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
NotoSans
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 650
Age: 18
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:15 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#221 Postby NotoSans » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:25 am

Recon actually found 200 kt surface winds for several consecutive fixes for Nancy. The 185-kt intensity from JTWC was derived from the wind-pressure relationship used at that time. In the late 1970s, JTWC switched to the Atkinson-Holliday relationship, resulting in lower (sometimes ridiculously low) intensity estimates.

It should be noted that, however, at that time surface winds reported by recon were based on visual estimates by the people onboard. It was until the 1990s that we started to have more reliable surface winds measurement from recon such as SFMR and dropsondes. Also, during the recon era in WPAC, aircraft tended to avoid navigating in the right front quadrant (where the highest winds would normally be found) and their main mission was to have an eye penetration to obtain the central pressure. The winds reports from recon thus should be taken with a grain of salt.
1 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 RSMC and NWS products.

User avatar
euro6208
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 14030
Age: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:50 pm
Location: Guam U.S.A

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#222 Postby euro6208 » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:49 am

Image

I know we can't do nothing to change back what recon found and after recon ended in many typhoons but there are many evidence of many being stronger.

Maybe we have to look into the most powerful typhoons pressure wise as seen in the picture above? I know they are official but what if recon missed their strongest point like what some are saying that recon missed Patricia's peak. Can their pressures be trusted? WHat if they peak lower?

One example of this is Super Typhoon June from 1975.

It's was the 2nd lowest pressure worldwide obtained from near the cloud eyewall, 875mb...Not exactly where you would find the lowest pressure. It's eye was an incredible 3 miles. A meteorologist that was tracking the flight says that the pressure could have been 10 mb lower if the dropsonde was in the centre.

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
euro6208
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 14030
Age: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:50 pm
Location: Guam U.S.A

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#223 Postby euro6208 » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:36 am

xtyphooncyclonex wrote:
euro6208 wrote:Super Typhoon Nancy in 1961 with recon confirmed 185 knots likely would have been the first megastorm in history.

Skeptics were like. Oh measurements and estimations of wind speeds from the 1940s to 1960s were too excessive then recon confirmed Patricia came...They've been happening for a long long time.


I have an important question for you: In your own world, would there ever be an intense hurricane that would be overestimated? Is everything underestimated in the Western Pacific? Why is nearly every typhoon with an eye a super typhoon, or those with pinholes stronger or as strong as Wilma?

Hurricanes and typhoons can both be underestimated and overestimated. Let that sink in. No need to be so cocky about everything being stronger than initially thought. One hurricane was Hurricane Dog. At first, it was estimated to be 160 kts. Reanalysis shows that it was actually 125 kts. Truth is, hurricanes and tropical cyclones in general are getting stronger as time passes by. It is storms in the past that tend to be overestimated and those in the present tend to be otherwise. Yes, more storms now may be underestimated but that does not mean everything has to be stronger than what we think. By the way, Katrina made us learn that wind intensity and categories aren't everything. You don't need every storm to be a category 5 to have so much destruction and wreak havoc. Stop wishcasting to make every intense storm a category 5.

And btw, you posted this for the nth time.


Would there ever be an intense hurricane that would be overestimated? Maybe...if Irma never got recon and it got up to 160 knots despite dvorak showing only a 6.5. Yeah

Is everything underestimated in the Western Pacific? Hmm no doubt after 1987. I'd say 75 to 80 percent for those super storms.

Why is nearly every typhoon with an eye a super typhoon, or those with pinholes stronger or as strong as Wilma? One word...RECON... The typhoons have been much stronger looking and for a longer period of time.
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/

Alyono
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 6717
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#224 Postby Alyono » Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:52 pm

NotoSans wrote:Recon actually found 200 kt surface winds for several consecutive fixes for Nancy. The 185-kt intensity from JTWC was derived from the wind-pressure relationship used at that time. In the late 1970s, JTWC switched to the Atkinson-Holliday relationship, resulting in lower (sometimes ridiculously low) intensity estimates.

It should be noted that, however, at that time surface winds reported by recon were based on visual estimates by the people onboard. It was until the 1990s that we started to have more reliable surface winds measurement from recon such as SFMR and dropsondes. Also, during the recon era in WPAC, aircraft tended to avoid navigating in the right front quadrant (where the highest winds would normally be found) and their main mission was to have an eye penetration to obtain the central pressure. The winds reports from recon thus should be taken with a grain of salt.


