2020 Hurricane Season w/ special guest Covid-19

[Hate 20149]

This is the latest I could find but I’m not sure how accurate it is.

[crimsonlonghorn 2310]

Still going to be a little stormy in Houston from over the next 24-36 hours. A hurricane that big less than 100 miles away will still cause a pretty significant pressure gradient and good winds and rain from the outer bands. Avoiding the eye means we avoided being scoured down to the concrete, but the weather will still be bad.  

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by crimsonlonghorn

[crimsonlonghorn 2310]

6z GFS seems to be even further east. 

 

 

 

[crimsonlonghorn 2310]

6z Euro about the same. 

 

[crimsonlonghorn 2310]

I am curious what the GFS sees to give Houston slightly more rain. 

[Bert Orange 1121]

GFS fucking nailed it

[Zonahorn 8079]

Pressure has dropped 10mb in like 2.5 hours. And this still has a day over the GoM. Category 4 is a lock. 

[phdhorn 6224]

15 hours ago, Pancho said:

I feel like i just heard this exact same explanation from the aggy weatherman on abc13 just 2 minutes ago. Are you the aggy weatherman in real life?

The more appropriate question is, "what are you doing listening to aggy weathermen?"

But like stopped clocks twice a day, even an aggy can be right.  Now, something to waste your time reading while we're sitting around waiting to get hurricaned; this thought, stemmed by Rita and now Laura:

Why I Can Get Fershimmeled About A Hurricane in Austin

Generally of course we don't think of Austin as particularly vulnerable to hurricanes or tropical storms; it lies well inside the state, 200 miles from the coast, no less inland than say Atlanta, Pittsburgh or Syracuse NY.  For the most part, the great number of hurricanes lose their hurricane strength once about 50-60 miles inland, and even TS strength about 100 miles.  So you'd think that Austin isn't a big deal for hurricane damage.  Of course the flooding risk is more likely, but for the most part, hurricanes aren't linked to major damage in our inland Texas cities, so this lack of concern are generally valid.

However, there is a scenario where this isn't true.  And Rita was almost one of them.

Rita formed in mid-September 2006, and churned a NW path up the Gulf, during which time it became, and still is, the most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the Gulf.  And it was at its peak strength for 18 hours, getting to within 300 miles of the Mississippi Delta before it weakened.  It finally hit land as a strong Cat 3 - still enough to be one of the most damaging storms (on the heels of Katrina a month later, no less) in W Louisiana especially, despite hitting in a fairly non-populated area (and a little too far W of NOLA to revisit it with Katrina-level damage).

At the time I didn't pay much attention to it, but 2 things began to bother me:  first, it was barreling up the Gulf at a pretty good clip - about 17 mph as it neared land.  The second thing was its track - straight up towards Corpus with a (possible run up I-37 and turning west of Austin, putting the city in its eastern flank.

What concerned me is that under the right conditions, if a major Cat 5, moving inland at 15-20 mph were to bullseye Austin, even by the time it got the 200 miles inland, it would still be a hurricane with 90-100 mph sustained winds.  In a city like Austin which is not built with hurricane winds in mind, the damage would be significant.  The thought of 90 mph winds slamming against my house for 8-9 hours wasn't a pleasant thought (though I'm sure our resident roofer would be in hog heaven).  I briefly thought about moving SE to hole up for an evening with the family believe it or not.  For just a few hours it looked like Rita could be "one of those."

However, Rita took the now-too-familiar "right turn at Albuquerque" and actually went NE into far E Texas and W Louisiana.  And again, when it did, it "weakened" to a Cat 3, but of course one with 115-120 mph winds - still a major 'cane ("Devastating" on the Safford-Simpson Scale).  And it was.  And Ike did almost the same thing only 3 years later - tantalizingly teasing Austin with the threat of a damaging storm - but then even making a harder right (almost 90°!) just before land, and you know what it did to High Island and the Bolivar Peninsula (and a good chunk of Galveston despite it being just east of the city).  Harvey of course was a major flooding concern for Austin (again it sort of stopped with the huge rains as close as Bastrop but turned NE finally after its crazy track - but the winds weren't going to be a problem).

