Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

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
404UserNotFound
Tropical Low
Tropical Low
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 6:21 pm
Location: Near Antipodes of Crozet Islands

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#181 Postby 404UserNotFound » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:28 pm

supercane4867 wrote:The SPAC paper mentioned in earlier posts is now freely accessible ...

Where?
0 likes   
Please note: Never take any statements I make about forecasts at face value, as I am nowhere near professional at that.

User avatar
supercane4867
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2536
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:43 am
Location: Marietta,GA

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#182 Postby supercane4867 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:04 pm

404UserNotFound wrote:
supercane4867 wrote:The SPAC paper mentioned in earlier posts is now freely accessible ...

Where?

It should be only available to some educational institutions. I was able to view the full article using internet at my university, but I noticed it still requires access when I view it at home.
0 likes   

CrazyC83
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 26782
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#183 Postby CrazyC83 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:08 am

Based on all that and what we have learned, I would go ahead and upgrade Felix to 160 or 165 kt at peak intensity at 0300Z on September 3, 2007 (shortly after Recon was chased away). I'd treat that SFMR reading as pretty much reasonable, despite the graupel in the eyewall at the time. The backside SFMR of 142 kt in a storm moving reasonably fast would also support such.

Some other things on Irma: the highest flight level winds were 171 kt, which is supportive in itself of a 155 kt intensity (SFMR supported 160 kt at the time). At that time the satellite signature didn't support an extreme intensity, but it improved later on. During the ensuing day or so, the flight level winds were largely in the 162-167 range, which would translate to about 150 kt if no SFMR data was available (the SFMR consistently supported 160, although there was a short while around the Barbuda landfall where I would make a case for an intensity of 165 kt).
0 likes   

User avatar
mrbagyo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1413
Age: 25
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:18 am
Location: 14.13N 120.98E
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#184 Postby mrbagyo » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:03 pm

Alyono wrote:
supercane4867 wrote:I think the most important takeaway from recon observation of CAT5s in recent years is that the flight level to surface wind relationship is more complex than we thought.


It's not more complex. The Black et al paper gave a range of reduction factors from 700mb to the surface of .6 to 1.2. What we've been able to tell conclusively in the past couple of years with a relatively large dataset is that for storms in the deep tropics, or moving westward under a strong ridge in a purely barotropic environment (and not undergoing an EWRC), the surface winds are usually equal to or greater than the flight level winds.

This is why I believe Andrew was 170 kts at landfall, not the 145 that reanalysis found (the initial 25 kts failed almost any basic science test as a gradient wind analysis found winds at 140 kts)



I think the forgotten brother of Super Typhoon Tip 1979 would qualify based on your criteria.

Typhoon Vera was a classic WPAC November sprinter at times moving at a forward speed between 37 to 41 kph (as noted on ATCR). Max flight level wind of 170 knots was also observed when it was undergoing RI about 1 hour before this BD enhanced ir image was taken.
Minimum pressure was quite high at 915 mb ( but still lower than Andrew and almost the same as Irma)
Official intensity per ATCR is "only" at 140 knots

Image
Image
Image
1 likes   
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 RSMC, NHC and NWS products.

Alyono
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 6425
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#185 Postby Alyono » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:56 pm

mrbagyo wrote:
Alyono wrote:
supercane4867 wrote:I think the most important takeaway from recon observation of CAT5s in recent years is that the flight level to surface wind relationship is more complex than we thought.


It's not more complex. The Black et al paper gave a range of reduction factors from 700mb to the surface of .6 to 1.2. What we've been able to tell conclusively in the past couple of years with a relatively large dataset is that for storms in the deep tropics, or moving westward under a strong ridge in a purely barotropic environment (and not undergoing an EWRC), the surface winds are usually equal to or greater than the flight level winds.

This is why I believe Andrew was 170 kts at landfall, not the 145 that reanalysis found (the initial 25 kts failed almost any basic science test as a gradient wind analysis found winds at 140 kts)



I think the forgotten brother of Super Typhoon Tip 1979 would qualify based on your criteria.

Typhoon Vera was a classic WPAC November sprinter at times moving at a forward speed between 37 to 41 kph (as noted on ATCR). Max flight level wind of 170 knots was also observed when it was undergoing RI about 1 hour before this BD enhanced ir image was taken.
Minimum pressure was quite high at 915 mb ( but still lower than Andrew and almost the same as Irma)
Official intensity per ATCR is "only" at 140 knots

Image
Image
Image


seems like it was at least 155 kts if not higher. The fast motion seems to indicate a strong ridge. Megi had the mean reduction factor of about 90%, but it was larger and had a weaker ridge
1 likes   

User avatar
FireRat
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 471
Age: 30
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 11:38 pm
Location: Central NC

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#186 Postby FireRat » Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:04 pm

Another blast from the past, Super Typhoon Sisang/ Nina 30th anniversary landfall coming up on 11/25:

Image

Image

That one wrecked the Philippines, killing over 1000 people. Struck just after recon ended in the WPAC, who knows what they would've found!
Last edited by FireRat on Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1 likes   
Lightning does strike Twice.

