I get this sinking feeling its going to ramp up...

[skysummit]

Interesting post wxmann57. Thanks for the clarifications!

[Stormcenter]

In my opinion as I've stated many times before what ultimately counts is how much death and destruction these storms (hurricanes) are responsible for after they are done. In terms of death and destruction combined it's a no brainer, Katrina hands down.

[jasons2k]

Ha ! Yeaugh right ! If you are referring to storm surge, I would agree with Katrina. Not with the actual intensity , however. It's ridiculous to keep mentioning that stuff about Katrina because we had much stronger hurricanes in the past, like Camille, at landfall, and Hugo, at landfall. Hugo was much stronger as far as winds are concerned. And winds mean everything. If there's just storm surge damage, but lack of wind, it wouldn't qualify as the same thing. You have to have the sustained winds. Sorry to bust your bubble with this, but here's just a reminder of hurricane trends over the last 50 years, according to the NHC:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml#history

Oh, believe me, you haven't busted my bubble. I know what the trends are. We were in an active cycle long ago; it waned; and now we're in another active cycle. I heard Stacy Stewart himself say to us in Houston a few weeks ago it's just a matter of time before we have a Wilma-type deepening close the the US coast. He cited Charley as an example, and said Charley would have been a Cat. 5 at landfall if he had not turned and missed Tampa. I don't doubt that for a second; Charley was well on its way.

And if you think winds mean "everything" you obviously, for some reason, have discounted the incredible surge damage done in 4 states caused by Katrina. The two deadliest hurricanes to strike in the US, Galveston 1900 and Katrina, both were not Cat. 5 at landfalls, but had a massive storm surge which resulted in thousands of deaths.

[baygirl_1]

The bulk of this debate has been about the wind speeds and wind fields. Yet, as jschlitz just pointed out, isn't the deadliest component of a hurricane the storm surge? I know the teaching materials I've received for my class have all stressed, "Run from the water, Hide from the wind." The Saffir-Simpson Scale really only addresses the wind speed, right? I believe Max Mayfield mentioned in an interview when he was here in May that they needed to look at developing another scale that addresses storm surge, as well. Or did I dream that???

[kenl01]

Interesting discussion going on here. I see that both sides have some incorrect facts, though. First of all, there is a strong upward trend in TC intensity in the Atlantic basin over the past 3-4 years. That's the reason all the global warming people are going nuts (more nuts than normal).

There's a strong corrrelation between the Atlantic MDO and major hurricane numbers. When the Atlantic is in a cool phase (1900-1925, 1970-1994) an average of 2 major hurricanes develop per season. During a warm phase (1926-1969 and 1995-present), that average goes up to 4 major storms per season.

As far as the arguments about Hugo vs. Katrina, believe me, I've done extensive research on wind field size and intensity comparisons over the past 8 months. The data say that Hugo was the worst hurricane to hit the U.S. since Carla in 1961. By "worst", the only qualifiers are size of the 39, 58, and 74 mph wind field and peak intensity. Storm surge is more a function of where a hurricane hits than peak intensity. Had Hugo hit MS, the surge would have been larger than what Katrina produced. Had Ivan hit Mississippi, the surge would have been about 3 times higher than what was seen in Pensacola, as the surge multiplier for Bay St. Louis is 1.75 vs. 0.6 for Pensacola.

Both Katrina and Ivan had a wind field the same size as Hugo's but both were more intense than Hugo out over the Gulf. Katrina was just a little smaller than Hugo and a bit weaker at landfall. Ivan was a lot smaller than Hugo and a good bit weaker at landfall. Rita was much more intense than Hugo out in the Gulf, but a good bit smaller. Rita weakened to a borderline Cat 2/3 at landfall though. Opal was significantly larger and more powerful than Hugo out in the mid Gulf, but it weakened and shrunk considerably before landfall.

Here's a graphic showing mostly Gulf hurricanes but I added Hugo in at the far right. The size of the hurricane-force wind field is the MAX that each hurricane reached, it is not necessarily the hurricane force wind field size at landfall. That is, with the exception of Hugo and Carla. Both were near max size and intensity at landfall. As you can see, Carla was a bit larger than Hugo at landfall. It was also more powerful at landfall.

Also note how tiny Wilma was at peak intensity in the Caribbean:

The last 2 years there has been certainly an increase, which is a balancing act for the quiet period we had between 1970 and 2000. But over the long term, over 50 years, there been a decrease in both intensity and landfalls. Two or three years alone doesn't really change anything. This would be due to the balancing act for the quiet period earlier in time. Even then, many systems have weakened at an increasing rate at landfall both in 2002, and also 2004 and 2005. Dennis is one example, even Rita and Katrina as to sustained winds. Also Jeanne and Francis in 2004. The exception would be Charley and Wilma.

As AccuWeather stated recently:

Alberto will join a growing list of named tropical systems to weaken before landfall before moving into the northeast Gulf of Mexico area of Florida. Gordon in September of 2000 was a hurricane at one point but by the time it came ashore near Cedar Key it was only a tropical storm. In August of 2004, Bonnie came ashore at Saint Vincent Island as a minimal tropical storm. Even Hurricane Earl back in September of 1998 was showing signs of becoming extra-tropical as it approached the coast near Panama City.

Ken

[curtadams]

The last 2 years there has been certainly an increase, which is a balancing act for the quiet period we had between 1970 and 2000. But over the long term, over 50 years, there been a decrease in both intensity and landfalls.

Of the top 10 most powerful hurricanes in the Atlantic in the past 51 years, (Isabel replacing 1935), here's the breakdown by decade:

1955-1965: 1 (stretching a year to catch Janet, strictly should be 0)
1966-1975: 1
1976-1985: 1
1986-1995: 1
1996-2005: 6

How exactly do you call this a decrease?

And, if there was this "low period" in 1970-2000, why did it generate monster majors faster than the last peak (there were none in 1945-1954)?

[wxman57]

The last 2 years there has been certainly an increase, which is a balancing act for the quiet period we had between 1970 and 2000. But over the long term, over 50 years, there been a decrease in both intensity and landfalls. Two or three years alone doesn't really change anything. This would be due to the balancing act for the quiet period earlier in time. Even then, many systems have weakened at an increasing rate at landfall both in 2002, and also 2004 and 2005. Dennis is one example, even Rita and Katrina as to sustained winds. Also Jeanne and Francis in 2004. The exception would be Charley and Wilma.

As AccuWeather stated recently:

Alberto will join a growing list of named tropical systems to weaken before landfall before moving into the northeast Gulf of Mexico area of Florida. Gordon in September of 2000 was a hurricane at one point but by the time it came ashore near Cedar Key it was only a tropical storm. In August of 2004, Bonnie came ashore at Saint Vincent Island as a minimal tropical storm. Even Hurricane Earl back in September of 1998 was showing signs of becoming extra-tropical as it approached the coast near Panama City.

Ken

Actually, the increase began back in 1995 with the change in the Atlantic MDO to warm-phase. For much of the past 50 years, the Atlantic MDO was in the cold-phase regime with diminished activity. That's certainly changed now. So I think a 10-15 year trend would be a better indicator of what's happening now. I would expect the current upswing in major hurricane activity to continue for the next 15-25 years.

But I do agree that seasonal indicators for 2006 don't support the 17 named storms that Dr. Gray is forecasting. My numbers were lower (15 named storms). I also think that the "average" number of named storms from now-forward will be closer to 12-13 rather than 10-11 because the NHC is now naming subtropical systems and they're also naming more "questionable" storms. Otherwise, I might have forecast 13 named storms for 2006.

[jasons2k]

The last 2 years there has been certainly an increase, which is a balancing act for the quiet period we had between 1970 and 2000. But over the long term, over 50 years, there been a decrease in both intensity and landfalls.

Of the top 10 most powerful hurricanes in the Atlantic in the past 51 years, (Isabel replacing 1935), here's the breakdown by decade:

1955-1965: 1 (stretching a year to catch Janet, strictly should be 0)
1966-1975: 1
1976-1985: 1
1986-1995: 1
1996-2005: 6

How exactly do you call this a decrease?

And, if there was this "low period" in 1970-2000, why did it generate monster majors faster than the last peak (there were none in 1945-1954)?

Here is the list:

Most intense Atlantic hurricanes
Intensity is measured solely by central pressure
Rank Hurricane Season Minimum pressure
1 Wilma 2005 882 mbar (hPa)
2 Gilbert 1988 888 mbar (hPa)
3 "Labor Day" 1935 892 mbar (hPa)
4 Rita 2005 895 mbar (hPa)
5 Allen 1980 899 mbar (hPa)
6 Katrina 2005 902 mbar (hPa)
7 Camille 1969 905 mbar (hPa)
Mitch 1998 905 mbar (hPa)
9 Ivan 2004 910 mbar (hPa)
10 Janet 1955 914 mbar (hPa)
Source: The Weather Channel

6 out of the 10 have been in the last 20 years. 4 out of the 10 have been in the last 2 years. Hardly a decrease.

[MiamiensisWx]

Even then, many systems have weakened at an increasing rate at landfall both in 2002, and also 2004 and 2005. Dennis is one example, even Rita and Katrina as to sustained winds. Also Jeanne and Francis in 2004. The exception would be Charley and Wilma.

I believe this argument is very likely highly flawed. Many storms in the far past likely weakened before landfall, but those weakenings were not documented. If we don't even have very accurate information on storm peak and landfall intensities from the 1960s, 1970s, and most of the 1980s, how can we even really determine anything before that? Camille likely weakened before landfall, even if it was still a (low-end) 160MPH Category Five at landfall. Even the Florida Keys 1935 Labor Day Hurricane likely weakened very slightly before landfall. I'm sorry, but I feel your argument is very flawed; also, it is trying to instill a false sense of security. Just because many recent storms have weakened before landfall (e.g., Frances, Katrina, Dennis, Ivan, and many others) doesn't mean that all will; also, even if they do, it really makes no big difference. Tropical storms, Category One storms, and Category Two storms are still very destructive, and many weakening storms before landfall often experience an increase in the windfield (more people are affected by destructive tropical storm-force/Category One sustained winds) and, consequently, a MUCH larger surge in many cases, depending on factors, storm position, and setup (such as Arlene, Ivan, Katrina, and too many others to name).

I am really getting the sense that you are trolling.

[jasons2k]

CapeVerdeWave, very well stated!!

One other thing to keep in mind Ken -- major hurricanes rarely maintain their peak intensity for very long. So chances are, when it does reach its maximun intensity, if it's still over open waters, it will be weakening when it makes landfall.

On the other hand, storms like Charley and Claudette (TX) had not reached their peak intensity yet; they were intensifying as they made landfall. Like I posted above, it's just a matter of time before a storm does this and hits a major city.

[Audrey2Katrina]

As far as the arguments about Hugo vs. Katrina, believe me, I've done extensive research on wind field size and intensity comparisons over the past 8 months. The data say that Hugo was the worst hurricane to hit the U.S. since Carla in 1961.

Believe me, while you're certainly entitled to put whatever parameters you feel inclined to place around the definition of "worst" but others who have careers in meteorology and done some research of their own do not agree with either your conclusion here, or the graph data. As far as storm surge not being one of your criteria for being "worse"... that is a subjective parameter for which you've chosen to employ, but it lessens none of what makes a storm any "worse" than the other. If one is to dismiss the function of "where a storm may strike" as being an integral part of what makes it "worse"... than in my humble opinion, the parameters can become so nebulous as to render them practically worthless. The very essence of what waters a storm travels throough (e.g. the Gulf Loop) are also functions of what could make a storm "worse". I respect all the work and research you have done and your opinions on what defines "worst"; equally I respectfully disagree with some of the data and the conclusion.

A2K

[TSmith274]

These hurricanes today are all whimps campared to the past times

Perhaps the most ridiculous statement to ever grace the boards of S2K. Unbelievable.

[skysummit]

These hurricanes today are all whimps campared to the past times

Perhaps the most ridiculous statement to ever grace the boards of S2K. Unbelievable.

Yup...unbelievable. It's these type of comments that make you lose respect for individuals really quick. I'll go ahead and second the vote on "most ridiculous statement to ever grace the boards of S2K". I actually think it's worst than "season cancel".

[Audrey2Katrina]

both sides have some incorrect facts

I don't belive a fact can be incorrect; albeit what is purported to be "fact" can indeed be in error. This applies to a lot of things being bandied about.

Had Hugo hit MS, the surge would have been larger than what Katrina produced

An educated opinion to which you are entitled; but little beyond educated speculation and hardly proveable.

Both Katrina and Ivan had a wind field the same size as Hugo's but both were more intense than Hugo out over the Gulf.

Your own graph of data shows both had a larger wind field radius of 74 mph winds. And yes, Katrina was much more "intense" than Hugo.

Katrina was just a little smaller than Hugo and a bit weaker at landfall.

I dispute the "smaller" claim but that's entirely too relative to argue and one can find sources to substantiate either claim... suffice it to say they were of relatively similar size, and relatively similar strength at landfall. Using your own data and discussion, additionally at landfall, Katrina was from 14 to 16 mb lower in intensity than was Hugo. How does this support the above cited claim that Hugo would have produced a larger storm surge?

Really all this is probably rhetorical.....

Hugo was the worst!!!
Carla was by far the worst!!!
Katrina was unquestionably the worst!!!
You're all wrong it was Charley!!!
No! It was Wilma!!
Wait a minute, if you factor in this, and this, and this it was the Great Miami Hurricane!

and on and on it goes, where she stops..... well, she never stops!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to eventually figure out how perspectives are highly correlated to the location of the perceiver--self included.

Now... can we get back to the topic of "Ramping it Up?"

As said before, it's wayyyy too early to call, and I agree with whoever it was that said earlier they'd hoped for a VERY quiet season, at least with regard to landfallers!

A2K

[Ivanhater]

Had Ivan hit Mississippi, the surge would have been about 3 times higher than what was seen in Pensacola, as the surge multiplier for Bay St. Louis is 1.75 vs. 0.6 for Pensacola.


Wait wxman, so your saying if Ivan hit in Mississippi, storm surge would have been around 42 feet? Surge in Pensacola was around 14 feet, though higher at the head of the bay. But lets just go with Pensacola. Ft McRee-2 report at 13.6 feet and the NOAA tide Gage at Pensacola failed before the peak surge. So with the limited info we have let's go with 14 feet and let's go with your surge multiplier for 0.6 for Pensacola(though that might not be totally correct), you need to take into account that the astronomical tide elevation was at 0.3 feet MSL when Ivan made landfall so it really should be at 0.9 for Pensacola to be totally correct. So your saying surge could have been 42 feet in Mississippi if Ivan hit there?

[Stormcenter]

As far as the arguments about Hugo vs. Katrina, believe me, I've done extensive research on wind field size and intensity comparisons over the past 8 months. The data say that Hugo was the worst hurricane to hit the U.S. since Carla in 1961.

Believe me, while you're certainly entitled to put whatever parameters you feel inclined to place around the definition of "worst" but others who have careers in meteorology and done some research of their own do not agree with either your conclusion here, or the graph data. As far as storm surge not being one of your criteria for being "worse"... that is a subjective parameter for which you've chosen to employ, but it lessens none of what makes a storm any "worse" than the other. If one is to dismiss the function of "where a storm may strike" as being an integral part of what makes it "worse"... than in my humble opinion, the parameters can become so nebulous as to render them practically worthless. The very essence of what waters a storm travels throough (e.g. the Gulf Loop) are also functions of what could make a storm "worse". I respect all the work and research you have done and your opinions on what defines "worst"; equally I respectfully disagree with some of the data and the conclusion.

A2K

Not to down play Hugo because it was a devasting storm but I'm sorry Katrina is the king (or queen) of the mountain in my opinion compared to Hugo.

[ROCK]

both sides have some incorrect facts

I don't belive a fact can be incorrect; albeit what is purported to be "fact" can indeed be in error. This applies to a lot of things being bandied about.

Had Hugo hit MS, the surge would have been larger than what Katrina produced

An educated opinion to which you are entitled; but little beyond educated speculation and hardly proveable.

Both Katrina and Ivan had a wind field the same size as Hugo's but both were more intense than Hugo out over the Gulf.

Your own graph of data shows both had a larger wind field radius of 74 mph winds. And yes, Katrina was much more "intense" than Hugo.

Katrina was just a little smaller than Hugo and a bit weaker at landfall.

I dispute the "smaller" claim but that's entirely too relative to argue and one can find sources to substantiate either claim... suffice it to say they were of relatively similar size, and relatively similar strength at landfall. Using your own data and discussion, additionally at landfall, Katrina was from 14 to 16 mb lower in intensity than was Hugo. How does this support the above cited claim that Hugo would have produced a larger storm surge?

Really all this is probably rhetorical.....

Hugo was the worst!!!
Carla was by far the worst!!!
Katrina was unquestionably the worst!!!
You're all wrong it was Charley!!!
No! It was Wilma!!
Wait a minute, if you factor in this, and this, and this it was the Great Miami Hurricane!

and on and on it goes, where she stops..... well, she never stops!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to eventually figure out how perspectives are highly correlated to the location of the perceiver--self included.

Now... can we get back to the topic of "Ramping it Up?"

As said before, it's wayyyy too early to call, and I agree with whoever it was that said earlier they'd hoped for a VERY quiet season, at least with regard to landfallers!

A2K

I tried to stay out of this I really did.... however I had to jump in to back a Pro MET since some of his statements have been taken out of context.

WXMN wrote: Had Hugo hit MS, the surge would have been larger than what Katrina produced.

AK2 wrote: An educated opinion to which you are entitled; but little beyond educated speculation and hardly proveable.

The surge multiplier of a certain portion of the coast is speculation. You really must read up more on storm surge and its causes. Just b/c YOUR storm had a lower pressure does not mean squat when it comes to storm surge. You need to look at a storms windfield, predicted landfall (multiplier) not just how deep it is.


I just love it when posters call out a MET with 20+ years of weather knowledge. Personally, I would take 20+ over 2 any day.....

[Audrey2Katrina]

I just love it when posters call out a MET with 20+ years of weather knowledge. Personally, I would take 20+ over 2 any day.....

I am glad to see you are so enamored of seeing such posts, Rock, and it's nice to see you break your silence after such a long hiatus... understandably so.

If anyone's guilty of taking things out of context it's you.... can you understand "Glass Houses?" ... I didn't take a thing Wxmn said out of context at all, or do you fully understand what that expression means? Really because there's nothing there "out of context"... I "quoted" his own data, and as far as your irrelevant mention of the "storm surge multiplier" I DO believe it's based upon the very data I cited... which is why I asked the question in the first place. And in case you don't know the difference, this is not "calling out" a pro-met; it's simply a case of respectful disagreement.

You do have a penchant for sycophantism, Rock, so I'm used to that. While I have the greatest respect for Wxman and any other pro-met, this by no means makes null and void the right to a differing opinion; but this is not the first time my simply disagreeing with one has become an "opportunity" for you to mischaractarize what I was saying or doing. All pro-mets are just that.. and their opinions are to be respected--but none of them, not even the NHC can claim infallibility. There is disagreement even between pro-mets on many issues. And yes... some have 20+ years of experience. Some even have nationwide reputations.

Hope you loved that one too.

A2K

[ROCK]

I just love it when posters call out a MET with 20+ years of weather knowledge. Personally, I would take 20+ over 2 any day.....

I am glad to see you are so enamored of seeing such posts, Rock, and it's nice to see you break your silence after such a long hiatus... understandably so.

If anyone's guilty of taking things out of context it's you.... can you understand "Glass Houses?" ... I didn't take a thing Wxmn said out of context at all, or do you fully understand what that expression means? Really because there's nothing there "out of context"... I "quoted" his own data, and as far as your irrelevant mention of the "storm surge multiplier" I DO believe it's based upon the very data I cited... which is why I asked the question in the first place. And in case you don't know the difference, this is not "calling out" a pro-met; it's simply a case of respectful disagreement.

You do have a penchant for sycophantism, Rock, so I'm used to that. While I have the greatest respect for Wxman and any other pro-met, this by no means makes null and void the right to a differing opinion; but this is not the first time my simply disagreeing with one has become an "opportunity" for you to mischaractarize what I was saying or doing. All pro-mets are just that.. and their opinions are to be respected--but none of them, not even the NHC can claim infallibility. There is disagreement even between pro-mets on many issues. And yes... some have 20+ years of experience. Some even have nationwide reputations.

Hope you loved that one too.

A2K

I did.... thanks.....

[Seele]

The comparison between Katrina and Hugo made me curious, so I tried to make a map comparing their wind radii.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find much in the way of a map showing Hugo's winds. The source I used for it was page 5 of http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_pages/wind2.pdf. I tried to color in the map as close as I could to current h-wind products. I hope I read the map right and did the proper conversion. I converted m/s to kt by taking (m/s)/.515 * .9 (reduction from 700mb).

One difference between the two is that the Katrina wind speeds over land are reduced to account for friction while Hugo's are not. The max wind speeds in these images are 101kt for Katrina and 125kt for Hugo in a very small area in the middle of the dark purple circle that represents 115kt.

For Katrina I used : http://cat5.nhc.noaa.gov/Hwind/Output/powell/Operational/2005/al12.2005/0829/1132/col04deg.png