ATL: LAURA - Post-Tropical - Discussion

[SouthernBreeze]

I still say Marco appears to be weakening - This would have an effect on Laura, wouldn't it?

[Cpv17]

HMON is basically saying that Laura will go where Wxman57 said she would go.(Freeport-ish) As a cat 3, if I read that pressure right. Holy cow!!! This has been an impressive and large storm thusfar. Be safe everyone!

When did he say that? Sorry I haven’t been keeping up with this discussion as much as I’d like. Too much going on.

[BYG Jacob]

Based on that pressure, Laura is getting closer to hurricane strength. Although, given the large size the winds will take longer to increase

[BYG Jacob]

https://twitter.com/crankywxguy/status/1297621168070041600

This is the same person that thought Michael wasn't a category 4 right?

[SoupBone]

I still say Marco appears to be weakening - This would have an effect on Laura, wouldn't it?

It's a good question. I think a few models have shown this, maybe the GFS?

[Kazmit]

I still say Marco appears to be weakening - This would have an effect on Laura, wouldn't it?

Based on that pressure, Laura is getting closer to hurricane strength. Although, given the large size the winds will take longer to increase

Gotta love the diversity of opinions on Storm2k!

[zhukm29]

I feel this bears repeating: EURO is not one of the more reliable models when it comes to intensity, nor are globals generally. Its legendary reputation stems from the fact that (ignoring the consensus aids, of course) it is the most reliable track model. EURO (and the GFS, for that matter) was one of the least accurate intensity models in 2019; HWRF was one of the most accurate, tendency to overintensify storms notwithstanding. This pattern is continuing in 2020.

https://i.imgur.com/fRHcYZB.png

Interesting stuff! I would have never thought the HWRF would be one of the most accurate, considering the dismissive nature towards it by many here (including a few pros). Thank you for sharing.

GFDL and HWRF were the go-tos for intensity on intensity on this board back in 2005-2008, so I'm surprised HWRF's reputation has fallen behind its performance.

What I tend to see pros recommend (or what they should recommend, at any rate) is not relying on any one particular tool for forecasting, but rather pay attention to trends (both model trends with the storm itself since its formation, and climatological trends with storms of similar track so you can compensate for any systemic biases in the models e.g. the tendency for many models to underestimate ridges and overestimate troughs, thus the infamous rightward bias), the consensus aids, and how tightly the ensembles begin to consolidate or not (which reflects actual uncertainty in the forecast, unlike the essentially useless NHC "cone of uncertainty"); the HWRF is good for intensity, the EURO is good for track, but the most accurate forecasts for both track and intensity are the HCCA and TVCN/IVCN consensus tools and the FSU Superensemble (which is generally even slightly more accurate than the NHC official forecast for track and intensity, but all four are roughly comparable).

One reason why HWRF's reputation is so bad is because people don't use it correctly. So many like watching it blow up invests into major hurricanes, but that's not what the model should be used for. If you give HWRF recon data and a defined system, it can perform extremely well.

[NDG]

Pressure dropped a couple of more mb.

195800 1936N 07440W 6963 03124 9969 +128 +069 144016 018 028 000 00

[BYG Jacob]

I still say Marco appears to be weakening - This would have an effect on Laura, wouldn't it?

Based on that pressure, Laura is getting closer to hurricane strength. Although, given the large size the winds will take longer to increase

Gotta love the diversity of opinions on Storm2k!

We were talking about 2 different storms my guy.

[Blown Away]

Interesting stuff! I would have never thought the HWRF would be one of the most accurate, considering the dismissive nature towards it by many here (including a few pros). Thank you for sharing.

GFDL and HWRF were the go-tos for intensity on intensity on this board back in 2005-2008, so I'm surprised HWRF's reputation has fallen behind its performance.

What I tend to see pros recommend (or what they should recommend, at any rate) is not relying on any one particular tool for forecasting, but rather pay attention to trends (both model trends with the storm itself since its formation, and climatological trends with storms of similar track so you can compensate for any systemic biases in the models e.g. the tendency for many models to underestimate ridges and overestimate troughs, thus the infamous rightward bias), the consensus aids, and how tightly the ensembles begin to consolidate or not (which reflects actual uncertainty in the forecast, unlike the essentially useless NHC "cone of uncertainty"); the HWRF is good for intensity, the EURO is good for track, but the most accurate forecasts for both track and intensity are the HCCA and TVCN/IVCN consensus tools and the FSU Superensemble (which is generally even slightly more accurate than the NHC official forecast for track and intensity, but all four are roughly comparable).

One reason why HWRF's reputation is so bad is because people don't use it correctly. So many like watching it blow up invests into major hurricanes, but that's not what the model should be used for. If you give HWRF recon data and a defined system, it can perform extremely well.

Except 24 hours ago the HWRF was N of the Big Islands than brush Keys and on to its Cat 5 status.

[Hammy]

Interesting stuff! I would have never thought the HWRF would be one of the most accurate, considering the dismissive nature towards it by many here (including a few pros). Thank you for sharing.

GFDL and HWRF were the go-tos for intensity on intensity on this board back in 2005-2008, so I'm surprised HWRF's reputation has fallen behind its performance.

What I tend to see pros recommend (or what they should recommend, at any rate) is not relying on any one particular tool for forecasting, but rather pay attention to trends (both model trends with the storm itself since its formation, and climatological trends with storms of similar track so you can compensate for any systemic biases in the models e.g. the tendency for many models to underestimate ridges and overestimate troughs, thus the infamous rightward bias), the consensus aids, and how tightly the ensembles begin to consolidate or not (which reflects actual uncertainty in the forecast, unlike the essentially useless NHC "cone of uncertainty"); the HWRF is good for intensity, the EURO is good for track, but the most accurate forecasts for both track and intensity are the HCCA and TVCN/IVCN consensus tools and the FSU Superensemble (which is generally even slightly more accurate than the NHC official forecast for track and intensity, but all four are roughly comparable).

One reason why HWRF's reputation is so bad is because people don't use it correctly. So many like watching it blow up invests into major hurricanes, but that's not what the model should be used for. If you give HWRF recon data and a defined system, it can perform extremely well.

So it's essentially just for entertainment intensity-wise prior to recon data. I did notice it had more realistic forecasts with Gonzalo once the plane got out there.

[NDG]

GFDL and HWRF were the go-tos for intensity on intensity on this board back in 2005-2008, so I'm surprised HWRF's reputation has fallen behind its performance.

What I tend to see pros recommend (or what they should recommend, at any rate) is not relying on any one particular tool for forecasting, but rather pay attention to trends (both model trends with the storm itself since its formation, and climatological trends with storms of similar track so you can compensate for any systemic biases in the models e.g. the tendency for many models to underestimate ridges and overestimate troughs, thus the infamous rightward bias), the consensus aids, and how tightly the ensembles begin to consolidate or not (which reflects actual uncertainty in the forecast, unlike the essentially useless NHC "cone of uncertainty"); the HWRF is good for intensity, the EURO is good for track, but the most accurate forecasts for both track and intensity are the HCCA and TVCN/IVCN consensus tools and the FSU Superensemble (which is generally even slightly more accurate than the NHC official forecast for track and intensity, but all four are roughly comparable).

One reason why HWRF's reputation is so bad is because people don't use it correctly. So many like watching it blow up invests into major hurricanes, but that's not what the model should be used for. If you give HWRF recon data and a defined system, it can perform extremely well.

Except 24 hours ago the HWRF was N of the Big Islands than brush Keys and on to its Cat 5 status.

Yes, it has been right biased at times, it was the same with Isaias, now on its long range is to the left of the GFS & Euro with Laura.

[CrazyC83]

Wind data supports at least 55 kt now, maybe 60 kt if the SFMR is weighted less.

[HurricaneEdouard]

GFDL and HWRF were the go-tos for intensity on intensity on this board back in 2005-2008, so I'm surprised HWRF's reputation has fallen behind its performance.

What I tend to see pros recommend (or what they should recommend, at any rate) is not relying on any one particular tool for forecasting, but rather pay attention to trends (both model trends with the storm itself since its formation, and climatological trends with storms of similar track so you can compensate for any systemic biases in the models e.g. the tendency for many models to underestimate ridges and overestimate troughs, thus the infamous rightward bias), the consensus aids, and how tightly the ensembles begin to consolidate or not (which reflects actual uncertainty in the forecast, unlike the essentially useless NHC "cone of uncertainty"); the HWRF is good for intensity, the EURO is good for track, but the most accurate forecasts for both track and intensity are the HCCA and TVCN/IVCN consensus tools and the FSU Superensemble (which is generally even slightly more accurate than the NHC official forecast for track and intensity, but all four are roughly comparable).

One reason why HWRF's reputation is so bad is because people don't use it correctly. So many like watching it blow up invests into major hurricanes, but that's not what the model should be used for. If you give HWRF recon data and a defined system, it can perform extremely well.

Except 24 hours ago the HWRF was N of the Big Islands than brush Keys and on to its Cat 5 status.

HWRF is, statistically, one of the worst performing track models, so that shouldn't be surprising; it is one of the most reliable models for intensity. That said, if anyone paid privileged attention to any one particular run, they'd be using HWRF incorrectly as well!

[Kazmit]

I still say Marco appears to be weakening - This would have an effect on Laura, wouldn't it?

Based on that pressure, Laura is getting closer to hurricane strength. Although, given the large size the winds will take longer to increase

Gotta love the diversity of opinions on Storm2k!

We were talking about 2 different storms my guy.

Lol, I guess I saw it was on the Laura thread and assumed they were talking about Laura.

[NDG]

Good 55 knot winds found, 71 knot flight level winds. It took a jog to the WNW.

URNT15 KNHC 232013
AF305 0813A LAURA HDOB 33 20200823
200330 1950N 07425W 6967 03135 //// +079 //// 150040 040 040 004 01
200400 1951N 07423W 6966 03137 0053 +081 //// 153041 041 050 009 01
200430 1953N 07422W 6960 03141 0049 +085 +085 166048 060 053 033 00
200500 1954N 07420W 7014 03081 0070 +089 +089 161063 068 055 024 00
200530 1956N 07419W 6955 03152 0059 +094 +094 151067 071 056 023 03
200600 1957N 07418W 6978 03125 0062 +096 +096 149067 072 050 023 00
200630 1958N 07416W 6968 03141 0066 +096 +096 153059 065 051 022 03
200700 1959N 07415W 6970 03141 0070 +094 +094 153054 057 049 012 00
200730 2001N 07413W 6967 03151 0076 +094 +094 154050 054 049 010 00
200800 2002N 07412W 6972 03147 0085 +091 +091 144046 048 050 010 00
200830 2003N 07411W 6969 03152 0091 +088 +088 143043 045 047 010 03
200900 2004N 07409W 6967 03155 0086 +088 +088 143039 040 047 009 00
200930 2006N 07408W 6967 03157 0083 +088 +088 148041 042 049 008 00
201000 2007N 07407W 6967 03158 0091 +085 +085 147045 046 050 007 03
201030 2008N 07405W 6968 03157 0091 +085 +085 148046 046 045 009 00
201100 2010N 07404W 6967 03159 0087 +080 //// 148044 046 044 010 05
201130 2011N 07403W 6964 03164 //// +077 //// 145045 047 046 003 01
201200 2013N 07404W 6967 03159 //// +079 //// 141044 044 045 003 01
201230 2015N 07404W 6888 03249 //// +078 //// 142041 043 043 001 01
201300 2018N 07404W 6679 03502 //// +063 //// 140037 040 043 001 01
$$
;

[BYG Jacob]

Hurricane watches should go up

[cheezyWXguy]

GFDL and HWRF were the go-tos for intensity on intensity on this board back in 2005-2008, so I'm surprised HWRF's reputation has fallen behind its performance.

What I tend to see pros recommend (or what they should recommend, at any rate) is not relying on any one particular tool for forecasting, but rather pay attention to trends (both model trends with the storm itself since its formation, and climatological trends with storms of similar track so you can compensate for any systemic biases in the models e.g. the tendency for many models to underestimate ridges and overestimate troughs, thus the infamous rightward bias), the consensus aids, and how tightly the ensembles begin to consolidate or not (which reflects actual uncertainty in the forecast, unlike the essentially useless NHC "cone of uncertainty"); the HWRF is good for intensity, the EURO is good for track, but the most accurate forecasts for both track and intensity are the HCCA and TVCN/IVCN consensus tools and the FSU Superensemble (which is generally even slightly more accurate than the NHC official forecast for track and intensity, but all four are roughly comparable).

One reason why HWRF's reputation is so bad is because people don't use it correctly. So many like watching it blow up invests into major hurricanes, but that's not what the model should be used for. If you give HWRF recon data and a defined system, it can perform extremely well.

Except 24 hours ago the HWRF was N of the Big Islands than brush Keys and on to its Cat 5 status.

And as of 12z today it has the most reasonable short term track forecast from an accurate initialization point, unlike most of the others. In fact, in the short term, it’s probably handled Laura the best. Long term remains to be seen.

[hohnywx]

GFDL and HWRF were the go-tos for intensity on intensity on this board back in 2005-2008, so I'm surprised HWRF's reputation has fallen behind its performance.

What I tend to see pros recommend (or what they should recommend, at any rate) is not relying on any one particular tool for forecasting, but rather pay attention to trends (both model trends with the storm itself since its formation, and climatological trends with storms of similar track so you can compensate for any systemic biases in the models e.g. the tendency for many models to underestimate ridges and overestimate troughs, thus the infamous rightward bias), the consensus aids, and how tightly the ensembles begin to consolidate or not (which reflects actual uncertainty in the forecast, unlike the essentially useless NHC "cone of uncertainty"); the HWRF is good for intensity, the EURO is good for track, but the most accurate forecasts for both track and intensity are the HCCA and TVCN/IVCN consensus tools and the FSU Superensemble (which is generally even slightly more accurate than the NHC official forecast for track and intensity, but all four are roughly comparable).

One reason why HWRF's reputation is so bad is because people don't use it correctly. So many like watching it blow up invests into major hurricanes, but that's not what the model should be used for. If you give HWRF recon data and a defined system, it can perform extremely well.

Except 24 hours ago the HWRF was N of the Big Islands than brush Keys and on to its Cat 5 status.

The OP stated that its top-tier status is in terms of intensity, not track.

[supercane4867]

Did I just see 70kt+ flight level winds on recon?