Forbes45%

National Hurricane Center Watching System Gain Strength In The Gulf 43%

By Marshall Shepherd58%

7/19/2026, 4:00:25 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Framing Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 27.7% saturation with 166 hits. Analysis detected 857 faulty-reasoning hits from 599 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.6% and a BS Rank of 43% (11,885 of 20,540 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.90% of the article peer group.

The National Hurricane Center has raised the probability of a Gulf system developing to 80% at the time of writing Sunday morning. 
The probability of development has steadily risen over the past few days. 
My meteorological eye has been watching the system all weekend, so I am not surprised at these developments. 
### Current Status 
Though I am a meteorologist, my best practice (and it should be yours too) is to see what the National Hurricane Center is saying. 
They confirmed early Sunday morning that satellite-wind data and surface observations suggest that the low over the Gulf west of the Florida peninsula is becoming better organized. 
Though it is not the most meteorologically-photogenic right now, further development is expected. 
"Continued gradual development is expected, and a tropical depression is likely to form later today or on Monday as the system moves slowly northward or northwestward,“ wrote National Hurricane Center forecasters. 
"Interests along the northern Gulf coast from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, to Louisiana should monitor the progress of this system as it is expected to bring heavy rain to portions of that region during the next several days," they went on to say. 
A potential tropical depression is forming as the sun rises on July 19, 2026 in the Gulf. 
NOAA and Tropical Tidbits 
The system started with a discernible mid-level circulation meandering off the west coast of Florida. 
Over time, a broader surface low became evident and certain banding features were starting to appear on weather satellite imagery. 
Some forecast models hinted at this possibility earlier in the week. 
“Gonna be honest: this Gulf swirl is getting interestin," wrote noted hurricane chaser Josh Morgerman on his Facebook page Sunday morning. 
"It’s not what I’d call gorgeous workmanship, but 1) the cloud pattern shows definite arcing, 2) the low center is turning W (meaning more time over the Gulf), and 3) computer models have gotten more aggressive with it,” the stormchaser known as iCyclone continued. 
### What Is A Tropical Depression 
We often throw terms like tropical depression, tropical storm, and hurricane around with the assumption that everyone understands the distinction. 
A tropical depression is a system, “With organized convection (generally 100-300 miles in diameter) originating in the tropics or subtropics, having a non-frontal migratory character and maintaining its identity for 24 hours or longer,” according to the National Weather Service website. 
“It may or may not be associated with a detectable perturbation of the wind field,” it added. 
If maximum sustained winds reach 39 miles per hour, the depression is upgraded to tropical storm and receives a name. 
While NHC is not talking about named storms at this time, there are a few weather prediction models that hint at strengthening to a potential tropical storm in the coming days. 
If that happens, and I am not saying it will, it would be named Bertha. 
It is important to put caveats on these types of statements. 
Unfortunately, we live in an era that leads to hyperbole, sharing of weather model information out of context, and “wishcasting” based on single model runs. 
Having said that, there is enough signal in the best model data available to put it on the table with the appropriate communication “guard rails.” 
Systems like this, as University of Georgia colleagues and I found in a 2007 study, can be very prolific rain producers. 
I will be watching carefully and updating my writing as necessary. 
Be sure to check back with me for updates. 
Graphical tropical weather outlook at 1:16 am EDT on July, 19 2026. 
NOAA 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.0%Marshall Shepherd: 6.7%Forbes: 3.3%Confirmation Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Marshall Shepherd: 2.3%Forbes: 3.0%Availability Heuristic7.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.5%Marshall Shepherd: 2.2%Forbes: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 14.4%Marshall Shepherd: 4.8%Forbes: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias14.4%This article: 12.9%Marshall Shepherd: 4.3%Forbes: 6.0%Framing Effect12.9%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Marshall Shepherd: 2.4%Forbes: 3.8%Optimism Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Marshall Shepherd: 2.8%Forbes: 5.6%Negativity Bias4.2%This article: 3.0%Marshall Shepherd: 1.0%Forbes: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Marshall Shepherd: 1.3%Forbes: 0.6%In-Group Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Marshall Shepherd: 1.3%Forbes: 1.6%Recency Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 27.7%Marshall Shepherd: 13.1%Forbes: 4.5%Appeal to Authority27.7%This article: 3.3%Marshall Shepherd: 1.1%Forbes: 1.6%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.5%Marshall Shepherd: 5.1%Forbes: 5.6%Hasty Generalization3.5%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.9%Marshall Shepherd: 7.2%Forbes: 1.9%Anecdotal10.9%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Marshall Shepherd: 1.4%Forbes: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.5%Marshall Shepherd: 4.2%Forbes: 1.2%Unattributed Quote12.5%This article: 3.5%Marshall Shepherd: 2.3%Forbes: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection3.5%This article: 5.2%Marshall Shepherd: 1.7%Forbes: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice5.2%This article: 11.0%Marshall Shepherd: 7.3%Forbes: 2.4%Indoctrination11.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marshall Shepherd: 0.0%Forbes: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

599 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers42%attributed speech349writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNational Hurricane Center • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageNational Hurricane Center • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageNational Hurricane Center • 31 words • 100.0% coverageNational Hurricane Center • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageNOAA • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Morgerman • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Morgerman • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageNational Weather Service • 41 words • 0.0% coverageNational Weather Service • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNOAA • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Josh Morgerman

100%flagged-word coverage
65 attributed words26% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+67.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Josh Morgerman: 67.7%67.7%Quote-first Misdirection+32.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Josh Morgerman: 32.3%32.3%Biased Writer Voice-8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%Josh Morgerman: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.9 ptsWriter: 6.9%Josh Morgerman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.