ATL: BERYL - Post-Tropical - Discussion

[wx98]

When it comes to CoC, radar can be deceiving too, not just satellite... Superimposing the microwave image Cycloneye shared with latest radar image.
https://i.ibb.co/bg95s8P/hb10.gif

I’d tend to trust low-level radar over any satellite product.

Satellite is a lot better because it is taken from above instead of radar which is taken from the side and has many different reasons to have deviations

Absolutely not. Radar is the way to go. If satellite was sufficient then severe warnings could be issued based on satellite alone.

[wx98]

I'm still calling for a landfall way North of Corpus Christi, thinking closer to the Port of Houston.

I’d trust the NHC forecast that currently has the center line forecast about 215 miles away from Houston near Padre Island.

[Charleswachal]

I’d tend to trust low-level radar over any satellite product.

Satellite is a lot better because it is taken from above instead of radar which is taken from the side and has many different reasons to have deviations

Absolutely not. Radar is the way to go. If satellite was sufficient then severe warnings could be issued based on satellite alone.

Radar is by far superior for tracking the center. This is why when the storm is within radar range, the NHC uses radar to issue location updates.

[Charleswachal]

I'm still calling for a landfall way North of Corpus Christi, thinking closer to the Port of Houston.

I’d trust the NHC forecast that currently has the center line forecast about 215 miles away from Houston near Padre Island.

I am pretty sure it will be north of the center line that NHC has. NHC even said further adjustments to the north may be needed

[GCANE]

Some dryline convection is pushing into the ULL.
Beryl is putting up a fight,
If you see some convection popping up deep in the ULL, then Beryl may have a better chance to restrengthen once she hits the water

[HurricaneBelle]

Galveston wasn’t in the cone until 10PM central last night and people were probably out partying. They’ve been out of the cone before then. The NHC are excellent forecasters, but are given a tool that is poor in its ability to communicate what it actually means. While we know better, a lot of people see they aren’t in the cone and it’s an all clear to them.

There’s a reason there has to be a 1 minute explanation of what the cone means during hurricane broadcasts. Given its public facing nature, the cone needs to be bigger, like 80% instead of 67% There’s a decent chance Beryl makes landfall outside the cone from 24 hours ago.

The NHC has the same messaging issue with intensity as well, but worse. What happened with Beryl seems to be happening with more storms as of late (Michael anyone?). The official intensity forecast gets completely blown out of the water due to RI and people end up facing a CAT 4/5 when they were told a far weaker storm was coming just 48 hours before. They may bury in the discussion something about "potential for intensification beyond forecast" but people aren't seeing that. I know they don't want to start a panic and over hype a storm, but they need to figure out a way to get the messaging out when there's a reasonable chance for RI and the strength cap is significantly higher than the official forecast. Maybe using some type of percentage figure like the SPC does for violent tornadoes? I don't know.

They did, it was called the wind speed (intensity) table, and they got rid of it. You can still see it in the advisory archives (look at 2008). I don’t know why they got rid of it, but they should bring it back.

First off, the cone is probably one of the more misleading tools that gets used. It was instituted to replace the "skinny black line" but all it does is amplify it with the average track error, it's still based on the projected path of the center. The cone shrinks every year as track forecasting improves (ideally it would shrink back to the skinny line) but storm impacts don't shrink in areal coverage.

The best product for wind forecasts is the Wind Speed Probabilities table issued as part of every advisory package, but nobody ever wants to seem to use it. You get the chances of 34-kt winds, 50-kt winds and 64-knot winds. Instead it's all "cone this" and "cone that". And there are storm surge products for that aspect of things.

[wx98]

I'm still calling for a landfall way North of Corpus Christi, thinking closer to the Port of Houston.

I’d trust the NHC forecast that currently has the center line forecast about 215 miles away from Houston near Padre Island.

I am pretty sure it will be north of the center line that NHC has. NHC even said further adjustments to the north may be needed

Maybe, but not by 200 miles…

[Ubuntwo]

The radar/satellite disparity makes a lot more sense if you use composite radar. The partial MW pass was not capturing the eyewall, rather, a band wrapping into it.

[wx98]

The NHC has the same messaging issue with intensity as well, but worse. What happened with Beryl seems to be happening with more storms as of late (Michael anyone?). The official intensity forecast gets completely blown out of the water due to RI and people end up facing a CAT 4/5 when they were told a far weaker storm was coming just 48 hours before. They may bury in the discussion something about "potential for intensification beyond forecast" but people aren't seeing that. I know they don't want to start a panic and over hype a storm, but they need to figure out a way to get the messaging out when there's a reasonable chance for RI and the strength cap is significantly higher than the official forecast. Maybe using some type of percentage figure like the SPC does for violent tornadoes? I don't know.

