I almost expected someone to catch me on this. Internet at work died before I could correct it. My previous comment state outside the envelope. That is incorrect. I should say that Jeanne has tracked south and west of the majority of model guidence. Don't want to leave bad info out there. She has been within the NHC's envelope.

My last comment on this will be this. I think the NHC will always lean toward the course of least regret. Note that they are using a quick forecast for Jeanne right now. If the storm does move at this pace, it will verify. I think others do not think it will move at that fast a pace and will end up further south and west. However, that is a slower forecast. Therfore, if the slower forecast begins to verify NHC can switch to it. This was a similar manner to Ivan. It is a more conservative way of forecasting and there is nothing wrong with it. If I think the NHC has a handicap is they they are not able to write up the discussion levels that someone like JB is able to. JB can get rather longwinded at times. NHC discussion have to be brief and highlighting. I am sure more is stated on conference calls, however, those are not generally available to the general public. When all you get is that the forecast is just to the left of model consensus between A model and B model with very little commentary on why, there are always going to be people who wonder and doubt. That is human nature. However, there is not a whole lot NHC can do about it. If I do have a criticism, I wish they would try to do forecast adjustments when within six hours of landfall. I know they issues updates; however, most of the time, those arestating the obvious.

Back to Jeanne, I want to see where the 12 and 24 hour points verify. If they are further south by a significant amount, I have concerns on a Florida landfall.