2016 TCRs

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
J_J99
Tropical Depression
Tropical Depression
Posts: 62
Age: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 9:43 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up

#81 Postby J_J99 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:17 am

Found it to be very interesting....

Higher intensity SC landfall.... Grand Bahama landfall Cat 4.

But no change in 12 hours before Haiti landfall??? I find that one hard to believe.... Matthew got "that look" right before striking Haiti, very annular looking other than the "blob" (and no mention of the blob from what I could see in the TCR...) and the eye was clearing out... looked a bit like Katrina in some ways. Recon couldn't come in to confirm but I think it was borderline Cat 5 at landfall...
Image
Image
165 mph peak intensity makes sense.... and it kinda astounds me from September 30th - October 7th Matthew never dropped below major hurricane intensity.... kinda crazy.

Without that lil Grand Bahama wobble this would have been DEVASTATING for Florida and Georgia.
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.

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27561
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up

#82 Postby CrazyC83 » Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:30 pm

One storm I think should be reviewed: the Bay of Biscay storm in the far NE Atlantic in September. It looked to me that it was non-frontal with deep convection - I know Meteo-France called it subtropical as well, in fact a case could almost be made that it was fully tropical. The NHC doesn't usually look at that part of the world, but maybe that should be added in as another storm?
0 likes   

User avatar
weathaguyry
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1208
Age: 16
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:16 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up

#83 Postby weathaguyry » Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:34 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:One storm I think should be reviewed: the Bay of Biscay storm in the far NE Atlantic in September. It looked to me that it was non-frontal with deep convection - I know Meteo-France called it subtropical as well, in fact a case could almost be made that it was fully tropical. The NHC doesn't usually look at that part of the world, but maybe that should be added in as another storm?


I completely agree! That storm looked VERY interesting to me and it deserves to be added as a subtropical storm :D
0 likes   
My posts are only my opinions and NOT official forecasts. For official forecasts, consult the National Hurricane Center or the National Weather Service.

Irene 11', Sandy 12'

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27561
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up

#84 Postby CrazyC83 » Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:06 pm

weathaguyry wrote:
CrazyC83 wrote:One storm I think should be reviewed: the Bay of Biscay storm in the far NE Atlantic in September. It looked to me that it was non-frontal with deep convection - I know Meteo-France called it subtropical as well, in fact a case could almost be made that it was fully tropical. The NHC doesn't usually look at that part of the world, but maybe that should be added in as another storm?


I completely agree! That storm looked VERY interesting to me and it deserves to be added as a subtropical storm :D


I need to take more looks at it, but it might even have been fully tropical.
0 likes   

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4498
Age: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2016 TCRs

#85 Postby 1900hurricane » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:33 am

HURDAT has been updated to include 2016 data. Aside from some of the CPHC storms that will still need to be added at a later date, it appears the NHC has closed the book on the 2016 hurricane seasons.
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
Vince_and_Grace_fan
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:25 am
Location: Szombathely (Hungary)

Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up

#86 Postby Vince_and_Grace_fan » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:01 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:One storm I think should be reviewed: the Bay of Biscay storm in the far NE Atlantic in September. It looked to me that it was non-frontal with deep convection - I know Meteo-France called it subtropical as well, in fact a case could almost be made that it was fully tropical. The NHC doesn't usually look at that part of the world, but maybe that should be added in as another storm?


There was an old frontal zone around it (if you think this cyclone), so in my oppinion it wasn't fully tropical, at least subtropical.

Image

In 2015 a more interesting cyclone developed SW of the Iberian Peninsula, which had much tropical appearance, mainly in its 'second'
lifetime (on 20-21 October), but NHC didn't classify neither this cyclone. https://www.wunderground.com/blog/Zivipotty/possible-subtropicaltropical-storm-sw-of-the-iberian-peninsula-1622
0 likes   

Alyono
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 6960
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: 2016 TCRs

#87 Postby Alyono » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:12 pm

since there was a frontal system, it was neither tropical nor subtropical
0 likes   

tatertawt24
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:57 pm

Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up

#88 Postby tatertawt24 » Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:26 pm

Alyono wrote:
CrazyC83 wrote:It makes me wonder - should Felix in 2007 be revisited?

At peak intensity, it had some similarities to Matthew - quite a high pressure, very deep convection and tons of lightning in the eyewall. It was analyzed at 150 kt based on a blend of data including an SFMR reading of 163 kt and flight-level winds of 161 kt, which supports about 145 kt (a data gap also existed as Recon was forced to leave due to graupel in the eyewall). Maybe the 163 kt SFMR is accurate and the peak intensity should be raised to 160 or 165 kt?

In the case of Matthew, the flight-level winds never supported Cat 5 (highest were 143 kt at the time of lowest pressure, and they were around 140 kt at peak intensity, supporting an intensity of around 125 kt at that time), and in rapidly intensifying storms the 90% rule has been proven to often be inaccurate and an underestimate, particularly when convectively active.


of course it should. As should Andrew


What do you mean? You think Andrew should be upped even higher than it is right now?
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.

Alyono
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 6960
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up

#89 Postby Alyono » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:33 pm

tatertawt24 wrote:
Alyono wrote:
CrazyC83 wrote:It makes me wonder - should Felix in 2007 be revisited?

At peak intensity, it had some similarities to Matthew - quite a high pressure, very deep convection and tons of lightning in the eyewall. It was analyzed at 150 kt based on a blend of data including an SFMR reading of 163 kt and flight-level winds of 161 kt, which supports about 145 kt (a data gap also existed as Recon was forced to leave due to graupel in the eyewall). Maybe the 163 kt SFMR is accurate and the peak intensity should be raised to 160 or 165 kt?

In the case of Matthew, the flight-level winds never supported Cat 5 (highest were 143 kt at the time of lowest pressure, and they were around 140 kt at peak intensity, supporting an intensity of around 125 kt at that time), and in rapidly intensifying storms the 90% rule has been proven to often be inaccurate and an underestimate, particularly when convectively active.


of course it should. As should Andrew


What do you mean? You think Andrew should be upped even higher than it is right now?


Yes. Andrew was based upon 162 kts at flight level using a 90% reduction. There are two major problems with that. There was explosive intensification during the final hour before landfall. The 162 kts was found about an hour before landfall. The pressure fell 10 mb in the final hour before landfall. That alone should account for at least a 5 kt increase, if not 10. The second is 90% likely is inappropriate given it was a small, intense hurricane moving beneath a strong ridge. We have seen numerous times with this setup that the surface winds are equal to or greater than the flight level winds. Let's assume the flight level winds increased to 170 kts at landfall given the pressure falls. I would say 170 kts is the best landfall intensity of Andrew given flight level winds equal to surface winds. Those winds would also match up well with Fujita's damage surveys of the highest winds (as an aside, those surveys showed that the original Fijuta scale worked very well... in South Florida)
0 likes   

tatertawt24
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:57 pm

Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up

#90 Postby tatertawt24 » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:45 pm

Alyono wrote:
tatertawt24 wrote:
Alyono wrote:
of course it should. As should Andrew


What do you mean? You think Andrew should be upped even higher than it is right now?


Yes. Andrew was based upon 162 kts at flight level using a 90% reduction. There are two major problems with that. There was explosive intensification during the final hour before landfall. The 162 kts was found about an hour before landfall. The pressure fell 10 mb in the final hour before landfall. That alone should account for at least a 5 kt increase, if not 10. The second is 90% likely is inappropriate given it was a small, intense hurricane moving beneath a strong ridge. We have seen numerous times with this setup that the surface winds are equal to or greater than the flight level winds. Let's assume the flight level winds increased to 170 kts at landfall given the pressure falls. I would say 170 kts is the best landfall intensity of Andrew given flight level winds equal to surface winds. Those winds would also match up well with Fujita's damage surveys of the highest winds (as an aside, those surveys showed that the original Fijuta scale worked very well... in South Florida)


170 kts is almost 200 mph. :eek: I think Fujita patches of F3 damage in areas of Naranja Lakes? But I assumed the most intense damage was from the intense gusts and not sustained winds. It's definitely not impossible, as it's becoming apparent that in the explosively intensifying storms, basically all bets are off. :lol: (That's why I'm really pulling for Celia to be upgraded in reanalysis.) But I would have increased the winds at landfall in Andrew to be around 150 kts, not 170. The only storm that I ever would have considered was 170 kts is 1935.

I'm curious, if you think Andrew was 170 kts, what do you think of storms like 1935 and Camille?
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.

Alyono
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 6960
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: 2016 TCRs

#91 Postby Alyono » Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:28 am

I have questions about the Camille reanalysis finding it was a 5.

1935, I really am not sure since we don't have the same data that we have on modern day storms. Could really go on a P/W as well as a gradient wind analysis

As an aside, there is no reason Andrew was not a cat 5 initially. The TCR even stated that the gradient wind analysis for Andrew was 140 kts. The 125 kts was very poor science
0 likes   

User avatar
vbhoutex
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 28470
Age: 67
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
Location: Spring Branch area, Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: 2016 TCRs

#92 Postby vbhoutex » Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:22 am

Alyono wrote:I have questions about the Camille reanalysis finding it was a 5.

1935, I really am not sure since we don't have the same data that we have on modern day storms. Could really go on a P/W as well as a gradient wind analysis

As an aside, there is no reason Andrew was not a cat 5 initially. The TCR even stated that the gradient wind analysis for Andrew was 140 kts. The 125 kts was very poor science

Let me throw a little non-science observation in here. I lived in Gulf Breeze, FL when Camille came through and in fact was on the 1st commercial flight along the Gulf Coast in 36+ hours the morning after she went in. When we left Pensacola the winds were still gusting in the 50 mph range(around 10 am). About the time she was making landfall we were having sustained(estimation) at around 60 g75-80 based on my observations. We were 100+ mi from the center as the crow flies. Not sure if that helps with anything, but an observation anyway. About 3 weeks later when I had to drive from Gulf Breeze to Houston I had to drive about 100 miles inland since the coast was still closed down. I saw entire forests laid over, not just one or two trees, and a huge gas station sign with ibeam supports at least 12"x18" laid over like spaghetti. Considering distance from the coast and those unscientific observations can you equate that to any kind of strength and translate it to a possible strength at landfall? Needless to say almost all of the damage along the coast that was observable was surge related as opposed to wind caused leading me to believe that the surge came onshore long before the highest winds(similar to Ike) so I know that type of observation probably isn't helpful. I have always felt that she was a CAT5 at landfall just based on my own knowledge and personal experience. Does anything I have observed help one way or the other in that type of determination? Anyway, needless to say I will never forget Camille!!
Alyono I think you make some good points about Andrew. I've always wondered about the reanalysis of the 1935 Hurricane, which while obviously INTENSE AND COMPACT, much like Andrew really didn't have much in the way of verifiable information past on site observation(like mine with Camille) for verification. Not about to downgrade it, but I wish we had the technology then we have now.
0 likes   
Skywarn, C.E.R.T.
Please click below to donate to STORM2K to help with the expenses of keeping the site going:
Image

User avatar
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5098
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: 2016 TCRs

#93 Postby Ptarmigan » Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:37 pm

Interesting to see that when Hurricane Matthew had a peak of 165 mph (145 knots), the central pressure was 942 millibar.

Hurricane Ike had 944 millibar and 100 mph (85 knots) winds, while Hurricane Sandy had 940 millibars and 90 mph (80 knots) winds.

Than again Ike and Sandy were much larger.

I would not be surprised if 1935 Labor Day Hurricane had winds of over 200 mph (175 knots). It could of had winds as high as 230 mph (200 knots)!
0 likes   

Alyono
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 6960
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: 2016 TCRs

#94 Postby Alyono » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:07 pm

vbhoutex wrote:
Alyono wrote:I have questions about the Camille reanalysis finding it was a 5.

1935, I really am not sure since we don't have the same data that we have on modern day storms. Could really go on a P/W as well as a gradient wind analysis

As an aside, there is no reason Andrew was not a cat 5 initially. The TCR even stated that the gradient wind analysis for Andrew was 140 kts. The 125 kts was very poor science

Let me throw a little non-science observation in here. I lived in Gulf Breeze, FL when Camille came through and in fact was on the 1st commercial flight along the Gulf Coast in 36+ hours the morning after she went in. When we left Pensacola the winds were still gusting in the 50 mph range(around 10 am). About the time she was making landfall we were having sustained(estimation) at around 60 g75-80 based on my observations. We were 100+ mi from the center as the crow flies. Not sure if that helps with anything, but an observation anyway. About 3 weeks later when I had to drive from Gulf Breeze to Houston I had to drive about 100 miles inland since the coast was still closed down. I saw entire forests laid over, not just one or two trees, and a huge gas station sign with ibeam supports at least 12"x18" laid over like spaghetti. Considering distance from the coast and those unscientific observations can you equate that to any kind of strength and translate it to a possible strength at landfall? Needless to say almost all of the damage along the coast that was observable was surge related as opposed to wind caused leading me to believe that the surge came onshore long before the highest winds(similar to Ike) so I know that type of observation probably isn't helpful. I have always felt that she was a CAT5 at landfall just based on my own knowledge and personal experience. Does anything I have observed help one way or the other in that type of determination? Anyway, needless to say I will never forget Camille!!
Alyono I think you make some good points about Andrew. I've always wondered about the reanalysis of the 1935 Hurricane, which while obviously INTENSE AND COMPACT, much like Andrew really didn't have much in the way of verifiable information past on site observation(like mine with Camille) for verification. Not about to downgrade it, but I wish we had the technology then we have now.


