Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
zal0phus
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 126
Age: 23
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:32 am
Location: Illinois and Ohio
Contact:

Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#1 Postby zal0phus » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:32 am

What are some hurricanes you believe were in actuality stronger than the NHC and other authorities officially stated?
I can't think of too many, but for me the most egregious is Eta from last year- with the near-perfect satellite appearance and continual recon issues, there was just no way it peaked at 150 mph.
3 likes   
And it all comes tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down...
And I just keep letting me down, letting me down, letting me down...

User avatar
Stormybajan
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 3:21 pm
Location: Windward Islands

Re: Storms you believe were strongly than officially stated?

#2 Postby Stormybajan » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:37 am

zal0phus wrote:What are some hurricanes you believe were in actuality stronger than the NHC and other authorities officially stated?
I can't think of too many, but for me the most egregious is Eta from last year- with the near-perfect satellite appearance and continual recon issues, there was just no way it peaked at 150 mph.

Hurricane Alex 2010, Hurricane Igor 2010, Hurricane Jose 2017, and like you said Hurricane Eta 2020, that recon mission was a mess to say the least
4 likes   
Sad West Indies and Manchester United fan ⚽️

User avatar
HurricaneEnzo
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:18 pm
Location: Newport, NC (Hurricane Alley)

Re: Storms you believe were strongly than officially stated?

#3 Postby HurricaneEnzo » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:41 am

A pair from 1996. Edouard and Hortense. I believe Edouard could have possibly been a Cat 5, at least borderline. Hortense I feel was a higher end Cat 4 than the operational rating.
2 likes   
Bertha 96' - Fran 96' - Bonnie 98' - Dennis 99' - Floyd 99' - Isabel 03' - Alex 04' - Ophelia 05' - Irene 11' - Arthur 14' - Matthew 16' - Florence 18' - Dorian 19' - Isaias 20' (countless other tropical storms and Hurricane swipes)

I am not a Professional Met just an enthusiast. Get your weather forecasts from the Pros!

User avatar
Iceresistance
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8887
Age: 20
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:45 am
Location: Tecumseh, OK/Norman, OK

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#4 Postby Iceresistance » Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:04 am

Hurricane Jose in 2017 is a borderline case between CAT 4 & CAT 5 . . . But I do believe that a 155 mph CAT 4 Storm is a good call from the NHC.
0 likes   
Bill 2015 & Beta 2020

Winter 2020-2021 :cold:

All observations are in Tecumseh, OK unless otherwise noted.

Winter posts are focused mainly for Oklahoma & Texas.

Take any of my forecasts with a grain of salt, refer to the NWS, SPC, and NHC for official information

Never say Never with weather! Because ANYTHING is possible!

User avatar
KWT
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 31390
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:02 am
Location: UK!!!

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#5 Postby KWT » Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:12 am

Yeah Jose was about as borderline as you can get, it was close though for sure, and even more crazy given it was predicted to really struggle early in its life. big time over performed.

As for Eta, man I've never seen a cat-4 with a presentation as good as that. Heck most cat-5 in the Atlantic don't get as good looking as Eta did. I remember staying up to watch the recon go in since everyone was convinced this must be in the 900mbs/175mph range (kinda like a Wilma style deepening). Quite the shock to see it was nowhere near either.

I think the problem for Eta is that really seriously impressive presentation didn't hold for very long, outside of that 6-9hr period it did look like a cat-3/4 type cane. Maybe it just didn't get the time to really ramp up and catch up with that stunning presentation before the conditions started to go downhill for it?

Still an impressive hurricane though regardless.
1 likes   
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products

Category5Kaiju
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3344
Age: 22
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2020 12:45 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#6 Postby Category5Kaiju » Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:15 am

Iota. I personally am not sure why it was downgraded from a 160 mph Cat 5 to a 155 mph Cat 4, although somebody more knowledgable than me would probably know better. The pressure of 917 mbar seemed reasonable and the wind speed drop isn't that huge, but I do wonder why 160 mph was consistently reported in the first place (like throughout the day of Nov 16) and not 155.
6 likes   
Unless explicitly stated, all information covered in my posts is based on my opinions and observations. Please refer to a professional meteorologist or an accredited weather research agency otherwise, especially if serious decisions must be made in the event of a potentially life-threatening tropical storm or hurricane.

User avatar
ElectricStorm
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4493
Age: 23
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:23 pm
Location: Skiatook, OK / Norman, OK

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#7 Postby ElectricStorm » Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:01 am

Atlantic: Pretty much all the ones listed by others above.

