Reanalysis questions

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
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5067
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#261 Postby Ptarmigan » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:09 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:Consider all the possibilities that are reasonable for Audrey:

919mb - absolute lowest possible, based on Port Arthur and Hackberry data with a very tight core (not supported by radar)
931mb - using Schloemer equation with smaller RMW from Hackberry
940mb - working backwards from Winnfield if a central pressure (lower if peripheral)
946mb - using Schloemer equation with originally estimated RMW from Hackberry - and previously in HURDAT
955mb - using Schloemer equation with larger RMW from Hackberry
960mb - absolute highest possible, with Jarvinen estimated RMW and Hackberry near center and a bit high (not supported by wind obs)

How would the intensity have been set in each situation?

If the 919 was accurate, it would have been a bombing out storm with a tight, tight core. Clearly Category 5, probably about 150 kt. No way that is right - radar data and surface obs do not suggest such.

If the 931 was accurate and the original inner core was used, it still would have been rapidly deepening up to landfall. Most likely a landfall intensity of 130 kt would have been justified there.

If the 940 was accurate, that would support about 115 or 120 kt. However, the marshes over southern Louisiana would have slowed the weakening after landfall in most cases. Hence 945 or so would make more sense for working backwards.

If the 946 was accurate (and used in HURDAT and retained), 110 kt is justified with a 15 nm core but 100 or 105 kt would make most sense with a 30 nm core.

If the 955 was accurate (Jarvinen suggested it), it would have a larger core - probably about 35 nm, on the highest end of plausible. Also suggest would suggest only slow strengthening at most in the last 24 hours. I would suspect 90 kt would have been chosen as the intensity in that scenario.

If Hackberry was a bit off and was the minimum pressure, using 960, most likely 80 kt would have been the intensity given its extremely large, sprawling core in that scenario.


Audrey being a possible Category 5 in the Gulf of Mexico in late June is really unusual. I am more inclined to say Category 3 at most.
1 likes   

User avatar
cycloneye
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 114450
Age: 62
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: Reanalysis questions

#262 Postby cycloneye » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:32 pm

Here are the tracks of the 10 new Tropical Storms.

 https://twitter.com/wunderground/status/756556965979885568


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
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5067
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#263 Postby Ptarmigan » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:59 pm

I happen to look at re-analysis from 1931 to 1943.

Documentation for 1931 to 1943
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/la ... e-2014.pdf

I noticed the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane had a large radius of outer closed isobars (ROCI). It has a ROCI of 300 nautical miles, which is quite large. If I recall, the hurricane prior to hitting Florida Keys had hurricane force winds extending up to 15 miles.
0 likes   

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

Re: Reanalysis questions

#264 Postby tatertawt24 » Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:36 pm

Ptarmigan wrote:I happen to look at re-analysis from 1931 to 1943.

Documentation for 1931 to 1943
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/la ... e-2014.pdf

I noticed the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane had a large radius of outer closed isobars (ROCI). It has a ROCI of 300 nautical miles, which is quite large. If I recall, the hurricane prior to hitting Florida Keys had hurricane force winds extending up to 15 miles.


Did it have the large roci at the 892mb landfall or after?
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.

User avatar
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5067
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#265 Postby Ptarmigan » Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:16 pm

tatertawt24 wrote:
Ptarmigan wrote:I happen to look at re-analysis from 1931 to 1943.

Documentation for 1931 to 1943
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/la ... e-2014.pdf

I noticed the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane had a large radius of outer closed isobars (ROCI). It has a ROCI of 300 nautical miles, which is quite large. If I recall, the hurricane prior to hitting Florida Keys had hurricane force winds extending up to 15 miles.


Did it have the large roci at the 892mb landfall or after?


At the 892 millibar landfall. It gets larger on its second landfall. The second landfall has ROCI of 350 nautical mile.
0 likes   

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

Re: Reanalysis questions

#266 Postby tatertawt24 » Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:30 pm

That means it was probably one of those storms with huge CDO's and tiny, tiny pinhole eyes in the middle, like Wilma and Gilbert. But if the ROCI was that extensive, you'd think the rapid intensification would be disrupted because of land interference. Throughout its entire path, it was never really in open waters... it started near the Bahamas and from there on was wedged between Florida and Cuba. If it didn't have a tiny cloud base like Andrew, I don't see how it explosively deepened the way that it did. Maybe the information is wrong.
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.