Now the odds of this "perfect storm" for Austin are relatively low.  First, it has to have a good "head start" by being a Cat 5 or high Cat 4.  Anything less it will still pack a punch but not to this degree.  Second, the track has to be such that it crosses the least mileage of land into Austin -  of course this is straight up 37 from Corpus.  Third, it would have to turn north after it got west of town - any earlier and Austin would be on its west side - still potent if a weakening Cat 5 but not like the eastern side.  And fourth, it would have to maintain or pick up speed (which most hurricanes do when finally over land - the land acts as a "grip" and pushes the hurricane faster, kind of like getting a push from behind on a swing).  Most hurricanes are going to weaken before landfall due to some of it being over land and disrupting the flow of the storm, even before the eye gets over land - which is its real killer, and near land air currents are often more pronounced which can shear it, not to mention the pulling in of drier air near land.  

But it's possible - the nightmare scenario is a strong Cat 4 getting near Corpus moving about 12-15 mph, hitting some warm water in the current which is just off the Texas coast, with calm weather on land, and ramping up to 17-20 mph as it strengthens to a 5, then accelerating to 20-25 mph west of Austin and turning north. 

Generally I don't worry too much about that scenario, as it's pretty remote.  But that one day in 2005 I got a little concerned, and always keep an eye out for the "perfect storm" in Austin.  I would imagine it's happened in geological history, and could again.  Nothing to lose sleep over - but  - <cue scary sci-fi music>) never say never!

Edited August 26, 2020 by phdhorn

[Zonahorn 8079]

 

[crimsonlonghorn 2310]

9 minutes ago, Bert Orange said:

GFS fucking nailed it

Sure did.

As mentioned earlier, the NHC have balls of steal the way they stuck to their guns and didn't panic and send Houston into even more of a panic on its own. That one run of the Euro on Monday night was enough to get it started - had the NHC guys followed it would have been Deep Impact around here. 

Kudos to the American model and the American forecasters. 

[Jshep34 2323]

With the euro model if eye crosses lake charles what does it mean for east houston

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Zonahorn 8079]

Just now, Jshep34 said:

With the euro model if eye crosses lake charles what does it mean for east houston

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

TS force winds and squalls

[Orange&White 5539]

41 minutes ago, HoustonFrog said:

Yeah it’s going to be a monster but going to hit in a great place based on population. Couldn’t have asked for much better

I mean...we could have asked that it was a CAT526 and it went through Oklahoma and wiped the entire state and all of the people off the map, but I see your point.

[South Austin 52637]

21 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

Rita formed in mid-September 2006, and churned a NW path up the Gulf, during which time it became, and still is, the most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the Gulf.  And it was at its peak strength for 18 hours, getting to within 300 miles of the Mississippi Delta before it weakened.  It finally hit land as a strong Cat 3 - still enough to be one of the most damaging storms (on the heels of Katrina a month later, no less) in W Louisiana especially, despite hitting in a fairly non-populated area (and a little too far W of NOLA to revisit it with Katrina-level damage).

Small nitpick, but Katrina and Rita hit in 2005, not 2006.

And I'm sure somewhere in there you wrote "your" instead of "you're."

[Orange&White 5539]

22 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

The more appropriate question is, "what are you doing listening to aggy weathermen?"

But like stopped clocks twice a day, even an aggy can be right.  Now, something to waste your time reading while we're sitting around waiting to get hurricaned; this thought, stemmed by Rita and now Laura:

Why I Can Get Fershimmeled About A Hurricane in Austin

Generally of course we don't think of Austin as particularly vulnerable to hurricanes or tropical storms; it lies well inside the state, 200 miles from the coast, no less inland than say Atlanta, Pittsburgh or Syracuse NY.  For the most part, the great number of hurricanes lose their hurricane strength once about 50-60 miles inland, and even TS strength about 100 miles.  So you'd think that Austin isn't a big deal for hurricane damage.  Of course the flooding risk is more likely, but for the most part, hurricanes aren't linked to major damage in our inland Texas cities, so this lack of concern are generally valid.

However, there is a scenario where this isn't true.  And Rita was almost one of them.

Rita formed in mid-September 2006, and churned a NW path up the Gulf, during which time it became, and still is, the most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the Gulf.  And it was at its peak strength for 18 hours, getting to within 300 miles of the Mississippi Delta before it weakened.  It finally hit land as a strong Cat 3 - still enough to be one of the most damaging storms (on the heels of Katrina a month later, no less) in W Louisiana especially, despite hitting in a fairly non-populated area (and a little too far W of NOLA to revisit it with Katrina-level damage).

At the time I didn't pay much attention to it, but 2 things began to bother me:  first, it was barreling up the Gulf at a pretty good clip - about 17 mph as it neared land.  The second thing was its track - straight up towards Corpus with a (possible run up I-37 and turning west of Austin, putting the city in its eastern flank.

What concerned me is that under the right conditions, if a major Cat 5, moving inland at 15-20 mph were to bullseye Austin, even by the time it got the 200 miles inland, it would still be a hurricane with 90-100 mph sustained winds.  In a city like Austin which is not built with hurricane winds in mind, the damage would be significant.  The thought of 90 mph winds slamming against my house for 8-9 hours wasn't a pleasant thought (though I'm sure our resident roofer would be in hog heaven).  I briefly thought about moving SE to hole up for an evening with the family believe it or not.  For just a few hours it looked like Rita could be "one of those."

However, Rita took the now-too-familiar "right turn at Albuquerque" and actually went NE into far E Texas and W Louisiana.  And again, when it did, it "weakened" to a Cat 3, but of course one with 115-120 mph winds - still a major 'cane ("Devastating" on the Safford-Simpson Scale).  And it was.  And Ike did almost the same thing only 3 years later - tantalizingly teasing Austin with the threat of a damaging storm - but then even making a harder right (almost 90°!) just before land, and you know what it did to High Island and the Bolivar Peninsula (and a good chunk of Galveston despite it being just east of the city).  Harvey of course was a major flooding concern for Austin (again it sort of stopped with the huge rains as close as Bastrop but turned NE finally after its crazy track - but the winds weren't going to be a problem).

Now the odds of this "perfect storm" for Austin are relatively low.  First, it has to have a good "head start" by being a Cat 5 or high Cat 4.  Anything less it will still pack a punch but not to this degree.  Second, the track has to be such that it crosses the least mileage of land into Austin -  of course this is straight up 37 from Corpus.  Third, it would have to turn north after it got west of town - any earlier and Austin would be on its west side - still potent if a weakening Cat 5 but not like the eastern side.  And fourth, it would have to maintain or pick up speed (which most hurricanes do when finally over land - the land acts as a "grip" and pushes the hurricane faster, kind of like getting a push from behind on a swing).  Most hurricanes are going to weaken before landfall due to some of it being over land and disrupting the flow of the storm, even before the eye gets over land - which is its real killer, and near land air currents are often more pronounced which can shear it, not to mention the pulling in of drier air near land.  

But it's possible - the nightmare scenario is a strong Cat 4 getting near Corpus moving about 12-15 mph, hitting some warm water in the current which is just off the Texas coast, with calm weather on land, and ramping up to 17-20 mph as it strengthens to a 5, then accelerating to 20-25 mph west of Austin and turning north. 

Generally I don't worry too much about that scenario, as it's pretty remote.  But that one day in 2005 I got a little concerned, and always keep an eye out for the "perfect storm" in Austin.  I would imagine it's happened in geological history, and could again.  Nothing to lose sleep over - but  - <cue scary sci-fi music>) never say never!

With everything that has happened thus far this year, this post is basically like a double dog dare to the next hurricane to thread every needle you just described and come straight to Austin as a CAT4.

 

[Welch 635]

20 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

The more appropriate question is, "what are you doing listening to aggy weathermen?"

But like stopped clocks twice a day, even an aggy can be right.  Now, something to waste your time reading while we're sitting around waiting to get hurricaned; this thought, stemmed by Rita and now Laura:

Why I Can Get Fershimmeled About A Hurricane in Austin

Generally of course we don't think of Austin as particularly vulnerable to hurricanes or tropical storms; it lies well inside the state, 200 miles from the coast, no less inland than say Atlanta, Pittsburgh or Syracuse NY.  For the most part, the great number of hurricanes lose their hurricane strength once about 50-60 miles inland, and even TS strength about 100 miles.  So you'd think that Austin isn't a big deal for hurricane damage.  Of course the flooding risk is more likely, but for the most part, hurricanes aren't linked to major damage in our inland Texas cities, so this lack of concern are generally valid.

However, there is a scenario where this isn't true.  And Rita was almost one of them.

Rita formed in mid-September 2006, and churned a NW path up the Gulf, during which time it became, and still is, the most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the Gulf.  And it was at its peak strength for 18 hours, getting to within 300 miles of the Mississippi Delta before it weakened.  It finally hit land as a strong Cat 3 - still enough to be one of the most damaging storms (on the heels of Katrina a month later, no less) in W Louisiana especially, despite hitting in a fairly non-populated area (and a little too far W of NOLA to revisit it with Katrina-level damage).

At the time I didn't pay much attention to it, but 2 things began to bother me:  first, it was barreling up the Gulf at a pretty good clip - about 17 mph as it neared land.  The second thing was its track - straight up towards Corpus with a (possible run up I-37 and turning west of Austin, putting the city in its eastern flank.

What concerned me is that under the right conditions, if a major Cat 5, moving inland at 15-20 mph were to bullseye Austin, even by the time it got the 200 miles inland, it would still be a hurricane with 90-100 mph sustained winds.  In a city like Austin which is not built with hurricane winds in mind, the damage would be significant.  The thought of 90 mph winds slamming against my house for 8-9 hours wasn't a pleasant thought (though I'm sure our resident roofer would be in hog heaven).  I briefly thought about moving SE to hole up for an evening with the family believe it or not.  For just a few hours it looked like Rita could be "one of those."

However, Rita took the now-too-familiar "right turn at Albuquerque" and actually went NE into far E Texas and W Louisiana.  And again, when it did, it "weakened" to a Cat 3, but of course one with 115-120 mph winds - still a major 'cane ("Devastating" on the Safford-Simpson Scale).  And it was.  And Ike did almost the same thing only 3 years later - tantalizingly teasing Austin with the threat of a damaging storm - but then even making a harder right (almost 90°!) just before land, and you know what it did to High Island and the Bolivar Peninsula (and a good chunk of Galveston despite it being just east of the city).  Harvey of course was a major flooding concern for Austin (again it sort of stopped with the huge rains as close as Bastrop but turned NE finally after its crazy track - but the winds weren't going to be a problem).

Now the odds of this "perfect storm" for Austin are relatively low.  First, it has to have a good "head start" by being a Cat 5 or high Cat 4.  Anything less it will still pack a punch but not to this degree.  Second, the track has to be such that it crosses the least mileage of land into Austin -  of course this is straight up 37 from Corpus.  Third, it would have to turn north after it got west of town - any earlier and Austin would be on its west side - still potent if a weakening Cat 5 but not like the eastern side.  And fourth, it would have to maintain or pick up speed (which most hurricanes do when finally over land - the land acts as a "grip" and pushes the hurricane faster, kind of like getting a push from behind on a swing).  Most hurricanes are going to weaken before landfall due to some of it being over land and disrupting the flow of the storm, even before the eye gets over land - which is its real killer, and near land air currents are often more pronounced which can shear it, not to mention the pulling in of drier air near land.  

