2017 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
User avatar
cycloneye
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 112118
Age: 61
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: 2017 TCRs

#41 Postby cycloneye » Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:57 pm

1 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
cycloneye
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 112118
Age: 61
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: 2017 TCRs

#42 Postby cycloneye » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:08 am

1 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: 2017 TCRs

#43 Postby CrazyC83 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:14 am

Interesting how Rina formed with a complex interaction of a late-season tropical wave and a mid-latitude trough.
2 likes   

User avatar
Shell Mound
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 199
Age: 25
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Kenneth City, FL ↔︎ Rölanda, Västra Götaland County, Sweden

Re: 2017 TCRs

#44 Postby Shell Mound » Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:03 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:Interesting how Rina formed with a complex interaction of a late-season tropical wave and a mid-latitude trough.

When Rina formed, I immediately thought about its origins from an African easterly wave. Considering its location and early-November genesis, it must be one of the latest Cape Verde-type systems to form over the Atlantic on record.
0 likes   
TAMPA BAY: Home of the Tocobaga! ~Tracking weather since 1992~ Not a meteorologist. Only rely on official forecasts from the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the National Weather Service (NWS). | March '93 Superstorm | Gordon '94, Irene '99, Frances & Jeanne '04, Katrina & Wilma '05, Irma '17 | ET, TS, H

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

Re: 2017 TCRs

#45 Postby galaxy401 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:14 pm

These reports have certainly been coming out a slower pace compared to previous seasons. I assume they are currently working on the bigger reports such as Harvey and Irma and it contains a lot of information.

I'm sure as I said that, a lot of reports will come out in the next few days.
1 likes   
I don't get hurricanes here but I do get their remnants.

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

Re: 2017 TCRs

#46 Postby CrazyC83 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:19 pm

galaxy401 wrote:These reports have certainly been coming out a slower pace compared to previous seasons. I assume they are currently working on the bigger reports such as Harvey and Irma and it contains a lot of information.

I'm sure as I said that, a lot of reports will come out in the next few days.


I agree, they are probably working on some tougher reports. Bret is probably the shortest of the remaining ones, followed by some combination of Emily, Franklin, Gert and (possibly) Philippe (depending on if they consider the semi-related extratropical stage as part of the storm or as a separate system). The EPAC ones, for the most part, should be fairly quick too so if they move to them they could produce them in short order.

Those for Harvey and Irma will likely be over 100 pages each, while I'd think Maria and Nate will be around 50 pages with the land data collected. I don't think we will be done before late March at the earliest - around when the WMO TCP meets.
3 likes   

User avatar
cycloneye
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 112118
Age: 61
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: 2017 TCRs

#47 Postby cycloneye » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:37 pm

CrazyC83 IMO,Maria will have more than 50 pages but less than 100.(Between 55-60)
2 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
Shell Mound
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 199
Age: 25
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Kenneth City, FL ↔︎ Rölanda, Västra Götaland County, Sweden

Re: 2017 TCRs

#48 Postby Shell Mound » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:20 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:
galaxy401 wrote:These reports have certainly been coming out a slower pace compared to previous seasons. I assume they are currently working on the bigger reports such as Harvey and Irma and it contains a lot of information.

I'm sure as I said that, a lot of reports will come out in the next few days.


I agree, they are probably working on some tougher reports. Bret is probably the shortest of the remaining ones, followed by some combination of Emily, Franklin, Gert and (possibly) Philippe (depending on if they consider the semi-related extratropical stage as part of the storm or as a separate system). The EPAC ones, for the most part, should be fairly quick too so if they move to them they could produce them in short order.

Those for Harvey and Irma will likely be over 100 pages each, while I'd think Maria and Nate will be around 50 pages with the land data collected. I don't think we will be done before late March at the earliest - around when the WMO TCP meets.

I also think that the 1961-65 reanalysis for the Atlantic should come out shortly after the final TCRs are completed, which should be icing on the cake to top off an epic 2017 season. Some big changes could be in the works, including some surprises, perhaps even a new U.S. major hurricane (Cleo [1964] in SE FL, based on surface observations in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro area). I am already willing to take some preliminary guesses as to what the final, Best Track Committee-approved data might contain. I'll start off by mentioning some of the notable storms, adding in some interesting sideshows. Again, these are only my guesses, and do not reflect inside information, which I wouldn't share publicly until the formal release of the reanalysis (revised HURDAT) online. For reference, I used Sandy Delgado's preliminary reanalysis of the 1955-63 seasons.

Carla (1961) will likely be downgraded to 120 knots at its initial peak over the Gulf of Mexico, if not lower, due to its large size/RMW and slow movement. However, the landfall in TX might prove a different story. The anemometer data and pressure reports from Port Lavaca, TX, plus pre-landfall recon data and the (spectacular) radar presentation, suggest that the TX intensity will be very close to what is currently implied in HURDAT. If the report of 124 knots from the oil-drilling site in Port Lavaca was sustained and close to the standard 10-m elevation, then that would hold intriguing implications for the winds at landfall, for the anemometer was in the NW (or at least N) quadrant and failed after recording the 124-knot value (measured gusts were in the Cat-5 range, ~150 knots). Also, recon fixes suggest the pressure was deepening in the hours before landfall, and radar fixes suggested the eye was contracting at that time. Pressure reports, including 936 mb in Port Lavaca, were taken somewhat inland from the immediate coastline, and are fully consistent with a landfall pressure of at most 931 mb, if not a few mb deeper. I think Carla could have conceivably been in the 928-930 mb range at landfall. All the data, to me, suggest that Carla was likely a full 125 knots at landfall in TX, rather than the 115-120 knots many people suggest. The measured storm-surge values and wind damage are all consistent with the scientific data, too. My personal, preliminary estimate for the intensity in TX: 125 knots / 929 mb.

Debbie (1961) may have been still been a major hurricane, as indicated in HURDAT, but on 7 September, not 11 September. At 19:13 UTC on 7 September, crude, tilted, TIROS satellite imagery shows a well-developed anticyclone over a bright, white CDO and well-defined "stadium" eye, with well-developed outflow on the western semicircle. There was no recon so early in the life cycle of Debbie, and the first aircraft entered the storm several days later, when it was clearly much weaker, sheared, post-EWRC, and sprawling (as on this 18:30 UTC image), probably a Cat-1 system at most, and certainly not a major hurricane. However, since there are absolutely no in-situ data for Debbie so early as 7 September, the BTC cannot make a huge change to that segment of the track, which is listed at Cat-1 status in HURDAT. However, the BTC could, perhaps, compromise between the old (current) peak in HURDAT, 105 knots, and the suggested peak on 11 September, 75-80 knots (when the first aircraft reached Debbie), and extrapolate backward to a revised intensity of 90 knots on 7-10 September. This would nicely balance the uncertainties, showing an earlier peak, holding that intensity for several days, and then slowly weakening to 75-80 knots on 11 September. I would also note that Debbie could have easily been a major hurricane on 7 September, perhaps by 12:00 UTC; as the system was then near 28°W, it would be a candidate, along with Frances (1980), to potentially replace Ophelia (2017) as the easternmost major hurricane on record in the Atlantic. My personal hunch is that, had modern sensors and GOES-16 been available back then, Debbie most probably would count as a major hurricane on 7 September, but as it is, we have no way to know for sure.

My suggested best track for Debbie on 5—11 September, including genesis (same coordinates as in Sandy Delgado's reanalysis, but some adjusted intensities—my values first, then Sandy Delgado's, then current HURDAT's):

1200Z/5 Sept — 30 (30)
1800Z/5 Sept — 30 (30)
0000Z/6 Sept — 30 (30)
0600Z/6 Sept — 40 (35)
1200Z/6 Sept — 50 (40)
1800Z/6 Sept — 60 (50[50])
0000Z/7 Sept — 70 (65[65])
0600Z/7 Sept — 80 (70[70])
1200Z/7 Sept — 90 (70[70])
1800Z/7 Sept — 90 (70[70])
0000Z/8 Sept — 90 (70[70])
0600Z/8 Sept — 90 (70[70])
1200Z/8 Sept — 85 (70[70])
1800Z/8 Sept — 85 (70[70])
0000Z/9 Sept — 85 (70[70])
0600Z/9 Sept — 85 (70[70])
1200Z/9 Sept — 80 (70[70])
1800Z/9 Sept — 80 (70[70])
0000Z/10 Sept — 80 (70[70])
0600Z/10 Sept — 80 (70[70])
1200Z/10 Sept — 75 (75[75])
1800Z/10 Sept — 75 (75[75])
0000Z/11 Sept — 75 (75[80])
0600Z/11 Sept — 75 (75[90])
1200Z/11 Sept — 80 (80[100])
1800Z/11 Sept — 80 (80[105])

Esther (1961) was almost certainly a Cat-5 sometime on 17—18 September, probably between 1200Z—1800Z on 17 September. That would have taken place between aircraft fixes. The RMW was not only more compact than is typical for Esther's location at the time, but Esther was also situated beneath a strong subtropical ridge as it passed north of the Lesser Antilles. The evidence isn't strong enough to go higher than 135 knots, but Esther most likely was 140-145 knots at its peak, if not a bit stronger, based on what we know about high environmental pressures and westward-tracking tropical cyclones. Further evidence is the fact that the central pressure was at or below 935 mb for a full day, indicating very conducive upper-air conditions. GOES-16 alone, to not mention today's recon, would have confirmed Esther as a Cat-5, had it been available in 1961. On the whole, Esther's longevity, Cabo-Verde origin, and sustained intensity is rather similar to Edouard (1996), and the two might be analogous, except that Esther occurred later in the year, during the seasonal apex (mid to late September).

Hattie (1961) probably was no stronger than 135 knots at its peak, given its larger-than-average RMW, slow movement, and good aircraft and land coverage. On 31 October, aircraft documented an RMW of 15 n mi and a pressure of 923 mb at 17:00 UTC. Four hours later, another fix indicated an RMW of 17 n mi (weaker pressure gradient, weaker winds) and a slightly deeper pressure (normally favours stronger winds) of 920 mb. On balance, the data suggest that Hattie came close but did not quite reach Cat-5 status. It was clearly a high-end Category 4, both at its peak and at its devastating Belizean landfall, but the most likely candidate for Cat-5 status in 1961 would be Esther, not Hattie, in my humble opinion. My verdict: Carla and Hattie should be downgraded to high-end Cat-4s; Esther should at least be *considered* for an upgrade to Cat-5 status.

As for the 2017 TCRs, here are my final guesses on what the Hurricane Center may determine:

Gert is a good candidate to be *considered* for upgrade to major-hurricane status (100 knots), based on peak satellite estimates. If not, expect a slight upward bump from 90 to 95 knots, which is probably more likely than an upgrade to major status, but I wouldn't *totally* preclude the former.

Harvey, if anything, will probably be assessed as slightly *more* intense at landfall in TX. Aircraft did not sample the strongest winds as the eye moved onshore, but found enough evidence (either flight-level or SFMR, I can't recall, but not both) for ~120 knots. The lowest pressures observed on land were in the 940-942 mb range (suggesting 938-939 mb at their location), but even in the eye, there were many fluctuations, owing to mesovortices, so even chasers in Rockport may have not sampled the lowest pressure. Rockport is also a bit inland from the immediate coastline and barrier islands. My guess for the landfall intensity: 125 knots / 937 mb. Of course, those peak winds and highest storm surge impacted uninhabited parts of the barrier islands, so no one witnessed or sampled those impacts.

Irma has been a bit of a toss-up for me. At first, I was rather strongly in favour of downgrading its landfall in the lower FL Keys to high-end Cat-3 (110 knots), based primarily on the filling trend, the impact of increasing shear and dry-air intrusion, and the fact that shoaling could have impacted high SFMR readings. However, I have since reconsidered a number of things, and very recently I have *finally* altered my assessment. The most important factors were:

1) the observed winds on Marco Island and at Naples Municipal Airport. Based on their locations relative to the RMW, both sites likely missed Irma's peak winds. Nevertheless, the 77-knot sustained value (with a peak gust of 123 knots) at Naples Municipal Airport strongly suggests that low-end Cat-2 winds affected at least part of Naples proper, somewhere nearby. The airport was on the N or even NNW side of Irma's eye, so it likely missed the peak winds in the core. Also, a storm chaser measured a 97-knot sustained wind on Marco Island via mesonet over short exposure-time. Again, based on its location and brief exposure, that mesonet station likely did *not* sample the peak winds in Irma's eyewall, which occurred over the mangrove-covered islands, coves, and channels of Everglades National Park, near and east of Goodland.

2) The consistent underestimation of Irma's surface winds on the basis of aircraft data. After its passage through the Keys, Irma passed west of Everglades National Park, and there were two aircraft fixes post-Keys. Prior to Irma's landfall on Marco Island, the last couple of aircraft fixes did not find SFMR or flight-level winds that would have suggested anything stronger than 90-100 knots at most. As noted elsewhere, the observations from Naples and Marco Island strongly suggest that Irma was up to ten knots stronger than the final aircraft data implied. The winds from those two sites, in context, suggest that Irma's peak winds were likely close to 105 knots at landfall on Marco Island.

3) Even the flight-level winds closest to the time of landfall on Cudjoe Key were consistent with surface winds of 110 knots, in agreement with SFMR, and the NHC noted that aircraft may have not sampled the strongest winds, which would have occurred in a very small area, just as they did at the time of Irma's second landfall, on Marco Island. (Note that even Irma's pressure on Marco Island was likely deeper than the NHC operationally estimated; storm-chaser data suggest that the final pressure will be close to 937 mb for the landfall on Marco Island.)

All this leads me to conclude that Irma was *indeed* a low-end Cat-4 over the Keys, and even slightly stronger than operationally estimated at its second landfall. My guesses: 115 knots / 932 mb in the Keys, 105 knots / 937 mb at Marco Island.

As has been extensively discussed here, Maria's landfall intensity looks set. I think 130 knots / 923 mb is a very good guess for the landfall in Yabucoa, PR. As for the peak intensity, the dropsonde data offer very convincing evidence that *should* serve to bump the winds up to 155 knots, at the very least. Since the strongest quadrant was relatively well sampled, the Hurricane Center might only go for an increase of five knots, but the extreme dropsonde winds were actually measured in one of the (relatively) weaker quadrants: the southwestern, if I recall correctly. Also, as we have seen in so many other intense systems, the tightness of the inner core and the influence of background pressures—in Maria's, Irma's, and Jose's case (to not mention that of Felix [2007]), a strong subtropical ridge—can support stronger winds at the surface than flight-level or even SFMR winds imply, especially if the system is rapidly deepening or has just finished doing so. All in all, while 155 knots seems reasonable for the peak intensity, I think a solid case can be made for 160 knots, especially as Maria's minimum pressure was even deeper than Irma's.

If Jose is upgraded to Cat-5, expect the SFMR readings (as in Irma) to play a role, besides satellite. If so, then 145-150 knots seems more likely than a peak of 140 knots. Main reasoning: 1) the SFMR readings of up to 148 knots occurred after Jose's satellite appearance had degraded noticeably, so the logical inference is that the storm was at least five to ten knots weaker at the time of the flight; 2) Jose was a compact system moving westward under a strong subtropical ridge, so SFMR may well be uncontaminated and a truer reflection of the storm's intensity than the (lower) flight-level winds; 3) the overall appearance of Jose at the time of the highest ADT values was fully consistent with an intensity of 150 knots, primarily if the very warm, smallish, circular eye and stadium effect are taken into account, along with the later recon data (SFMR). Thus, if the Hurricane Center ultimately decides to retroactively upgrade Jose to a Cat-5, I think the case for 145-150 knots (if not even a tad stronger) would be far stronger than for *only* 140 knots.

Interesting tidbit: if Irma, Maria, and Jose are all found to be at least 150 knots, then 2017 would mark only the second such instance on record in the Atlantic, after 2005. If Irma and Maria are both found to be at least 160 knots, then that would be a first for the Atlantic. Not even 2005 had two storms with winds of 160 knots or greater (only Wilma was 160 knots; Rita attained 155 knots at its peak). Also, no other Atlantic season on record will have had such a large number of extremely intense cyclones form in the MDR; out of the four Cat-5s in 2005, only Emily originated in classic MDR fashion.

Oh, and as for Ophelia, I think the cold upper-air temperatures at its latitude argue for a stronger peak intensity than the SSTs might suggest. In other words, I would lean more toward the peak satellite estimates, without lending so much weight to the cool SSTs. I think that, at a minimum, the peak should be upgraded to 110 knots, and that one can even argue for 115 knots, though the evidence more conclusively favours high-end Cat-3 instead of low-end Cat-4 status.

Lee probably was at least 110 knots at its peak, and either a high-end Cat-2 or major hurricane several days earlier than will likely be officially listed. However, sadly, the Hurricane Center can probably only justify 105 knots, given the tiny size of the storm and the utter lack of recon and other in-situ measurements.
Last edited by Shell Mound on Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
3 likes   
TAMPA BAY: Home of the Tocobaga! ~Tracking weather since 1992~ Not a meteorologist. Only rely on official forecasts from the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the National Weather Service (NWS). | March '93 Superstorm | Gordon '94, Irene '99, Frances & Jeanne '04, Katrina & Wilma '05, Irma '17 | ET, TS, H

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

Re: 2017 TCRs

#49 Postby J_J99 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:13 am

^ That is one great post above and I completely agree with your assessments on the 2017 hurricanes, especially Irma.
0 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
cycloneye
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 112118
Age: 61
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: 2017 TCRs

#50 Postby cycloneye » Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:32 pm

BIg news. The first of the biggie reports (Harvey) will be out on Thursday at 10 AM EST. Is this the first time they announce the release of a report ahead of the date it comes out?

@NHC_Atlantic
The #Hurricane #Harvey Tropical Cyclone Report will be released on the NHC website at 10 am EST tomorrow, January 25.


https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/index ... &basin=atl

Image
4 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
galaxy401
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1228
Age: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:04 pm
Location: Casa Grande, Arizona

Re: 2017 TCRs=Hurricane Harvey report up on January 25

#51 Postby galaxy401 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:12 pm

Well this is a pleasant surprise. As I thought, they probably were busy working on the bigger reports. I wonder how long the report will be. I predicting 100 pages.
4 likes   
I don't get hurricanes here but I do get their remnants.

User avatar
srainhoutx
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 6795
Age: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:34 am
Location: NW Houston FM 1960/SH 6
Contact:

Re: 2017 TCRs=Hurricane Harvey report up on January 25

#52 Postby srainhoutx » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:42 am

The National Hurricane Center releases their Final Report on Hurricane Harvey...(76 pages long in PDF)

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL092017_Harvey.pdf
3 likes   
Carla/Alicia/Jerry(In The Eye)/Michelle/Charley/Ivan/Dennis/Katrina/Rita/Wilma/Ike/Harvey

Member: National Weather Association
KHOU Regional Weather Forum
http://forums.khou.com/index.php

Facebook.com/TxWeatherBoard
Twitter @TxWeatherBoard

User avatar
cycloneye
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 112118
Age: 61
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: 2017 TCRs=Hurricane Harvey report is up

#53 Postby cycloneye » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:20 am

@MJVentrice
I believe this is the first Kelvin-wave graphic ever issued in an official National Hurricane Center Report?




https://twitter.com/MJVentrice/status/956546899057704961


Image


@EricBlake12
Good question. I know we have put MJO ones before but this might be the first CCKW... not an easy way to search either.





https://twitter.com/EricBlake12/status/956560686364200963
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: 2017 TCRs=Hurricane Harvey report is up

#54 Postby CrazyC83 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:58 am

A couple key points:

* Due to the sampling limitations in the marshlands between Houston and Beaumont, it is possible rainfall added up to nearly 70 inches as that is what radar supported.

