Abstract Thought: Is a Typhoon Tip Possible in the Atlantic

[CHRISTY]

This is from wilma....What a storm!

IN ADDITION TO THE SPECTACULAR CLOUD PATTERN OBSERVED ON SATELLITE
...AN AIR FORCE RECONNAISSANCE PLANE MEASURED 168 KNOTS AT 700 MB
AND ESTIMATED A MINIMUM PRESSURE OF 884 MB EXTRAPOLATED FROM 700MB.
UNOFFICIALLY...THE METEOROLOGIST ON BOARD THE PLANE RELAYED AN
EXTRAPOLATED 881 MB PRESSURE AND MEASURED 884 MB WITH A DROPSONDE.
THIS IS ALL IN ASSOCIATION WITH A VERY SMALL EYE THAT HAS BEEN
OSCILLATING BETWEEN 2 AND 4 N MI DURING EYE PENETRATIONS. THIS IS
PROBABLY THE LOWEST MINIMUM PRESSURE EVER OBSERVED IN THE ATLANTIC
BASIN AND IS FOLLOWED BY THE 888 MB MINIMUM PRESSURE ASSOCIATED
WITH HURRICANE GILBERT IN 1988.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Actually I respectfully disagree with you because once Katrina and Rita got north of about 30N they weakened and shrunk in size dramatically - so they were not the "biggest" to hit the US. I don't think the GOM or the Eastern Atlantic north of 30N can support storms like Gilbert, Andrew, Isabel, etc. However, the southern 1/3 peninsula of Florida has the highest potential of getting hit by a mammoth storm in the US for geographic reasons.

I didn't say she was the "biggest" at landfall, I was citing an article that called her possibly the largest storm which (subsequently) struck. I certainly wasn't referring to size at landfall, they do change dramatically as they move--particularly inland; but at her largest size... she was indeed huge.

I won't argue the last sentence as it's probably true in a hypothetical situation, but fortunately for Florida, that hasn't happened as yet (meaning a storm the size of Tip)... and hopefully never will.

A2K

[gatorcane]

This is from wilma....What a storm!

IN ADDITION TO THE SPECTACULAR CLOUD PATTERN OBSERVED ON SATELLITE
...AN AIR FORCE RECONNAISSANCE PLANE MEASURED 168 KNOTS AT 700 MB
AND ESTIMATED A MINIMUM PRESSURE OF 884 MB EXTRAPOLATED FROM 700MB.
UNOFFICIALLY...THE METEOROLOGIST ON BOARD THE PLANE RELAYED AN
EXTRAPOLATED 881 MB PRESSURE AND MEASURED 884 MB WITH A DROPSONDE.
THIS IS ALL IN ASSOCIATION WITH A VERY SMALL EYE THAT HAS BEEN
OSCILLATING BETWEEN 2 AND 4 N MI DURING EYE PENETRATIONS. THIS IS
PROBABLY THE LOWEST MINIMUM PRESSURE EVER OBSERVED IN THE ATLANTIC
BASIN AND IS FOLLOWED BY THE 888 MB MINIMUM PRESSURE ASSOCIATED
WITH HURRICANE GILBERT IN 1988.

Wilma certainly is the queen of all storms beating out Katrina in my opinion....Florida is lucky it stayed over the Yucatan while I did and there was some shear from a strong trough or else a CAT 4+ easily into South Florida.

[wxman57]

Katrina, and Rita really weren't so big when compared to some of the big names of the past.

I respectfully disagree. I've read current sources stating that both of these storms were huge, and that Katrina might well have been the largest "hurricane" to hit North America, in sheer size. I'm not going to agree with that; but to say she wasn't that big compared to some of the storms of the past is a bit of a stretch to say the least. I would point out 2 things:

1.) In the "past" they didn't have satellite imagery to give us an adequate concept of the size of the actual storm. And we can get into the semantics of what is, or is not actually associated with that storm.

2.) If you'll look at my avatar, that is a NASA satellite image of Katrina in the GOM, if you look at all the outflow, the feeder bands, and areas clearly associated with this storm, you'll see cloud layers extending east completely over the peninsula of Florida and into the Atlantic... west, she had clouds associated with her all the way to Texas/Mexico border, and North, well inland almost to the Tennessee state line with Mississippi/Alabama, and South, well over the Yucatan. That, by any standard is a huge storm and completely encompassed the GOM and most of the BOC. Yes, you can justifiably contend that the actual "storm" is only that area of brightest white, and/or hurricane/TS wind fields... in which case hurricane winds extending up to 120 miles from the center still fits the "huge" category in my book.

I know we've had this discussion before, Wxman57, and I'm not going to begin another Carla-vs-Katrina discussion because it serves no purpose. I respect your professional opinion, very much; but I respectfully disagree with your concluison on the not "so big" size of Katrina. And I think quite a few other mets would agree with me. I guess "huge" is in the size of the beholder.

A2K

There seems to be some confusion here. I'm not talkign about the size of the cirrus outflow, I refer only to data collected by recon aircraft indicating wind field size. All data in the graphic I posted are based upon actual recon observations of wind field size. Data are data, not opinions. You could argue about FL to surface wind conversions, particularly on storms before the 1990s, though.

Note, too, that the values in that graphic represent values at peak wind field size, not size at landfall.

I also have the wind field size data at landfall for all of these storms and many, many more (over 4000 initial points, actually). Turns out that the 2 biggest hurricanes to hit the U.S. were Carla and Hugo. That is, those with the largest radii of hurricane-force winds. Katrina wasn't far behind, though.

http://myweb.cableone.net/nolasue/gulfstorms.gif

[wxman57]

Actually I respectfully disagree with you because once Katrina and Rita got north of about 30N they weakened and shrunk in size dramatically - so they were not the "biggest" to hit the US. Even Wilma weakened as it gained lattitude. I don't think the GOM or the Western Atlantic north of 30N can support storms like Gilbert, Andrew, Isabel, etc. However, the southern 1/3 peninsula of Florida has the highest potential of getting hit by a mammoth storm in the US for geographic reasons. In addition the Western Caribbean, the NW Caribbean, the Florida Straits through the Bahamas, and southern half of the GOM south of 30N has the highest chances of supporting a CAT 5.

I'd point out that although Wilma weakened, it was the largest hurricane in our study after it passed Florida. That was mostly because of a transition to extratropical storm, though. Again, I'm speaking in terms of measured wind radii, not satellite representation.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Note, too, that the values in that graphic represent values at peak wind field size, not size at landfall.

I wouldn't contest that statement; but size is size, whether at landfall, or not; but point taken.

Katrina wasn't far behind, though.

Which would seem to mean she was at the very least... a pretty big storm.

Yes, I've seen your data and charts.... excellent work BTW...

A2K

[P.K.]

Not sure what you mean. The author of the paper Karl Horrau, thinks that Yuri, Gay, and Angela may have peaked at 170 kts based on Dvorak. Here's a quote from his paper:

What I'm saying is based on the best track I find it hard to believe that the winds were that much higher in these other storms than indicated. 170kts in that paper would be the equivalent of 148kts in the best track which is way above what they are in it as. (120, 110, and 115kts)

[wxman57]

Note, too, that the values in that graphic represent values at peak wind field size, not size at landfall.

I wouldn't contest that statement; but size is size, whether at landfall, or not; but point taken.

Katrina wasn't far behind, though.

Which would seem to mean she was at the very least... a pretty big storm.

Yes, I've seen your data and charts.... excellent work BTW...

A2K

I wasn't referring to landfall size, just max size anywhere. Carla's max size was fairly close to landfall, Gilbert's was in the middle of the Caribbean. So Katrina was larger than Gilbert or Opal or Allen at landfall, in terms of its wind field size, but smaller than Carla or Hugo. Yes, Katrina was quite a big hurricane at landfall, I'm just saying that comparing it to many hurricanes at sea, it was not something that hadn't been observed before.

[wxman57]

Not sure what you mean. The author of the paper Karl Horrau, thinks that Yuri, Gay, and Angela may have peaked at 170 kts based on Dvorak. Here's a quote from his paper:

What I'm saying is based on the best track I find it hard to believe that the winds were that much higher in these other storms than indicated. 170kts in that paper would be the equivalent of 148kts in the best track which is way above what they are in it as. (120, 110, and 115kts)

There's a big discussion among researchers concerning typhoon wind estimates post-recon and even with recon. Needless to say, there is a LOT of doubt about the estimated wind speeds in many typhoons. One side is trying to claim that recent typhoons/hurricanes are much more intense because of global warming. The other side is saying theat many typhoons' winds were severely underestimated so that there hasn't been much change in intensities.

By the way, you can see and listen to the entire presentation on that link I posted. Lots more in the actual presentation than in the abstract. Dvorak estimates made those 3 SuperTyphoons look stronger than Tip.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/26HURR/techpr ... _75465.htm

[spinfan4eva]

Floyd was very large, Seems like they were saying the size of Texas and Oklahoma??

[wxman57]

Floyd was very large, Seems like they were saying the size of Texas and Oklahoma??

Yes, Floyd was large. I don't have my Excel spreadsheet handy to check it's size vs. the Gulf hurricanes in the graphic. Of course, Floyd weakened and diminished in size considerably prior to landfall in the Carolinas.

Oh, and once again, I'm only speaking in terms of measured wind field size, not the size of the cirrus outflow.

[mempho]

Well, this thought didn't come to me totally out of the blue. I was listening to JB on the Talkin' Tropics show and he was talking about some storms back in other active periods that had a huge breadth of hurricane-force winds and it occurred to me that we don't know a lot about what to expect in "active periods" other than more storms. It could just be me, but it does seem that the breadth of the storms has been larger the past few years leaving me to wonder how big can a storm get in the Atlantic.

Here's a graphic I made that might help out. Now the data from before the late 1980s is not very extensive, but I think you can see that Gilbert and Carla probably define fairly well the peak size in the Caribbean Sea or the Gulf of Mexico. The graphic also shows that Ivan, Katrina, and Rita really weren't so big when compared to some of the big names of the past. Sure, they were larger than average, but not unprecedented.

Generally, though, I think that the peak size may be somewhat limited by the relative size of the Atlantic Basin with respect to the Pacific. There may not be as much "room to grow" in the Atlantic as defined by expanse of water and pressure fields.

http://myweb.cableone.net/nolasue/gulfstorms.gif

That's a great chart. Do you think it would still apply to a storm that formed as a Cape Verde and blew up in the Atlantic where there is a much larger water area? Also, do you think such a storm could get energy from the Pacific as well without having significant interruption in air flow from the Mexico/Central American land areas since, though the land area is narrow in areas, it is mountainous?

[wxman57]

That's a great chart. Do you think it would still apply to a storm that formed as a Cape Verde and blew up in the Atlantic where there is a much larger water area? Also, do you think such a storm could get energy from the Pacific as well without having significant interruption in air flow from the Mexico/Central American land areas since, though the land area is narrow in areas, it is mountainous?

The problem in the Atlantic is the size/strength of the Bermuda High. There isn't as much room to "spread out" in the Atlantic. In the western Pacific, the monsoonal gyre can be 1000 to 1500 miles across, representing a very large area of low pressure. There isn't a large area of high pressure to the north to prevent a typhoon from becoming quite large.

As for your second question, it's possible for mid to upper-level moisture to move across the isthmus of Mexico, but it's the low-level moisture/heat that may be more of a factor in enhancing intensity. So I don't think that a Gulf hurricane could be enhanced by any air tracking across Mexico.

[Cyclenall]

The problem in the Atlantic is the size/strength of the Bermuda High. There isn't as much room to "spread out" in the Atlantic. In the western Pacific, the monsoonal gyre can be 1000 to 1500 miles across, representing a very large area of low pressure. There isn't a large area of high pressure to the north to prevent a typhoon from becoming quite large.

One question, does that mean the storms are stronger because they are more tight/compact/small and not spread out like if there isn't a large area of high pressure?

[wxman57]

The problem in the Atlantic is the size/strength of the Bermuda High. There isn't as much room to "spread out" in the Atlantic. In the western Pacific, the monsoonal gyre can be 1000 to 1500 miles across, representing a very large area of low pressure. There isn't a large area of high pressure to the north to prevent a typhoon from becoming quite large.

One question, does that mean the storms are stronger because they are more tight/compact/small and not spread out like if there isn't a large area of high pressure?

Well, given two hurricanes both with a central pressure of, say, 870mb (Tip), the one with the smaller wind field would have the higher pressure gradient (change in pressure with distance), and, thus, a higher possible peak wind.

[HurricaneBill]

In terms of landfall intensity, I'd say midget cyclones have the best chance of making Category 5 landfalls.

[spinfan4eva]

The problem in the Atlantic is the size/strength of the Bermuda High. There isn't as much room to "spread out" in the Atlantic. In the western Pacific, the monsoonal gyre can be 1000 to 1500 miles across, representing a very large area of low pressure. There isn't a large area of high pressure to the north to prevent a typhoon from becoming quite large.

One question, does that mean the storms are stronger because they are more tight/compact/small and not spread out like if there isn't a large area of high pressure?

Well, given two hurricanes both with a central pressure of, say, 870mb (Tip), the one with the smaller wind field would have the higher pressure gradient (change in pressure with distance), and, thus, a higher possible peak wind.

Then why is it Typhoons are way worse than hurricanes?

[Audrey2Katrina]

Then why is it Typhoons are way worse than hurricanes?

Some are, and some are not. Both are tropical cyclones. They do have a considerably larger body of water they can traverse than what most hurricanes do.

A2K

[wxman57]

The problem in the Atlantic is the size/strength of the Bermuda High. There isn't as much room to "spread out" in the Atlantic. In the western Pacific, the monsoonal gyre can be 1000 to 1500 miles across, representing a very large area of low pressure. There isn't a large area of high pressure to the north to prevent a typhoon from becoming quite large.

One question, does that mean the storms are stronger because they are more tight/compact/small and not spread out like if there isn't a large area of high pressure?

Well, given two hurricanes both with a central pressure of, say, 870mb (Tip), the one with the smaller wind field would have the higher pressure gradient (change in pressure with distance), and, thus, a higher possible peak wind.

Then why is it Typhoons are way worse than hurricanes?

Define what you mean by "worse". Whish is worse, a Cat 5 hurricane with Cat 5 winds over a 20 square miles or a Cat 3 hurricane with hurricane force winds over 20,000 square miles?

I wasn't saying that Atlantic hurricanes have stronger winds than Pacific typhoons because they're smaller, I was only commenting on the issue of pressure gradient vs. max wind potential.

[spinfan4eva]

Define what you mean by "worse". Whish is worse, a Cat 5 hurricane with Cat 5 winds over a 20 square miles or a Cat 3 hurricane with hurricane force winds over 20,000 square miles?

I wasn't saying that Atlantic hurricanes have stronger winds than Pacific typhoons because they're smaller, I was only commenting on the issue of pressure gradient vs. max wind potential.

OK, nevermind I C, the larger storm-typhoon would cause more damage and potentially more deaths cause it would affect more of an area