But it's possible - the nightmare scenario is a strong Cat 4 getting near Corpus moving about 12-15 mph, hitting some warm water in the current which is just off the Texas coast, with calm weather on land, and ramping up to 17-20 mph as it strengthens to a 5, then accelerating to 20-25 mph west of Austin and turning north. 

Generally I don't worry too much about that scenario, as it's pretty remote.  But that one day in 2005 I got a little concerned, and always keep an eye out for the "perfect storm" in Austin.  I would imagine it's happened in geological history, and could again.  Nothing to lose sleep over - but  - <cue scary sci-fi music>) never say never!

I’ve been worried about this for a while.  Back in 2010, Hermine wasn’t even a hurricane when it made landfall near Brownsville... but it ended up passing directly over us in San Antonio and even those winds were memorable.

All the talking heads on TV have been patting themselves on the back all week, telling us that Laura won’t be another Harvey.  I mean, that’s true... but it fails to mention that hurricane-level winds are possible as far inland as Lufkin and Alexandria.  That’s a big deal.

[NorthLoop 14254]

42 minutes ago, Hate said:

This is the latest I could find but I’m not sure how accurate it is.

lol no

Austin isn't getting 39-57 mph winds from this storm. Nor is Lufkin getting 74-110. 

[Enchubben 5512]

If anyone is trying to do a good deed today, you can donate to the Cajun Navy. I didn’t need them during Harvey but they did a ton for Houston during Harvey. It’s 501c(3) and essentially funds fuel for the boats and some small supplies/PPE that they hand out to those they help.

https://fundly.com/2020-ucn-response-funding

[dcbc 14544]

4 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

There is some steering wind from Mexico pushing it and then another high pressure system pulling it for it to make it's turn is what the weather channel is saying.  

The wind map is interesting to take a look at.  Surprisingly, (to my non-meteorological ass), of the two wind patters that are guiding landfall, the one in the western gulf isn't nearly as distinct as it was yesterday afternoon.  Yesterday, you could see a pathway to the TX/LA border.  Now, the western gulf pattern looks more subdued.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-92.74,29.79,3000/loc=-90.422,30.492

Edited August 26, 2020 by dcbc

[markstanco 12634]

Lufkin creates its own low pressure from sucking so I beg to differ. 

[crimsonlonghorn 2310]

5 minutes ago, dcbc said:

The wind map is interesting to take a look at.  Surprisingly, (to my non-meteorological ass), of the two wind patters that are guiding landfall, the one in the western gulf isn't nearly as distinct as it was yesterday afternoon.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-92.74,29.79,3000/loc=-90.422,30.492

What's important is that gap directly over the Sabine River where the winds are weaker. That's the edge of ridge that is going to pull it north. 

Edited August 26, 2020 by crimsonlonghorn

[Zonahorn 8079]

12 minutes ago, markstanco said:

Lufkin creates its own low pressure from sucking so I beg to differ. 

Giant low pressure permanently over Oklahoma makes sense now

Edited August 26, 2020 by Calihorn

[Amos Moses 795]

6 minutes ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

What's important is that gap directly over the Sabine River where the winds are weaker. That's the edge of ridge that is going to pull it north. 

Mind the gap.

That's a cool way to depict it - thanks.  Most of the maps intending to depict the high pressure ridge just show the lines of pressure gradients.  

[dcbc 14544]

21 minutes ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

What's important is that gap directly over the Sabine River where the winds are weaker. That's the edge of ridge that is going to pull it north. 

Very interesting.  Thanks. 

 

Also, the amount of suckage from Oklahoma is well depicted.

