Alyono wrote:chaser1 wrote:ThetaE wrote:Models have done well with Matthew in the Caribbean overall, but intensification modeling of Matthew has been very wonky throughout the day today, and honestly I'm having a hard time putting much faith into model solutions right now. Matthew is undergoing some motions (cyclonic loop, stalling, etc.) that models simply can't resolve well, if at all. Until these models can come to grips with the current intensity of Matthew, much less the setup of midlattitude features as he enters the Bahamas, models should be given very low confidence. That isn't to say that what they're currently showing is wrong, but that we simply can't know how accurate it is yet.
NHC has admittedly stated on many occasions that forecasting technologies regarding intensity woefully lag behind forecasting track. That's not news. Furthermore, how many Cat. 5's do we have legit experience toward understanding RI quite that well?
well, this time the issue was NHC. Every global model was SCREAMING at this possibility. So what do they do, they STILL have this as a cat 3 hitting Cuba.
This is human error on their part. Again I ask, how can a hurricane in a low shear environment over water with heat content higher than the WPAC weaken? Just think about that regardless what the LGEM says
Yeah, the NHC is underdoing this storm's strength. The only possible thing that could make them right is that the current ERC that seems to be beginning weakens Matthew and takes long enough to allow it to drop down to cat 3 status without time to restrengthen.
Back to models, however, my point was simply that if models like the HWRF- which we know from its multiple fantasy storms is fully capable of fully representing an intense hurricane- says that this storm is going to weaken to a Cat 1-2 (which just won't happen), how can we trust its eventual output since track is dependent on intensity?
