I believe that 94L was a tropical storm

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I believe 94L is a tropical storm...

1# Strong warm core of 7c from inside to outside. I've seen hurricanes in the tropics with less.

2# Well defined surface cirulation at the surface, this is shown by recon ob maps at storm2k. So a tight cirulation.

3# Pretty well defined area of strong winds around the core of the system.

4# Convection bursting over the cirulation.

I expect 50-55 knot winds should be coming ashore...Pretty much another Hanna for this area.

I strongly believe it was a tropical storm. I welcome Pro's to destroy or disprove this if they can.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

yea i agree it looks much more tropical on radar now...
and carolinians are saying the weather went from noreaster
to tropical so yea this should have been TS Laura oh well...JMO.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Nobody ever could show me evidence of a front in/near the center. Just because a coastal front was moving inland well ahead of the circulation center does not make this frontal.

Maybe in the post season, but nobody but acedemics will notice then.

[Tampa_God]

It certainly looked more tropical right before it hit the coast. It soem what reminded me of the Perfect Storm, size wise. The cirulation reached from Maine to Florida, and it was dragging in moisture all the way from the Bay of Campeche.

I certainlt bet the meteorologists will reveiew this storm after the season is over and most likely classify this as the a "No Name" tropical storm.

[rog]

I agree this should have been named. It has been overland for almost 24 hrs and still looks better than Kyle does.

[Category 5]

I think it will be looked at. What puzzles me is, I emailed the NHC the afternoon before it came ashore asking about the specific reason they weren't upgrading, this was the reply I got, needless to say it wasn't what I expected.

At the present time, the convection and strongest winds are well removed from the center.
The system remains extra-tropical at this time.

[JonathanBelles]

I believe it at MOST was subtropical. Ill take your first point:

1# Strong warm core of 7c from inside to outside. I've seen hurricanes in the tropics with less.

There may have been a warm core, but it may not have been at the surface, the readings were at 850mb. Also, most of the wind was removed from the center.

[AJC3]

I believe 94L is a tropical storm...

1# Strong warm core of 7c from inside to outside. I've seen hurricanes in the tropics with less.

2# Well defined surface cirulation at the surface, this is shown by recon ob maps at storm2k. So a tight cirulation.

3# Pretty well defined area of strong winds around the core of the system.

4# Convection bursting over the cirulation.

I expect 50-55 knot winds should be coming ashore...Pretty much another Hanna for this area.

I strongly believe it was a tropical storm. I welcome Pro's to destroy or disprove this if they can.

Look at the upper air charts from 500MB on up. There was a cold core cyclone aloft over the top of it throughout it's life. That alone is enough to disprove that the system ever became fully tropical. I'll listen to arguments that it should have been a named STC. But a bona-fide TC? Nope.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I believe 94L is a tropical storm...

1# Strong warm core of 7c from inside to outside. I've seen hurricanes in the tropics with less.

2# Well defined surface cirulation at the surface, this is shown by recon ob maps at storm2k. So a tight cirulation.

3# Pretty well defined area of strong winds around the core of the system.

4# Convection bursting over the cirulation.

I expect 50-55 knot winds should be coming ashore...Pretty much another Hanna for this area.

I strongly believe it was a tropical storm. I welcome Pro's to destroy or disprove this if they can.

Look at the upper air charts from 500MB on up. There was a cold core cyclone aloft over the top of it throughout it's life. That alone is enough to disprove that the system ever became fully tropical. I'll listen to arguments that it should have been a named STC. But a bona-fide TC? Nope.

I've seen tropical storms with upper level cyclones over their tops. When a system goes from cold to warm core this way it is much more likely. IF 94L had another 24 hours it would of started to form a anticyclone.

Here is one I believe started out this way
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... /track.gif

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I will admit that its wind field was quite large, so it was likely a borderline subtropical/tropical like system. I expect the nhc to upgrade post season.

[Derek Ortt]

I believe 94L is a tropical storm...

1# Strong warm core of 7c from inside to outside. I've seen hurricanes in the tropics with less.

2# Well defined surface cirulation at the surface, this is shown by recon ob maps at storm2k. So a tight cirulation.

3# Pretty well defined area of strong winds around the core of the system.

4# Convection bursting over the cirulation.

I expect 50-55 knot winds should be coming ashore...Pretty much another Hanna for this area.

I strongly believe it was a tropical storm. I welcome Pro's to destroy or disprove this if they can.

Look at the upper air charts from 500MB on up. There was a cold core cyclone aloft over the top of it throughout it's life. That alone is enough to disprove that the system ever became fully tropical. I'll listen to arguments that it should have been a named STC. But a bona-fide TC? Nope.

I've seen tropical storms with upper level cyclones over their tops. When a system goes from cold to warm core this way it is much more likely. IF 94L had another 24 hours it would of started to form a anticyclone.

Here is one I believe started out this way
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... /track.gif

the key is upper level cyclones. Yes, TCs such as Olga and un-named 1991 formed directly underneath ULs. However, they were not cold core at 500mb

[Ed Mahmoud]

I couldn't see a surface front in wind or temp dewpoint obs near the center. It had a coastal front West of it, but I never saw a low level front near the center, and even if cold core at 500 mb, it was not cold core at recon level. I never saw real evidence of a marked difference in the cool sector airmasses either side of the supposed occlusion, or a noticeable wind shift where the occlusion was at low levels. Then again, as an amateur I don't have a workstation to plot all the recon data in front of me, so it is possible there was one, and I missed it.

In my humble and unprofessional opinion, should have been Sub-TS Laura.


I thought the whole point of sub-TCs was to track and issue warnings for systems that had some tropical characteristics, but were not true TCs.


This clearly had some tropical characteristics, such as a low level warm core, even if it clearly wasn't purely tropical. If we do use the argument that a good winter Nor'Easter can also bring gales and elevated seas to the coast, might as well not have sub-TCs.


BTW, do we know as a fact it didn't have an area of relatively warm (compared to the main 500 mb cold core surrounding low) core aloft? I'm not saying it did, just that I know it didn't.

[Category 5]

If it indeed was subtropical, the NHC may not have named it to avoid the confusion from naming a nor'easter right before landfall.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

What I think might have happened is the upper level low
may have promoted instability with cold air aloft
and deep moisture at the surface, leading to strong
thunderstorms; and when that wind is brought down to the
surface in squalls you can get 50 mph gusts.

I am not sure what this was; I thought it was tropical but now
that I know that it was cold at 500 mb, I'm not sure.
Perhaps subtropical, maybe.

I am just an amateur. It will be interesting to read the post season analysis
if the NHC decides to write one about this low.

[Extremeweatherguy]

I think that if they named Laura, then they should have named 94L too.