* The 115 kt peak intensity is kept in post-analysis. My thought was that it was a bit stronger, but the basis for it (the post-landfall 113 kt SFMR on the back side of the storm) was discarded due to shoaling issues.
3 likes   

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

Re: 2017 TCRs=Hurricane Harvey report is up

#55 Postby CrazyC83 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:58 am

I think we'll get a few more smaller reports in the next couple weeks. The next of the big ones (Irma or Maria) probably won't come until at least late February I would think.
2 likes   

User avatar
cycloneye
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 112118
Age: 61
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: 2017 TCRs=Hurricane Harvey report is up

#56 Postby cycloneye » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:09 pm

@iCyclone
NHC's #Hurricane #HARVEY report is out. My minimum pressure in eye in Rockport (940.8 mb) was lowest reliably observed pressure on land. Wind data were impressive: 96 knots sustained in Aransas Pass & gust to 126 knots near Rockport:




https://twitter.com/iCyclone/status/956586578276528128
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
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3563
Age: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2017 TCRs=Hurricane Harvey report is up

#57 Postby 1900hurricane » Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:47 pm

I had a feeling that NHC might bump Harvey up to 120 kt at landfall due to KZC agreement (it outputs 120 kt on the nose) coupled with under-sampling as the center began to cross the coast. I can't complain though; that's how the NHC interpreted the data available to them.

Using a 937 mb central pressure, 5 kt forward speed,
90 nm average TS radius, and 28.0º latitude, KZC outputs
a 120 kt 1 min wind velocity with an OCI of 1009 mb.
2 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/

NotoSans
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 652
Age: 18
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:15 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Re: 2017 TCRs=Hurricane Harvey report is up

#58 Postby NotoSans » Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:49 am

As a side note, JMA have released the best tracks for TS Kai-tak and TY Tembin, closing the book for the 2017 WPAC season. I have prepared spreadsheets comparing the best track data with the operational ones, and they can be viewed via the following link:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Lc9BT ... tNByPHvv9y
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.

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

Re: 2017 TCRs=Hurricane Harvey report is up

#59 Postby CrazyC83 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:56 am

1900hurricane wrote:I had a feeling that NHC might bump Harvey up to 120 kt at landfall due to KZC agreement (it outputs 120 kt on the nose) coupled with under-sampling as the center began to cross the coast. I can't complain though; that's how the NHC interpreted the data available to them.

Using a 937 mb central pressure, 5 kt forward speed,
90 nm average TS radius, and 28.0º latitude, KZC outputs
a 120 kt 1 min wind velocity with an OCI of 1009 mb.


The main reason there was no upgrade was the possible basis for such (113 kt SFMR on the backside 90 minutes after landfall) was discarded due to shoaling issues. If that was legit, it can be presumed stronger winds existed in the RFQ.
0 likes   

User avatar
wxman57
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
Posts: 17898
Age: 60
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Location: Houston, TX (southwest)

Re: 2017 TCRs=Hurricane Harvey report is up

#60 Postby wxman57 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:52 pm

List of costliest U.S. cyclones has been updated. Normalized to 2017 dollars, Harvey is second to Katrina ($125 billion vs. $160 billion) and Irma is in 4th place, just above Andrew (92). That's for the contiguous U.S. states. If you include PR and USVI, then Maria ranks 3rd with $90 billion in damage and Irma drops to 5th behind Sandy.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/UpdatedCostliest.pdf
2 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], HurricaneFan and 11 guests