Hurricane season 2016

[TomK]

Ka'u is getting hammered this evening by heavy rains. For the last couple of days most of the convection associated with Darby has been to the south-east of the center of the storm, so guess this is no surprise, but it looks nasty down there.

[TomK]

Blurted by imemine:

"And then there’s the Weather Service predictions. I wonder why they held onto that dramatic turn to the North up the Hamakua Coast idea for so long. I don’t consider meteorology (at least when it comes to predicting the weather) to be a science as much as a branch of such that is under development. Primitive at best if the last few years of local predictions are any indication of the state of the art in general."

I didn't respond to this part of imemine's post because I couldn't understand it and thought I'd take a little time to see if it made any sense.

After some reflection, it doesn't.

The track imemine posted about earlier (the one that took Darby over Hilo and the Hamakua coast) was an average of all the forecast models. Anyone who understands how science works would not think that's where the storm would actually go, but would look at the errors associated with each model, understand how they are combined using standard error analyses and realize the storm would be found somewhere in what has been called here the "zone of uncertainty".

The storm hit the island within that zone, as predicted by meteorologists. It did not not go where imemine said it would.

So I'm puzzled as to why imemine thinks the science of meteorology is primitive when his own predictions are completely wrong while the meteorologists were right.

[ElysianWort]

Thanks to shockwaverider I'm still using the windyty map. Didn't realize you could switch between wind, rain, pressure, waves etc. on the right hand side. Much less need for meteorologist forecast when we have tools like that.

[Eric1600]

As I pointed out at time, it is difficult to predict turns in slow moving hurricanes. The GFS model turned out to be quite accurate for the 72 and 48 hour forecasts however the forecasters went with a composite prediction.

All hurricanes are steered by the upper atmosphere. However when they are slow moving or there are very tall mountains (10,000 feet or higher) there are no models that have a high success rate at predictions.

Weather forecasters who do this professionally like at NOAA are not just "second guessing and getting lucky". They know there are statistical weaknesses in the models. They assess the computer prediction and try to see if that makes sense and adjust the forecast accordingly -- including the error boundaries.

In reality the prediction error was well within the cone of their error boundaries. This means they both understand their models and have correctly estimated how much they models may fail to predict. This is way different from someone saying I think it will miss us because it feels like it.

The approximate error for landfall was about 45 miles, which is quite good considering how slow the storm moved, how disorganized it was and the interaction with the mountains.

[Chas]

OK, I'll throw my hat into the ring of Monday morning quarterbacking... er, Sunday morning meteorology.

I think Mauna Loa lures the hurricanes in, then destroys them. Same thing happened with Iselle, thereby proving my theory!

[]

[kalakoa]

Didn't realize you could switch between wind, rain, pressure, waves etc. on the right hand side. Much less need for meteorologist forecast

All it needs now is a checkbox for "guy standing in front of your island (while he talks about Oahu)".

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Weather forecasters who do this professionally like at NOAA are not just "second guessing and getting lucky"...
statistical weaknesses in the models...
forecast accordingly -- including the error boundaries.

Yes, exactly. These models, cones of uncertainty, and advisories are weather forecasts, not weather guarantees.

It's like when you drive home on Highway 130 weekday afternoons. Why is the traffic backed up? Why is it taking longer than you planned? Did you account for that '89 Nissan running out of gas and stopping in the middle of both southbound lanes this afternoon? Of the thousands of cars on the road, did you assess a high enough probability for that car's affect on all of the other cars?

“What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends on what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think. What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality." -David Bohm

[Kenney]

Boy, it's a good thing the storm passed us. It's dumping 2-3 " an hour here in HPP!

[Wao nahele kane]

Imemine wrote - "I don’t consider meteorology (at least when it comes to predicting the weather) to be a science as much as a branch of such that is under development." All science is under development, that said, I would agree that meteorology is, shall we say, behind the quotient in progressive advancements.

IMO, there's an unfortunate reason for this and it goes back to the fundamental adoption of what's known as the Coriolis Effect. The lions share of the research is based on those phenomina subject to said effect. The derivative of this is convection, conduction, etc. This is where the instrumentation work is focused. Measuring those aspects solely.

The interesting aspect is that while the Coriolist Effect gives us one explanation for rotational attributes based on the rotation of the Earth it has largly been the only considered driving force of rotation on the Earth scale systems. There is another known causation for rotation and it's one seldom discussed with enough potential importance when it come to Earth storm and climate systems.
Electrical exchange through a fluid, within a magnetic field, induces rotation. This important because we're fully aware that Earth facilitates a powerful electromagnet system. That system is not yet properly understood and as a consiquence (IMO), meteorology will continue to work as a largly handicapped member of the scientific community.

To add to that as a question to consider. Does the chemical composition of volcanic off gassing, when introduced into a storm system play any role in affecting a storm system? If so, how so? Is there an electracal aspect involved in a storm system and if so, do the composition of gasses play any role in said conductivy of storm system and its rotational attributes?

[MarkP]

I got only a little more than 4" yesterday and another .14" early this morning. Call it 4.5" total from Darby. That's here in Eden Roc. Maximum wind gust recorded was 25 mph. Not complaining but that was anticlimactic.