TD 2 Crossing the Yucatan, Bringing Heavy Rains

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:44 PM GMT on June 18, 2013

Share this Blog
52
+

Tropical Depression Two is slowly spinning west-northwest across Belize after making landfall late Monday afternoon in southern Belize. The storm is bringing heavy rain to Belize, Northern Guatemala, and Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, as seen on Belize radar and satellite loops. The center of TD 2 will remain over land all day Tuesday, but TD 2's west-northwest track may be able to bring the storm over the Gulf of Mexico's southern Bay of Campeche on Wednesday--if the storm hasn't dissipated by then. The Bay of Campeche is a region where the topography aids the spin-up of tropical cyclones, and TD 2 may have barely enough time to become Tropical Storm Barry with 40 mph winds before making landfall on Thursday between Veracruz and Tampico. However, the track of the storm may also keep it just inland during the remainder of the week, keeping it from ever getting to tropical storm strength. Heavy rains are the storm's main threat, but a ridge of high pressure over the Gulf of Mexico should keep any of TD 2's rains from reaching the U.S. Observations from an AMSU instrument on a polar orbiting satellite on Monday afternoon found that TD 2 had developed a modest warm core characteristic of a weak tropical storm, and it is possible that NHC will upgrade TD 2 to a tropical storm in post-analysis after the hurricane season is over. Elsewhere in the tropical Atlantic, none of the reliable computer models is showing tropical cyclone development in the next seven days.


Figure 1. MODIS satellite image of TD 2 taken on Monday afternoon, June 17, 2013. image credit: NASA.

Participate in Tuesday's live radio call-in show to talk climate change in Tea Party country
I spent last week in Granby, Colorado at the American Geophysical Union's conference on climate change communication. Approximately 100 of the world's top climate scientists and specialists in communication gathered to discuss how to effectively communicate climate change. Four of the speakers at that conference will be part of a radio call-in radio show on KCNR 1460AM from downtown Redding, the politically conservative heart of deep red Northern California. The show is today, Tuesday, June 17, from 10 am - noon EDT. The show will be live-streamed at http://www.kcnr1460.com/, and will be preserved in the archives as a podcast. KCNR is a Fox News radio station with all-conservative talk radio programming, featuring such guests as Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller, and Mike Huckabee. Call in with questions today at 530-605-4565. The four guests will be:

1) Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS and RealClimate)
2) Simon Donner  (http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~sdonner/)
3) Bob Henson (Rough Guide to Climate Change)
4) Melanie Fitzpatrick (Union of Concerned Scientists)

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 797 - 747

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21Blog Index

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


You have not met the rest of my family?
Rookie...I see you don't recall my aunt DeeDee... Now there is a real trip.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CosmicEvents:
I think you mean panache....pinosh I think would be yiddush for a little bit to eat, a small piece of pi, perhaps.

Poof!

lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5203
Quoting hydrus:
This next wave has pinosh..Maybe an invest in a few days.?
I think you mean panache....pinosh I think would be yiddush for a little bit to eat, a small piece of pi, perhaps.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
No, I think everyone is going back to school to learn English grammar and spelling...I have never seen such butchering of the English language


You have not met the rest of my family?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
No, I think everyone is going back to school to learn English grammar and spelling...I have never seen such butchering of the English language


You forgot your period at the end of the sentence. LOL. Like I should judge, I'm terrible at English.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
12z CMC starting at 78 hours..weak low but potential is there..








Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Hypotheses do not test theories.

Hypotheses are either disproved or become accepted after peer reviewed study.

Then they become theories.

A hypotheis is an eductated guess regarding observed phenomena.
Scientists design experiments to test their hypothesis and publish their results.
Other scientists repeat the tests, verify validity of data collection methods and design new experiments to test the hypothesis. If a hypothesis can be improved, it is. If a hypothesis is found to be in error, alternate hypothesis are proposed. Through time and through repeated peer reviewed validation of hypothesis a hypothesis becomes theory by general consensus.
Validation is a methodical, and often slow process.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting daddyjames:


I speak eloquently, but I type like carp.
I eat carp while i type.
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 19526
Quoting daddyjames:



unfair. I believe (have faith) that MechEngMet is playing devil's advocate - to some degree.



That is a possibility, but needs further study for certain.

I had no desire to acknowledge or reply to such an obvious personal attack by__________. Thank you for calling the proper attention to the matter. You are trying to keep this civil. Thank you.
Member Since: April 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 744
Have to be somewhere shortly and heading out for the time being........Speaking of heading out, the COC of TD2 is clearly heading out into the southern portion of the BOC..........Might see a nice spin-up over the next 12 hours.

See Yall later this evening.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MechEngMet:


You are correct that repeating wrong things does not make them right. Hiding your original data set to avoid scrutiny is outright fraud.


Now what are you referring to with that statement?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting daddyjames:


Hmm, let me contemplate that over a beer.


Uh huh. That is what I have been doing. Contemplating that one over a beer
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schistkicker:


This is going to veer wildly off-topic, but Darwin's observations and interpretations are 150 years old; the Theory of Evolution is no longer dependent on them, but on the myriad experiments, models, and observations made during studies of the fossil record, the geographic distribution of species, molecular biology, genetics, among many many others. The results of many thousands of individual investigations, and the nested hierarchy of results that weave together to form a well-developed explanation of the observed patterns across these fields via the mechanism of natural selection, produce the robust scientific consensus we have today.

In short, being a scientific theory means you're a really darned good explanation of what we're observing in the natural world, and we can make predictions of what's likely to happen based on you and do a pretty good job of it.
It doesn't make you a "guess" or a "half-baked idea" to be called a "theory". Not so long as you're talking to a scientist, anyway.


Exactly. And once the theory is generated, then experimental design (testing of hypotheses) begins.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting weatherh98:


Does this mean everyone is going back the tropics now:)
Nope, I still have one more thing to add to AGW. :-P
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
Quoting daddyjames:


No the Theory of Evolution was generated solely by observational data collected by Charles Darwin. No experimental evidence at all.

Einstein's theory of relativity is still being examined and confirmed by experimental data.

Newton's Laws of thermodynamics and gravity do not hold on the intramolecular level. Hence, quantum theory was born - and is still be tested.

In fact, Darwin's theory is still a theory because there is no scientific consensus on what constitutes a species. Currently, there are 26 working definitions.


This is going to veer wildly off-topic, but Darwin's observations and interpretations are 150 years old; the Theory of Evolution is no longer dependent on them, but on the myriad experiments, models, and observations made during studies of the fossil record, the geographic distribution of species, molecular biology, genetics, among many many others. The results of many thousands of individual investigations, and the nested hierarchy of results that weave together to form a well-developed explanation of the observed patterns across these fields via the mechanism of natural selection, produce the robust scientific consensus we have today.

In short, being a scientific theory means you're a really darned good explanation of what we're observing in the natural world, and we can make predictions of what's likely to happen based on you and do a pretty good job of it.
It doesn't make you a "guess" or a "half-baked idea" to be called a "theory". Not so long as you're talking to a scientist, anyway.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
No, I think everyone is going back to school to learn English grammar and spelling...I have never seen such butchering of the English language


I speak eloquently, but I type like carp.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting MechEngMet:


You are correct that repeating wrong things does not make them right. Hiding your original data set to avoid scrutiny is outright fraud.

Then one should avoid doing that.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5203
Quoting weatherh98:


Does this mean everyone is going back the tropics now:)
No, I think everyone is going back to school to learn English grammar and spelling...I have never seen such butchering of the English language
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Looks like it's kicking out some dry air
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This next wave has pinosh..Maybe an invest in a few days.?
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 19526
Quoting LurkyMcLurkerson:


I don't know enough to have a strong opinion of him in particular, but I always appreciate it when they outline their reasoning well and aren't afraid to include themselves as clear factors in the forecasting. The more I can see how they're thinking about it and why, the more confident I feel that they're just doing their absolute best with all of the data they have at their disposal, in what is often a tricky environment for really solid conclusions.

