2020 TCRs

[ElectricStorm]

Please tell me this is a nightmare and that Iota was not actually downgraded. 917mb bro. 917. Matthew should be cat 3 at this point.

There's been Cat 4s that have had pressures like that in the past, although very few.

[InfernoFlameCat]

Please tell me this is a nightmare and that Iota was not actually downgraded. 917mb bro. 917. Matthew should be cat 3 at this point.

There's been Cat 4s that have had pressures like that in the past, although very few.

Yes but not at their peak and they were weakening or undergoing ERCs. No hurricane in the atlantic that i know of has ever peaked below 920mb and not been a cat 5 at peak, except for Hurricane Michael, which we all know is no longer the case.

[aspen]

Please tell me this is a nightmare and that Iota was not actually downgraded. 917mb bro. 917. Matthew should be cat 3 at this point.

There's been Cat 4s that have had pressures like that in the past, although very few.

Yes but not at their peak and they were weakening or undergoing ERCs. No hurricane in the atlantic that i know of has ever peaked below 920mb and not been a cat 5 at peak, except for Hurricane Michael, which we all know is no longer the case.

Hurricane Opal was 130 kt and 916 mbar. I wonder what it would’ve been assessed as if SFMR existed in 1995.

[InfernoFlameCat]

There's been Cat 4s that have had pressures like that in the past, although very few.

Yes but not at their peak and they were weakening or undergoing ERCs. No hurricane in the atlantic that i know of has ever peaked below 920mb and not been a cat 5 at peak, except for Hurricane Michael, which we all know is no longer the case.

Hurricane Opal was 130 kt and 916 mbar. I wonder what it would’ve been assessed as if SFMR existed in 1995.

Nice find. Cannot believe I forgot that one.

[Iceresistance]

Yes but not at their peak and they were weakening or undergoing ERCs. No hurricane in the atlantic that i know of has ever peaked below 920mb and not been a cat 5 at peak, except for Hurricane Michael, which we all know is no longer the case.

Hurricane Opal was 130 kt and 916 mbar. I wonder what it would’ve been assessed as if SFMR existed in 1995.

Nice find. Cannot believe I forgot that one.

Hurricane Gloria in 1985, 125 knots (145 mph) & 919 MB . . .

[AutoPenalti]

I know that the keyboard has the numbers 4 and 5 next to each other but Jesus, that seems a little bit conservative for it to not establish a Cat 5.

[jasons2k]

Hurricane Opal was 130 kt and 916 mbar. I wonder what it would’ve been assessed as if SFMR existed in 1995.

Nice find. Cannot believe I forgot that one.

Hurricane Gloria in 1985, 125 knots (145 mph) & 919 MB . . .

The first storm I tracked from start to finish.
I would call Pat Prokop up on WTOC after school for the latest update.

[al78]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1s3fNhX0AkMbBZ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Although the vegetation looks shredded, the buildings look in remarkably good condition given they experienced a borderline category 4/5 hurricane, from the ones I can see clearly, they have their roofs pretty much intact. I would expect at least a few of those to have completely lost their roofs if they experienced 155 mph sustained winds with higher gusts.

[Ubuntwo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1s3fNhX0AkMbBZ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Although the vegetation looks shredded, the buildings look in remarkably good condition given they experienced a borderline category 4/5 hurricane, from the ones I can see clearly, they have their roofs pretty much intact. I would expect at least a few of those to have completely lost their roofs if they experienced 155 mph sustained winds with higher gusts.

By the time it reached Haulover, Iota was well past its peak. The TCR pins that landfall @ 125 kts which in my unprofessional opinion looks about right. It did, however, produce a 26+ foot surge at that locale.

For damage from near-peak Iota, look at Providencia which clipped its eyewall. The island sustained extremely heavy tree damage with debarking, and extensive damage to even very well built structures and roofs. It's consistent with damage from storms like Michael, though clearly just a shade below Irma.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh4nIdAjRtU

[al78]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1s3fNhX0AkMbBZ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Although the vegetation looks shredded, the buildings look in remarkably good condition given they experienced a borderline category 4/5 hurricane, from the ones I can see clearly, they have their roofs pretty much intact. I would expect at least a few of those to have completely lost their roofs if they experienced 155 mph sustained winds with higher gusts.

By the time it reached Haulover, Iota was well past its peak. The TCR pins that landfall @ 125 kts which in my unprofessional opinion looks about right. It did, however, produce a 26+ foot surge at that locale.

For damage from near-peak Iota, look at Providencia which clipped its eyewall. The island sustained extremely heavy tree damage with debarking, and extensive damage to even very well built structures and roofs. It's consistent with damage from storms like Michael, though clearly just a shade below Irma.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh4nIdAjRtU

Wow, that looks like classic cat 4/5 destruction. It reminds me of Andrew or Charley damage. It is possible the topography could have locally enhanced the surface winds and gusts.

Going back to the inlet photo, even accounting for the weakening before landfall, I still don't understand how the vegetation is pretty much levelled but the buildings look intact. If there was a 26+' storm surge there, I would have expected those buildings on that island to have been swept away.

[NotoSans]

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL132020_Laura.pdf

Laura is out. Peak / landfall intensity maintained at 130kt.

[MarioProtVI]

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL132020_Laura.pdf

Laura is out. Peak / landfall intensity maintained at 130kt.

Looking at the data stated there I would’ve gone 135 kt had it not been for the 126 kt from the Air Force which likely dragged it down. Also genesis got moved up 3 hours.

[CrazyC83]

No mentions were made of the radar data. I would have also said 135 kt based on that.

[somethingfunny]

Now only Eta remains?

[CrazyC83]

Now we know the landfall classifications for the US storms.

Hanna: ATX1 (S Texas)
Isaias: NC1
Laura: LA4, CTX1 (N Texas)
Sally: AL2, AFL2 (NW Florida)
Delta: LA2, CTX1
Zeta: LA3, MS2, IAL1 (Inland only)

[CrazyC83]

Now only Eta remains?

That is correct. I suspect in the next week or two we get Eta.

[aspen]

No mentions were made of the radar data. I would have also said 135 kt based on that.

Maybe, like Sally, they factored them in to the intensity estimate but didn’t mention it in the actual TCR.

The very conservative approach the NHC has taken with the last few storms makes me think Eta actually has a chance of getting downgraded to 125 kt. We only have recon data to go off of, and look at how conservative the NHC went with Iota.

[CrazyC83]

No mentions were made of the radar data. I would have also said 135 kt based on that.

Maybe, like Sally, they factored them in to the intensity estimate but didn’t mention it in the actual TCR.

The very conservative approach the NHC has taken with the last few storms makes me think Eta actually has a chance of getting downgraded to 125 kt. We only have recon data to go off of, and look at how conservative the NHC went with Iota.

Unlike with Iota, however, Recon data was very limited. That said, even the Dvorak satellite data was very challenging to interpret due to the wild differences between subjective analysis (T6.5-7.0) and ADT (as high as T8.0). I don't think they will lower it, but I do think they will be cautious in raising it any more than it was. A course of last resort might be to leave it alone for now.

Also for Laura, the SFMR near landfall should, at best, have an asterisk. It is well known that in shallow water near shore the SFMR can be fairly unreliable. I would have ignored both the 126 and 137 (the latter of which, at face value, supports category 5 for Laura but is almost certainly a false estimate).

[aspen]

No mentions were made of the radar data. I would have also said 135 kt based on that.

Maybe, like Sally, they factored them in to the intensity estimate but didn’t mention it in the actual TCR.

The very conservative approach the NHC has taken with the last few storms makes me think Eta actually has a chance of getting downgraded to 125 kt. We only have recon data to go off of, and look at how conservative the NHC went with Iota.

Unlike with Iota, however, Recon data was very limited. That said, even the Dvorak satellite data was very challenging to interpret due to the wild differences between subjective analysis (T6.5-7.0) and ADT (as high as T8.0). I don't think they will lower it, but I do think they will be cautious in raising it any more than it was. A course of last resort might be to leave it alone for now.

Also for Laura, the SFMR near landfall should, at best, have an asterisk. It is well known that in shallow water near shore the SFMR can be fairly unreliable. I would have ignored both the 126 and 137.

I believe raws peaked at 8.4 or 8.5, the highest ever achieved so far. However, there’s no way the NHC is ever going to take those into account because of how far off they were from what recon found (~130 kt) and what finalized ADT numbers estimated (125-135 kt).

In my unprofessional opinion but based on recon and satellite data, I believe Eta peaked below 920 mbar sometime after recon left. Its central pressure dropped around 5 mbar/hr between the two recon passes, and IR imagery showed that the developing EWRC didn’t truly degrade the storm’s excellent presentation until 2-3 hours after the plane left. If Eta continued deepening at a fast but gradually slowing rate before finally leveling off after 1-3 hours, it could have gotten as low as the mid 910s. The final flight of the night would’ve confirmed this if it didn’t have to turn back. If the NHC considers lowering Eta’s pressure to sub-920, then there would be a better case for bumping it up to 135 kt.

[Shell Mound]

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL132020_Laura.pdf

Laura is out. Peak / landfall intensity maintained at 130kt.

Looking at the data stated there I would’ve gone 135 kt had it not been for the 126 kt from the Air Force which likely dragged it down. Also genesis got moved up 3 hours.

Regarding Laura vs. Audrey, one may compare the respective impacts of these storms. According to the TCR, Laura’s surge penetrated up to 30 n mi inland at some points, whereas Audrey’s extended up to ~25 n mi inland. Interestingly, both Audrey and Laura produced their peak storm tides between Creole and Grand Chenier, with Laura’s being measured at 17.1 ft AGL in Creole and Audrey’s at 13.9 ft AGL near Grand Chenier. While Audrey made landfall farther west than Laura did, Audrey had twin wind maxima at landfall, and like Laura it was also a fairly large system, so it managed to produce comparable surge-related impacts. According to data from aircraft, reconnaissance measured flight-level (700-mb) winds of 142 kt (90% reduction: 128 kt) coincident with flagged SFMR of 113 kt in the eastern RMW as Laura’s eye was moving ashore near Cameron. Based on Laura’s northward movement at the time, the RMW moved inland between Rutherford Beach and Grand Chenier, which supports the TCR’s estimated peak surge value of ~18 ft. Interestingly, iCyclone’s report from Sulphur (cf. pp. 4–5) indicated that the observed MSLP of 948 mb coincided with a near-dead calm of approximately forty-five minutes and thus was sited very close to the official track of the wind-centre, suggesting, along with radar, that Laura remained well organised even after moving inland just west of Lake Charles. Had Laura been undergoing significant VWS the wind and pressure centres would not have been aligned as well as they were, especially after landfall.