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
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5013
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#261 Postby Ptarmigan » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:09 pm

CrazyC83 wrote: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.


Audrey being a possible Category 5 in the Gulf of Mexico in late June is really unusual. I am more inclined to say Category 3 at most.
1 likes   

User avatar
cycloneye
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 109477
Age: 61
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: Reanalysis questions

#262 Postby cycloneye » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:32 pm

Here are the tracks of the 10 new Tropical Storms.



https://twitter.com/wunderground/status/756556965979885568
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

User avatar
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5013
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#263 Postby Ptarmigan » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:59 pm

I happen to look at re-analysis from 1931 to 1943.

Documentation for 1931 to 1943
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/la ... e-2014.pdf

I noticed the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane had a large radius of outer closed isobars (ROCI). It has a ROCI of 300 nautical miles, which is quite large. If I recall, the hurricane prior to hitting Florida Keys had hurricane force winds extending up to 15 miles.
0 likes   

tatertawt24
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:57 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#264 Postby tatertawt24 » Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:36 pm

Ptarmigan wrote:I happen to look at re-analysis from 1931 to 1943.

Documentation for 1931 to 1943
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/la ... e-2014.pdf

I noticed the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane had a large radius of outer closed isobars (ROCI). It has a ROCI of 300 nautical miles, which is quite large. If I recall, the hurricane prior to hitting Florida Keys had hurricane force winds extending up to 15 miles.


Did it have the large roci at the 892mb landfall or after?
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
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5013
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#265 Postby Ptarmigan » Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:16 pm

tatertawt24 wrote:
Ptarmigan wrote:I happen to look at re-analysis from 1931 to 1943.

Documentation for 1931 to 1943
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/la ... e-2014.pdf

I noticed the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane had a large radius of outer closed isobars (ROCI). It has a ROCI of 300 nautical miles, which is quite large. If I recall, the hurricane prior to hitting Florida Keys had hurricane force winds extending up to 15 miles.


Did it have the large roci at the 892mb landfall or after?


At the 892 millibar landfall. It gets larger on its second landfall. The second landfall has ROCI of 350 nautical mile.
0 likes   

tatertawt24
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:57 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#266 Postby tatertawt24 » Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:30 pm

That means it was probably one of those storms with huge CDO's and tiny, tiny pinhole eyes in the middle, like Wilma and Gilbert. But if the ROCI was that extensive, you'd think the rapid intensification would be disrupted because of land interference. Throughout its entire path, it was never really in open waters... it started near the Bahamas and from there on was wedged between Florida and Cuba. If it didn't have a tiny cloud base like Andrew, I don't see how it explosively deepened the way that it did. Maybe the information is wrong.
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.

CrazyC83
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 26793
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#267 Postby CrazyC83 » Wed May 31, 2017 12:59 pm

I am guessing the 1961-65 reanalysis will be coming out soon? Also I'm curious to see the results of later analyses once they become available.
0 likes   

User avatar
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3398
Age: 34
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Reanalysis questions

#268 Postby Hammy » Wed May 31, 2017 7:23 pm

tatertawt24 wrote:That means it was probably one of those storms with huge CDO's and tiny, tiny pinhole eyes in the middle, like Wilma and Gilbert. But if the ROCI was that extensive, you'd think the rapid intensification would be disrupted because of land interference. Throughout its entire path, it was never really in open waters... it started near the Bahamas and from there on was wedged between Florida and Cuba. If it didn't have a tiny cloud base like Andrew, I don't see how it explosively deepened the way that it did. Maybe the information is wrong.


I would more imagine something similar to Dennis in 2005, which was large and sprawling, but had a very small eye and inner core, and small area of hurricane winds. Wilma and Gilbert by contrast had fairly large wind fields even at hurricane strength.
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
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 26793
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#269 Postby CrazyC83 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:59 pm

As many of us believed, we should gain a new cat 5 in reanalysis: Inez 1966. Preliminary findings (more details to come in April) confirm such at 145 kt.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/33HURRICANE/ ... 39830.html
2 likes   

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3236
Age: 26
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Reanalysis questions

#270 Postby 1900hurricane » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:07 pm

We'll also probably lose Carla '61, but no real surprises there.
1 likes   
Wayward meteorology student on a journey back to the promised land.

Follow me on Twitter at @1900hurricane : Read blogs at https://1900hurricane.wordpress.com/

User avatar
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3398
Age: 34
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Reanalysis questions

#271 Postby Hammy » Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:11 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:As many of us believed, we should gain a new cat 5 in reanalysis: Inez 1966. Preliminary findings (more details to come in April) confirm such at 145 kt.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/33HURRICANE/ ... 39830.html


Will the full report be available?
1 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
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 26793
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#272 Postby CrazyC83 » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:21 pm

Hammy wrote:
CrazyC83 wrote:As many of us believed, we should gain a new cat 5 in reanalysis: Inez 1966. Preliminary findings (more details to come in April) confirm such at 145 kt.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/33HURRICANE/ ... 39830.html


Will the full report be available?


Probably not until the summer of 2018 at the earliest. The presentation is in April.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests