AnnularCane wrote:At some point I was going to bring up how the NOLA area got hit with another storm named Bill back in 2003, but that may not be necessary.
Bill ‘03 was great. Center of circulation passed overhead.
Moderator: S2k Moderators
AnnularCane wrote:At some point I was going to bring up how the NOLA area got hit with another storm named Bill back in 2003, but that may not be necessary.
Steve wrote:AnnularCane wrote:At some point I was going to bring up how the NOLA area got hit with another storm named Bill back in 2003, but that may not be necessary.
Bill ‘03 was great. Center of circulation passed overhead.
Shell Mound wrote:Steve wrote:AnnularCane wrote:At some point I was going to bring up how the NOLA area got hit with another storm named Bill back in 2003, but that may not be necessary.
Bill ‘03 was great. Center of circulation passed overhead.
Interestingly, 2021 and 2003 share the same list of names. Of course, if 92L were to become Claudette, it would be far more mundane than 2003’s iteration.
eastcoastFL wrote:Is there any chance the center ends up being pulled further East where most of the convection is?
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES16/ABI/SECTOR/gm/GEOCOLOR/20211651841_GOES16-ABI-gm-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.jpg
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES16/ABI/SECTOR/gm/Sandwich/20211651836_GOES16-ABI-gm-Sandwich-1000x1000.jpg
I know at least one model showed development coming from the area of persistent convection off of the Yucatán
AnnularCane wrote:If that Euro run actually happens, I may have to think about evacuating.If it just went a little further north...
tailgater wrote:AnnularCane wrote:If that Euro run actually happens, I may have to think about evacuating.If it just went a little further north...
Well if you can believe the new crazy uncle the “navgem” you might want to start mapping a route:)
USTropics wrote:eastcoastFL wrote:Is there any chance the center ends up being pulled further East where most of the convection is?
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES16/ABI/SECTOR/gm/GEOCOLOR/20211651841_GOES16-ABI-gm-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.jpg
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES16/ABI/SECTOR/gm/Sandwich/20211651836_GOES16-ABI-gm-Sandwich-1000x1000.jpg
I know at least one model showed development coming from the area of persistent convection off of the Yucatán
Yes, that's still a possibility as well. We will likely see multiple, embedded areas of vorticity maxima within the larger gyre circulation over the coming days with this system. The 12z GFS 850mb forecast is a great illustration of this:
https://s6.gifyu.com/images/68d29d82-6390-4cb0-8e87-052c03ccee58.gif
In fact, looking at the synoptic setup, a center establishing more towards the NE is as realistic a scenario as a center remaining towards the south when analyzing RH and shear forecasts. Dry, continental air will be established on the western side of the gyre as the high pressure over the SW United States flattens out in the next 3-5 days, and any vorticity that tries to establish itself could entrain some of this dry air. This isn't as much of an issue on the eastern side of the gyre:
https://i.imgur.com/MwrEmcx.png
The issue with a low-level center forming towards the NE is the shear axis. However, if there isn't a dominant low-level vort max already established to the south, it's not uncommon for an LLC to follow lowering pressures, which would be towards the NE. The curvature of the shear axis could also help "spin up" a low-level circulation in this area as well; it's a tricky dance of getting too close to the fire but not getting burned.
https://i.imgur.com/EuUJ1KM.png
Regardless of the outcome, a sheared and east weighted system is expected. This will likely be a system where the mid-level and lower-level circulations never become fully stacked (check out the 12z ECMWF forecast, where land interaction actually assists in tightening up the vort maxima at the lower levels).
https://s6.gifyu.com/images/ecmwf_uv850_vort_atl_fh0-192.gif
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests