2018 TCRs

[TheStormExpert]

Probably not much increase but between the upward adjustments in intensity in both majors from last year, what is the revised ACE?

[CrazyC83]

The long delay was likely in part due to the government shutdown in January. But it would still take well into March or April even without.

As for the peak intensity, I don't remember those peak winds that high but they indeed support 130 kt.

[J_J99]

Has there ever been a report released as late as May? Glad they're finally out.

Surprised at the large jump in the intensity. Wasn't it originally 120 kts?

I believe it was 125 kts? Im gonna double check on that.

Nope.... It was 120 kts and 939 MB pressure.

[Ptarmigan]

Surprised to see Florence is a stronger hurricane at 150 mph.

[NotoSans]

The long delay was likely in part due to the government shutdown in January. But it would still take well into March or April even without.

As for the peak intensity, I don't remember those peak winds that high but they indeed support 130 kt.

Note though that SFMR winds do not support such a bump in peak intensity. The following is extracted from the operational discussion:

The aircraft provided various intensity estimates with a peak SFMR surface wind of 113 kt noted in the northwest quadrant, a peak 700-mb flight-level wind of 143 kt in the northeast quadrant, and a central pressure of 950 mb. The 143-kt flight-level wind would normally correlate to an equivalent surface wind of about 129 kt. However, coincident SFMR surface winds were only 108 kt, indicating that the weak convection that region of the hurricane was not vigorous enough to bring down the strongest winds to the surface.

[galaxy401]

The first post is finally updated with all the reports. This also continues the trend of the last report coming out later and later (granted the shutdown probably played a part of it).

Now that just leaves the CPAC storms that we might not see until 2023 . Not sure if Miriam will get its own report since it seems the data was incorporated into the NHC report.

[1900hurricane]

The first post is finally updated with all the reports. This also continues the trend of the last report coming out later and later (granted the shutdown probably played a part of it).

Now that just leaves the CPAC storms that we might not see until 2023 . Not sure if Miriam will get its own report since it seems the data was incorporated into the NHC report.

Miriam's report is done. For any storm that crossed from NHC to CPHC responsibility, only one report will be issued. That report will be updated if, for example, the CPHC portion of the report is not ready at the time of original publication.

[CrazyC83]

The long delay was likely in part due to the government shutdown in January. But it would still take well into March or April even without.

As for the peak intensity, I don't remember those peak winds that high but they indeed support 130 kt.

Note though that SFMR winds do not support such a bump in peak intensity. The following is extracted from the operational discussion:

The aircraft provided various intensity estimates with a peak SFMR surface wind of 113 kt noted in the northwest quadrant, a peak 700-mb flight-level wind of 143 kt in the northeast quadrant, and a central pressure of 950 mb. The 143-kt flight-level wind would normally correlate to an equivalent surface wind of about 129 kt. However, coincident SFMR surface winds were only 108 kt, indicating that the weak convection that region of the hurricane was not vigorous enough to bring down the strongest winds to the surface.

Interesting - the SFMR was not even mentioned in the TCR (and that would support a 115 kt intensity). Perhaps they were all unreliable, although that shouldn't happen at that intensity and location unless there was an equipment issue (usually it is at the extreme high end or near landfall where the SFMR has issues). It also mentions that those were coming out of an ERC and there was no Recon for 12 hours. That does support a higher intensity in between, but by 15 knots? There has to be a fair bit of uncertainty.

[1900hurricane]

The WMO TCP documents have the US update, and it appears that the Florence TCR is near. It had a peak intensity of 125 kt, although the landfall intensity was kept at 80 kt (which seems correct IMO). It also mentions that the Michael report is definitely not done yet.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/tcp/d ... USA_EN.pdf

It was on the cusp of being a Cat 2 with FL winds supporting it but I concur with that assessment. Radar picture stabilized and slowly looked better and better coming into landfall for Flo, going to a relatively complete eyewall from a ragged halfacane, gulf stream had a lot to do with stopping the tide of the rapid deintensification of Flo before its landfall.

Very interesting they clearly stated final reanalysis of Michael had not been done yet after stating its operational landfall strength, tells you they still have to look more into it.