Atkinson-Holliday is a good one to use in a monsoon trough. Works well for many late season Caribbean systems as well

However, for storms like Haiyan, the Atlantic p/w was found from the limited recon in 2008 and 2010 to work very well
0 likes   

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3557
Age: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#225 Postby 1900hurricane » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:20 pm

Just for fun, here's the text output from my revamped KZC python program using Horaru's 860 mb pressure estimate and the JTWC data from 18Z November 7th, 2013 for Haiyan.

Using a 860 mb central pressure, 22 kt forward speed,
124 nm average TS radius, and 10.6º latitude, KZC ouputs
192 kt 1 min wind velocity with an OCI of 1001 mb.
0 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/

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

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#226 Postby CrazyC83 » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:39 pm

euro6208 wrote:
xtyphooncyclonex wrote:
euro6208 wrote:Super Typhoon Nancy in 1961 with recon confirmed 185 knots likely would have been the first megastorm in history.

Skeptics were like. Oh measurements and estimations of wind speeds from the 1940s to 1960s were too excessive then recon confirmed Patricia came...They've been happening for a long long time.


I have an important question for you: In your own world, would there ever be an intense hurricane that would be overestimated? Is everything underestimated in the Western Pacific? Why is nearly every typhoon with an eye a super typhoon, or those with pinholes stronger or as strong as Wilma?

Hurricanes and typhoons can both be underestimated and overestimated. Let that sink in. No need to be so cocky about everything being stronger than initially thought. One hurricane was Hurricane Dog. At first, it was estimated to be 160 kts. Reanalysis shows that it was actually 125 kts. Truth is, hurricanes and tropical cyclones in general are getting stronger as time passes by. It is storms in the past that tend to be overestimated and those in the present tend to be otherwise. Yes, more storms now may be underestimated but that does not mean everything has to be stronger than what we think. By the way, Katrina made us learn that wind intensity and categories aren't everything. You don't need every storm to be a category 5 to have so much destruction and wreak havoc. Stop wishcasting to make every intense storm a category 5.

And btw, you posted this for the nth time.


Would there ever be an intense hurricane that would be overestimated? Maybe...if Irma never got recon and it got up to 160 knots despite dvorak showing only a 6.5. Yeah

Is everything underestimated in the Western Pacific? Hmm no doubt after 1987. I'd say 75 to 80 percent for those super storms.

Why is nearly every typhoon with an eye a super typhoon, or those with pinholes stronger or as strong as Wilma? One word...RECON... The typhoons have been much stronger looking and for a longer period of time.


Even without Recon, Irma would have been considered a cat 5 (and likely a strong one) due to pressure measurements on land from Barbuda and St. Martin. Going by those would have supported at least 150 kt.
1 likes   

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3557
Age: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#227 Postby 1900hurricane » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:48 pm

Alyono wrote:
NotoSans wrote:Recon actually found 200 kt surface winds for several consecutive fixes for Nancy. The 185-kt intensity from JTWC was derived from the wind-pressure relationship used at that time. In the late 1970s, JTWC switched to the Atkinson-Holliday relationship, resulting in lower (sometimes ridiculously low) intensity estimates.

It should be noted that, however, at that time surface winds reported by recon were based on visual estimates by the people onboard. It was until the 1990s that we started to have more reliable surface winds measurement from recon such as SFMR and dropsondes. Also, during the recon era in WPAC, aircraft tended to avoid navigating in the right front quadrant (where the highest winds would normally be found) and their main mission was to have an eye penetration to obtain the central pressure. The winds reports from recon thus should be taken with a grain of salt.


Atkinson-Holliday is a good one to use in a monsoon trough. Works well for many late season Caribbean systems as well

However, for storms like Haiyan, the Atlantic p/w was found from the limited recon in 2008 and 2010 to work very well

From my experience, AH77 seems to work best with systems that have concentric eyewalls. It did surprisingly well with systems like Alex '10, Matthew '16 while east of Florida, and Irma '17 while near the Florida Keys. Elsewhere, AH77s success seems spotty at best. Even the enormous monsoon trough originating Super Typhoon Lan '17 was better represented by KZC than AH77.

Using a 925 mb central pressure, 18 kt forward speed,
272 nm average TS radius, and 25.5º latitude, KZC outputs
a 118 kt 1 min wind velocity with an OCI of 1000 mb.

OCI data for Lan '17 above isn't exact, but it's in the ballpark. I ran KZC a few more times with slightly different OCIs, and it turned out that an increase in one mb of OCI is worth about 1 kt in Vmax in this case.
0 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
WAcyclone
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:56 pm

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#228 Postby WAcyclone » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:22 pm

1900hurricane wrote:Hoarau sure has been busy lately. Using the 910 mb reading from Guiuan and extrapolating the pressure gradient from systems like Megi '10 and Patricia '15, he estimates a pressure near 860 mb from Haiyan '13!

https://twitter.com/Cyclonebiskit/statu ... 3509274624


It looks like Hoarau et al. used a single infrared satellite image from 2057z (with a resolution of 1 km) to estimate Haiyan's centre position in a situation where every kilometre matters a lot. It's also interesting that they used this 2057z position to extrapolate from the 910 mb reading which was taken at least three minutes later. Since Haiyan was moving at 11.5 m/s at the time (i.e. 2 km in 3 minutes), this alone would make a difference of around 8 mb!

I wonder why neither microwave (2105z F-16 pass) nor radar imagery from Guiuan or Cebu were considered for a 2100z centre position estimate?

The Cebu radar already suggests that at 2100z, Guiuan (red x) was way closer than 11 km to the edge of the eye:

Image

However, the 2019z radar image from Guiuan may be more useful since this radar site was much closer to the centre and thus likely more accurate. Here is a very interesting graphic from the Typhoon Committee presentation posted by NotoSans:

Image

This 2019z position estimate (the little x at 10.805°N, 126.068°E) is 115 km away from the 2305z Tolosa landfall point, so the average forward speed was probably around 11.5 m/s. Therefore, extrapolating the storm's movement for 41 minutes in the exact direction of the Tolosa landfall point yields a 2100z centre position estimate of 10.859°N, 125.815°E which is more than 7 km NW of the NOAA-15 satellite estimate used by Hoarau. Since the edge of the eye (17 km radius) would now have been only around 4 km away from the Guiuan weather station, I estimate a central pressure of 889 mb based on Hoarau's pressure extrapolation method with a gradient of 4 mb/km.

Image


However, there are so many inexact variables that, in my opinion, it's simply not possible to determine Haiyan's central pressure with a high degree of confidence and claim a new world record like Hoarau et al. did:

"[...] it was possible to define the minimum surface atmospheric pressure at the centre of Typhoon Haiyan with a high degree of confidence. The scenario selected gives Haiyan a minimum pressure of 860hPa, below the world record of 870hPa held by Tip and the 872hPa pressure estimated in Patricia."
5 likes   

NotoSans
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 650
Age: 18
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:15 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#229 Postby NotoSans » Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:19 pm

Hoarau et al. did use the 2020Z radar imagery to make a position estimate and the result (10.78N 126.07E) was very similar to yours. It should be noted that no more information from Guiuan radar was available after 2020Z probably because of the violent winds blowing away the radar.

I had tried to use the 2105Z F-16 microwave imagery to make another position estimate. Based on the 91GHz channel, the centre was near 10.80N 125.80E at that time, but this is a bit inconsistent with the motion observed from Guiuan and Cebu radars. Also, the 37GHz channel suggested that the centre was probably a bit more northwest of what the 91GHz channel indicated. IMO it is nearly impossible to make a precise position estimate using satellite / microwave imagery alone because of resolution problem; therefore, I would say the central pressure estimated by Hoarau et al. may consist of large errors and should be taken with a grain of salt.
5 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 RSMC and NWS products.

NotoSans
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 650
Age: 18
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:15 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#230 Postby NotoSans » Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:54 pm

I have also tried to analyse the central pressure of Haiyan when it made landfall over Leyte using data from the iCyclone chase report and the Schloemer equation. The inputs are as follows.

RMW: 16.5 km (The report suggested that the RMW was very likely between 7 and 11 nm. I have chosen to use a value of 9 nm.)
R: 25.5 km (The landfall point was near 11.015N, 125.04E)
POCI: 1012 hPa (I have chosen to use a high value because Haiyan was moving under an abnormally strong ridge. JMA weather map suggested a POCI of 1004 hPa while model fields suggested a value of around 1008 hPa.)
Pr: 962 hPa (Landfall occurred at around 0700 PHT. The barograms suggested that the recorded pressure at that time was a bit higher than 960 hPa.)

These inputs would yield an estimated central pressure of 907 hPa for the Leyte landfall. Comparatively speaking, this estimate is of higher confidence because the centre position can be determined with a much higher precision.

Unfortunately, we can't use this estimate to work backward and estimate the central pressure of Haiyan when it was at its peak since we can't ascertain how much Haiyan had weakened before landfall. The best analog I can find is Super Typhoon Betty back in 1987 which peaked before making landfall over Samar. Betty had a central pressure of 891 hPa reported by recon at 1544Z, around 8 hours before landfall. When another aircraft arrived at 2332Z (shortly before landfall), the central pressure had risen to 909 hPa, suggesting a filing rate of around 2.25 hPa per hour. Assuming that Haiyan peaked at around 1800Z, a similar filing rate would suggest a peak central pressure of around 895 hPa. It should be noted that, however, the satellite presentation of Betty degraded more significantly than Haiyan before landfall, and the same filing rate may not apply.

FYI, you can refer to the iCyclone chase report through this link:
http://www.icyclone.com/upload/chases/h ... 040314.pdf
4 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 RSMC and NWS products.

User avatar
WAcyclone
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:56 pm

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#231 Postby WAcyclone » Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:29 pm

NotoSans wrote:I have also tried to analyse the central pressure of Haiyan when it made landfall over Leyte using data from the iCyclone chase report and the Schloemer equation. The inputs are as follows.

RMW: 16.5 km (The report suggested that the RMW was very likely between 7 and 11 nm. I have chosen to use a value of 9 nm.)
R: 25.5 km (The landfall point was near 11.015N, 125.04E)
POCI: 1012 hPa (I have chosen to use a high value because Haiyan was moving under an abnormally strong ridge. JMA weather map suggested a POCI of 1004 hPa while model fields suggested a value of around 1008 hPa.)
Pr: 962 hPa (Landfall occurred at around 0700 PHT. The barograms suggested that the recorded pressure at that time was a bit higher than 960 hPa.)

These inputs would yield an estimated central pressure of 907 hPa for the Leyte landfall. Comparatively speaking, this estimate is of higher confidence because the centre position can be determined with a much higher precision.

Unfortunately, we can't use this estimate to work backward and estimate the central pressure of Haiyan when it was at its peak since we can't ascertain how much Haiyan had weakened before landfall. The best analog I can find is Super Typhoon Betty back in 1987 which peaked before making landfall over Samar. Betty had a central pressure of 891 hPa reported by recon at 1544Z, around 8 hours before landfall. When another aircraft arrived at 2332Z (shortly before landfall), the central pressure had risen to 909 hPa, suggesting a filing rate of around 2.25 hPa per hour. Assuming that Haiyan peaked at around 1800Z, a similar filing rate would suggest a peak central pressure of around 895 hPa. It should be noted that, however, the satellite presentation of Betty degraded more significantly than Haiyan before landfall, and the same filing rate may not apply.

FYI, you can refer to the iCyclone chase report through this link:
http://www.icyclone.com/upload/chases/h ... 040314.pdf


Exactly, this is another point that strongly speaks against Haiyan being the most intense TC ever recorded. Using Morgerman's 960 hpa pressure and the latitude of 11.13N for the northern edge of the eye, I'm also estimating a pressure of 907 hpa. This is based on the exact same methodology described by Hoarau et al.: The distance to the northern edge of the eye was around 12 km, so a gradient of 4 hpa/km yields a pressure of 912 hpa. Subtracting 5 hpa inside the eye and I'm getting 907 hpa. Interesting these two methods are resulting in exactly the same pressure estimate :)
1 likes   

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3557
Age: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#232 Postby 1900hurricane » Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:46 pm

Not only does resolution come into play with satellite positions, but so does parallax. Parallax can be especially tricky for the polar orbiters that the microwave imagery comes from since it varies on each individual pass. Here's a COMET image for visual.

Image
5 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
euro6208
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 14030
Age: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:50 pm
Location: Guam U.S.A

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#233 Postby euro6208 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:08 am

Don't let Haiyan fool you. There have been tons of typhoons looking similarly strong.

Angela and Gay had ODT numbers higher than Tip, between 8.3 and 8.7, and for a longer time period. These typhoons attained manual Dvorak T-numbers of 8.0 which persisted for at least nine hours without a spiral band.