People on the west coast pick on the forecasts constantly. They have no idea what goes into it, and how little data those folks have to work with while stuff is out in the pacific. I always try to encourage them to read the discussions instead of just glancing at Yahoo weather or whatever they do.


It just illustrates where the rubber meets the road when it comes to tropical forecasting. You can have the best computer modelling, and real time observations from surface observations to satellite records (and everything in between) as NHC has at their disposal, but at the end of the day, "human" forecasters have to interpret the data and make the best logical guess they can make as to what may happen next given the science vs. the human eye.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:


link


LOL - I may use that - if you don't mind :D
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting islander44:


Right. Temperature reached the 90's in Alaska yesterday, in multiple places. Colorado's largest, most expensive wildfires are still not quite contained.

Darn that factual agenda thingy.

Bought beef recently? Expensive? That's what happens when drought makes it too expensive to keep feeding beef. Ask Texans how they feel about the drought.

As I've said here before, if we address climate change and the science turns out to be wrong, the worst that happens is your children didn't get to drive Camaros. And there is still plenty of oil, which will be pretty cheap to use.

If we don't address client change and it turns out the AGW crowd was right, your kids, and their kids, don't have food. Or water.

It's your family. You decide.


1, Supposedly, Colorado's fire was caused by a human (directly,) not GW.

2, The fire is only the worst in terms of dollars lost due to property damage, not acreage burned. Previous fires just didn't hit expensive houses.

3, Alaska's heatwave was caused by a ridge of high pressure.

4, The Arctic and much of Greenland is currently 5C to 10C below normal, and has been for several days.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ameister12:
Wow! This tornado/land spout was probably over DIA for most of its life.


Bet there was some clenched butt-cheeks in that tower!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherh98:


Does this mean everyone is going back the tropics now:)



Are you kidding? ;)

Dr. JM's post today opened Pandora's box.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting schistkicker:


No, it's not. Repeating wrong things doesn't suddenly make them right.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
(Source: Live Science)


You are correct that repeating wrong things does not make them right. Hiding your original data set to avoid scrutiny is outright fraud.
Member Since: April 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 744
Quoting MrMixon:


We've got several blog regulars who "just ask questions" and they'll insist the questions are perfectly innocent. In some cases they might be... but I've seen this pattern repeat far too often:

1) a leading or controversial question is asked
2) one or more thoughtful replies are given
3) all replies are ignored and the question is posed again at the next opportunity.



Yep. I assume good faith unless there's absolutely no reason to, and I try to really hear right back, in good faith. It is often, sadly, for naught. But every now and then, it isn't. I think there has actually been a lot of good discussion today.

And the folks who are asking questions _not_ in good faith -- eh, I often figure that going ahead and making sure it's well answered, within reason, is smarter anyway. They may or may not get bored when they fail to do anything but look silly over time, lurkers can read it all who may not know these things, others may get nagging questions answered or think of new ones or correct finer points with better knowledge. That's all good.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Was that two bears down or two beers down on the Yucatan Peninsula? .... or two bears down after drinking two beers?


Hmm, let me contemplate that over a beer.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting Tribucanes:
This has been fun here today. Lots of good info, back and forth, and very little nastiness. The definition of a disagreement is: a two-way verbal confrontation on a specific issue. The purpose of a disagreement is to enhance the relationship between individuals expressing deep feelings regarding specific differences. You're never should be trying to win. Win/lose strategies build resentments, which in the long run diminish the relationship. I think we've seen a lot of good disagreement here today expressed very well.


Does this mean everyone is going back the tropics now:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Hypotheses do not test theories.

Hypotheses are either disproved or become accepted after peer reviewed study.

Then they become theories.


No the Theory of Evolution was generated solely by observational data collected by Charles Darwin. No experimental evidence at all.

Einstein's theory of relativity is still being examined and confirmed by experimental data.

Newton's Laws of thermodynamics and gravity do not hold on the intramolecular level. Hence, quantum theory was born - and is still be tested.

In fact, Darwin's theory is still a theory because there is no scientific consensus on what constitutes a species. Currently, there are 26 working definitions.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting Birthmark:

I find his imperatives humorous. "Answer the question." "Be specific."

Or...what, one wonders? lol



Cardinal Fang! Fetch....the comfy chair!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This has been fun here today. Lots of good info, back and forth, and very little nastiness. The definition of a disagreement is: a two-way verbal confrontation on a specific issue. The purpose of a disagreement is to enhance the relationship between individuals expressing deep feelings regarding specific differences. You're never should be trying to win. Win/lose strategies build resentments, which in the long run diminish the relationship. I think we've seen a lot of good disagreement here today expressed very well.
Member Since: April 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2437
Quoting MechEngMet:



I base my life on facts and evidence. I'm open to AGW but it's not proven; to me yet anyway. I don't intend to come off as a troll, I just ask questions.

As far as technical rational opposed to AGW theory, are you familiar with Beer-Lambert law?


We've got several blog regulars who "just ask questions" and they'll insist the questions are perfectly innocent. In some cases they might be... but I've seen this pattern repeat far too often:

1) a leading or controversial question is asked
2) one or more thoughtful replies are given
3) all replies are ignored and the question is posed again at the next opportunity.

I'm not accusing you of this, but I think you've posted your tooth-fairy analogy a couple times today. I do hope you've taken the time to read the responses your question has generated.

As for the Beer-Lambert law, yes I'm familiar with it (vaguely). But how does this get us closer to understanding potential anthropogenic influences on global climate?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Bluestorm5:
Very spooky picture of tornado directly above an airport gate. Wow...



!

That's an amazing photo to have gotten.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
Quoting LurkyMcLurkerson:


I don't know enough to have a strong opinion of him in particular, but I always appreciate it when they outline their reasoning well and aren't afraid to include themselves as clear factors in the forecasting. The more I can see how they're thinking about it and why, the more confident I feel that they're just doing their absolute best with all of the data they have at their disposal, in what is often a tricky environment for really solid conclusions.

People on the west coast pick on the forecasts constantly. They have no idea what goes into it, and how little data those folks have to work with while stuff is out in the pacific. I always try to encourage them to read the discussions instead of just glancing at Yahoo weather or whatever they do.
Good post, and it is of my opinion that there experience is far more vital in forecasting these cyclones than the models they use.
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 19526
Quoting daddyjames:


Oh, the drama. Oh, the humanity ;)


link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Very spooky picture of tornado directly above an airport gate. Wow...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MechEngMet:


Theory is indeed open to discussion. It must be. IF it survives dissension it becomes a stronger theory.


Just how much discussion should we engage in about gravity, Ohm's law, humors as disease vectors, or pyramids as energy sources?

If you want to test the theories of inertia and kinetic energy by placing your children on a busy highway in front of a speeding truck, that would make for an interesting discussion. I'm sure there would be lots of useful information derived from that experiment.

My question is this: Do you want to engage in a course of action while the truck is 1/4 mile away, 100 yards away, or 10 yards away? Or do you need to see the results of that experiment? Heck, it's possible all the science around those theories is wrong.

Now, the truck owners might deny that there are any problems, especially if it might cost them a lot of revenue this quarter if anything changed. Heck, they won't suffer any problems they can't cope with, with all their money.

But you and your kids might find the results less than satisfactory. I guess you have to decide what matters to you, rather than quibble over terms like belief, faith, theory, law, etc.

But instead, how about we discuss the weather that we're seeing, rather than cockamamie theories that have negligible support?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting daddyjames:



unfair. I believe (have faith) that MechEngMet is playing devil's advocate - to some degree.


