HurricaneBelle wrote:1. They're still calling it a depression.
2. They're saying the center is inland at 95W. There's no objective support for that.
How else to reconcile #1 and #2? No, I'm not in the room at NHC, so I will gladly amend my comment to add "it seems" or "probably" with respect to my belief they don't want to open a North Atlantic file on it (and about 3-4 others upthread are wondering the same thing) But this isn't the first time I've seen questionable reports of the position or intensity of a storm in the dissipation phase that err on the side of what they had forecasted,.
I'll state again that 99% of the time, they do a great job and they're outstanding meteorologists who perform a valuable public service. But it seems there are occasionally political (in the bureaucratic sense) decisions that get made that don't seem to be 100% based on the science.
I think you're crossing the line on this one without any data to back it up.
Here is the discussion:
FINDING THE LOW-LEVEL CENTER OF THE CYCLONE HAS BEEN A REAL
CHALLENGE THIS MORNING. THE CENTER OF ROTATION THAT IS EVIDENT ON
VISIBLE SATELLITE IMAGERY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SURFACE WIND
OBSERVATIONS FROM STANDARD AND AUTOMATED MEXICAN WEATHER STATIONS.
IN FACT...THERE IS SOME DOUBT THAT A WELL-DEFINED SURFACE CENTER
EVEN EXISTS. HOWEVER...WE THINK THE MOST PRUDENT ACTION AT THIS
TIME IS TO MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM AS A DEPRESSION UNTIL ADDITIONAL
VISIBLE IMAGES AND SURFACE DATA BECOME AVAILABLE. THE CURRENT
ADVISORY POSITION IS IN REASONABLE AGREEMENT WITH THE SURFACE WIND
DATA.
Are you questioning the surface wind data, or can you show surface wind data that contradicts the above statement? In addition without reliable data, the position may well follow forecast positions for continuity sake.