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27370
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#267 Postby CrazyC83 » Wed May 31, 2017 12:59 pm

I am guessing the 1961-65 reanalysis will be coming out soon? Also I'm curious to see the results of later analyses once they become available.
0 likes   

User avatar
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3765
Age: 35
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Reanalysis questions

#268 Postby Hammy » Wed May 31, 2017 7:23 pm

tatertawt24 wrote:That means it was probably one of those storms with huge CDO's and tiny, tiny pinhole eyes in the middle, like Wilma and Gilbert. But if the ROCI was that extensive, you'd think the rapid intensification would be disrupted because of land interference. Throughout its entire path, it was never really in open waters... it started near the Bahamas and from there on was wedged between Florida and Cuba. If it didn't have a tiny cloud base like Andrew, I don't see how it explosively deepened the way that it did. Maybe the information is wrong.


I would more imagine something similar to Dennis in 2005, which was large and sprawling, but had a very small eye and inner core, and small area of hurricane winds. Wilma and Gilbert by contrast had fairly large wind fields even at hurricane strength.
0 likes   
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
---
My comics.
http://tba.cfw.me/
http://tbakids.cfw.me/

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27370
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#269 Postby CrazyC83 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:59 pm

As many of us believed, we should gain a new cat 5 in reanalysis: Inez 1966. Preliminary findings (more details to come in April) confirm such at 145 kt.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/33HURRICANE/ ... 39830.html
2 likes   

User avatar
1900hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4112
Age: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Reanalysis questions

#270 Postby 1900hurricane » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:07 pm

We'll also probably lose Carla '61, but no real surprises there.
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
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3765
Age: 35
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Reanalysis questions

#271 Postby Hammy » Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:11 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:As many of us believed, we should gain a new cat 5 in reanalysis: Inez 1966. Preliminary findings (more details to come in April) confirm such at 145 kt.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/33HURRICANE/ ... 39830.html


Will the full report be available?
1 likes   
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
---
My comics.
http://tba.cfw.me/
http://tbakids.cfw.me/

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27370
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#272 Postby CrazyC83 » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:21 pm

Hammy wrote:
CrazyC83 wrote:As many of us believed, we should gain a new cat 5 in reanalysis: Inez 1966. Preliminary findings (more details to come in April) confirm such at 145 kt.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/33HURRICANE/ ... 39830.html


Will the full report be available?


Probably not until the summer of 2018 at the earliest. The presentation is in April.
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27370
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#273 Postby CrazyC83 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:44 am

Earlier I took a look at majors up to 1978 (although some may warrant further revision). Now here is my thought for the major hurricanes (either in the best track or that I believe were such) from 1979 to 1994 (i.e. before the most recent era):

1979 - David (BT 150 kt, no change), Frederic (BT 115 kt, no change)
1980 - Allen (BT 165 kt, no change), Frances (BT 100 kt, increase to 125 kt), Ivan (BT 90 kt, increase to 100 kt)
1981 - Harvey (BT 115 kt, no change), Irene (BT 105 kt, no change); REMOVED: Floyd (BT 100 kt, decrease to 85 kt)
1982 - no majors; REMOVED: Debby (BT 115 kt, decrease to 95 kt)
1983 - no majors; REMOVED: Alicia (BT 100 kt, decrease to 90 kt)
1984 - Diana (BT 115 kt, no change)
1985 - Elena (BT 110 kt, no change), Gloria (BT 125 kt, increase to 135 kt), Kate (BT 105 kt, decrease to 100 kt)
1986 - no majors
1987 - Emily (BT 110 kt, increase to 120 kt)
1988 - Gilbert (BT 160 kt, increase to 170 kt), Helene (BT 125 kt, increase to 140 kt), Joan (BT 125 kt, no change)
1989 - Gabrielle (BT 125 kt, no change), Hugo (BT 140 kt, increase to 150 kt)
1990 - Gustav (BT 105 kt, no change)
1991 - Bob (BT 100 kt, increase to 110 kt)
1992 - Andrew (BT 150 kt, increase to 160 kt)
1993 - Emily (BT 100 kt, increase to 110 kt)
1994 - no majors

The biggest increase is with Frances 1980 (best analysis is T6.5, before even reaching 30W longitude!) while Debby is the biggest decrease (no evidence it was higher than T5.0 looking at satellite).
0 likes   

User avatar
Chris90
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 185
Age: 28
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:36 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#274 Postby Chris90 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:11 pm

CrazyC83, I like your analysis and agree on a lot of your intensity increases, particularly Gilbert. Did you increase his intensity to 170kts based on the recon flight that I believe found 173kts flight level and assume the flight level to surface ratio was near 100% due to his excellent presentation at the time?

