Development in the SW Caribbean this Week?

[NDG]

Careful, those aren't wind shear charts,

True, but I like all the pretty background colors, I tend to ignore the change lines.

Not trying to be a nit picker, but I've seen it said a few times that these shear charts don't shear, but I beg to differ.
The colors show the amount of shear(see the index on the right side of chart) and the isobar like contour lines show 24 hr change.

You are correct, IMO. It does show current amount of shear (in colors) along with the 24hr change in shear.

[gatorcane]

I would say it is time to kill this thread.

[HURAKAN]

The GFS saw a ghost, like most of the stuff it sees 384 hours into the future.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

thanks wxman for the reply!
yes shear will inhibit that low..not juicy enuff yet

[Pedro Fernández]

The GFS saw a ghost, like most of the stuff it sees 384 hours into the future.

I agree, Hurakan I think forecast models have lot of trouble in tropical cyclones forecasting, above all at long range.

[wxman57]

Let's take a look at the SW Caribbean now and see how well the GFS did a few weeks back. If you remember, it was predicting a storm system to develop there on or about the 11th (today). I see some thunderstorms near Panama and out in the East Pac, but that's about it. Shear remains too strong, and the long-range GFS was incorrect in predicting the storm. Very common this time of year for the GFS to try to get something going down there in the long range.

[gatorcane]

Let's take a look at the SW Caribbean now and see how well the GFS did a few weeks back. If you remember, it was predicting a storm system to develop there on or about the 11th (today). I see some thunderstorms near Panama and out in the East Pac, but that's about it. Shear remains too strong, and the long-range GFS was incorrect in predicting the storm. Very common this time of year for the GFS to try to get something going down there in the long range.

I agree. It's hard for me to believe the GFS beyond 144 hours without other model support as well. Had the ECMWF and/or UKMET been showing tropical cyclogenesis as well, I would have bet more on development. Even so, beyond 144 hours, the accuracy of these models drops off quite a bit so even if all three were showing something beyond 144 hours, it may still not even happen.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Let's take a look at the SW Caribbean now and see how well the GFS did a few weeks back. If you remember, it was predicting a storm system to develop there on or about the 11th (today). I see some thunderstorms near Panama and out in the East Pac, but that's about it. Shear remains too strong, and the long-range GFS was incorrect in predicting the storm. Very common this time of year for the GFS to try to get something going down there in the long range.

I agree. It's hard for me to believe the GFS beyond 144 hours without other model support as well. Had the ECMWF and/or UKMET been showing tropical cyclogenesis as well, I would have bet more on development. Even so, beyond 144 hours, the accuracy of these models drops off quite a bit so even if all three were showing something beyond 144 hours, it may still not even happen.

The GFS, I guess so it can run past 2 weeks without eating too much computer processing and time, undergoes essentially a 50% reduction in grid scale resolution past 180 hours. It already, by definition, has to have a coarser grid scale to be a global model, and slicing down further means, IMH and Amateur Opinion, it is no better than a rough guide for trends. And then, only if most of the ensembles agree with it.