I find his imperatives humorous. "Answer the question." "Be specific."

Or...what, one wonders? lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5203
Tonight and tomorrow are the last opportunity of td 2 to become Barry it better do it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weathermanwannabe:
Afternoon; just checking in briefly before heading out.

I see everyone has posted the latest discussion from NHC. As usual, my favorite part:

A FEW HOURS AGO I WAS TEMPTED TO DECLARE THE DEPRESSION A REMNANT
LOW.


Dr. Avila has repeatedly displayed his "humanity" over the years in his discussions when faced with a surprise or difficult decision. Two of his very candid comments from last season also come to mind; one comment when Debbie was perplexing NHC, and the model guidance, as to potential track and one of our weak tropical storms last year, not far from Cuba and the Yucatan Channel, that was expected to intensify but never did.

My favorite member of the NHC team and not afraid to admit when a storm throws a curve.....The buck stops with him when it comes to these situations and that is the type of person you want in the chair when lives are potentially at stake.


I don't know enough to have a strong opinion of him in particular, but I always appreciate it when they outline their reasoning well and aren't afraid to include themselves as clear factors in the forecasting. The more I can see how they're thinking about it and why, the more confident I feel that they're just doing their absolute best with all of the data they have at their disposal, in what is often a tricky environment for really solid conclusions.

People on the west coast pick on the forecasts constantly. They have no idea what goes into it, and how little data those folks have to work with while stuff is out in the pacific. I always try to encourage them to read the discussions instead of just glancing at Yahoo weather or whatever they do.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
Quoting TylerStanfield:
It almost appears the NHC's advisory #1 forecast track for TD TWO might just verify.
Make much since to me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting daddyjames:


Those hypotheses are designed to test the theory - otherwise it isn't a scientific theory.

And please, don't tell me I'm wrong - I am a scientist.


Hypotheses do not test theories.

Hypotheses are either disproved or become accepted after peer reviewed study.

Then they become theories.
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9452
Quoting schistkicker:


No, it's not. Repeating wrong things doesn't suddenly make them right.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
(Source: Live Science)


Those hypotheses are designed to test the theory - otherwise it isn't a scientific theory.

And please, don't tell me I'm wrong - I am a scientist.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Afternoon; just checking in briefly before heading out.

I see everyone has posted the latest discussion from NHC. As usual, my favorite part:

A FEW HOURS AGO I WAS TEMPTED TO DECLARE THE DEPRESSION A REMNANT
LOW.


Dr. Avila has repeatedly displayed his "humanity" over the years in his discussions when faced with a surprise or difficult decision. Two of his very candid comments from last season also come to mind; one comment when Debbie was perplexing NHC, and the model guidance, as to potential track and one of our weak tropical storms last year, not far from Cuba and the Yucatan Channel, that was expected to intensify but never did.

My favorite member of the NHC team and not afraid to admit when a storm throws a curve.....The buck stops with him when it comes to these situations and that is the type of person you want in the chair when lives are potentially at stake.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It almost appears the NHC's advisory #1 forecast track for TD TWO might just verify.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Scientific theory is just that. Most theory's have become widely accepted and explain certain phenomenons. Most theory's are widely accepted as fact and are hardly debatable. Some theory's which are accepted are debatable with strong cross arguments. Man driven GW is not one of those. Man driven GW and gravity are about on the same par. The beauty of science is, that even when a theory is widely excepted, if new evidence is uncovered disproving the theory, the theory fails. We've seen that time and time again in scientific history.
Member Since: April 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2437
Quoting JasonWins33:

What is that purple sw car!!
Maybe dealing with the next storm that might happen in seven days.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting mikatnight:


He did jump-start the conversation. Hadn't heard about the God thing tho. He taking credit for that too?


Careful, we all know where talk like that goes if a US reporter reads you here!

"Sources: Al Gore claims to have invented God, wears yellow necktie"
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368

Viewing: 797 - 747

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21Blog Index

Top of Page

About JeffMasters

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.