Reanalysis questions

[CrazyC83]

1941-45 officially released today, although we had covered them well. World War II reduced the observation count greatly.

[Cainer]

Saw your name mentioned in NHC's press release on the 41-45 reanalysis, HURAKAN, huge congrats! I can only imagine how much work it is going through all that data. Keep up the great work.

[CrazyC83]

HURAKAN is also on the Metadata page as well. Congrats!!!

I'm thinking late this year or early 2014 we will have the next batch (probably 1946-1950 or 1946-1953).

[HURAKAN]

Thank you everyone!! I had the opportunity to work on the 1941 and 1942 seasons, WWII reduced the data greatly but still there was enough to conduct the reanalysis. At the moment I'm working on the 1958 season and the amount of data is incredible for almost every storm. It's very rewarding being able to work on the reanalysis. I love hurricanes and this gives me the opportunity to leave a tiny mark on history!!

I think 1946-1950 can be expected later this year, but it all depends on how much work the committee can get done during the hurricane season. My goal is to finish up to 1964 by next April, so the committee doesn't have to wait for us. That's always the plan, to stay ahead of them.

[Alyono]

Thank you everyone!! I had the opportunity to work on the 1941 and 1942 seasons, WWII reduced the data greatly but still there was enough to conduct the reanalysis. At the moment I'm working on the 1958 season and the amount of data is incredible for almost every storm. It's very rewarding being able to work on the reanalysis. I love hurricanes and this gives me the opportunity to leave a tiny mark on history!!

I think 1946-1950 can be expected later this year, but it all depends on how much work the committee can get done during the hurricane season. My goal is to finish up to 1964 by next April, so the committee doesn't have to wait for us. That's always the plan, to stay ahead of them.

What are your thoughts on Audrey? Are you going to follow the Jarvinen analysis and go with a cat 1/ cat 2 at landfall, or will it be a major still?

[HURAKAN]

What are your thoughts on Audrey? Are you going to follow the Jarvinen analysis and go with a cat 1/ cat 2 at landfall, or will it be a major still?

Sorry but I can't tell you what we have done so far, but I did looked at his paper, along with all the other data. I did reanalyze Audrey but haven't met with Chris Landsea yet. I'm always ahead, so when he has time, we meet and decide on the changes. When the season is done, everything is put in a folder where it will wait for the committee to examine it. Not until the reanalysis is made public we can really talk about what we have done!

[Hurricane Jed]

Can't wait til Camille gets reanalyzed

[Hurricaneman]

Inez in 1966 was at least should be upgraded to cat5 based on the near 200mph winds recorded by recon based on the 90% of flight level wind speeds which would put it at 175mph

[vbhoutex]

Can't wait til Camille gets reanalyzed

Has there been any kind of reanalysis on Camille yet? For some reason I have it in my head that there has been. I am probably thinking about all of the discussions I have seen on it and talks I have had with Greg Nordstrom.

[Ptarmigan]

Sorry but I can't tell you what we have done so far, but I did looked at his paper, along with all the other data. I did reanalyze Audrey but haven't met with Chris Landsea yet. I'm always ahead, so when he has time, we meet and decide on the changes. When the season is done, everything is put in a folder where it will wait for the committee to examine it. Not until the reanalysis is made public we can really talk about what we have done!

My thinking is that Audrey was probably a large Category 1/2 hurricane.

[Ptarmigan]

Inez in 1966 was at least should be upgraded to cat5 based on the near 200mph winds recorded by recon based on the 90% of flight level wind speeds which would put it at 175mph

Hurricane Inez was never a large sized storm despite going over Cuba and being a Cape Verde storm.

[StormClouds63]

The Camille debates continue ...
http://extremeplanet.me/tag/hurricane-camille-1969/

On Audrey, take a look at the pdf document linked below:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/12Tides.pdf

You'll need to scroll through the document to section 11.

[CrazyC83]

Can't wait til Camille gets reanalyzed

I know I made my thoughts a while back, but I do believe the following:

* The landfall pressure is undisputable - 909mb.

* The peak intensity is a bit ambigious, with the lowest pressure being 901mb recorded but may have been deeper between recordings. Hence it had weakened slightly in pressure in the 12 hours before landfall.

* The landfall radar signature showed a concentric structure - eyewalls about 6 and 25 nautical miles in width. The smaller one was likely breaking apart. For the purpose, an RMW of 25 nautical miles should be used IMO.

* Compared to Andrew or even Charley, the wind damage was unremarkable. The storm surge did most of the extreme damage. Wind damage looked like typical damage for a Category 3 or perhaps low-end Category 4 landfall (comparable to Katrina as well as other storms like Wilma, Opal, Ivan and Fran). Having said that, the worst damage may have taken place in areas flooded near the beaches or bays (perhaps like Hugo) and wind often doesn't penetrate far inland.

* My landfall estimate: 130 kt, which was likely in the area between Waveland and Gulfport - say near Bay St. Louis and Pass Christian - and perhaps offshore at the time of landfall. Category 4 conditions were likely confined to that area and the islands offshore. Most of the rest of the area likely saw Category 2 or 3 conditions. In addition, Louisiana likely saw Category 3 conditions (on the western eyewall in Plaquemines Parish from the then-Category 5 storm just offshore) and Alabama also likely saw Category 1 conditions (Dauphin Island and perhaps extreme SW). That would have it in HURDAT as LA3, MS4, AL1 - not LA5, MS5.

[Hurricaneman]

Can't wait til Camille gets reanalyzed

I know I made my thoughts a while back, but I do believe the following:

* The landfall pressure is undisputable - 909mb.

* The peak intensity is a bit ambigious, with the lowest pressure being 901mb recorded but may have been deeper between recordings. Hence it had weakened slightly in pressure in the 12 hours before landfall.

* The landfall radar signature showed a concentric structure - eyewalls about 6 and 25 nautical miles in width. The smaller one was likely breaking apart. For the purpose, an RMW of 25 nautical miles should be used IMO.

* Compared to Andrew or even Charley, the wind damage was unremarkable. The storm surge did most of the extreme damage. Wind damage looked like typical damage for a Category 3 or perhaps low-end Category 4 landfall (comparable to Katrina as well as other storms like Wilma, Opal, Ivan and Fran). Having said that, the worst damage may have taken place in areas flooded near the beaches or bays (perhaps like Hugo) and wind often doesn't penetrate far inland.

* My landfall estimate: 130 kt, which was likely in the area between Waveland and Gulfport - say near Bay St. Louis and Pass Christian - and perhaps offshore at the time of landfall. Category 4 conditions were likely confined to that area and the islands offshore. Most of the rest of the area likely saw Category 2 or 3 conditions. In addition, Louisiana likely saw Category 3 conditions (on the western eyewall in Plaquemines Parish from the then-Category 5 storm just offshore) and Alabama also likely saw Category 1 conditions (Dauphin Island and perhaps extreme SW). That would have it in HURDAT as LA3, MS4, AL1 - not LA5, MS5.

I think it was 140kts, but the 165kts is way to high as the gusts were only 165kts not the sustained so most of what you say I agree with

[Hurricane Jed]

Audrey will be interesting once we learn the final intensity. Camille might have had those 165kt winds at landfall. I found an interesting reference in a book stating Camille forced the Mississippi River to flow backwards for about 120 miles and then backed up to a point as far inland as 50 miles north of Baton Rouge, 295 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. I'm unaware of any other hurricanes that have done that but to do that to the most powerful river in North America is extremely impressive.

[CrazyC83]

https://ams.confex.com/ams/31Hurr/webpr ... 5MAR14.pdf

Not published yet, but a great read.

[Alyono]

105 from Audrey means that a straight pressure to wind relation was applied.

I do have serious questions about the scientific method used there when we have additional data showing it is quite a bit weaker. We have seen in recent years from recon that p/w often gets out of whack. There is a large amount of variability. So, if the Jarvinen data is within the range, why not use his data?

[CrazyC83]

105 from Audrey means that a straight pressure to wind relation was applied.

I do have serious questions about the scientific method used there when we have additional data showing it is quite a bit weaker. We have seen in recent years from recon that p/w often gets out of whack. There is a large amount of variability. So, if the Jarvinen data is within the range, why not use his data?

A straight P/W for 946mb is about 115 kt.

[Alyono]

perhaps I should have said slightly modified p/w. However, 946mb for a large storm would likely yield less in the northern Gulf. We saw Rita barely had cat 3 winds and yet it had a pressure of about 937mb

[TropicalAnalystwx13]

A proposed change to Hurricane Camille's intensity will be presented on April 1 by some of the NHC specialists at the 31st Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, FWIW.