[UTexasFight 9556]

1 hour ago, phdhorn said:

The more appropriate question is, "what are you doing listening to aggy weathermen?"

But like stopped clocks twice a day, even an aggy can be right.  Now, something to waste your time reading while we're sitting around waiting to get hurricaned; this thought, stemmed by Rita and now Laura:

Why I Can Get Fershimmeled About A Hurricane in Austin

Generally of course we don't think of Austin as particularly vulnerable to hurricanes or tropical storms; it lies well inside the state, 200 miles from the coast, no less inland than say Atlanta, Pittsburgh or Syracuse NY.  For the most part, the great number of hurricanes lose their hurricane strength once about 50-60 miles inland, and even TS strength about 100 miles.  So you'd think that Austin isn't a big deal for hurricane damage.  Of course the flooding risk is more likely, but for the most part, hurricanes aren't linked to major damage in our inland Texas cities, so this lack of concern are generally valid.

However, there is a scenario where this isn't true.  And Rita was almost one of them.

Rita formed in mid-September 2006, and churned a NW path up the Gulf, during which time it became, and still is, the most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the Gulf.  And it was at its peak strength for 18 hours, getting to within 300 miles of the Mississippi Delta before it weakened.  It finally hit land as a strong Cat 3 - still enough to be one of the most damaging storms (on the heels of Katrina a month later, no less) in W Louisiana especially, despite hitting in a fairly non-populated area (and a little too far W of NOLA to revisit it with Katrina-level damage).

At the time I didn't pay much attention to it, but 2 things began to bother me:  first, it was barreling up the Gulf at a pretty good clip - about 17 mph as it neared land.  The second thing was its track - straight up towards Corpus with a (possible run up I-37 and turning west of Austin, putting the city in its eastern flank.

What concerned me is that under the right conditions, if a major Cat 5, moving inland at 15-20 mph were to bullseye Austin, even by the time it got the 200 miles inland, it would still be a hurricane with 90-100 mph sustained winds.  In a city like Austin which is not built with hurricane winds in mind, the damage would be significant.  The thought of 90 mph winds slamming against my house for 8-9 hours wasn't a pleasant thought (though I'm sure our resident roofer would be in hog heaven).  I briefly thought about moving SE to hole up for an evening with the family believe it or not.  For just a few hours it looked like Rita could be "one of those."

However, Rita took the now-too-familiar "right turn at Albuquerque" and actually went NE into far E Texas and W Louisiana.  And again, when it did, it "weakened" to a Cat 3, but of course one with 115-120 mph winds - still a major 'cane ("Devastating" on the Safford-Simpson Scale).  And it was.  And Ike did almost the same thing only 3 years later - tantalizingly teasing Austin with the threat of a damaging storm - but then even making a harder right (almost 90°!) just before land, and you know what it did to High Island and the Bolivar Peninsula (and a good chunk of Galveston despite it being just east of the city).  Harvey of course was a major flooding concern for Austin (again it sort of stopped with the huge rains as close as Bastrop but turned NE finally after its crazy track - but the winds weren't going to be a problem).

Now the odds of this "perfect storm" for Austin are relatively low.  First, it has to have a good "head start" by being a Cat 5 or high Cat 4.  Anything less it will still pack a punch but not to this degree.  Second, the track has to be such that it crosses the least mileage of land into Austin -  of course this is straight up 37 from Corpus.  Third, it would have to turn north after it got west of town - any earlier and Austin would be on its west side - still potent if a weakening Cat 5 but not like the eastern side.  And fourth, it would have to maintain or pick up speed (which most hurricanes do when finally over land - the land acts as a "grip" and pushes the hurricane faster, kind of like getting a push from behind on a swing).  Most hurricanes are going to weaken before landfall due to some of it being over land and disrupting the flow of the storm, even before the eye gets over land - which is its real killer, and near land air currents are often more pronounced which can shear it, not to mention the pulling in of drier air near land.  

But it's possible - the nightmare scenario is a strong Cat 4 getting near Corpus moving about 12-15 mph, hitting some warm water in the current which is just off the Texas coast, with calm weather on land, and ramping up to 17-20 mph as it strengthens to a 5, then accelerating to 20-25 mph west of Austin and turning north. 

Generally I don't worry too much about that scenario, as it's pretty remote.  But that one day in 2005 I got a little concerned, and always keep an eye out for the "perfect storm" in Austin.  I would imagine it's happened in geological history, and could again.  Nothing to lose sleep over - but  - <cue scary sci-fi music>) never say never!

Never go full Jim Spencer

 

 

 

(but yeah, this kind of stuff is fascinating/interesting)

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

Thanks almost looks like there’s a weaker spot closer to the coast west of Galveston, but I guess that’s too far. 

[Scraps 13584]

145mph at approach.

Goodbye Lake Charles

[wildcat09 29439]

51 minutes ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

What's important is that gap directly over the Sabine River where the winds are weaker. That's the edge of ridge that is going to pull it north. 

That's a damned useful depiction. Are the weaker winds a feature common to the Sabine (and/or rivers generally) or just Houston's good fortune in this case? 

[kevwun 15936]

Godspeed Steamboat Bill's.

[phdhorn 6224]

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

Small nitpick, but Katrina and Rita hit in 2005, not 2006.

And I'm sure somewhere in there you wrote "your" instead of "you're."

Yeah, typo.

[phdhorn 6224]

1 hour ago, Orange&White said:

With everything that has happened thus far this year, this post is basically like a double dog dare to the next hurricane to thread every needle you just described and come straight to Austin as a CAT4.

 

Nah, forcefield will protect us. It's on Surly, which of course makes it a fact.

[GreenspointTexas 9689]

The “Debris” at Darrells is gonna take on a new meaning

[El Diablo 4232]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Welp, I’m fucked. This is another Rita. 

Good luck, comrade.

[crimsonlonghorn 2310]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That's a damned useful depiction. Are the weaker winds a feature common to the Sabine (and/or rivers generally) or just Houston's good fortune in this case? 

The wind in that graphic isn't necessarily what's steering the hurricane. Those are low level winds, just like the hurricane itself and they are still moving west. 

What's steering the hurricane is the upper level pattern that is rotating clockwise around the SEC-SEC-SEC. The little gap in the wind map is just a manifestation of where the edge of that clockwise rotation is above the surface.

I thought this was a cool graphic this morning. The hurricane basically rotates around the ridge and then heads due east as soon as it gets to the northern edge. Check out how the wind field  basically touches Mississippi on three sides for 48 hours but the center of the storm never actually gets into the state itself. Figuring out where that lefthand edge is located has been the Million Dollar Question for the past 3-4 days. 

 

[atomheartbevo 89853]

3 hours ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

i wish my parents would’ve named me Yaakov...

Yeah, but you’d have to live in Branson, and it sucks.   

[twosheds 374]

1 hour ago, markstanco said:

Lufkin creates its own low pressure from sucking so I beg to differ. 

Tia Juanita's Fish Camp in the old Posado's building is a nice change of pace if you  ever have to venture down.  It's billed as Mexi-Cajun fare.  Definitely better than the other chain's on 59.

[RollLeft 5045]

3 hours ago, Dewey said:

Too many yaakofs out there, hard to know who to trust. I trust...

Go to 1:42 for the lulz

Edited August 26, 2020 by RollLeft

[Reese Bennett 3618]

I am very worried about Port Arthur. They haven't really recovered from previous hurricanes and are about to get blasted again.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Reese Bennett

[Neonmoon 38130]

43 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

Nah, forcefield will protect us. It's on Surly, which of course makes it a fact.

[phdhorn 6224]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Actually, regarding the so many near misses with tropical storms that just seem to tease then dodge ATX, well, at the very least

[GreenspointTexas 9689]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gmr548 16617]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The devastation of the ship channel would also be an unmitigated environmental disaster.

