Hurricane Ian was a nightmare of a storm to forecast, and experts say the tools meteorologists used to assess and communicate its likely path were part of the problem, Andrew writes.

Why it matters: With the death toll mounting, meteorologists, emergency managers and others are asking how they could have done a better job making clear the storm would devastate the Fort Myers area — and what lessons they can learn for the next storm.

• The story of how Ian surprised so many Floridians with its southerly shift is about far more than a battle between computer models.
• It involves how people perceive and process risk information about novel threats, and interpret the storm graphics they encounter before deciding whether or not to evacuate.

The big picture: Several factors combined to make Hurricane Ian the most complex domestic hurricane forecast in years.

• Computer models used to help predict the weather were at war with one another until about 36 hours before landfall, an unusually short window of time to convince coastal residents to evacuate.
• Notably, the main American forecast model, known as the Global Forecast System, insisted for days that the storm would strike the Florida Panhandle or Big Bend area as a Category 2 storm.

Zoom in: In media reports, survivors of the storm in Lee County, which includes hard-hit Fort Myers Beach and Sanibel Island, have said they thought the core of the hurricane was headed for Tampa, based on previous forecasts.

• But the National Hurricane Center (NHC) split the difference between modeling guidance in its track forecasts, and consistently emphasized the need to focus on more than the centerline in its "cone of uncertainty" plots.
• For example, NHC forecasters cautioned at 5am Tuesday morning: "Users are reminded to not focus on the exact track as some additional adjustments to the track are possible, and wind, storm surge, and rainfall hazards will extend far from the center."

Between the lines: Studies have shown that the 20-year-old "cone of uncertainty" graphic is often misunderstood.

• "If you are in that, you are two-thirds likely to get the landfall. That's a pretty high likelihood of something very bad happening," said Brian McNoldy, a meteorologist at the University of Miami, in an interview.

Reality check: Then there is the issue of how people process the forecast information they get.

The bottom line: Getting the risk communication piece right will be especially crucial as climate change makes these storms more destructive.

Read the whole story.

Oil prices are sharply upward this morning as traders are ready for OPEC+ to announce a significant output cut when the coalition meets in Vienna on Wednesday, Ben writes.

Driving the news: WTI climbed over $3 per barrel into the high $82 range, while Brent is up a similar amount into the mid-$88 range.

• The moves follow weekend reports that the coalition of OPEC, Russia and allied producers could curtail joint output by over 1 million barrels per day.
• That would be a far stronger signal than the more symbolic, 100,000 bpd reduction at their early September meeting.

Catch up fast: The latest market lurch comes after prices have been largely dropping for months amid bearish economic signs, as you can see in the chart above.

What they're saying: Oil analyst Bob McNally said the group is not looking to set a specific floor under prices, but instead their view is, "we've got to break the fever here, and we don't want the prices to run away from us more than they have."

What we're watching: RBC Capital Markets analysts said market uncertainty — and specifically how much Russian supplies may drop in coming months — means OPEC+ "may opt for a down-the-middle strategy between a paper cut and pulling out the bazooka."

Last week, in a note, they estimated a cut in the 500,000-1 million range, but RBC's Helima Croft, asked about going above 1 million, tells me via email that "all options seem to be on the table."

The intrigue: The upcoming decision has U.S. political ramifications by potentially pushing crude prices — and hence gasoline prices — back upward after months of declines.

"A sizable cut by Saudi Arabia would appear to be an act of defiance of the Biden administration, which has pushed the Saudis and other OPEC members to supply enough oil to keep a lid on prices," the NYT reports.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments today about the scope of federal protection for wetlands and streams — a case with climate change and fossil fuel development implications, Ben writes.

Driving the news: Sackett v. EPA covers a question that has long vexed SCOTUS and other courts: the Clean Water Act's reach and limits.

It stems from an Idaho couple's contention that they didn't need federal permits to fill in wetlands for building a home near a large lake.

Why it matters: The outcome may scale back EPA authority. The case is important to both environmental and industry groups lining up on opposing sides.

• Oil pipeline, mining and homebuilding groups prefer the conservative plurality's opinion in a splintered 2006 decision. It said a "continuous surface connection" to waters clearly covered by the CWA is needed to trigger regulation.
• Environmentalists fear the current 6-3 conservative majority is readying to severely curtail EPA's oversight of smaller waterbodies — even though they feed into bigger systems and affect their health.

The intrigue: Politico notes the climate link. "The court could restrict EPA's ability to protect wetlands, which act as carbon sinks," it reports in a preview of the case. Go deeper.

⚠️ 23 metric tons per hour, the amount of methane the satellite monitoring firm GHGSat estimates was spewing from just one of four leaks in the ruptured Nord Stream pipeline system, Ben writes.

• Why it matters: That's the equivalent to the CO2 from burning roughly 630,000 pounds of coal per hour or using almost 65,000 gallons of gasoline, per EPA's handy calculator.

• Where it stands: The leaks from suspected sabotage of the idled Russia-to-Germany system under the Baltic Sea have stopped, Danish officials say.
• The big picture: The methane releases were very large, but also not a game-changer in the wider global emissions context. "[G]lobally, it's maybe 0.05% of our annual emissions of greenhouse gases," Robbie Andrew of Norway's CICERO Center for International Climate Research said via Twitter. Go deeper.

🚗 Tesla delivered a record 343,830 electric car deliveries worldwide in the third quarter, but its shares are down in premarket trading after the total announced Sunday missed Wall Street expectations.

💰 German multinational energy giant RWE is buying Con Edison's clean energy business for $6.8 billion, a deal that roughly doubles RWE's U.S. renewable power portfolio. Go deeper.

The big pl0t lines running through global gas markets are uncertainty, major risks for Europe, and a tight supply situation that won't abate soon, the International Energy Agency said today, Ben writes.

Driving the news: "This year’s winter gas season opens with extreme...price levels and volatility, caused by unprecedented uncertainty of supply as Russia steeply curtails its pipeline deliveries to Europe," IEA's latest market report finds.

Why it matters: The "u" words — unprecedented and uncertainty — surface repeatedly in the report as the IEA tries to game out what lies ahead for Europe and the markets more widely.

What's next: Look for continued elevated prices, even though the EU's costs have come down to some degree.

Keisuke Sadamori, IEA's director of energy markets and security, said Russia's "reckless" and "unpredictable" behavior is clouding the market but added in a statement:

"[A]ll the signs point to markets remaining very tight well into 2023."

AP has more.