ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
Jr0d
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1394
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:52 am
Location: Cayo Hueso

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#121 Postby Jr0d » Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:43 am

MGC wrote:I think it would be prudent for the NHC to issue PTC advisories at this point. Clearly a circulation and 92L is approaching Gulf Stream. At most this will be a TD or minimal TS at landfall......MGC


I don't think it's necessary. Why have an advisory for at best a minimal storm over a small area when an afternoon thunderstorm can bring more intense winds?

If this was expected to strengthen up to landfall then sure it would be justified but a mostly naked swirl that appears to be struggling to keep convection firing is really not much of threat, with the exception of marine hazards. Also the rain impact will likely be minimal for a tropical system regardless of it becomes a depression or even storm before landfall.

Issuing unnecessary tropical storm warnings also runs the risk of complacency when less informed folks get minimal weather who are under the advisory and are more likely to ignore future advisories.
3 likes   

Nuno
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:35 am
Location: Coral Gables, FL

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#122 Postby Nuno » Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:44 am

LarryWx wrote:
Nuno wrote:
LarryWx wrote:
So, center is on the far N edge of the main convection. Is this organized enough to warrant TD status? Opinions?


It's clearly a TD. It's so strange how it isn't at least designated as a *Potential* TC.


Convection isn’t quite organized enough to be designated a TD per NHC.


That isn't something to prevent the designation of a PTC, is it? Whether convection is organized or not, or to what extent, seems subjective from forecaster to forecaster.

Luckily this will be fairly weak at landfall, but I wish the criteria was a bit more clear in their public messaging.

Jr0d wrote:Issuing unnecessary tropical storm warnings also runs the risk of complacency when less informed folks get minimal weather who are under the advisory and are more likely to ignore future advisories.


The opposite is also dangerous. I would never call storm warnings unnecessary if the storms are actually going to produce the effects in the first place. Products exist for a reason. It is dangerous if one were to suddenly escalate and RI. Kind of a worrying omen that we have a system like this is June, and the NHC is going to have to make a lot of difficult decisions this summer.
Last edited by Nuno on Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:50 am, edited 3 times in total.
4 likes   
Andrew (1992), Irene (1999), Frances (2004), Katrina (2005), Wilma (2005), Fay (2008), Irma (2017), Eta (2020), Ian (2022)

User avatar
NDG
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 15444
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#123 Postby NDG » Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:45 am

Lame excuse not to upgrade it to TD2, but they're the experts.
4 likes   

BobHarlem
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#124 Postby BobHarlem » Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:45 am

This new convection blob pumped up shortly after they issued the Special TWO.
Image
3 likes   

ChrisH-UK
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat May 29, 2021 8:22 am

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#125 Postby ChrisH-UK » Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:55 am

Latest radar from KJAX, looks like its maybe starting to bundle up around a central rotation

Image
2 likes   

LarryWx
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 6246
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 2:04 pm
Location: GA

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#126 Postby LarryWx » Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:56 am

BobHarlem wrote:This new convection blob pumped up shortly after they issued the Special TWO.
https://i.imgur.com/PlWbmRE.png


That new convection is very close to the center, which is now over the Gulf Stream with its 83-84F SSTs.
2 likes   
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

User avatar
REDHurricane
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 394
Age: 27
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:36 pm
Location: Northeast Pacific Ocean

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#127 Postby REDHurricane » Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:58 am

Come on NHC, I'm not going to pretend like I know more than they do but if this isn't a TD (at minimum) then I have no idea what a TD even is
4 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5885
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#128 Postby MGC » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:06 am

Jr0d wrote:
MGC wrote:I think it would be prudent for the NHC to issue PTC advisories at this point. Clearly a circulation and 92L is approaching Gulf Stream. At most this will be a TD or minimal TS at landfall......MGC


I don't think it's necessary. Why have an advisory for at best a minimal storm over a small area when an afternoon thunderstorm can bring more intense winds?