[gmr548 16617]

The wind in that graphic isn't necessarily what's steering the hurricane. Those are low level winds, just like the hurricane itself and they are still moving west. 
What's steering the hurricane is the upper level pattern that is rotating clockwise around the SEC-SEC-SEC. The little gap in the wind map is just a manifestation of where the edge of that clockwise rotation is above the surface.
I thought this was a cool graphic this morning. The hurricane basically rotates around the ridge and then heads due east as soon as it gets to the northern edge. Check out how the wind field  basically touches Mississippi on three sides for 48 hours but the center of the storm never actually gets into the state itself. Figuring out where that lefthand edge is located has been the Million Dollar Question for the past 3-4 days. 
 

Pretty insane this thing is projected to be a hurricane in fucking Little Rock.

[Storm the Field 5303]

9 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This right here is the reason we decided to go overkill on our nearly completed new build in GO, despite our street faring well in all previous storms. 

Raised 5' off the ground on pier and beam and adding $20K of additional drainage and pumps despite not being required by code.

To me, building a new house anywhere in Houston on slab at ground level is incomprehensible. 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Storm the Field

[DaysOff 7978]

Also the reason I moved to the hill country and live on top of a hill.

[Wally Pryor 5263]

Galveston cam.   I'm sure there are others out there so post away. 

 

 

[phdhorn 6224]

56 minutes ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

The wind in that graphic isn't necessarily what's steering the hurricane. Those are low level winds, just like the hurricane itself and they are still moving west. 

What's steering the hurricane is the upper level pattern that is rotating clockwise around the SEC-SEC-SEC. The little gap in the wind map is just a manifestation of where the edge of that clockwise rotation is above the surface.

I thought this was a cool graphic this morning. The hurricane basically rotates around the ridge and then heads due east as soon as it gets to the northern edge. Check out how the wind field  basically touches Mississippi on three sides for 48 hours but the center of the storm never actually gets into the state itself. Figuring out where that lefthand edge is located has been the Million Dollar Question for the past 3-4 days. 

This is a good observation, and to that end I drew in an estimated airflow on a current weather map.  You can see the portal for Laura now.  Left of it is a ridge, part of the high that has been sitting over us (as usual every summer) for the past 2 months, meandering back and forth out to the Pacific Southwest.  To the right is another typical SE high.  Now a strong enough hurricane could plow right through the airflows, but most of the time they don't move fast enough and are affected by the mid/upper level currents.  This is why Laura's going east of Houston (we think) - the ridge is blocking it.  But nothing is pushing it eastward into MS or FL, so it goes right between the two highs as the flow pulls it along. The high in Texas has a flow that conjoins the storm blowing S while the other end blows N with the big high.  Just gets it into this lane and picks it right up.

If that Texas high had been in its "Pacific" cycle during its back and forth meandering, we might have had a direct hit in Corpus or Houston.  As it is, the high is more over us again, pushing Laura a little more east.  The uncertainty in its path a day or so ago was largely due to seeing what this Texas high would do - break down a little or stay up.  It's stayed up. (arrows mine, what an artist!).

Edited August 26, 2020 by phdhorn

[miguelito 11331]

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/wfD5EY5.gif

Link in case the gif doesn't load

[Sgt Hulk 13871]

Jesus gents it’s growing pretty quick. Hopes for safety for you guys 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13529]

12 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

This right here is the reason we decided to go overkill on our nearly completed new build in GO, despite our street faring well in all previous storms. 

Raised 5' off the ground on pier and beam and adding $20K of additional drainage and pumps despite not being required by code.

To me, building a new house anywhere in Houston on slab at ground level is incomprehensible. 

agree 100%. Why not build up. Of course very few people actually build their own house and developers don't like adding costs when the next developer over isn't doing it.