If Michael were to be upgraded to low-end Cat-5 status at landfall on the Florida Panhandle, it would significantly affect future assessments of risk and hence insurance policy, especially in the subtropics. Michael would offer a concrete, verifiable case study regarding climate change and its plausible role in generating ever-more-intense storms at higher latitudes, outside the deep tropics. Unlike Camille's, Michael's potential Cat-5 landfall on the northern Gulf Coast will have been thoroughly vetted via modern, comprehensive monitoring, including NEXRAD, real-time reconnaissance, and in-situ, carefully calibrated land observations, including MSLP readings and surge heights. If Michael is upgraded to Cat-5 status, there will be no doubt about the veracity of the upgrade, given all the data at hand, including well-documented, visual evidence of wind and surge damage. We cannot say the same for Camille in 1969, whose Cat-5 status can be rightly questioned even post-reanalysis, but we can say this for Michael. Camille may or may not have made landfall as a Cat-5, but if it did not do so, Michael may illustrate the role of climate change, among many other factors, in changing the risk of super-intense landfalls on the N Gulf coast, and not in a good way for the people who reside there.

Speaking of Cat-5 landfalls outside the deep tropics, I think that Hugo (1989) may have been quite close to Cat-5 status at landfall in South Carolina. The reasons: 1) it impacted similar species to or the same species of plants as Michael did, including hardy, mature pines; 2) its wind field at landfall was quite comparable to Michael's, and its forward speed was not very different; 3) the extent of debarking, shredding, twisting, and snapping of mature pines, including defoliation, in the area of landfall was extremely comparable not just to Michael's, but also Andrew's in 1992; 4) like Michael and Andrew, Hugo was rapidly deepening before, during, and perhaps even slightly after landfall. Even the estimated central pressure of 934 mb at landfall is likely too high, based on observations just inside the RMW (hence barely inside the eye), but not directly in the area of lowest pressure and/or the wind-centre. Furthermore, Hugo also featured a rather sharp pressure gradient as it made landfall, with a concentrated area of extremely high storm surge, especially in and near Bulls Bay, McClellanville, and Francis Marion National Forest. My personal estimate is that Hugo was likely close to 130-135 knots/~930 mb at landfall, but it could easily have reached 140 knots as it hit SC.

A list of verifiable Cat-5 hits outside the deep tropics (i.e., north of 22.5°N), excluding Camille, might run as follows:

• 1932 Storm #4 (Great Abaco, Bahamas – 140 knots / ~921 mb)
• 1935 Storm #3 (Craig Key, FL – 160 knots / 892 mb – "Labor Day" hurricane)
• 1989 Hugo (Isle of Palms, SC – 140 knots / ~930 mb)
• 1992 Andrew (Elliott Key & Fender Point, FL – 145 knots / 922 mb)
• 2018 Michael (Crooked Island, FL – 140 knots / ~916-17 mb)

Another contender for this list might be the 1919 Florida Keys hurricane, near the Dry Tortugas (intensifying to 927 mb coupled with a very small RMW).

Regarding Hugo, I decided I could break out KZC to estimate an intensity. Using your suggested 930 mb pressure, a 22 kt forward speed derived between 00Z and 06Z best track points on September 22nd, the 32.8ºN landfall location, and a 1008 mb OCI with a radius of 240 nm from reanalysis data (below), I get an expected Vmax of 127.7 kt. I'd probably go with 125 kt myself just hedging towards the currently accepted 934 mb pressure (eVmax = 123.1 kt), but 130 kt could also possibly be justified. 130 kt is the same intensities assessed to Patricia '15 and Maria '17 at landfalls in Mexico and Puerto Rico, respectively, so certainly nothing to sneeze at for sure.

[TorSkk]

Interesting how the Michael's report contains an error at Figure 12 (max intensity 135 kt)

That's actually not an error. That figure uses the standard 6 hour best track intervals, and the intensity for 18Z was indeed 135 kt, which was just after landfall

Interestingly, the report was updated a few days ago and now contains an updated version of Figure 12

[Shell Mound]

 https://twitter.com/philklotzbach/status/1129450582962593792



2016: 15 NS / 7 H / 4 MH — ACE: 141
2017: 17 NS / 10 H / 6 MH — ACE: 223
2018: 15 NS / 8 H / 2 MH — ACE: 133

Thus 2016–18 all ended up as above-average seasons in terms of total named storms, hurricanes, and accumulated cyclone energy (ACE).

Note that 2016 featured one hurricane in the MDR, 2017 featured three, and 2018 featured four. The active cycle still looks to be in force.

[TorSkk]

Hector's report has been updated to include new data form CPHC and JTWC

[1900hurricane]

Still waiting on the JTWC best track data and some of the CPac stuff. The update of Hector's report with JTWC data gives me hope that they're almost done with their best track data.

[TorSkk]

Olivia has been updated with the Cpac data. That leaves Norman, Lane, Walaka

[1900hurricane]

Norman now has CPac data too.

[TorSkk]

Not sure if anyone noticed but Walaka's report was released some time ago. Peak intensity is unchanged at 140 kt/ 921 mb.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/CP012018_Walaka.pdf