If this was expected to strengthen up to landfall then sure it would be justified but a mostly naked swirl that appears to be struggling to keep convection firing is really not much of threat, with the exception of marine hazards. Also the rain impact will likely be minimal for a tropical system regardless of it becomes a depression or even storm before landfall.

Issuing unnecessary tropical storm warnings also runs the risk of complacency when less informed folks get minimal weather who are under the advisory and are more likely to ignore future advisories.


I've witnessed thunderstorms with over hurricane force winds....should we stop issuing hurricane warning? Yes, this is a marine hazard and PTC advisories could save a life at sea......MGC
4 likes   

User avatar
TheAustinMan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1046
Age: 25
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:26 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#129 Postby TheAustinMan » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:12 am

I'm definitely a little surprised by the lack of a TD/TS designation here. Recon was able to locate a well-defined center of circulation and transmitted a vortex data message --- something that's only done if such a center is located --- and 92L received Dvorak classifications this morning of T2.0 from the Tropical Analysis/Forecast Branch and T1.0 from the Satellite Analysis Branch. I would have assumed that the combination of these two factors would be sufficient for some classification, with the recon data justifying the "well-defined center" prong and the Dvorak satellite analysis justifying the "organized convection" prong. The NHC's decision not to initiate at 12Z or 15Z would comport with what I've sensed to be an internal shift away from designating short-fuse systems. That was even a part of my guess in the Storm2k season poll back in early May.

Models in the last two days have really not been able to capture this system in meaningful capacity, and that includes the higher resolution mesoscale models. Mid-level northerlies, which have been modeled, are inducing northerly shear over the system as apparent on satellite imagery. That said, while models do not show much further development, the system is far more organized than any model shows. It is a bit of a gamble by the NHC to not initiate here; it certainly would not be a good look if further intensification/development occurred closer to land. While this may not be a very impactful system, and likely won't be, from a consistency and scientific stewardship perspective it does seem a bit odd that this hasn't gotten the nod, let alone a red marker on the TWO.

Source: AWIPS CAVE
Image
Last edited by TheAustinMan on Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
8 likes   
ImageImageImage
Treat my opinions with a grain of salt. For official information see your local weather service.

Sciencerocks
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8903
Age: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:51 am

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#130 Postby Sciencerocks » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:13 am

2 likes   

Sciencerocks
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8903
Age: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:51 am

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#131 Postby Sciencerocks » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:14 am

Image
2 likes   

User avatar
Zonacane
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:23 pm

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#132 Postby Zonacane » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:17 am

Nice spiral band wrapping in
0 likes   

Nuno
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:35 am
Location: Coral Gables, FL

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#133 Postby Nuno » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:21 am

TheAustinMan wrote:It is a bit of a gamble by the NHC to not initiate here; it certainly would not be a good look if further intensification/development occurred closer to land.


You would know more than me, but isn't this the precise type of storm that the PTC designation was created for?
0 likes   
Andrew (1992), Irene (1999), Frances (2004), Katrina (2005), Wilma (2005), Fay (2008), Irma (2017), Eta (2020), Ian (2022)

zhukm29
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:37 pm

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#134 Postby zhukm29 » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:23 am

Very surprised this hasn’t been designated yet. Certainly looks better that systems that have been designated in the past, and I agree that from a consistency standpoint this should at least get an upgrade to TD2.
4 likes   

emeraldislenc
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:49 pm
Location: Emerald Isle NC

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#135 Postby emeraldislenc » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:27 am

I agree they have upgraded worse looking systems!
0 likes   

User avatar
chaser1
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5406
Age: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Longwood, Fl

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#136 Postby chaser1 » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:31 am

Nuno wrote:
LarryWx wrote:
Nuno wrote:
It's clearly a TD. It's so strange how it isn't at least designated as a *Potential* TC.


Convection isn’t quite organized enough to be designated a TD per NHC.


That isn't something to prevent the designation of a PTC, is it? Whether convection is organized or not, or to what extent, seems subjective from forecaster to forecaster.

Luckily this will be fairly weak at landfall, but I wish the criteria was a bit more clear in their public messaging.

Jr0d wrote:Issuing unnecessary tropical storm warnings also runs the risk of complacency when less informed folks get minimal weather who are under the advisory and are more likely to ignore future advisories.


The opposite is also dangerous. I would never call storm warnings unnecessary if the storms are actually going to produce the effects in the first place. Products exist for a reason. It is dangerous if one were to suddenly escalate and RI. Kind of a worrying omen that we have a system like this is June, and the NHC is going to have to make a lot of difficult decisions this summer.


This is a fair and good discussion.

NHC does a great job of projecting risk and protecting the general public in the face of a tropical cyclone risk. I personally think that some past tropical cyclone designations were unnecessary and not fully meeting "all" prerequisite characteristics especially in light of potential conditions like rainfall or storm surge flooding impact, where protecting the public interest was paramount. Having said that, I believe that forecasting itself along with communicating potential risk should be 100% consistent.

Issuing Watches or Warnings now would offer little benefit for giving the general public reasonable time to react. More importantly, I think it would convey a message that forecasters were "caught with there pants down" (which would be altogether wrong). In my opinion, the error might have been not a issuing PTC Watch at least 24 hours ago with the clear communication of risk potential being minimal and primarily associated with high seas and possible coastal impact such as minor coastal flooding and strong gusts in squalls. I was under the impression that Potential Tropical Cyclone alerts or warnings were created for this very reason.... not limited to those events where NHC was pretty sure that a last moment upgrade to tropical storm was likely or imminent.

Thus far the forecasting of 92L has been correct with exception of this small feature appearing to slightly overperform in terms of satellite presentation and better co-located convection. That's saying a lot considering how poorly all models performed.
6 likes   
Andy D

(For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.)

User avatar
kevin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2554
Age: 26
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:35 am

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#137 Postby kevin » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:46 am

Please explain it it to me if I an misunderstanding something here. But with many 30+ kt SFMR & surface wind estimates (as well as multiple 35 kt+ measurements) & a clear center with plenty of convection near it, how is this not at the very least a TD? It doesn't matter how long the TC will still have before landfall, a TD designation should not be subjective based on impacts or the presence of prior advisories, but purely on whether a system matches the requirements and as far as I can see this one does. The NHC consists of experts in their field so I'm sure they're making the right call, I just don't fully understand it myself so if anyone could clarify.
5 likes   

User avatar
kevin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2554
Age: 26
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:35 am

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#138 Postby kevin » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:55 am

53 kt SFMR (uncontaminated measurement) as well as 6 other 35+ kt SFMR measurements and a well-defined center with now at least < 6 kt FL winds. Not sure how they could still argue against an upgrade now.
2 likes   

User avatar
Hypercane_Kyle
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3344
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:58 pm
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#139 Postby Hypercane_Kyle » Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:59 am

kevin wrote:53 kt SFMR (uncontaminated measurement) as well as 6 other 35+ kt SFMR measurements and a well-defined center with now at least < 6 kt FL winds. Not sure how they could still argue against an upgrade now.


Flight level winds don't really match up... looks like a gust to me.
0 likes   
My posts are my own personal opinion, defer to the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and other NOAA products for decision making during hurricane season.

Sciencerocks
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8903
Age: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:51 am

Re: ATL: INVEST 92L - Discussion

#140 Postby Sciencerocks » Fri Jun 21, 2024 11:00 am

kevin wrote:53 kt SFMR (uncontaminated measurement) as well as 6 other 35+ kt SFMR measurements and a well-defined center with now at least < 6 kt FL winds. Not sure how they could still argue against an upgrade now.


As far as I am concern it will be a tropical storm in my archives and in my mind with such data. You can throw me in a prison cell and I won't ever stop saying it was. ;)
2 likes   


Return to “2024”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests