Reanalysis questions

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
Hurricaneman
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5637
Age: 38
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: central florida

Re: Reanalysis questions

#241 Postby Hurricaneman » Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:54 pm

more recent ones for upgrade since 2005

2014 Cristobal to 90mph
2009 Grace to 75mph
2007 Humberto to 100mph {recon and damage reports}
2007 Erin 65mph over Oklahoma
2005 Katrina's first landfall 90mph
May 7 2005 noreaster to 90mph hurricane

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 26962
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#242 Postby CrazyC83 » Mon May 23, 2016 11:06 pm

I found an early report (can't find the poster) for 1964: one more storm and hurricane, one less major, but Cleo is reclassified as a Cat 3 at FL landfall.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/32Hurr/webpr ... 93584.html
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 26962
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#243 Postby CrazyC83 » Mon May 23, 2016 11:32 pm

When it comes to majors from 1965 to 1978 (either currently assessed or ones I would reclassify as), what I would reassess them as for peak intensities:

1965 - Betsy (now 135 kt, change to 120 kt)

1966 - Alma (now 110 kt, change to 90 kt), Faith (now 110 kt, no change), Inez (now 130 kt, change to 145 kt)

1967 - Beulah (now 140 kt, change to 130 kt), Chloe (now 95 kt, change to 105 kt)

1968 - No major hurricanes

1969 - Camille (reanalyzed at 150 kt), Debbie (now 105 kt, change to 110 kt), Francelia (now 100 kt, change to 90 kt), Gerda (now 110 kt, change to 75 kt), Inga (now 100 kt, change to 90 kt)

1970 - Celia (now 110 kt, change to 125 kt), Ella (now 110 kt, change to 105 kt)

1971 - Edith (now 140 kt, change to 130 kt)

1972 - No major hurricanes

1973 - Ellen (now 100 kt, no change)

1974 - Becky (now 100 kt, change to 80 kt), Carmen (now 130 kt, change to 145 kt)

1975 - Caroline (now 100 kt, change to 110 kt), Eloise (now 110 kt, change to 105 kt), Gladys (now 120 kt, no change)

1976 - Belle (now 105 kt, change to 100 kt), Frances (now 100 kt, change to 90 kt)

1977 - Anita (now 150 kt, change to 145 kt)

1978 - Ella (now 120 kt, change to 105 kt), Greta (now 120 kt, no change)

8 storms lose MH status, while only one gains it. I mainly looked at pressure relationships and sizes at peak intensity to try to derive the intensities. The biggest drop is in Gerda in 1969 - a fairly large storm with 979mb pressure in high latitudes a Cat 3 really? (I went with 75 kt there)
Last edited by CrazyC83 on Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3463
Age: 34
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Reanalysis questions

#244 Postby Hammy » Tue May 24, 2016 1:46 am

CrazyC83 wrote:8 storms lose MH status, while only one gains it. I mainly looked at pressure relationships and sizes at peak intensity to try to derive the intensities. The biggest drop is in Gerda in 1969 - a fairly large storm with 979mb pressure in high latitudes a Cat 3 really? (I went with 75 kt there)


It was likely below major hurricane status at the time, but I imagine it may have been slightly stronger than 75kt due to what appears to be a high rate of forward speed at the time.
0 likes   
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
---
My comics.
http://tba.cfw.me/
http://tbakids.cfw.me/

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 26962
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#245 Postby CrazyC83 » Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:32 am

I'm also looking at the years not yet reanalyzed, and I am of the belief 1966's Kendra, which had advisories but was discarded as a TC, was in actual fact a real tropical storm and belongs in HURDAT2 accordingly. I'd need to see a satellite of that region (if one exists) but the military found that it was a TC...and a rather unusual one too that moved due north almost immediately off the African coast (somewhat similar to Fred last year, just a bit farther north) before being pushed westward, likely due to a blocking ridge to the north. Ship reports are scarce in that region, but I would give the US military the benefit of the doubt. Given that it was in mid-October, the sudden northward movement is quite reasonable for an unusually placed subtropical jet.
0 likes   

User avatar
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3463
Age: 34
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Reanalysis questions

#246 Postby Hammy » Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:36 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:I'm also looking at the years not yet reanalyzed, and I am of the belief 1966's Kendra, which had advisories but was discarded as a TC, was in actual fact a real tropical storm and belongs in HURDAT2 accordingly. I'd need to see a satellite of that region (if one exists) but the military found that it was a TC...and a rather unusual one too that moved due north almost immediately off the African coast (somewhat similar to Fred last year, just a bit farther north) before being pushed westward, likely due to a blocking ridge to the north. Ship reports are scarce in that region, but I would give the US military the benefit of the doubt. Given that it was in mid-October, the sudden northward movement is quite reasonable for an unusually placed subtropical jet.


I have some satellite imagery I found years ago, from Oct 6-8 at 00z each. (note: the longitude goes in 360 degree range, so this is around 20-30W)

http://i.imgur.com/icHcUXS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/n8l6ygj.png
http://i.imgur.com/QdBPjAE.png

As an aside, does anyone have a clue when the 1964 reanalysis that I've seen the abstract for will be published?
0 likes   
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
---
My comics.
http://tba.cfw.me/
http://tbakids.cfw.me/

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 26962
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#247 Postby CrazyC83 » Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Hammy wrote:
CrazyC83 wrote:I'm also looking at the years not yet reanalyzed, and I am of the belief 1966's Kendra, which had advisories but was discarded as a TC, was in actual fact a real tropical storm and belongs in HURDAT2 accordingly. I'd need to see a satellite of that region (if one exists) but the military found that it was a TC...and a rather unusual one too that moved due north almost immediately off the African coast (somewhat similar to Fred last year, just a bit farther north) before being pushed westward, likely due to a blocking ridge to the north. Ship reports are scarce in that region, but I would give the US military the benefit of the doubt. Given that it was in mid-October, the sudden northward movement is quite reasonable for an unusually placed subtropical jet.


I have some satellite imagery I found years ago, from Oct 6-8 at 00z each. (note: the longitude goes in 360 degree range, so this is around 20-30W)

http://i.imgur.com/icHcUXS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/n8l6ygj.png
http://i.imgur.com/QdBPjAE.png

As an aside, does anyone have a clue when the 1964 reanalysis that I've seen the abstract for will be published?


That's definitely a TC. The middle image looks like about T3.0 (the strongest one) so 40 or 45 kt seems most reasonable. So it seems the reanalysis project will be 2 for 2 in confirming that the two named "misses" (also Mike 1950) were actually TC's, assuming my view is what they agree with.
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 26962
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#248 Postby CrazyC83 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:06 pm

The 1956-1960 results have been published in HURDAT2, but the metadata is still awaiting.

There were three Cat 5's in that period - none now (Cleo down to 120 kt, Donna to 125 kt, Ethel to 100 kt). Audrey confirmed at 110 kt at landfall and peak.

Strongest storm in that period was Helene (1958), which had an intensity of 130 kt just off Myrtle Beach - imagine the media nightmare if such happened today?
1 likes   

tatertawt24
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:57 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#249 Postby tatertawt24 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:30 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:The 1956-1960 results have been published in HURDAT2, but the metadata is still awaiting.

There were three Cat 5's in that period - none now (Cleo down to 120 kt, Donna to 125 kt, Ethel to 100 kt). Audrey confirmed at 110 kt at landfall and peak.

Strongest storm in that period was Helene (1958), which had an intensity of 130 kt just off Myrtle Beach - imagine the media nightmare if such happened today?


Surprised Audrey wasn't reanalyzed lower than 110 kt. Homegirl's radar presentation was a mess.

Image
0 likes   
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

User avatar
galaxy401
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1228
Age: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:04 pm
Location: Casa Grande, Arizona

Re: Reanalysis questions

#250 Postby galaxy401 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:32 pm

Not that surprised in the cat 5 downgrades. No way Ethel strengthened and weakened that quickly in the Gulf. I remember hearing a couple years ago that Donna would be downgraded. Cleo had a pressure very high for a cat 5 so not surprised in that downgrade.
0 likes   
I don't get hurricanes here but I do get their remnants.