EPAC: I've always thought Hector 2018 could have been a Cat 5. Jimena 2015 may have been too.

WPAC: A bunch
0 likes   
I am in no way a professional. Take what I say with a grain of salt as I could be totally wrong. Please refer to the NHC, NWS, or SPC for official information.

Boomer Sooner!

User avatar
aspen
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8029
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#8 Postby aspen » Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:18 am

Iota could’ve still been a Cat 5, but it’s as borderline as you can get, and the ongoing debate about the validity of SFMR readings at high intensities and shallow depths is not helping. That’s why it was downgraded in the first place: the NHC thought that 143 kt SFMR was contaminated and therefore SFMR by itself wasn’t enough to justify Cat 5 intensity. The pressure could’ve been a little lower because I recall extrapolated pressures being around 913mb.

Eta is the obvious one. Really good IR presentation, traumatizingly bad recon, etc. The deepening rate in the mission that found 130 kt was around 5mb/hr or higher, so like Iota, Eta’s pressure could’ve bottomed out in the 910s before the developing EWRC took hold a few hours later.

Very symmetrical, warm-CDO EPac Cat 4s like Douglas ‘20 and Felicia ‘21 could’ve been at least 130 kt. After seeing how strong Dorain was despite Dvorak never exceeding T#6.5, storms can be far stronger than their CDO temps suggest, but extremely warm eyes and smooth CDOs do indicate that.


Also, a response for the complete opposite question: Matthew was almost certainly weaker than currently assessed, and if a 143 kt SFMR doesn’t justify Cat 5 intensity for Iota (which was 20-30mb deeper), then it certainly doesn’t for Matthew.
4 likes   
Irene '11 Sandy '12 Hermine '16 5/15/2018 Derecho Fay '20 Isaias '20 Elsa '21 Henri '21 Ida '21

I am only a meteorology enthusiast who knows a decent amount about tropical cyclones. Look to the professional mets, the NHC, or your local weather office for the best information.

NotoSans
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1366
Age: 24
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:15 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#9 Postby NotoSans » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:07 am

Cimaron’06. Both JTWC and JMA had it at T7.5, but for unknown reasons, the former only went with 140kt, and the latter 100kt.
Image
0 likes   
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to RSMC and NWS products.

User avatar
Iceresistance
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8887
Age: 20
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:45 am
Location: Tecumseh, OK/Norman, OK

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#10 Postby Iceresistance » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:10 am

NotoSans wrote:Cimaron’06. Both JTWC and JMA had it at T7.5, but for unknown reasons, the former only went with 140kt, and the latter 100kt.
http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/wnp/by-name/200619/bd/512x512/MTS106102912.200619.jpg


Keep in mind that the JMA does 10-Minute Wind Speeds & the JTWC does the more familiar 1-Minute Wind Speeds
1 likes   
Bill 2015 & Beta 2020

Winter 2020-2021 :cold:

All observations are in Tecumseh, OK unless otherwise noted.

Winter posts are focused mainly for Oklahoma & Texas.

Take any of my forecasts with a grain of salt, refer to the NWS, SPC, and NHC for official information

Never say Never with weather! Because ANYTHING is possible!

NotoSans
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1366
Age: 24
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:15 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#11 Postby NotoSans » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:14 am

Iceresistance wrote:
NotoSans wrote:Cimaron’06. Both JTWC and JMA had it at T7.5, but for unknown reasons, the former only went with 140kt, and the latter 100kt.
http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/wnp/by-name/200619/bd/512x512/MTS106102912.200619.jpg


Keep in mind that the JMA does 10-Minute Wind Speeds & the JTWC does the more familiar 1-Minute Wind Speeds

Still, 100kt corresponds to only T6.5 on the Koba scale used by JMA. T7.5 usually yields 115kt.
0 likes   
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to RSMC and NWS products.