User avatar
euro6208
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 12993
Age: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:50 pm
Location: Guam U.S.A

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#187 Postby euro6208 » Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:39 pm

Might as well do a complete reanalysis on the WPAC. I see a lot of underestimated storms after recon and even some during the recon era.
0 likes   
Remember, all of my post aren't official. For official warnings and discussions, Please refer to your local NWS products...

NWS for the Western Pacific

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/guam/

User avatar
mrbagyo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1413
Age: 25
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:18 am
Location: 14.13N 120.98E
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#188 Postby mrbagyo » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:28 pm

Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah

Image
The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.
2 likes   
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 RSMC, NHC and NWS products.

User avatar
Imran_doomhaMwx
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 452
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:01 am
Location: Baguio City, Benguet, Philippines

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#189 Postby Imran_doomhaMwx » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:27 am

mrbagyo wrote:Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah

[img]---[/img]
The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.

I have read that paper before, and its VERY interesting/informative!
0 likes   

User avatar
xtyphooncyclonex
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3220
Age: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:07 am
Location: Cebu City
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#190 Postby xtyphooncyclonex » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:25 am

mrbagyo wrote:Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah

Image
The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.

Meanwhile, Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts insist Typhoon Haiyan was just pure hype and was "just a cat 5 with 140-145 kt winds." They have probably never heard of the Japanese Koba Scale, which equates CI8.0 to 122 kts, which is the absolute limit of their scale. Wonder how tip got 140 kts, btw... One thing's for sure: RMW and pressure gradient were extremely tight in the case of Haiyan

I'm going to be extremely frank and say the following

(1) Let's not take these two seriously at all

(2) Abolish the Koba scale, or even the JMA being RSMC (maintain 10-min winds with another agency if otherwise)

(3) Propose talks among member countries and WMO to begin reconnaisance flights over the West Pacific
2 likes   
REMINDER: My opinions that I, or any other NON Pro-Met in this forum, are unofficial. Please do not take my opinions as an official forecast and warning. I am NOT a meteorologist. Following my forecast may lead to false alarm, danger and risk. This has occurred several times now.

My FB page: https://www.facebook.com/typhoon.watchers

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

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#191 Postby Ptarmigan » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:55 pm

mrbagyo wrote:Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah

Image
The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.


Super Typhoon Haiyan was really strong. I think the central pressure was lower than 910 millibars, possible as low as 890 millibars.

It also produce monsterous storm surge that acted like tsunami. :eek:
0 likes   

Alyono
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 6425
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#192 Postby Alyono » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:41 pm

xtyphooncyclonex wrote:
mrbagyo wrote:Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah

Image
The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.

Meanwhile, Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts insist Typhoon Haiyan was just pure hype and was "just a cat 5 with 140-145 kt winds." They have probably never heard of the Japanese Koba Scale, which equates CI8.0 to 122 kts, which is the absolute limit of their scale. Wonder how tip got 140 kts, btw... One thing's for sure: RMW and pressure gradient were extremely tight in the case of Haiyan

I'm going to be extremely frank and say the following

(1) Let's not take these two seriously at all

(2) Abolish the Koba scale, or even the JMA being RSMC (maintain 10-min winds with another agency if otherwise)

(3) Propose talks among member countries and WMO to begin reconnaisance flights over the West Pacific


Bastardi does not know what he's talking about in this case. No other way to put it. There is ZERO objective data to say that Haiyan was 140-145 kts. Absolutely zero. If he insists upon that, I will question his credentials as a scientist. We has Megi, which had LOWER Dvorak numbers, that had measured 175 kt surface winds from the SFMR. You're telling me that a TC with a higher Dvorak number was 30 kt weaker?

Haiyan was likely around 180-185 kts, similar to Patricia at its peak intensity
5 likes   

User avatar
xtyphooncyclonex
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3220
Age: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:07 am
Location: Cebu City
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#193 Postby xtyphooncyclonex » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:37 am

Alyono wrote:
xtyphooncyclonex wrote:
mrbagyo wrote:Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah

Image
The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.

Meanwhile, Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts insist Typhoon Haiyan was just pure hype and was "just a cat 5 with 140-145 kt winds." They have probably never heard of the Japanese Koba Scale, which equates CI8.0 to 122 kts, which is the absolute limit of their scale. Wonder how tip got 140 kts, btw... One thing's for sure: RMW and pressure gradient were extremely tight in the case of Haiyan

I'm going to be extremely frank and say the following

(1) Let's not take these two seriously at all

(2) Abolish the Koba scale, or even the JMA being RSMC (maintain 10-min winds with another agency if otherwise)

(3) Propose talks among member countries and WMO to begin reconnaisance flights over the West Pacific


Bastardi does not know what he's talking about in this case. No other way to put it. There is ZERO objective data to say that Haiyan was 140-145 kts. Absolutely zero. If he insists upon that, I will question his credentials as a scientist. We has Megi, which had LOWER Dvorak numbers, that had measured 175 kt surface winds from the SFMR. You're telling me that a TC with a higher Dvorak number was 30 kt weaker?

Haiyan was likely around 180-185 kts, similar to Patricia at its peak intensity

I find this article insensitive. Here it is, containing their "proof"

Bastardi tweeted in 2013 something relating to this and questioning the "hype"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/ ... n-yolanda/
0 likes   
REMINDER: My opinions that I, or any other NON Pro-Met in this forum, are unofficial. Please do not take my opinions as an official forecast and warning. I am NOT a meteorologist. Following my forecast may lead to false alarm, danger and risk. This has occurred several times now.

My FB page: https://www.facebook.com/typhoon.watchers

User avatar
euro6208
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 12993
Age: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:50 pm
Location: Guam U.S.A

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#194 Postby euro6208 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:55 am

Plain and simple. If the EPAC can produce Patricia out from nowhere after having only Linda from 1997 peaking at 905 mb and the Atlantic can produce Wilma after Gilbert more than 14 years apart, how much more can the WPAC produce? The recon era proved that this basin can produce incredibly powerful historic typhoons mostly every year which had been talked about for years. Now no recon...We have seen incredibly powerful typhoons come and go since post recon but no honorable mention of them because they are just estimated from satellite but these typhoons have the most powerful satellite presentations we have ever seen worldwide. Dvorak peaking at 7.5 or higher and a very warm eye. It's sad to think what we might have found.
0 likes   
Remember, all of my post aren't official. For official warnings and discussions, Please refer to your local NWS products...

NWS for the Western Pacific

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/guam/

User avatar
xtyphooncyclonex
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3220
Age: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:07 am
Location: Cebu City
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#195 Postby xtyphooncyclonex » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:48 am

euro6208 wrote:Plain and simple. If the EPAC can produce Patricia out from nowhere after having only Linda from 1997 peaking at 905 mb and the Atlantic can produce Wilma after Gilbert more than 14 years apart, how much more can the WPAC produce? The recon era proved that this basin can produce incredibly powerful historic typhoons mostly every year which had been talked about for years. Now no recon...We have seen incredibly powerful typhoons come and go since post recon but no honorable mention of them because they are just estimated from satellite but these typhoons have the most powerful satellite presentations we have ever seen worldwide. Dvorak peaking at 7.5 or higher and a very warm eye. It's sad to think what we might have found.

Dvorak was most likely RIGHT about Haiyan seeing the damage over Tanauan, Guiuan, Homonhon and Tolosa---all seeing cat 5 winds during the onslaught. It isn't reliable esp with pinhole eyes, large eyes or cold convection. Remember having cat 2- low end 3 hurricane Bill 2009 nearing cat 5 in Dvorak. It isn't wasting so much ACE or many typhoons, but Dvorak can't get the intensity right--this shouldn't be another opportunity to mention typhoons are more than hurricanes all the time..... or something like it
1 likes   
REMINDER: My opinions that I, or any other NON Pro-Met in this forum, are unofficial. Please do not take my opinions as an official forecast and warning. I am NOT a meteorologist. Following my forecast may lead to false alarm, danger and risk. This has occurred several times now.

My FB page: https://www.facebook.com/typhoon.watchers

User avatar
Shell Mound
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 78
Age: 25
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Tampa Bay, FL / Sweden

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#196 Postby Shell Mound » Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:19 pm

Speaking of intense tropical cyclones, I would like to add to the discussion some pre-satellite Atlantic storms for which there is ample (though far from ideal) observational coverage: the twin Indianola hurricanes in Texas (1875 and '86), the twin Galveston hurricanes (1900 and '15), the 1926 Miami hurricane, Hurricane San Felipe Segundo / Okeechobee (1928), the 1935 Labor Day hurricane, the 1938 (New England) and 1944 (Great Atlantic) hurricanes, and Donna (1960). A recent study (see the appendix) found that the 1875 hurricane may have had a pressure as low as 928 mb as it neared Texas, apparently based on newly uncovered ship reports as well as storm-surge data. A storm surge of fifteen feet affected portions of the Texas coastline in and near Indianola. The 1886 hurricane produced a similarly high surge and generated a pressure of 965 mb at San Antonio, well inland from the barrier islands. A study by a storm-surge specialist estimated that the 1915 hurricane was a strong Category 4 cyclone with a 930-mb pressure at landfall in Texas that produced a potential storm-surge height of at least thirty feet, though the reanalysis project found the system to be 115 knots (940 mb) at landfall, making it a low-end Category 4 cyclone. The 1926 hurricane may have briefly been a Category 5 cyclone over the Bahamas, given the damage and sparseness of observations as well as later data from South Florida. The 1928 cyclone definitely appears to have been a solid Category 5 over Puerto Rico, based on observations; it may well have been stronger than 120 knots over Guadeloupe. The 1935 Labor Day hurricane was almost certainly stronger than the 160 knots it received in the reanalysis, based on the tiny RMW, rapid deepening, and high background pressures, given its proximity to a subtropical ridge. Ship reports at sea (not land data) strongly suggest that the 1938 and 1944 hurricanes may well have exceeded the minimum Category-5 threshold at their peaks; one study assessed the central pressure to be 909 mb in the latter storm to the northeast of the Bahamas. Donna's radar presentation in the Keys, with its concentric, closed, intense eyewall, was extremely impressive, even when the crudeness of the technology in 1960 is considered.
1 likes   
Not a meteorologist. Only rely on official forecasts from the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the National Weather Service (NWS).

tolakram
Admin
Admin
Posts: 13354
Age: 54
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Florence, KY (name is Mark)

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#197 Postby tolakram » Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:29 pm

xtyphooncyclonex wrote:I find this article insensitive. Here it is, containing their "proof"

Bastardi tweeted in 2013 something relating to this and questioning the "hype"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/ ... n-yolanda/


Bastardi likes to see his name thrown around, so here we are throwing it around. This is why I react so negatively when I see the 'hype' word used, most of the time the person claiming hype has no clue what they are talking about or is working with subjective data. Hype is not a word that belongs in a scientific analysis, IMO.
3 likes   
M a r k
- - - - -

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. Posts are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.org. For official information and forecasts, please refer to NHC and NWS products.

User avatar
storm_in_a_teacup
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 pm
Location: I bounce between L.A. & Houston

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#198 Postby storm_in_a_teacup » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:27 pm

tolakram wrote:
xtyphooncyclonex wrote:I find this article insensitive. Here it is, containing their "proof"

Bastardi tweeted in 2013 something relating to this and questioning the "hype"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/ ... n-yolanda/


Bastardi likes to see his name thrown around, so here we are throwing it around. This is why I react so negatively when I see the 'hype' word used, most of the time the person claiming hype has no clue what they are talking about or is working with subjective data. Hype is not a word that belongs in a scientific analysis, IMO.


You have not seen the things people say about astronomical events, then. Obviously severe weather is dangerous, and so can never be reduced to "hype," but if someone starts spouting off about a "supermoon?"... yeah hype is the scientific term for that. :roll:
0 likes   
I know I can't straddle the atmosphere...just a tiny storm in your teacup, girl.

User avatar
euro6208
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 12993
Age: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:50 pm
Location: Guam U.S.A

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#199 Postby euro6208 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:01 am

One of the most underestimated typhoons EVER is coming up. 11 years since Super Typhoon Cimaron made landfall over the Philippines. Assigned only as a 140 knot system but AFWA and SSD gave it 7.5, JTWC at 7.8 (Near 190 mph), and a forecaster from SAB using a second type of estimate gave it 8.0 due to restrictions stemming from it's rapid intensification.

My oh my...

Image
0 likes   
Remember, all of my post aren't official. For official warnings and discussions, Please refer to your local NWS products...

NWS for the Western Pacific

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/guam/

User avatar
xtyphooncyclonex
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3220
Age: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:07 am
Location: Cebu City
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#200 Postby xtyphooncyclonex » Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:30 am

Haiyan may not have a central pressure as low as many estimate, but the winds were powerful---more than the JTWC/JMA have given officially. I reckon 890-905 hPa at peak with winds of 180-190 kts
0 likes   
REMINDER: My opinions that I, or any other NON Pro-Met in this forum, are unofficial. Please do not take my opinions as an official forecast and warning. I am NOT a meteorologist. Following my forecast may lead to false alarm, danger and risk. This has occurred several times now.

My FB page: https://www.facebook.com/typhoon.watchers


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], NotoSans and 18 guests