User avatar
Andrew92
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3247
Age: 34
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 12:35 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Reanalysis questions

#251 Postby Andrew92 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:00 pm

I have seen maps for 1958 and 1959 that are updated. Gerda's life was extended into the Gulf in 1958, and I think Ella was previously listed as a major. Two more newly-discovered storms, but otherwise no major changes to that year.

The biggest changes in 1959 were Judith having life further south in the Caribbean and three newly-discovered storms. I suspected the latter, but never saw the former coming. Gracie was also upgraded to a Category 4 at landfall. I'm a bit surprised Cindy is still a hurricane after all, but it was right at the threshold. The June unnamed hurricane we knew of before also remains a hurricane. I knew that one had the winds, but I wondered if it was still tropical, now we have the answer that it was.

Can't wait to see the other three years!

-Andrew92
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 26962
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#252 Postby CrazyC83 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:30 pm

I find the storm wallets and historical searches on the NHC site quite useful, particularly for many storms from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. Some storms are missing though, however, reading through the data I think Inez (1966) and Carmen (1974) were both Cat 5 at their peak, as they were small, low latitude storms with pressures in the mid to high 920s. A really low pressure isn't a guarantee - I estimate Beulah was a Cat 4, and not 5, despite a pressure of around 921mb, due to its very large size.
0 likes   

User avatar
Iune
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:23 pm
Location: Urbana, Illinois

Re: Reanalysis questions

#253 Postby Iune » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:42 pm

1956:
  1. TS One: 6/7 - 6/10; 40 kts, 1002 mbar New
  2. TS Two: 6/12 - 6/15; 50 kts, 1001 mbar Old: 1004 mbar
  3. H1 Anna: 7/25 - 7/27; 75 kts, 991 mbar Old: 70 kts
  4. H3 Betsy: 8/9 - 8/21; 105 kts, 954 mbar Old: 8/9 - 8/18
  5. TS Carla: 9/7 - 9/16; 50 kts, 996 mbar Old: 45 kts
  6. TS Dora: 9/10 - 9/13; 50 kts, 1000 mbar Old: 60 kts
  7. TS Ethel: 9/11 - 9/14; 50 kts, 999 mbar Old: 60 kts
  8. H1 Flossy: 9/20 - 10/3; 80 kts, 974 mbar Old: 9/21 - 9/30; 980 mbar
  9. TS Nine: 10/9 - 10/12; 40 kts, N/A mbar New
  10. TS Ten: 10/14 - 10/19; 55 kts, 996 mbar Old: 10/13 - 10/18; 50 kts, 995 mbar; Classified as subtropical
  11. H2 Greta: 10/31 - 11/7; 90 kts, 970 mbar Old: H4; 10/30 - 11/7; 120 kts
  12. TS Twelve: 11/19 - 11/21; 40 kts, N/A mbar New
I've been going through the updates myself, these were the changes I saw to 1956. The old values are listed in red. It's always fascinating seeing the reanalyzed storms after the updates are released; I feel like a kid in a candy store. :D
0 likes   
Floyd 1999 · Irene 2011 · Sandy 2012

User avatar
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5026
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#254 Postby Ptarmigan » Thu Jul 14, 2016 10:37 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:I find the storm wallets and historical searches on the NHC site quite useful, particularly for many storms from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. Some storms are missing though, however, reading through the data I think Inez (1966) and Carmen (1974) were both Cat 5 at their peak, as they were small, low latitude storms with pressures in the mid to high 920s. A really low pressure isn't a guarantee - I estimate Beulah was a Cat 4, and not 5, despite a pressure of around 921mb, due to its very large size.


Seen the satellite images of Carmen (1974). Not really large. It was likely in Forrest Gump.

Inez (1966) took a strange path. Inez was a deadly hurricane as it affected many nations. It is southernly path kept it small. Hurricanes that go north generally get larger.

Beulah was a huge hurricane on par with Ike, Gilbert, Carla, and Katrina. I read the 1886 Indianola Hurricane was very large.
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 26962
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#255 Postby CrazyC83 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:49 pm

Looking through the final metadata. Audrey was a difficult one to analyze - data suggested a pressure as high as 955 and as low as 931. This was basically a "least change" analysis in terms of pressure, which was probably prudent given the high uncertainty. Also the RMW was chosen at 15 nm, although 30 nm might have been justifiable as well as it had concentric eye structures (likely an ERC was just beginning). Using a 931 pressure and 15 nm (the most extreme estimate), the landfall intensity would have likely been about 125 or 130 kt, while using a 955 pressure and 30 nm (the other extreme), the landfall intensity would have likely been about 85 or 90 kt. This basically splits the wide differences - it could have been as high as a strong Cat 4 or as low as a weak Cat 2.
0 likes   

User avatar
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3463
Age: 34
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Reanalysis questions

#256 Postby Hammy » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:57 pm

Every time there's a new post here, I keep getting my hopes up that the 1964 reanalysis came out publicly, especially after seeing mention there was a new storm added and another storm upgraded to hurricane--does anybody have any further info on this other than the abstract?
0 likes   
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
---
My comics.
http://tba.cfw.me/
http://tbakids.cfw.me/

User avatar
tarheelprogrammer
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1333
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:25 pm
Location: Southport, NC/Wilmington, NC

Re: Reanalysis questions

#257 Postby tarheelprogrammer » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:28 am

0 likes   
My posts are not official forecasts. They are just my opinion and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

terstorm1012
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1282
Age: 36
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Millersburg, PA

Re: Reanalysis questions

#258 Postby terstorm1012 » Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:38 am

the metadata is like the holidays for me!

also cool seeing one of storm2k's own as one of the researchers :D
0 likes   

User avatar
cycloneye
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 112122
Age: 61
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: Reanalysis questions

#259 Postby cycloneye » Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:36 pm

0 likes   
Visit the Caribbean-Central America Weather Thread where you can find at first post web cams,radars
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 26962
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#260 Postby CrazyC83 » Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:09 pm

Consider all the possibilities that are reasonable for Audrey:

919mb - absolute lowest possible, based on Port Arthur and Hackberry data with a very tight core (not supported by radar)
931mb - using Schloemer equation with smaller RMW from Hackberry
940mb - working backwards from Winnfield if a central pressure (lower if peripheral)
946mb - using Schloemer equation with originally estimated RMW from Hackberry - and previously in HURDAT
955mb - using Schloemer equation with larger RMW from Hackberry
960mb - absolute highest possible, with Jarvinen estimated RMW and Hackberry near center and a bit high (not supported by wind obs)

How would the intensity have been set in each situation?

If the 919 was accurate, it would have been a bombing out storm with a tight, tight core. Clearly Category 5, probably about 150 kt. No way that is right - radar data and surface obs do not suggest such.

If the 931 was accurate and the original inner core was used, it still would have been rapidly deepening up to landfall. Most likely a landfall intensity of 130 kt would have been justified there.

If the 940 was accurate, that would support about 115 or 120 kt. However, the marshes over southern Louisiana would have slowed the weakening after landfall in most cases. Hence 945 or so would make more sense for working backwards.

If the 946 was accurate (and used in HURDAT and retained), 110 kt is justified with a 15 nm core but 100 or 105 kt would make most sense with a 30 nm core.

If the 955 was accurate (Jarvinen suggested it), it would have a larger core - probably about 35 nm, on the highest end of plausible. Also suggest would suggest only slow strengthening at most in the last 24 hours. I would suspect 90 kt would have been chosen as the intensity in that scenario.

If Hackberry was a bit off and was the minimum pressure, using 960, most likely 80 kt would have been the intensity given its extremely large, sprawling core in that scenario.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: HurricaneEnzo, Imran_doomhaMwx, Kingarabian, NotSparta and 25 guests