2018 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
TheStormExpert
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5932
Age: 25
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:38 pm
Location: Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Re: 2018 TCRs: Hurricane Florence report is up (Peak intensity 130 kts)

#101 Postby TheStormExpert » Fri May 03, 2019 5:53 pm

:uarrow: Probably not much increase but between the upward adjustments in intensity in both majors from last year, what is the revised ACE?
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 storm2k.org.

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27556
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: 2018 TCRs: Hurricane Florence report is up (Peak intensity 130 kts)

#102 Postby CrazyC83 » Fri May 03, 2019 7:20 pm

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.
0 likes   

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

Re: 2018 TCRs: Hurricane Florence report is up (Peak intensity 130 kts)

#103 Postby J_J99 » Fri May 03, 2019 10:06 pm

galaxy401 wrote: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.
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
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5098
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: 2018 TCRs: Hurricane Florence report is up (Peak intensity 130 kts)

#104 Postby Ptarmigan » Sun May 05, 2019 6:44 pm

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

NotoSans
Category 4
Category 4
Posts: 977
Age: 19
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:15 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Re: 2018 TCRs: Hurricane Florence report is up (Peak intensity 130 kts)

#105 Postby NotoSans » Mon May 06, 2019 12:54 pm

CrazyC83 wrote: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.
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 RSMC and NWS products.

User avatar
galaxy401
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1478
Age: 24
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:04 pm
Location: Casa Grande, Arizona

Re: 2018 TCRs

#106 Postby galaxy401 » Mon May 06, 2019 2:01 pm

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 :lol: . Not sure if Miriam will get its own report since it seems the data was incorporated into the NHC report.
0 likes   
I don't get hurricanes here but I do get their remnants.

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4488
Age: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2018 TCRs

#107 Postby 1900hurricane » Tue May 07, 2019 3:33 pm

galaxy401 wrote: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 :lol: . 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.
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: 27556
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: 2018 TCRs: Hurricane Florence report is up (Peak intensity 130 kts)

#108 Postby CrazyC83 » Tue May 07, 2019 6:12 pm

NotoSans wrote:
CrazyC83 wrote: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.
0 likes   

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4488
Age: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2018 TCRs

#109 Postby 1900hurricane » Tue May 07, 2019 9:39 pm

Shell Mound wrote:
J_J99 wrote:
CrazyC83 wrote: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.

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
TorSkk
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:08 am

Re: 2018 TCRs

#110 Postby TorSkk » Tue May 21, 2019 8:09 am

1900hurricane wrote:
TorSkk wrote: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

Image
1 likes   

User avatar
Shell Mound
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 395
Age: 26
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: 2018 TCRs

#111 Postby Shell Mound » Wed May 22, 2019 6:19 am

 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.
0 likes   
Tracking weather since 1992 | Following S2K since 2005
The views herein are the author's alone. Please defer to the N.H.C./N.W.S. for official information.

User avatar
TorSkk
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:08 am

Re: 2018 TCRs

#112 Postby TorSkk » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:43 am

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

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4488
Age: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2018 TCRs

#113 Postby 1900hurricane » Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:31 pm

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.
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
TorSkk
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:08 am

Re: 2018 TCRs

#114 Postby TorSkk » Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:33 am

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

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4488
Age: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2018 TCRs

#115 Postby 1900hurricane » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:39 pm

Norman now has CPac data too.
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/


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CyclonicFury, Google [Bot], HurricaneFan, HurricaneMaster_PR, Macrocane, pepecool20, Siker, South Texas Storms and 52 guests