Tropical Storm Arlene Post Storm Analysis

[JonathanBelles]

It's been almost 24 hours now since Arlene dissipated. Time to start evaluating how each of us did in forecasting Arlene. In my mind I do not want to evaluate how the National Hurricane Center did because they will do that on their own.

So, how did you do and what did you learn from Arlene?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. For as hard as the center of Arlene was to find using multiple sources (satellite, buoys, microwave), I think that my estimates were pretty good. The one formal estimate that I gave on my blog at 2am on the 30th was only about .1°N off. Locating the center before that time was very rough, but the general forecast was good. My 'midnight thursday' estimate made at midnight on the 29th was about 1-2h off. Although my cone during that forecast was good (Arlene followed the southern edge of my cone), it was barely so. (The forecast graphic here: http://jonathanbelles.files.wordpress.c ... arlene.jpg )

2. I have pondered the second question for the last day or two, without much answer. Arlene was a difficult storm to forecast, and moreso to locate. One thing that does stick out is how Arlene held on to its structure for much of the 18 hours after landfall in a relatively mountainous area. Did that robust rainband on the east side of the storm help the structure after landfall? I'm not sure.

[MGC]

Arlene was difficult to locate because it had a broad center with little convection early on. By day two, as the convection increased near the circulation center, it was a bit easier to guesstimate the center local. I thouth the TS had a odds on chance to make hurricane but it did not. Track was easy due to the death ridge to the norht..,,,MGC

[Andrew92]

I was too conservative in intensity, didn't keep Arlene over water quite long enough, and dissipated her a bit too quickly. That said, I did nail when she would develop and was very close to the landfall location. Not great, but not horrible either.

-Andrew92

[brunota2003]

I predicted a period of borderline RI in Arlene, but she took too long to gain an inner core. I did note that the possible saving grace to RI was the larger size of the system, along with proximity to land. I thought, though, she would make a run at 70 to 75 knots before moving ashore.

[Hylian Auree]

From the moment 95L developed, I thought the odds of it becoming a TC were pretty good based on previous Gulf disturbances that developed in the area. Also, an hour or two before the NHC initiating advisories, I personally thought it was sufficiently organized for TC classification, so I did pretty well there too. Its track was also pretty easy like MGC said. The only part where I went wrong was its intensification; I thought it'd be able to resolve its core issues and strengthen into a minimal hurricane prior to landfall. Overall, well-forecast storm for myself, though I was surprised to see how many others doubted its development early on.

[somethingfunny]

I thought Arlene wouldn't form.

[stormreader]

I think I did well in calling the time when tropical storm development was becoming imminent. I posted a comment about Carribean weather really coming together (this was when the wave was off Nicaragua). The post was rightly taken down because all posts about the looming Gulf thread were to be kept in one thread which as already started. But at that time most posters were fixated on the weather that was in the Gulf along an old trough boundary. This never had a chance to develop. The models which called for development in the Gulf were doing so in regards to the Carribean weather which would enter the Gulf and it seemed as though most posters had forgotten about that. I didn't do so well with intensity. I thought that Arlene would make it to a 75mph minimal hurricane (lessening shear--strong high pressure to the north), but she didn't quite get there.