Image
Image

https://ams.confex.com/ams/26HURR/techprogram/paper_75465.htm

Patricia got lucky it was moving towards land.
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
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3557
Age: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#234 Postby 1900hurricane » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:13 am

Ahh, another Hoarau paper. Based on Veldon, et. al, the eye pattern used for the ODT Hoarau used appears to be the Digital Dvorak (DD) method, a very early precursor to ADT. Zehr (the 'Z' in KZC) actually pioneered DD way back in 1989. As such an early method, it is prone to errors larger than current methods. For example, the raw DD calculations were actually approaching 8.0 for the recon verified category 3 Hurricane Karl from 2010 (below). That's not to fault Hoarau though. The time that was presented, Dianmu '04 hadn't even existed yet and ADT as we know it was still in early development at CIMSS. I'm not doubting that Gay '92 and Angela '95 aren't among the most elite echelon of observed tropical cyclones, but I would be wary of using the ODT/DD values at face value.

Image
3 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
euro6208
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 14030
Age: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:50 pm
Location: Guam U.S.A

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#235 Postby euro6208 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:48 am

Been reading alot about these Saffir–Simpson scale, Atlantic p/w, Atkinson-Holliday, and Schloemer equation ETC. What are those? Estimations....Only recon reveals the truth as seen in the Atlantic and loner Patricia.
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
galaxy401
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1226
Age: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:04 pm
Location: Casa Grande, Arizona

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#236 Postby galaxy401 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:00 am

euro6208 wrote:Been reading alot about these Saffir–Simpson scale, Atlantic p/w, Atkinson-Holliday, and Schloemer equation ETC. What are those? Estimations....Only recon reveals the truth as seen in the Atlantic and loner Patricia.


You know, by all those posts you have made about Patricia in the last couple years, are you perhaps jealous that a storm as strong as Patricia spawned in an area other then the WPAC?
4 likes   
I don't get hurricanes here but I do get their remnants.

tolakram
Admin
Admin
Posts: 13537
Age: 55
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Florence, KY (name is Mark)

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#237 Postby tolakram » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:03 am

Stay on topic please. If you don't have anything new to say OR your reply is about another poster then please do not post. This thread should be a discussion, not a wish list.
2 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.

J_J99
Tropical Low
Tropical Low
Posts: 43
Age: 18
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 9:43 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#238 Postby J_J99 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:46 pm

I did a post on the Category 6 Blog on Wunderground about 9 days ago, I thought to myself, why haven't I shared it here? Well I guess I will now. :)

Essentially it is a summary of Irma in pictures. :)

Check out the link below for the story. :D
http://disq.us/p/1nghwqn
(I would embed it within the forum but I dont know how to.

Feedback would be appreciated! :)

-J_J99
1 likes   
The following post is NOT an official forecast and should not be used as such. It is just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is NOT endorsed by any professional institution including storm2k.org For Official Information please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

User avatar
xtyphooncyclonex
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3311
Age: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:07 am
Location: Cebu City
Contact:

Re:

#239 Postby xtyphooncyclonex » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:24 pm

Hurricaneman wrote:These pressures are my opinion based on if recon had gone in
Typhoon Haiyan 872
Typhoon Tip 870
Typhoon Gay 865
Typhoon Angela 868
Typhoon June 865 {dropsonde was 875 but in the eyewall
Tropical Cyclone Monica 868
Typhoon Andy 871
Typhoon Yuri 869
Typhoon Forrest 872
Hurricane Patricia 875{Will probably be revised to}

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

Haiyan would be >885. There was a powerful STR as well as high backgroound pressures
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 forecasts blindly may lead to false alarm, danger and risk if official forecasts from agencies are ignored.

User avatar
euro6208
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 14030
Age: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:50 pm
Location: Guam U.S.A

Re: Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

#240 Postby euro6208 » Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:57 am

galaxy401 wrote:
euro6208 wrote:Been reading alot about these Saffir–Simpson scale, Atlantic p/w, Atkinson-Holliday, and Schloemer equation ETC. What are those? Estimations....Only recon reveals the truth as seen in the Atlantic and loner Patricia.


You know, by all those posts you have made about Patricia in the last couple years, are you perhaps jealous that a storm as strong as Patricia spawned in an area other then the WPAC?


tolakram wrote:Stay on topic please. If you don't have anything new to say OR your reply is about another poster then please do not post. This thread should be a discussion, not a wish list.


Thanks Tolakram.

Just stating the fact that Patricia's have been occurring in the WPAC but with no recon. Now back to topic.
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/


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blown Away, NWFL56 and 12 guests