3rd August 2011 - 03:06 PM
NHC must be reading my posts. LOL...http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_a...-daynl#contents
They've shifted their center line west to about where their western edge was, and shifted the western edge farther west to the west tip of Haiti.
They should put the center line off-shore of the western tip of Haiti, in my oppinion.
In the past 6 hours, the storm moved with an average ratio of 0.11n to 0.8w, which is an average bearing of just 7 degrees... moreover, it actually slightly accelerated, indicating that it may be leveling off more and more of a western track after all...
Therefore, it is not even moving as far north as would be needed for the CoC to hit Hispaniola at all. Now you want to argue about partial eye-walls and feeder bands, sure, Haiti is going to get it, and maybe even get clipped by the inner-most bands, but I do not think the DEAD CENTER of the CoC will hit them at all.
It will be a much closer encounter with Jamaica.
At any rate, the Gustav comparison is the best in recent memory at this point, for the next 12 to 24hrs...
I think it stays slightly south of Gustav and off-shore of Haiti.
As you can see, I'm certainly no worse than the computer models, and for the past 24 hrs, I've consistently beaten or equaled the NHC.
A bearing of 280 degrees is 10 degrees North of due West (270 degrees).
So the site is saying Emily is tracking WNW.
Then they have used a different reference axis in that data than in all the previous ones.
Before, they were giving a bearing of 0 or 10 when it was W or WNW respectively...
So either way, they made a mistake.
It's pretty obvious from my post that I knew that 280 is off from 270 by ten degrees, so they either made a typo of some sort, or they used a different reference axis.
If you used N as your reference, then 280 is equal to 10 when using West as the reference.
It's possible a different person entered the data, because for the last 3 days they have been using small numbers: 0, 10, 30, etc, to indicate W and WNW, then they suddenly say 280. If you were using the same reference axis, then 280 is actually SSW.
Either way, it was their mistake, not mine, which I clearly pointed out.
You shouldn't change an axis of reference arbitrarily like that, and not mention it.
At any rate, it's irrelevant, because 10 degrees N of W is too shallow for the NHC forecast to be correct, and the actual bearing in the last 6 hours turns out to be 7 degrees, not even 10, when you do the trigonometry yourself...