ATL: ISAAC - Post-Tropical - Discussion

[drezee]

Ok, I have been around for a while. Since when has the NHC only upgrade systems based on the SFMR? In that case, it changes the overall numbers moving forward. If it were 2005, this would be a hurricane. Seems inconsistent...

Are you certain this is an accurate statement? I've seen pro-mets here agreeing that no observation supported hurricane force winds until about 30 minutes ago. I don't think any comparison to 7 years ago applies.

Very accurate, in years past, when winds this strong are found with consistent convection they have made the following statement approximately:

The winds are set because we believe the strongest winds have not been sampled, but are likely occuring.

Since it is impossible for observations to completely cover an entire storm, there is a chance that a small portion of the storm containing the highest winds was not sampled.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_page ... /wind.html

[WeatherGuesser]

based on that radar its going to miss the mouth of the MI to the south.

Which could be very bad since it might put the mouth more on the dirty side taking in even more storm surge.

if this comes inland at 976 or lower and they are still calling it a TS i bet it does high end cat1 damage.

Low pressure alone does not equate to amount/level of damage.

[rainstorm]

here is an interesting loop. shows isaac will still be offshore for awhile.

http://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrrconus1 ... =t6&wjet=1

[Chris_in_Tampa]

High Values NOAA HDOB 32
Flight (30s): 87 knots
Flight (10s): 88 knots
SFMR Surface (10s): 55 knots

[rainstorm]

based on that radar its going to miss the mouth of the MI to the south.

Which could be very bad since it might put the mouth more on the dirty side taking in even more storm surge.

if this comes inland at 976 or lower and they are still calling it a TS i bet it does high end cat1 damage.

Low pressure alone does not equate to amount/level of damage.

last nights euro seems to be verifying. it may have took the west turn a bit earlier than expected.

[WeatherGuesser]

If it were 2005, this would be a hurricane. Seems inconsistent...

But this isn't '05 and technology and policies have changed.

[Lane]

wxman57, correct me if I am wrong please. But the url you posted is NOT supporting 65kt winds is that correct? So we will continue to see TS Isaac for the time being?

[TeamPlayersBlue]

here is an interesting loop. shows isaac will still be offshore for awhile.

http://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrrconus1 ... =t6&wjet=1

Shaking my head right now.

[rtd2]

While from my Untrained Eye Isaac looked better of Fla coast It actually starts to show a sign of wanting to develope an eyewall in last few frames...

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~gadomski/SAT_ ... m16ir.html

[tolakram]

Very accurate, in years past, when winds this strong are found with consistent convection they have made the following statement approximately:

Winds how strong? This mornings readings are the strongest yet, so perhaps an upgrade at 11am EDT (10am CDT). Isaac's convection has never been consistent, and it has never had an eyewall for more than a few hours.

[drezee]

If it were 2005, this would be a hurricane. Seems inconsistent...

But this isn't '05 and technology and policies have changed.

Please check the link on the reply I sent above. It is a reference from noaa from Alberto this year. Please let me know which specific policy changed since Alberto?

[drezee]

Very accurate, in years past, when winds this strong are found with consistent convection they have made the following statement approximately:

Winds how strong? This mornings readings are the strongest yet, so perhaps an upgrade at 11am EDT (10am CDT). Isaac's convection has never been consistent, and it has never had an eyewall for more than a few hours.

Typically, an update statement would be sent once an upgrade is made. No need for a full update, but informational. I could come up with tons of examples. The issues in not right or wrong...just consistency

[HurrMark]

I don't know why, but there is a much higher reduction factor than normal...like 70%. I would tend to see that in the mid-latitudes, not in the Gulf in late August. People can talk about El Nino, talk about dry air, talk about all kinds of things. I just don't think there is a clear-cut answer, and I think this could be an excellent Ph. D. topic (this and Lili of 2002 could be great case studies of the behavior of central Gulf storms).

[thatwhichisnt]

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floater ... imated.gif

What is that in the last frame??

[Chris_in_Tampa]

NOAA Dropsonde:
988mb Sea Level (Surface)
70 knots (81 mph)

[HurrMark]

NOAA Dropsonde:
988mb Sea Level (Surface)
70 knots (81 mph)

Could that be it? (finally)?

[RL3AO]

NOAA Dropsonde:
988mb Sea Level (Surface)
70 knots (81 mph)

Well theres the absolute evidence. Recon and fl obs support 70kt winds.

[westwind]

Dropsonde found 70kt winds at the surface, looks like they will upgrade soon.

[drezee]

NOAA Dropsonde:
988mb Sea Level (Surface)
70 knots (81 mph)

I hope this doesn't become a "catchup" storm...meaning the winds catchup to the pressure really fast to a lower pressure

[amawea]

Here is millibars table with comparisons to windspeed:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/StephanieStern.shtml

From Joe Bastardi this morning:

Joe Bastardi ‏@BigJoeBastardi
HD wind obs are 80 g 86 kts pressure is 976 this supports 85-90mph storm. IS NHC trying to say if this were "Gordon" its not hurricane?

I am quickly losing whatever respect I might have had for Joe Bastardi. His tweets have been over the top with this storm.
1) constant calling for east coast landfall when models and NHC track had shown Gulf track for days.
2) then hyping this as a probable cat 2 - 3 monster
3) then making the as bad as Katrina comparison yesterday
4) now the NHC bashing.

This man is an embarrassment to all hard working mets who try and help people rather than make a name for themselves.

[Rant off]. Sorry, but it needed to be said.

As to number 1) so were the models!
As to number 3) He was quoting NOAA, and they were referencing the slow speed and amount of rain.
As to number 4) He has always done that in regards to the upgrading or not upgrading storms.

Anti rant off.