I'd be interested to hear your ideas on the increase of Hugo to 150kts. I think it's a definite possibility, but I'm personally not sure his surface winds ever peaked that high. I believe the flight into Hugo that Jeff Masters wrote about penetrated at 1500ft and found 160 kt sustained winds at that level. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure it was an article released by the NHC about wind profiles in the eyewall that said typically the strongest winds will be found at around 1600ft, but the ratio to the surface isn't as high at that level as it is at the more typical flight level closer to 10,000ft in stronger hurricanes. This is why I would lean slightly more towards Hugo peaking at 140kts rather than 150kts.

Are you planning on analyzing some storms after 1994? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on Georges and Lenny. I've been thinking that Lenny may have briefly peaked at Cat 5. In one of the advisory discussions for Lenny they mentioned that there was an average of 155kts over the last 500m of the sounding, which is why I was thinking there may have been a peak of 140-145 kts at the surface.
0 likes   
I can't stand the rain..

User avatar
Shell Mound
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 309
Age: 26
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Tampa Bay Area, FL

Re: Reanalysis questions

#275 Postby Shell Mound » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:24 am

CrazyC83 wrote:Earlier I took a look at majors up to 1978 (although some may warrant further revision). Now here is my thought for the major hurricanes (either in the best track or that I believe were such) from 1979 to 1994 (i.e. before the most recent era):

1979 - David (BT 150 kt, no change), Frederic (BT 115 kt, no change)
1980 - Allen (BT 165 kt, no change), Frances (BT 100 kt, increase to 125 kt), Ivan (BT 90 kt, increase to 100 kt)
1981 - Harvey (BT 115 kt, no change), Irene (BT 105 kt, no change); REMOVED: Floyd (BT 100 kt, decrease to 85 kt)
1982 - no majors; REMOVED: Debby (BT 115 kt, decrease to 95 kt)
1983 - no majors; REMOVED: Alicia (BT 100 kt, decrease to 90 kt)
1984 - Diana (BT 115 kt, no change)
1985 - Elena (BT 110 kt, no change), Gloria (BT 125 kt, increase to 135 kt), Kate (BT 105 kt, decrease to 100 kt)
1986 - no majors
1987 - Emily (BT 110 kt, increase to 120 kt)
1988 - Gilbert (BT 160 kt, increase to 170 kt), Helene (BT 125 kt, increase to 140 kt), Joan (BT 125 kt, no change)
1989 - Gabrielle (BT 125 kt, no change), Hugo (BT 140 kt, increase to 150 kt)
1990 - Gustav (BT 105 kt, no change)
1991 - Bob (BT 100 kt, increase to 110 kt)
1992 - Andrew (BT 150 kt, increase to 160 kt)
1993 - Emily (BT 100 kt, increase to 110 kt)
1994 - no majors

The biggest increase is with Frances 1980 (best analysis is T6.5, before even reaching 30W longitude!) while Debby is the biggest decrease (no evidence it was higher than T5.0 looking at satellite).

My own tidbits, to be taken for what they are worth:

*Some of the systems listed here may be underestimate due to small size. For instance, I would not necessarily keep Joan (1988) at *only* 125 knots. Joan was a very compact, rapidly deepening system as it neared landfall in Nicaragua, much like Ethel (1971), which, despite *only* attaining a minimum recon-derived pressure of 943 mb (which likely was not the lowest pressure, as landfall occurred several hours later, and the storm was rapidly intensifying at the time of the last mission), was likely fully deserving of its Cat-5 designation in HURDAT as it made landfall near Cabo Gracias a Dios, on the Honduras/Nicaragua border. Both Joan and Ethel featured pinhole-type, well-defined eyes on aircraft radar, but the satellite estimates likely did not register the small inner cores. A similar situation actually existed with Felix (2007), whose satellite presentation just before landfall in Nicaragua did *not* support Cat-5 intensity—only a fortuitously timed recon mission hours earlier found that winds in the storm were higher (high-end Cat-4) than satellite indicated, and based on the continued improvement in presentation afterward, the NHC went with 140 knots for the landfall. In all three cases, the highest winds on land affected sparsely populated regions and thus went unrecorded. Based on available data and pre-landfall intensity trends, all three storms likely featured pressures in the low to mid 930s at their peaks/landfalls and similar winds, in the 135-to-145-knot range. My guesses: 135 knots for Joan, 145 knots for Ethel, and 165 knots for Felix.