To get the peak winds using damage indicators, we'd need to be able to survey the peak wind area. Complicating this in Camille is the fact that the peak wind area was under 24 feet of water
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27561
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up

#95 Postby CrazyC83 » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:23 am

Alyono wrote:
Yes. Andrew was based upon 162 kts at flight level using a 90% reduction. There are two major problems with that. There was explosive intensification during the final hour before landfall. The 162 kts was found about an hour before landfall. The pressure fell 10 mb in the final hour before landfall. That alone should account for at least a 5 kt increase, if not 10. The second is 90% likely is inappropriate given it was a small, intense hurricane moving beneath a strong ridge. We have seen numerous times with this setup that the surface winds are equal to or greater than the flight level winds. Let's assume the flight level winds increased to 170 kts at landfall given the pressure falls. I would say 170 kts is the best landfall intensity of Andrew given flight level winds equal to surface winds. Those winds would also match up well with Fujita's damage surveys of the highest winds (as an aside, those surveys showed that the original Fijuta scale worked very well... in South Florida)


Also an argument might be possible that Charley was a Cat 5 at landfall. The assessed intensity was 130 kt, but the FL winds were 148 kt just before landfall (translates to 133 kt) and the 90% rule may not have accurate given the fact Charley was small and very rapidly intensifying (dropped 23 mb in about 4 hours, including 13 mb in 2 hours). In addition, the 941 pressure might have even been a tad low given the lack of observations over Sanibel Island. You might be able to make an argument out of that for 140 kt...
0 likes   

Alyono
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 6960
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up

#96 Postby Alyono » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:35 am

CrazyC83 wrote:
Alyono wrote:
Yes. Andrew was based upon 162 kts at flight level using a 90% reduction. There are two major problems with that. There was explosive intensification during the final hour before landfall. The 162 kts was found about an hour before landfall. The pressure fell 10 mb in the final hour before landfall. That alone should account for at least a 5 kt increase, if not 10. The second is 90% likely is inappropriate given it was a small, intense hurricane moving beneath a strong ridge. We have seen numerous times with this setup that the surface winds are equal to or greater than the flight level winds. Let's assume the flight level winds increased to 170 kts at landfall given the pressure falls. I would say 170 kts is the best landfall intensity of Andrew given flight level winds equal to surface winds. Those winds would also match up well with Fujita's damage surveys of the highest winds (as an aside, those surveys showed that the original Fijuta scale worked very well... in South Florida)


Also an argument might be possible that Charley was a Cat 5 at landfall. The assessed intensity was 130 kt, but the FL winds were 148 kt just before landfall (translates to 133 kt) and the 90% rule may not have accurate given the fact Charley was small and very rapidly intensifying (dropped 23 mb in about 4 hours, including 13 mb in 2 hours). In addition, the 941 pressure might have even been a tad low given the lack of observations over Sanibel Island. You might be able to make an argument out of that for 140 kt...


However, Charley was interacting with an upper trough (it was not that far away from merging with the trough when it made landfall. Often in these setups the surface winds are < 90% of the 700mb winds. 130 kts may be appropriate for Charley even though when it hit Cuba, the surface winds were greater than the FL winds. Remember, that thing was sheared apart entirely when it reached Orlando
0 likes   

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4498
Age: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2016 TCRs

#97 Postby 1900hurricane » Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:41 pm

Lester has been updated to include the finalized CPHC portion.
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
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4498
Age: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2016 TCRs

#98 Postby 1900hurricane » Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:30 pm

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
galaxy401
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1485
Age: 24
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:04 pm
Location: Casa Grande, Arizona

Re: 2016 TCRs (Hurricane Madeline report)

#99 Postby galaxy401 » Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:05 pm

The CPHC has released their report on Hurricane Madeline. That just leaves Darby as the last storm they need to do for 2016.
2 likes   
I don't get hurricanes here but I do get their remnants.

User avatar
AnnularCane
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:18 am
Location: Wytheville, VA

Re: 2016 TCRs (Hurricane Madeline report)

#100 Postby AnnularCane » Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:33 pm

galaxy401 wrote:The CPHC has released their report on Hurricane Madeline. That just leaves Darby as the last storm they need to do for 2016.


I thought they would have been done long ago. :lol: How long does it usually take to do the whole season?
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: captainbarbossa19, Google [Bot], Killjoy12, pepecool20, TMT, Yellow Evan and 32 guests