the first time I see contradictions in TWO and TWD, and even between consecutive TWOs.

From the 11:30 am TWO:

CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS ASSOCIATED WITH A WESTWARD MOVING TROPICAL
WAVE ARE CENTERED ABOUT 525 MILES EAST OF THE WINDWARD ISLANDS.
ALTHOUGH THE ACTIVITY HAS INCREASED SINCE YESTERDAY...UPPER LEVEL
WINDS ARE NOT FAVORABLE FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT.

From the 2:05 TWD :

TROPICAL WAVE IS ALONG 51W S OF 16N MOVING W 10-15 KT. THIS
WAVE HAS AN ANTICYCLONIC CIRCULATION ABOVE IT. A LARGE AREA OF
SCATTERED MODERATE TO STRONG CONVECTION IS FROM 8N-13N BETWEEN
48W-55W

kevin · #2 Postby **kevin** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:14 pm

#3 Postby **vbhoutex** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:19 pm

Ola, even though it has an anticyclonic circulation above it, which indeed is usually conducive to development, there do need to be other factors, as you know, that come into play for the upper air to be conducive for development. I personally do not see that as a contradiction. They just did not mention what factors are the inhibiting factors imo.

Sanibel · #4 Postby **Sanibel** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:19 pm

I noticed that right away too. Probably they used previous shear data and forecasted trends. Perhaps they then noticed that the favorable conditions helping this wave form so quickly had developed quickly after that previous data. We all know things can happen rapidly in the tropics...

Derecho · #5 Postby **Derecho** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:41 pm

The TWOs are from NHC and the TWDs are from TAFB, technically they're separate branches of the TPC.

#6 Postby **hurricanemike** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:21 pm

Yes, but they normally collaberate...as TAFB is a division of the TPC.

Ola · #7 Postby **Ola** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:22 pm

Derecho wrote:The TWOs are from NHC and the TWDs are from TAFB, technically they're separate branches of the TPC.

Yes i knew that but still, they should both be looking at the same data right? I should not have named the topic with the NHC name on it I guess, what I meant was that obviously it is a contradiction, and they should at least read each other's products and maybe pick up on something one of them overlooked. Sometimes they go into a broken record mode in the TWO and keep copy/pasting from the last one, even when it is obvious to us amateurs that things are changing in whatever area, for example the upper level winds over this wave. Looking at vis loop, it is obvious that there is very little shear over the wave/convection and it does look like anticyclone movement of the outflow.

I really think that sometimes this things happen because forecasters are looking at models too much and not at actual sat pics. I might be wrong about this but thats the feeling I have.

This is the kind of stuff I dont like about ..........

This is the kind of stuff I dont like about ..........

Who is online