User avatar
Hurricaneman
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 7279
Age: 43
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: central florida

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#12 Postby Hurricaneman » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:36 am

I’m going to do some from the 90s which I think were stronger or weaker

1991
Stronger

Bob: op 115mph. My guess due to recon 125mph
The perfect storm: op 75mph My guess 85mph

Weaker

Grace: op 105mph My guess 90mph

1994
Weaker

Gordon: op 85mph My guess 70mph

1995

Stronger

Felix: op 140mph My guess 150mph
Marilyn: op 115mph My guess 125mph
Opal: op 150mph My Guess 160mph

1996
Stronger

Edouard: op 145mph My guess 160 mph
Fran: op 120mph My guess 130mph
Hortense: op 140mph My guess 150mph

1997
Stronger

Erika: Op 125mph My guess 130mph

1998
Stronger
Danielle: op 105mph My guess 115mph

Weaker
Charley: op 70mph My guess 60mph
Earl: op 100mph My guess 80mph

1999
Stronger
Floyd: op 155mph My guess 165mph
1 likes   

User avatar
kevin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1764
Age: 25
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:35 am

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#13 Postby kevin » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:44 am

Eta is the first one that comes to mind. It had a top 5 satellite presentation of any storm I've seen since I started lurking on this forum back in 2016. As impressive as Iota was, I think Eta was easily 5 - 10 kts stronger so 140 - 145 kt. But of course we'll never know and I don't blame NHC for their intensity analysis. IR and Dvorak are great, but for the most intense storms their estimates can still deviate quite a bit from true recon so without recon it's impossible to confidently say "this was a 910mb/145kt cat 5" or something like that.
1 likes   

User avatar
Iceresistance
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8887
Age: 20
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:45 am
Location: Tecumseh, OK/Norman, OK

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#14 Postby Iceresistance » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:46 am

Earl 1998 had a Flight Level wind of 118 mph, which translated to around 100 mph
1 likes   
Bill 2015 & Beta 2020

Winter 2020-2021 :cold:

All observations are in Tecumseh, OK unless otherwise noted.

Winter posts are focused mainly for Oklahoma & Texas.

Take any of my forecasts with a grain of salt, refer to the NWS, SPC, and NHC for official information

Never say Never with weather! Because ANYTHING is possible!

User avatar
CyclonicFury
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1968
Age: 25
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:32 pm
Location: NC
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#15 Postby CyclonicFury » Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:12 pm

I honestly disagree with the Category 5 Eta takes.

The peak 700 mb flight-level wind measured by recon was only 137 kt. Using a standard 90% reduction, that supports an intensity of 123.3 kt. The peak SFMR wind measured by recon was 135 kt, and SFMR is known to have a high bias at extreme intensities. It seems unlikely to me that recon would have found the 150+ knot flight level winds likely needed for an upgrade if they sampled the storm more completely. Eta was already showing signs of an EWRC during that mission and the satellite presentation began to degrade by 06z. By the time the next recon had arrived, Eta was much weaker.

It's not even a lock that Eta would be classified as a Category 5 without recon, either. Although raw ADT numbers were as high as T8.4, subjective numbers from SAB and TAFB were T6.5 and T7.0 respectively. SATCON also did not support Category 5 intensity.
6 likes   
NCSU B.S. in Meteorology Class of 2021. Tropical weather blogger at http://www.cyclonicfury.com. My forecasts and thoughts are NOT official, for official forecasts please consult the National Hurricane Center.

User avatar
Ubuntwo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1089
Age: 30
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:41 pm

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#16 Postby Ubuntwo » Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:47 pm

CyclonicFury wrote:I honestly disagree with the Category 5 Eta takes.

Agreed. A case of showy late-season cloud tops. The eye was unstable and more characteristic of cat 4s.

Isabels first peak was definitely underestimated, surprised it has not been mentioned yet. I would go 155kt.
3 likes   
Kendall -> SLO -> PBC

Memorable Storms: Katrina (for its Florida landfall...) Wilma Matthew Irma

Category5Kaiju
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3344
Age: 22
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2020 12:45 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#17 Postby Category5Kaiju » Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:50 pm

Here's one that I also have some beef with, although I of course am no pro and am simply stating what I personally feel.

This is Igor from 2010. 155/924 is the listed official peak strength. But I mean, it honestly looks way better than Cat 5s like Hugo, Matthew, or Lorenzo. I personally think Igor may have attained Cat 5 status, even if briefly. Imho, this looks like a 160/920 storm at least.

Image
4 likes   
Unless explicitly stated, all information covered in my posts is based on my opinions and observations. Please refer to a professional meteorologist or an accredited weather research agency otherwise, especially if serious decisions must be made in the event of a potentially life-threatening tropical storm or hurricane.

supercane4867
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4966
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:43 am

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#18 Postby supercane4867 » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:53 pm

21st century storms with high likelihoods of underestimation(ATL & EPAC):

2002
Isidore - large discrepancy between satellite estimate and best track intensity. Hard to believe it was not a CAT4 given the impressive structure and P/W relationship. A blend of dvorak and recon numbers would be enough to give us 115kt
Kenna - peaked between recon flights with very few data points available. Wouldn't be surprised if it was stronger than the official estimate at the time

2003
Isabel - likely the strongest storm on record in the open Atlantic on par with Dorian. Even the post peak recon measurements were still extremely impressive. Highest FL wind reported by recon was 158kt after a full ERC cycle. An eyewall dropsonde measured a 203kt gust in one of the mesovortices, the strongest wind ever observed in an Atlantic hurricane

2004
Javier - one of the more impressive EPAC CAT4s. There was one satellite estimate at T7.0 which I think is somewhat representative of the actual intensity

2005
Wilma - the biggest puzzle of all as the extreme pinhole eye made it impractical for recon to properly sample the eyewall. I'd put peak intensity at 165kt based on ADT reanalysis, but actual surface wind speeds could have ranged from 150kt to 180kt+
Delta - likely a hurricane since dvorak is not good at dealing with this type of systems. Observations at the Canary Islands are supportive of hurricane intensity

2006
None - only exception is probably Ioke which could have been slightly stronger than best track intensity

2007
Felix - despite SFMR readings are not all that reliable, a case for 160kt could still be made given the violent nature of the storm. Note that the system's peak was very brief so those winds did not last long

2008
Gustav - slight chance of CAT5 given the potential undersampling of ground observation. A 10m station reported 1min sustained wind of 135kt with a peak gust of 184kt
Paloma - a blend of FL wind and satellite estimates supports 130kt

2009
Jimena - Another marginal case for CAT5 as recon did not catch the actual peak. NHC stated in the TCR that the hurricane probably continued to strengthen after recon left

2010-2013
None - Igor was likely not quite a CAT5 due to relatively loose structure compared to other systems of similar intensity

2014
Cristina - large discrepancy between ADT and subjective dovrak but I think the former was more representative. Peak intensity should be about the same as Amanda earlier in the year(135kt)
Marie - no way it had the same pressure reading as Odile(918mb which had recon measurements). I believe she likely bottomed out below 910mb

2015
Jimena - blend of AMSU and ADT numbers supports CAT5. Likely stronger than Igor in terms of wind IMO
Patricia - Tip's pressure record would have been fallen if the recon mission interval was 6hrs instead of 12. Nuff said

2016
None

2017
Ophelia - ADT numbers at 110kt were discarded due to the assumption that stable boundary layer inhabited downward mixing of higher level winds. However I'd still assign 105kt just to give some credit to the symmetrical presentation

2018
Hector - most certainly a CAT5. 137kt SFMR reading plus a top-notch stadium effect eye

2019
Humberto - winds were enhanced by baroclinic forcing but were legitimate regardless. Borderline CAT3/4 which could've gone either way

2020
Eta - I'd estimate the peak intensity to be 135kt after considering in all data points. The peak was definitely stronger than landfall intensity. There's no chance that they both were 130kt as listed in best track
Iota - the SFMR bias was probably overstated. A case for marginal CAT5 can still be made
5 likes   

User avatar
Blinhart
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1981
Age: 47
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:13 pm
Location: Crowley, La.

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#19 Postby Blinhart » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:58 pm

I would like to say that most of the storms that were in the middle of the any ocean that never were near shipping lanes or no good oceanic observations. The area where the best estimates are by using satellite and other observations to figure out what the top speed and atmospheric pressure is. We have seen that you can't always go by the looks of a storm to know the actuals numbers are.
0 likes   
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

User avatar
aspen
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8029
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#20 Postby aspen » Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:04 pm

supercane4867 wrote:Patricia - Tip's pressure record would have been fallen if the recon mission interval was 6hrs instead of 12. Nuff said

This whole time I was under the assumption that Patricia had normal 6-hour recon fixes, and it was only a few hours at most between center fixes when Patricia’s satellite presentation peaked. Now I can agree that there’s a solid chance it got into the 860s.

Does someone have comparison images of Patricia’s peak presentation vs how it looked during the two flights that found 878mb?
0 likes   
Irene '11 Sandy '12 Hermine '16 5/15/2018 Derecho Fay '20 Isaias '20 Elsa '21 Henri '21 Ida '21

I am only a meteorology enthusiast who knows a decent amount about tropical cyclones. Look to the professional mets, the NHC, or your local weather office for the best information.


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests