Weird cyclones - Impressive cyclones

[Mecklenburg]

1. Allison wasn't a "short-lived tropical storm".
2. The ability to rain a lot when slow-moving isn't a particularly weird or impressive feature of a tropical system -- because it's something they do by definition. A major city with poor drainage randomly being under its track doesn't make it a more interesting storm -- the flooding might be interesting...but not necessarily the rain-clouds.

what do you mean wasn't short-lived?...it formed on july 5 and made it ways inland and dissipated on the following day...

It didn't dissipate; it went inland and then festered around for another week and a half:

but not as a TS, but a TD... after all, it was only tropical for a very short as most of the time it was subtropical...

[Mecklenburg]

do my eyes deceive me? or did i just tropical storm erin becoming a TS inland...

[Chacor]

It was recorded as a LOW in best-track but at tropical storm intensity. It was not a tropical storm overland.

[RL3AO]

do my eyes deceive me? or did i just tropical storm erin becoming a TS inland...

It wasn't tropical (officially), but it did intensify to storm strength over Oklahoma.

[Mecklenburg]

do my eyes deceive me? or did i just tropical storm erin becoming a TS inland...

It wasn't tropical (officially), but it did intensify to storm strength over Oklahoma.

how is that possible, since the land below erin is so arid?

[Honeyko]

(Re: Allison)...but not as a TS, but a TD... after all, it was only tropical for a very short as most of the time it was subtropical...

Allison was a thoroughly tropical (not subtropical) warm-core system over land for mostof that trip across the US of A. Friction may have kept her surface winds down to squat, but she remained organized upstairs. (Storms over flat terrain will do that in August; all they need is one good feeder still half hanging in the ocean, and they keep chuggin' along.)

[RL3AO]

how is that possible, since the land below erin is so arid?

Read page 2.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL052007_Erin.pdf

[arkestra]

I just want to mention that, even if it's an extratropical cyclone, Europe got two extratropical cyclones in less than 24h. It was in 1999, just between Christmas and New Year. They were called Lothar and Martin.

Lothar had a forward speed of 150km/h, and gusts peaking at 272km/h, and 960mb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_windstorm

[Category 5]

(Re: Allison)...but not as a TS, but a TD... after all, it was only tropical for a very short as most of the time it was subtropical...

Allison was a thoroughly tropical (not subtropical) warm-core system over land for mostof that trip across the US of A. Friction may have kept her surface winds down to squat, but she remained organized upstairs. (Storms over flat terrain will do that in August; all they need is one good feeder still half hanging in the ocean, and they keep chuggin' along.)

Care to check your facts?

05 / 1200 27.5 95.0 1007 40 tropical storm
05 / 1800 28.5 95.3 1002 50 "
06 / 0000 29.3 95.3 1003 45 "
06 / 0600 30.1 95.2 1006 30 tropical depression
06 / 1200 31.0 95.2 1005 20 "
06 / 1800 31.5 95.0 1005 20 "
07 / 0000 31.6 95.0 1005 20 "
07 / 0600 31.8 94.9 1006 20 "
07 / 1200 31.4 94.9 1006 20 "
07 / 1800 31.1 95.0 1007 15 "
08 / 0000 30.9 95.6 1002 15 "
08 / 0600 30.7 96.1 1004 20 "
08 / 1200 30.4 96.2 1007 20 "
08 / 1800 30.2 96.1 1007 20 "
09 / 0000 29.9 95.9 1007 20 "
09 / 0600 29.6 95.8 1007 20 "
09 / 1200 29.3 95.8 1007 20 "
09 / 1800 28.9 95.6 1008 20 "
10 / 0000 28.6 95.2 1008 20 subtropical depression
10 / 0600 28.6 94.7 1007 25 "
10 / 1200 28.7 94.3 1006 25 "
10 / 1800 28.8 93.5 1006 30 "
11 / 0000 29.1 92.3 1005 30 subtropical depression (New center)
11 / 0600 30.0 90.5 1003 35 subtropical storm
11 / 1200 30.7 89.4 1000 40 "
11 / 1800 31.0 88.4 1002 35 "
12 / 0000 31.3 87.4 1004 25 subtropical depression
12 / 0600 31.8 86.1 1005 20 "
12 / 1200 32.4 84.7 1006 20 "
12 / 1800 32.8 83.6 1006 20 "
13 / 0000 33.1 82.6 1006 20 "
13 / 0600 33.4 81.6 1004 25 "
13 / 1200 33.7 80.7 1005 25 "
13 / 1800 34.0 79.6 1006 25 "
14 / 0000 34.3 78.5 1006 25 "
14 / 0600 34.6 77.9 1006 25 "
14 / 1200 34.7 77.7 1007 25 "
14 / 1800 34.6 77.6 1008 25 "
15 / 0000 34.6 77.2 1008 25 "
15 / 0600 34.9 77.0 1008 25 "
15 / 1200 35.5 76.9 1008 25 "
15 / 1800 35.9 76.8 1009 25 "
16 / 0000 36.3 76.6 1007 25 "
16 / 0600 36.6 76.2 1007 25 "
16 / 1200 36.8 75.9 1007 25 "
16 / 1800 37.2 75.5 1006 25 "
17 / 0000 37.8 75.4 1006 25 "
17 / 0600 38.6 74.5 1005 30 "
17 / 1200 39.3 73.4 1004 40 subtropical storm
17 / 1800 40.0 72.1 1005 35 "
18 / 0000 40.6 70.8 1006 30 extratropical low
18 / 0600 41.3 69.4 1008 30 "
18 / 1200 42.0 67.4 1009 30 "
18 / 1800 42.7 64.6 1011 25 "
19 / 0000 43.5 61.0 1012 20 "
19 / 0600 dissipated

[Ptarmigan]

One of the most amazing storms ive ever heard of was sty nancy...was she really 215mph winds?

It had a central pressure of 888 mb and the ambient pressure is lower in WPAC, so I think it is dubious. Gilbert had 888 mb and 185 mph winds.

[Ptarmigan]

Storm #11, 1944 (Atlantic) - This system was quite large, with an eye diameter estimated near ~70 mi over the central Florida peninsula. Simultaneously, calm conditions were reported from Jacksonville and Ocala. Wind radii was expansive across the state.
Vera 1959 (WPAC) - This TC purportedly struck Japan at Category 5 intensity, but the assigned landfall intensity is dubious. However, it was Japan's deadliest disaster related to a tropical cyclone.
Donna 1960 (Atlantic) - It made nine landfalls at major hurricane status (Cat 3+). The landfalls were Barbuda/Sint Maarten/Saint Barthelemey/Anguilla (Cat 3), the Bahamas (Cat 4), the Florida Keys (Cat 4), southwestern mainland Florida (Cat 3), North Carolina (Cat 3), and New York (Cat 3). The 1960 Monthly Weather Review vividly describes each landfall, respectively.
Inez 1966 (Atlantic) - This TC crossed the Lesser Antilles and four additional land masses, including Hispaniola, the Bahamas, Florida Keys, and Mexico.
John 1994 (EPAC) - John was the longest lived TC in terms of duration, and it exhibited an exceptionally lengthy track as well.
Vince 2005 (Atlantic) - Spain landfall was unique, but recent research indicates another TC struck the country in 1842.

Sarah 1959 (WPAC)-Central pressure at peak was measured at 905 mb and sustained winds of 195 mph. Probably highest sustained winds were 165 mph at most. It made landfall on South Korea as a Category 3 hurricane of 115 to 120 mph. It is one of South Korea's deadliest typhoon
Rusa 2002 (WPAC)-Had a huge eye of 120 miles in diameter. It was annular storm like Isabel in 2003.

[Honeyko]

Rusa 2002 (WPAC)-Had a huge eye of 120 miles in diameter. It was annular storm like Isabel in 2003.

There's very little in common between them.

-- There needs to be a category of term other than annular to distinguish powerful storms with large eyes (such as Isabel and Katrina) from much weaker, generally higher-latitude, shallow pressure-gradient storms entering progressively less warm water, which have had their cores completely gutted but maintain an outer ring of convection.

I label the Isabels and Katrinas "maxi-state" hurricanes; essentially they have evolved to the maximum geographical coverage and intensity possible for the environment, and undergone an EWRC to replace a too-small eye with a larger one in order to convect enormous amounts of moist air more efficiently. Maxi-state hurricanes often have higher MSW and lower pressures with their final large eye than they do with their previous smaller one. An annular is invariably a pale shadow of a once much stronger storm.

[Squarethecircle]

Rusa 2002 (WPAC)-Had a huge eye of 120 miles in diameter. It was annular storm like Isabel in 2003.

There's very little in common between them.

-- There needs to be a category of term other than annular to distinguish powerful storms with large eyes (such as Isabel and Katrina) from much weaker, generally higher-latitude, shallow pressure-gradient storms entering progressively less warm water, which have had their cores completely gutted but maintain an outer ring of convection.

I label the Isabels and Katrinas "maxi-state" hurricanes; essentially they have evolved to the maximum geographical coverage and intensity possible for the environment, and undergone an EWRC to replace a too-small eye with a larger one in order to convect enormous amounts of moist air more efficiently. Maxi-state hurricanes often have higher MSW and lower pressures with their final large eye than they do with their previous smaller one. An annular is invariably a pale shadow of a once much stronger storm.

Ok, first I think that Ptarmigan was just giving Isabel as an example.

Also, annular IS the term for that (and Katrina wasn't close to being annular). It's really hard to be "maxi-state" if the storm isn't annular. Katrina wasn't nearly as intense as it could be (although it was somewhat close). Your last sentence makes no sense - most storms become annular in or near their peak, JUST LIKE ISABEL.

[arkestra]

I repeat my question again (cause I'd like to know...)

Is there any new scientific explanations for Vince and Epsilon? Because at the time we knew what they did, but we didn't know why.

[wxmann_91]

No, Honeyko is right. There's a huge difference between annular storms, which are both strong (for their SST environment beneath them) and stable, and storms that have lost an inner core and have basically unraveled as they entrained continental air (e.g. Dean in BOC, Jelewat 2000 NE of Taiwan, Winnie 1997 NE of Taiwan... look those up! Some of the visible images of those typhoons are incredible).

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula. I wouldn't really put Isabel and Katrina in the same category; while Isabel was steady "maxi-state", Katrina was hindered a bit by dry continental air in the vicinity, which inevitably led to the inner core near-collapse near landfall.

In response to squarethecircle, most storms do not become annular.

-In the WPAC deep tropics, most of the strongest storms form a pinhole eye and then quickly undergo an ERC. One of three things can happen: it can entrain lots of dry air and lose its inner core basically (usually for northward moving storms); it can make landfall; or it can form a larger eye but retain most of its outer rings of convection.

-In the Caribbean, most of the strongest storms undergo multiple ERC's, but being in the deep tropics, it never really attains annular status.

-In the EPAC/CPAC, rest of WPAC, and open ATL, the morphology of major storms can vary, but small pinhole eyes are uncommon if any documented cases have occurred at all. Most times eyes are medium sized. Depending on timing and environment storms can become annular; this occurs most often in EPAC where the SST's are marginal enough to support it. It can also occur at times in the open ATL but again it's relatively rare.

In fact I don't think an annular hurricane is any more possible in the deep tropics as a pinhole-eye above ~30N. The dynamic/thermodynamic environment just doesn't support it.

[Squarethecircle]

No, Honeyko is right. There's a huge difference between annular storms, which are both strong (for their SST environment beneath them) and stable, and storms that have lost an inner core and have basically unraveled as they entrained continental air (e.g. Dean in BOC, Jelewat 2000 NE of Taiwan, Winnie 1997 NE of Taiwan... look those up! Some of the visible images of those typhoons are incredible).

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula. I wouldn't really put Isabel and Katrina in the same category; while Isabel was steady "maxi-state", Katrina was hindered a bit by dry continental air in the vicinity, which inevitably led to the inner core near-collapse near landfall.

In response to squarethecircle, most storms do not become annular.

-In the WPAC deep tropics, most of the strongest storms form a pinhole eye and then quickly undergo an ERC. One of three things can happen: it can entrain lots of dry air and lose its inner core basically (usually for northward moving storms); it can make landfall; or it can form a larger eye but retain most of its outer rings of convection.

-In the Caribbean, most of the strongest storms undergo multiple ERC's, but being in the deep tropics, it never really attains annular status.

-In the EPAC/CPAC, rest of WPAC, and open ATL, the morphology of major storms can vary, but small pinhole eyes are uncommon. Most times eyes are medium sized. Depending on timing and environment storms can become annular; this occurs most often in EPAC where the SST's are marginal enough to support it. It can also occur at times in the open ATL but again it's relatively rare.

???

I never said most storms become annular. Almost no storms become annular. Also, what you're generally saying is in agreement with what I'm generally saying - that annular storms are often strong and do not weaken until a point at which most storms would.

Edit: I can understand the confusion. I said "Most storms become annular in or near their peak", by which I mean "Most annular storms become so in or near their peak". Still, pay more attention!

[wxmann_91]

???

I never said most storms become annular. Almost no storms become annular. Also, what you're generally saying is in agreement with what I'm generally saying - that annular storms are often strong and do not weaken until a point at which most storms would.

Edit: I can understand the confusion. I said "Most storms become annular in or near their peak", by which I mean "Most annular storms become so in or near their peak". Still, pay more attention!

Ok, ok, ic... lol

[Ptarmigan]

For clarification, Rusa was annular because it lacked outer rainbands like Isabel. Katrina had a plenty of outer rainbands.

[Honeyko]

...Katrina wasn't close to being annular).

These look a lot alike to me (Katrina vs. Isabel):


Katrina and Isabel have about the same CDO vs eye-size ratio (Katrina actually has the larger eye, relatively). I disagree with the notion that the presence of rainbands excludes a hurricane from consideration of being annular -- very few areas have an oceanic heat-content as extreme as the GOM loop-current. Note that Katrina easily meets all of the other annular characteristics.

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula. I wouldn't really put Isabel and Katrina in the same category; while Isabel was steady "maxi-state", Katrina was hindered a bit by dry continental air in the vicinity, which inevitably led to the inner core near-collapse near landfall.

Katrina steady-stated at 160+mph with a giant eye for twelve or more hours prior to continental air intrusion:

19 25.20 -86.70 08/28/06Z 125 930 HURRICANE-4
20 25.70 -87.70 08/28/12Z 145 909 HURRICANE-5
21 26.30 -88.60 08/28/18Z 150 902 HURRICANE-5
22 27.20 -89.20 08/29/00Z 140 905 HURRICANE-5
23 28.20 -89.60 08/29/06Z 125 913 HURRICANE-4

[Squarethecircle]

...Katrina wasn't close to being annular).

These look a lot alike to me (Katrina vs. Isabel):


Katrina and Isabel have about the same CDO vs eye-size ratio (Katrina actually has the larger eye, relatively). I disagree with the notion that the presence of rainbands excludes a hurricane from consideration of being annular -- very few areas have an oceanic heat-content as extreme as the GOM loop-current. Note that Katrina easily meets all of the other annular characteristics.

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula. I wouldn't really put Isabel and Katrina in the same category; while Isabel was steady "maxi-state", Katrina was hindered a bit by dry continental air in the vicinity, which inevitably led to the inner core near-collapse near landfall.

Katrina steady-stated at 160+mph with a giant eye for twelve or more hours prior to continental air intrusion:

19 25.20 -86.70 08/28/06Z 125 930 HURRICANE-4
20 25.70 -87.70 08/28/12Z 145 909 HURRICANE-5
21 26.30 -88.60 08/28/18Z 150 902 HURRICANE-5
22 27.20 -89.20 08/29/00Z 140 905 HURRICANE-5
23 28.20 -89.60 08/29/06Z 125 913 HURRICANE-4

But it had lots and lots of rainbands.

That's what an annular hurricane is - part of the definition. You can't decide to change that - it's not up to you.