The 1935 Labor Day hurricane, Ethel, Joan, Andrew (1992), Iris (2001), Charley (2004), and Felix, among others, all belong in the same class: tiny, explosively deepening cyclones whose actual intensities were far higher than were/would have been discernible on satellite. Case in point for Joan: the last recon mission into Joan found a pressure of 933 mb hours before landfall over Central America, along with a very small eye. If anything, Joan was probably closer to 135 knots than 125 knots at its peak intensity. As for Andrew, the flight-level winds, pressures, and radar data from both its initial and secondary peaks strongly suggests that 160 knots is probably too low for such a small, explosively deepening, rapidly translating, westward-moving system situated beneath a very strong subtropical ridge and embedded in high environmental pressures. A more realistic estimate for Andrew, in my view, would be 170 knots (with well-documented 922-mb pressures) for both peaks, to the east of the Bahamas and at landfall on South FL. Despite studies, it is by no means conclusive that the extreme wind damage in Naranja Lakes et al., assumed to be from mesovortices in Andrew's eyewall over Dade County, was *entirely* due to mesovortices rather than the representative winds in a very extreme, compact, Cat-5 hurricane. The 1935 hurricane, being even smaller and more intense (892 mb, if not lower) than Andrew, is a very good candidate for Patricia- or Haiyan-league winds—185 to 190 knots at landfall on the FL Keys.

One key note about Andrew: the extreme wind-caused damage swaths were co-located with strong, N-eyewall (hence RMW) convection, suggestive of *potentially* representative winds.

Re: David and Hugo, I concur with your estimate for Hugo, but perhaps not for David. Even visible satellite imagery reveals that David had a very bright, white CDO, extremely impressive, circular outflow, and stadium-effect eye at the time(s) of its likely peak intensity over the northeastern Caribbean Sea. Aircraft-derived surface estimates and measured flight-level winds, while less reliable in the late 1970s vs. today, suggested winds higher than the pressure-wind relationship indicated. David was not a midget-sized storm at the time, but it certainly wasn't a large one, in terms of wind radii. It was pretty similar to Inez (1966) in size. Interestingly, aircraft infamously reported 700-mb winds of 170 knots in the northern eyewall of Inez, concurrent with rapid intensification and a minimum (observed, likely not the deepest) pressure of 927 mb. David and Inez were both similar in terms of overall size, RMW, observed pressure(s), and intensity trend(s) around peak(s); therefore, one may logically deduce that both were similarly intense, with minimum pressures likely in the low 920s and peak sustained winds of 155 to 160 knots. In other words, Irma- and Maria-type winds, but higher pressures because smaller RMWs and wind radii. Another convincing piece of evidence in favour: Inez and David (like Felix at its peak!) were embedded in high environmental pressures. ...

On another note, Hugo is an interesting case to reanalyse, not just for its (probably 150-knot) Cat-5 peak over the MDR, but also for its Cat-4 landfall in SC. Radar data from Charleston, showing a continued tightening of the eye and intensification of lightning/convective activity, suggest that Hugo continued to deepen after the last aircraft mission, while satellite data from the time of landfall (and before) clearly suggested a higher intensity than 120 knots. Even aircraft-derived winds suggest that 120 knots was a cautious estimate. Given evidence of mesovortices in the eye of Hugo, the minimum pressure of 934 mb at landfall is probably a bit high. Finally, while this is inconclusive, the wind damage in the Bulls Bay–McClellanville area was consistent with a much stronger hurricane. All in all, a solid case can be made that Hugo's true intensity at landfall in SC was in the 130-to-135-knot range, with a pressure of 930-932 mb.

Oh, and I also concur with Chris90 re: Lenny being a solid candidate for Cat-5 status, however briefly it attained that plateau.
Last edited by Shell Mound on Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
1 likes   
Tracking weather since 1992 | Following S2K since 2005

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27370
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#276 Postby CrazyC83 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:33 pm

Chris90 wrote:CrazyC83, I like your analysis and agree on a lot of your intensity increases, particularly Gilbert. Did you increase his intensity to 170kts based on the recon flight that I believe found 173kts flight level and assume the flight level to surface ratio was near 100% due to his excellent presentation at the time?

I'd be interested to hear your ideas on the increase of Hugo to 150kts. I think it's a definite possibility, but I'm personally not sure his surface winds ever peaked that high. I believe the flight into Hugo that Jeff Masters wrote about penetrated at 1500ft and found 160 kt sustained winds at that level. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure it was an article released by the NHC about wind profiles in the eyewall that said typically the strongest winds will be found at around 1600ft, but the ratio to the surface isn't as high at that level as it is at the more typical flight level closer to 10,000ft in stronger hurricanes. This is why I would lean slightly more towards Hugo peaking at 140kts rather than 150kts.

Are you planning on analyzing some storms after 1994? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on Georges and Lenny. I've been thinking that Lenny may have briefly peaked at Cat 5. In one of the advisory discussions for Lenny they mentioned that there was an average of 155kts over the last 500m of the sounding, which is why I was thinking there may have been a peak of 140-145 kts at the surface.


I'm not sure at this time, but regarding Hugo at 150 kt, I believe the peak winds may not be representative as the plane was in distress at the time. Also it was a solid T7.0+.

That is correct about Gilbert.
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27370
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#277 Postby CrazyC83 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:06 pm

If those ideas are kept, 1982 and 1983 would be back-to-back years with no major hurricanes (both Debby and Alicia get knocked down to cat 2; Debby due to satellite presentation clearly not supporting the intensity being only a T5.0 from what I could tell, and Alicia due to Recon only supporting 85-90 kt), something that hasn't happened since long before the Hurricane Hunters. Also I believe they analyzed a 949 mb pressure in Debby from ship data, which would normally support a major except it was a large and sprawling storm at high latitude.

Also 1988 could potentially have THREE cat 5 storms if your belief on Joan is accurate (the TCR didn't really tell as much as I could get), which would be remarkable for that era. I believe Helene peaked at 140 kt since from what I could analyze on Dvorak it was at T7.0 for a while (AFAIK Recon never flew in it). I don't know if the reanalysis team would be willing to go with that without other supporting data though...
0 likes   

User avatar
Chris90
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 185
Age: 28
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:36 pm

Re: Reanalysis questions

#278 Postby Chris90 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:29 pm

I've taken a look back this evening at the 1988 season after reading the personal analysis you both have presented, and I'm thinking there is a good chance both Helene and Joan did reach Category 5 status. I'm also struck by the similarities between the 1988 and 2007 seasons. Dean following a similar track to Gilbert and Felix following a Joan-esque one. Looking at some satellite images and loops of Joan, there are definitely some moments when I'm reminded of Felix, and I'm thinking based on the size of the storm and the pressures, Joan could quite possibly have peaked with 140-150kts, in fact, I think it's more likely than not.

I'd be interested to see some KZC analysis on Joan to see what the outputs would be. I know I've seen some KZC analysis done by some users on the forum, but it's beyond my skill level.
1 likes   
I can't stand the rain..

User avatar
Shell Mound
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 309
Age: 26
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Tampa Bay Area, FL

Re: Reanalysis questions

#279 Postby Shell Mound » Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:06 pm

CrazyC83 wrote:If those ideas are kept, 1982 and 1983 would be back-to-back years with no major hurricanes (both Debby and Alicia get knocked down to cat 2; Debby due to satellite presentation clearly not supporting the intensity being only a T5.0 from what I could tell, and Alicia due to Recon only supporting 85-90 kt), something that hasn't happened since long before the Hurricane Hunters. Also I believe they analyzed a 949 mb pressure in Debby from ship data, which would normally support a major except it was a large and sprawling storm at high latitude.

Also 1988 could potentially have THREE cat 5 storms if your belief on Joan is accurate (the TCR didn't really tell as much as I could get), which would be remarkable for that era. I believe Helene peaked at 140 kt since from what I could analyze on Dvorak it was at T7.0 for a while (AFAIK Recon never flew in it). I don't know if the reanalysis team would be willing to go with that without other supporting data though...

An intriguing tidbit: if Helene were upgraded to 140 knots, it would easily be the easternmost Cat-5 on record in the Atlantic, having peaked between 45°–46°W (!). (At least that's what I assume; when/where did you analyse a T7.0 along the track?) Also, I wouldn't be so sure that Gloria (1985) didn't *briefly* reach 140 knots between fixes, given the very compact RMW, tiny eye, and rapid deepening at the time of peak satellite estimates and minimum recon-derived pressures. But that's just my own opinion at this point.
0 likes   
Tracking weather since 1992 | Following S2K since 2005

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 27370
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

Re: Reanalysis questions

#280 Postby CrazyC83 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:15 pm

Here's the images that make me think Helene was 140 kt (at 0000 and 0600Z September 23, 1988; actually a bit earlier than the BT peak!).

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/sat ... -IR-BD.png (0000Z)

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/sat ... -IR-BD.png (0300Z)

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/sat ... -IR-BD.png (0600Z)

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/sat ... -IR-BD.png (0900Z)

It might even be a touch over T7.0 (not quite T7.5 though) at times with the larger area of CMG and a couple spots of CDG, but that was likely transient and the resolution is too low to analyze the eye. Still, that looks good enough for 140 kt.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests