Supertyphoon Tip

[weatherwoman132]

I hope we dont ever get one of those in the atlantic or gom........can there be one? all the conditions have to be perfect though

[HurricaneHunter914]

What kind of conditions did Tip have? they must have been 100% perfect

They must have been. Have you ever seen a cyclone twice the size of Texas with over 200mph winds? I think the conditions must have been 200% perfect. And imagine that in the Atlantic.

[ROCK]

I hope we dont ever get one of those in the atlantic or gom........can there be one? all the conditions have to be perfect though

GOM no...ALT never say never...

[Jim Cantore]

What kind of conditions did Tip have? they must have been 100% perfect

They must have been. Have you ever seen a cyclone twice the size of Texas with over 200mph winds? I think the conditions must have been 200% perfect. And imagine that in the Atlantic.

4 times the size of texas

[wxman57]

What I see could be another error is in the 600nm RADIUS of TS-force (30kt) winds. I think the author may have meant diameter, not radius. If you look at the image and compare it to the 300nm distance scale, then 600nm would take the TS force winds well beyond any feeder bands. That would seem unlikely.

Have to agree with you on that point... using that particular map and the scale they show, although we do not see the full eastern side of the typhoon, it still seems unlikely it would be twice as wide as what is shown... ahh well, another meteorological enigma

A2K

If you look at the surface analysis in the PPT here ( http://www.npmoc.navy.mil/jtwc/pubref/References/?M=A ", you'll see that 30kt winds DO extend quite a ways from the center, but look more closely and there isn't much of a gradient to the north for 300nm. Ship reports are steady at around 30 kts for at least a 300nm ring around Tip. So the sharp gradient to Tip's stronger winds does not extend out to 600nm, as may be indicated by the 30kt wind radius.

[HurricaneHunter914]

4 times the size of texas

HOLY CRAP!!

[wxman57]

Ok, I'm able to access some work I've been doing on past hurricane wind fields. Here's a graphic I compiled looking back through past Atlantic Basin major hurricanes and comparing wind radii. Note that Gilbert's 50kt wind radius was as big or perhaps bigger than ST Tip's (while Gilbert was in the Gulf of Mexico). The radii on the graphics below are "effective" radii. That means we calculated the areal coverage of the wind fields in each quadrant then calculated the radius required to yield such an area.

The actual data show that Gilbert's effective TS force radius was 238nm in the Caribbean, and the 50kt wind radius 177nm. Hurricane force winds were up to 114nm in the Caribbean. That may be bigger than Tip, as far as the core of stronger winds. Tip, though, had a larger area of lesser winds.

Another item of interest, take a look at Katrina, Rita, and Ivan in the graphic below. Think they were the worst possible in the Gulf, or the worst ever seen -- think again! Carla, Gilbert, Allen, Opal, and Betsy were larger and just as powerful .

[isobar]

Cool graphic, wxman. I'm assuming the chart represents each hurricane at peak intensity and not at landfall, correct? Although wind fields increase at landfall, only a couple have made landfall at their peak.

[wxman57]

Cool graphic, wxman. I'm assuming the chart represents each hurricane at peak intensity and not at landfall, correct? Although wind fields increase at landfall, only a couple have made landfall at their peak.

Correct, the graphic represents the hurricanes at peak intensity/size in the Gulf of Mexico. Fortunately, most weakened before landfall. Carla weakened from a 5 to a 4 at landfall. it was still a huge and destructive stormm.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Tip just proves what I have been saying for years; size matters (at least for TCs ). What a truly amazing, and scary storm he was

[Audrey2Katrina]

What I see could be another error is in the 600nm RADIUS of TS-force (30kt) winds. I think the author may have meant diameter, not radius. If you look at the image and compare it to the 300nm distance scale, then 600nm would take the TS force winds well beyond any feeder bands. That would seem unlikely.

Have to agree with you on that point... using that particular map and the scale they show, although we do not see the full eastern side of the typhoon, it still seems unlikely it would be twice as wide as what is shown... ahh well, another meteorological enigma

A2K

If you look at the surface analysis in the PPT here ( http://www.npmoc.navy.mil/jtwc/pubref/References/?M=A ", you'll see that 30kt winds DO extend quite a ways from the center, but look more closely and there isn't much of a gradient to the north for 300nm. Ship reports are steady at around 30 kts for at least a 300nm ring around Tip. So the sharp gradient to Tip's stronger winds does not extend out to 600nm, as may be indicated by the 30kt wind radius.

Once again, an adroit observation. It appears your first assumption may very well be the case.... still a truly HUGE storm.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Ok, I'm able to access some work I've been doing on past hurricane wind fields. Here's a graphic I compiled looking back through past Atlantic Basin major hurricanes and comparing wind radii. Note that Gilbert's 50kt wind radius was as big or perhaps bigger than ST Tip's (while Gilbert was in the Gulf of Mexico). The radii on the graphics below are "effective" radii. That means we calculated the areal coverage of the wind fields in each quadrant then calculated the radius required to yield such an area.

The actual data show that Gilbert's effective TS force radius was 238nm in the Caribbean, and the 50kt wind radius 177nm. Hurricane force winds were up to 114nm in the Caribbean. That may be bigger than Tip, as far as the core of stronger winds. Tip, though, had a larger area of lesser winds.

Another item of interest, take a look at Katrina, Rita, and Ivan in the graphic below. Think they were the worst possible in the Gulf, or the worst ever seen -- think again! Carla, Gilbert, Allen, Opal, and Betsy were larger and just as powerful .

Impressive data, and I've been arguing for months that Betsy was every BIT the monster Katrina was (at least in size), but of note, the Katrina Report from the NHC even states that at peak, her TS winds extended about 200 nm from the center which is well short on your chart, and hurricane winds out 90 nm. (not as much of a difference, but still higher), are you also contending that the NHC report is also in error on this data? Just curious.

A2K

[wxman57]

Ok, I'm able to access some work I've been doing on past hurricane wind fields. Here's a graphic I compiled looking back through past Atlantic Basin major hurricanes and comparing wind radii. Note that Gilbert's 50kt wind radius was as big or perhaps bigger than ST Tip's (while Gilbert was in the Gulf of Mexico). The radii on the graphics below are "effective" radii. That means we calculated the areal coverage of the wind fields in each quadrant then calculated the radius required to yield such an area.

The actual data show that Gilbert's effective TS force radius was 238nm in the Caribbean, and the 50kt wind radius 177nm. Hurricane force winds were up to 114nm in the Caribbean. That may be bigger than Tip, as far as the core of stronger winds. Tip, though, had a larger area of lesser winds.

Another item of interest, take a look at Katrina, Rita, and Ivan in the graphic below. Think they were the worst possible in the Gulf, or the worst ever seen -- think again! Carla, Gilbert, Allen, Opal, and Betsy were larger and just as powerful .

Impressive data, and I've been arguing for months that Betsy was every BIT the monster Katrina was (at least in size), but of note, the Katrina Report from the NHC even states that at peak, her TS winds extended about 200 nm from the center which is well short on your chart, and hurricane winds out 90 nm. (not as much of a difference, but still higher), are you also contending that the NHC report is also in error on this data? Just curious.

A2K

I completely agree with the NHC/HRD wind analysis at landfall, as that's what the vast amount of data support. The reason why the TS force winds don't go out beyond 200nm on that graphic is that I was focusing on Katrina when it was more intense and had larger 65kt and 87kt (100 mph) wind radii. What I've found is that as a hurricane weakens, its wind field expands. That was certainly true with Katrina (and Rita and Wilma) last year once they passed their peak in intensity.

[ROCK]

nice chart...I agree also with Kat's HRD analysis at landfall. Looking at the chart, Alicia was a baby compared to all the rest. Goes to show that we here in Houston haven't really seen true hurricane force winds in a long time....

[Audrey2Katrina]

I completely agree with the NHC/HRD wind analysis at landfall, as that's what the vast amount of data support. The reason why the TS force winds don't go out beyond 200nm on that graphic is that I was focusing on Katrina when it was more intense and had larger 65kt and 87kt (100 mph) wind radii. What I've found is that as a hurricane weakens, its wind field expands. That was certainly true with Katrina (and Rita and Wilma) last year once they passed their peak in intensity.

Then one can assume that Tip's most massive windfield radius was achieved as he weakened, because whatever it attained, it was quite huge.

A2K