They did, it was called the wind speed (intensity) table, and they got rid of it. You can still see it in the advisory archives (look at 2008). I don’t know why they got rid of it, but they should bring it back.

First off, the cone is probably one of the more misleading tools that gets used. It was instituted to replace the "skinny black line" but all it does is amplify it with the average track error, it's still based on the projected path of the center. The cone shrinks every year as track forecasting improves (ideally it would shrink back to the skinny line) but storm impacts don't shrink in areal coverage.

The best product for wind forecasts is the Wind Speed Probabilities table issued as part of every advisory package, but nobody ever wants to seem to use it. You get the chances of 34-kt winds, 50-kt winds and 64-knot winds. Instead it's all "cone this" and "cone that". And there are storm surge products for that aspect of things.

And yet, with all the extra tools, the general person which this forecast is intended to inform, will instead be confused and misled because they don’t understand the complexity of the situation.

[cheezyWXguy]

I’d trust the NHC forecast that currently has the center line forecast about 215 miles away from Houston near Padre Island.

I am pretty sure it will be north of the center line that NHC has. NHC even said further adjustments to the north may be needed

Maybe, but not by 200 miles…

The 200 miles figure needs to be contextualized. Beryl will be nearly paralleling the coast close to landfall, so a deviation 10-20 miles east of the current track would result in a significantly farther north landfall point.

[HurricaneBelle]

They did, it was called the wind speed (intensity) table, and they got rid of it. You can still see it in the advisory archives (look at 2008). I don’t know why they got rid of it, but they should bring it back.

First off, the cone is probably one of the more misleading tools that gets used. It was instituted to replace the "skinny black line" but all it does is amplify it with the average track error, it's still based on the projected path of the center. The cone shrinks every year as track forecasting improves (ideally it would shrink back to the skinny line) but storm impacts don't shrink in areal coverage.

The best product for wind forecasts is the Wind Speed Probabilities table issued as part of every advisory package, but nobody ever wants to seem to use it. You get the chances of 34-kt winds, 50-kt winds and 64-knot winds. Instead it's all "cone this" and "cone that". And there are storm surge products for that aspect of things.

And yet, with all the extra tools, the general person which this forecast is intended to inform, will instead be confused and misled because they don’t understand the complexity of the situation.

And at some point it's on them because weather doesn't lend itself to simple, binary outcomes - there's always going to be a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. The NHC can't solve the innumeracy of the general public.

[HoustonFrog]

I’d trust the NHC forecast that currently has the center line forecast about 215 miles away from Houston near Padre Island.

I am pretty sure it will be north of the center line that NHC has. NHC even said further adjustments to the north may be needed

Maybe, but not by 200 miles…

In the past 24 hours the NHC track has moved a little over 100 miles

[tolakram]

I think the message is clear for those who are listening. Listening IS the problem.

I'll also say what I tell the developers working under me when I hear complaints without constructive criticism. If you have an idea, and it's well thought out, and considers everything we need to consider, please share it, otherwise your complaining is wasting our time.

[wx98]

First off, the cone is probably one of the more misleading tools that gets used. It was instituted to replace the "skinny black line" but all it does is amplify it with the average track error, it's still based on the projected path of the center. The cone shrinks every year as track forecasting improves (ideally it would shrink back to the skinny line) but storm impacts don't shrink in areal coverage.

The best product for wind forecasts is the Wind Speed Probabilities table issued as part of every advisory package, but nobody ever wants to seem to use it. You get the chances of 34-kt winds, 50-kt winds and 64-knot winds. Instead it's all "cone this" and "cone that". And there are storm surge products for that aspect of things.

And yet, with all the extra tools, the general person which this forecast is intended to inform, will instead be confused and misled because they don’t understand the complexity of the situation.

And at some point it's on them because weather doesn't lend itself to simple, binary outcomes - there's always going to be a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. The NHC can't solve the innumeracy of the general public.

Correct, and unfortunately that point is poorly understood by most.

[HurricaneBrain]

200 miles of coastline deviation is deceiving when it comes to a storm moving north alongside a coast that is oriented vertically. For example, Corpus Christi is 165 miles away from Matamoros but the two cities are only like 20 miles apart horizontally. With a storm moving north, parallel to the Texas coast, forecasted landfall points are extremely sensitive and subject change at a higher rate than a storm moving perpendicularly north toward a horizontal oriented coast.

I’d trust the NHC forecast that currently has the center line forecast about 215 miles away from Houston near Padre Island.

I am pretty sure it will be north of the center line that NHC has. NHC even said further adjustments to the north may be needed

Maybe, but not by 200 miles…

[Kazmit]

So from NHC position to the coast is about 115 miles to the coast at 290 degree heading. 7 hours to splashdown.

I measured exactly 100 miles to the coast using NHC's predicted path to the next forecast point. A little over 6 hours.

[wx98]

200 miles of coastline deviation is deceiving when it comes to a storm moving north alongside a coast that is oriented vertically. For example, Corpus Christi is 165 miles away from Matamoros but the two cities are only like 20 miles apart horizontally. With a storm moving north, parallel to the Texas coast, forecasted landfall points are extremely sensitive and subject change at a higher rate than a storm moving perpendicularly north toward a horizontal oriented coast.

I am pretty sure it will be north of the center line that NHC has. NHC even said further adjustments to the north may be needed

Maybe, but not by 200 miles…

We’ll ultimately see, but I’ll still bank on a landfall closer to Padre/Corpus than Houston/Galveston. I’ll hold further discussion of this specific topic until we see for sure.

[AerospaceEng]

So from NHC position to the coast is about 115 miles to the coast at 290 degree heading. 7 hours to splashdown.

I measured exactly 100 miles to the coast using NHC's predicted path to the next forecast point. A little over 6 hours.

Ah yes, good point. This is a better method than mine. Thanks.

[Pipelines182]

In my experience as a meteorologist, probabilistic messaging and extra statements of uncertainty just confuse the general public. All they want to know is where, when, and how strong. When you start talking “if this, then that, but if not, then this when this happens” you lose people immediately.

We already use percentages for tornadoes, heck we even do for rain. While you do run into the issue where people complain about it raining/not raining when it was "forecast to rain" that doesn't stop us from using percentages because that's the best way to forecast those events. What's worse, causing some confusion or misleading the public? Because the current messaging is the latter.

I think the cone is sufficient. The problem is the average normie will always think the forecast is wrong. If you have a cat 5 bearing down on the coast like Beryl, and the Hurricane winds extend out 20 miles, the majority of people in a given warning or percentage area will be wrong. You could have a storm coming in to miami and the at the last minute it wobbles north and hit west palm beach miami would miss the eyewall where the really bad weather is. Everyone in miami would get complacent because the weathermen were wrong, even though they werent.

Hurricanes are so fickle, they are very large but also in a way very small and its hard to forecast a specific person's weather.

Ive seen people complain because it was "supposed to rain" when it rained over the entire CWA except a small part over a bunch of people, and they all said the weatherman was wrong, its the unreasonable expectations of the general public, the NHC does an amazing job forecasting these storms. Intensity is the hardest part, there is no way NHC should have put out a cat 5 in the initial cone.

Take 2 storms with the same conditions, one might blow up like beryl, one might struggle for some reason. Can't really forecast that.

If the normies always think the forecast is wrong, then why would it hurt to add some additional information? The NHC is already going to issue a new forecast graphic this year with far more information than the old one. They know their forecast graphic is lacking in information and they're trying to improve it, thankfully.

I'm not suggesting they put a "Cat 5" in the cone, that would be irresponsible, I'm saying they add something like "10% probability of rapid intensification well beyond forecast strength" or even something as simple as "10% risk of rapid intensification". That's not going to freak people out and cause a panic, it's also clear they aren't forecasting "a cat 5" but at least it gets something on the graphic that lets people know that there's a real risk the storm could be far stronger than forecast. The main issue for me is the forecast for two storms with DIFFERENT conditions will look like the same forecast if they're both forecast to hit at the same intensity. A storm traveling over cooler water/some shear should not have the same forecast graphic as one traveling over a bathtub with no shear, even if both are predicted to make landfall at the same intensity. Everyone here knows what can happen in just 48 hours with perfect conditions, we just saw a TD turn into a Cat 4 in less time than that, the normies need to know that too and that's on the NHC to figure out how to get that message to them.

[underthwx]

If Beryl continues toward the Yucatán with her general movement the past 5 hours, she will clip it. That WSW movement will need to happen today for models to verify.

I have wondered if Beryl will just graze the northern edge of the Yucatan?....and continue towards the border of Mexico/Texas?....and restrengthen?....will that be the outcome?

If that were to happen then Corpus Christi to Galveston better watch out big time.

From what I am reading....I would reluctantly agree...