
very disorganized is what RECON is finding
Moderator: S2k Moderators
HurricaneBelle wrote:Time to upgrade immediately to Hurricane Danielle:
http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/ASOS/c ... rk=FL_ASOS
PUNTA GORDA,FL (PGD) ASOS reports gust of 118.0 knots from W @ 1841Z
Ikester wrote: SST's from what I have read and been told by other pro mets is the gulf waters are the warmest on record..surpassing that of 2005. If that's the case, how come 'Katrina' or 'Rita' hasn't formed yet?
Acral wrote:HurricaneBelle wrote:Time to upgrade immediately to Hurricane Danielle:
http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/ASOS/c ... rk=FL_ASOS
PUNTA GORDA,FL (PGD) ASOS reports gust of 118.0 knots from W @ 1841Z
Hmm.. landfalling waterspout maybe, or someone with a super-charged hair dryer blowing on the wind meter?
Ikester wrote:People really need to get over the SST's. They mean nothing if the upper-levels are not cooperative. Seas could be 200 degrees F and you have high shear, forget it. If they were absolutely necessary, then how come we had Hurricane Epsilon (waters ~72 degrees F) or Tropical Storm Zeta in January (waters ~70 degrees F), or Hurricane Alice in 1954...another January storm. There are others that have formed in April and May, too. SST's from what I have read and been told by other pro mets is the gulf waters are the warmest on record..surpassing that of 2005. If that's the case, how come 'Katrina' or 'Rita' hasn't formed yet?
HurricaneBelle wrote:Acral wrote:HurricaneBelle wrote:Time to upgrade immediately to Hurricane Danielle:
http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/ASOS/c ... rk=FL_ASOS
PUNTA GORDA,FL (PGD) ASOS reports gust of 118.0 knots from W @ 1841Z
Hmm.. landfalling waterspout maybe, or someone with a super-charged hair dryer blowing on the wind meter?
It's a Cat 5 now:
PUNTA GORDA,FL (PGD) ASOS reports gust of 161.0 knots from SSW @ 1853Z
Maybe the ASOS is still screwed up from Charley.
jasons wrote:Ikester wrote: SST's from what I have read and been told by other pro mets is the gulf waters are the warmest on record..surpassing that of 2005. If that's the case, how come 'Katrina' or 'Rita' hasn't formed yet?
For one, neither Katrina nor Rita formed before August 11th.
We still have a lot of season left and I think we should save the comparisons for later. Yes, it's been 'the year of the ULL' so far but that may change on a dime. And remember, we have already had Alex which was very impressive for June.
Also, yes it's true that SSTs are just one of many factors that contribute to TC cyclogenesis. We have 85-90F water with no storms present most of the summer, every summer, across the Gulf. On a typical summer day in the Gulf, it's sweltering hot, the water is like a bath tub, and there's nothing more than typical isolated/scattered air mass thunderstorms.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that shear should collapse as we head into the peak of the season, and with the record SSTs and TCHP in place, we have a real potential to see some very powerful hurricanes when conditions do become favorable.
cycloneye wrote:From 1 PM CDT Intermediate Advisory:
BULLETIN
TROPICAL DEPRESSION FIVE INTERMEDIATE ADVISORY NUMBER 4A
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL AL052010
100 PM CDT WED AUG 11 2010
SATELLITE AND SURFACE OBSERVATIONS INDICATE THAT THE DEPRESSION IS
LOSING ORGANIZATION AND COULD DISSIPATE LATER TODAY.
HURAKAN wrote:I agree jasons. I like to use the word "degenerate" and not "dissipate."
They say dissipated because the cyclone has indeed dissipated. The convection is not the cyclone, it is just a component of it. As such, there may still be some remaining after the cyclone it was associated with is gone. That being said, I prefer to say degenerated because of the connotation that many have with dissipation as well.jasons wrote:Ah, there you go. See, to me, saying "TD#5 has degenerated into an open wave" is a lot more accurate than saying "TD#5 has dissipated"
If it dissipates, I would expect to see a clear satellite image of nothing left, wondering "where did it go? I can't find it any more...it must have dissipated" versus "those (you can point to them) are the remains of Ex-TD 5"...if you can point it out, it hasn't really dissipated, has it?
OK, I'm done. But if anyone has any insight into why they do this, I'd really like to know....
jasons wrote:HURAKAN wrote:I agree jasons. I like to use the word "degenerate" and not "dissipate."
Ah, there you go. See, to me, saying "TD#5 has degenerated into an open wave" is a lot more accurate than saying "TD#5 has dissipated"
If it dissipates, I would expect to see a clear satellite image of nothing left, wondering "where did it go? I can't find it any more...it must have dissipated" versus "those (you can point to them) are the remains of Ex-TD 5"...if you can point it out, it hasn't really dissipated, has it?
OK, I'm done. But if anyone has any insight into why they do this, I'd really like to know....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests