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

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#21 Postby supercane4867 » Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:55 pm

aspen wrote:
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?


180kt around 06z October 23 confirmed by recon

Image

185kt peak at 12z without recon

Image

180kt around 18z with recon

Image
11 likes   

User avatar
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5594
Age: 40
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#22 Postby Hammy » Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:55 pm

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

Grace: op 105mph My guess 90mph


Interestingly there's actually evidence Grace might have been stronger than the official intensity--flight winds were 111kt with SFMR surface winds near 100kt.

---

I've been compiling a list on this interestingly (and am contemplating starting a thread for each year) but for the 1980-85 period I've examined so far:

Frances (1980)
115mph, given the pinhole eye at the time could have been as high as 120-125

Ivan (1980)
Another that could've been 115, it was held at 105 for days despite there being times with a well defined eye, warm center based on IR, and surrounded by fairly deep convection

TD2 (1981)
I have a note in my file that there were reports of 40-45 mph winds and 991mb pressure at landfall, but cannot find the original source for this (so if anyone knows on that would be helpful)

Bret (1981)
60 mph based on a ship report east of the center with no reports on the NW or N region.

Emily (1981)
90 mph, 966mb pressure and convective lends the possibility it was 100

Beryl (1982)
70mph; was likely a hurricane on two separate occasions--eye and convective presentation off of Africa looks closer to 80-85, and on September 1 there was a visible (cloud-shrouded) eye with satellite estimates of 80, and no recon measurements near that time

TD1 (1983)
Discussion mentions winds of 50kt on July 28 but attributes it to local convection with no mention of rain contamination
5 likes   
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

User avatar
Yellow Evan
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 15948
Age: 25
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: Henderson, Nevada/Honolulu, HI
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#23 Postby Yellow Evan » Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:55 pm

Eta and Iota were not likely to be much stronger than advertised if we assume the 2015-2021 SFMR is not running hot but it’s possible Eta was 135 knots.

FWIW I think a lot of the arguments listed in this thread such as “looks better” are not very strong.

If limited to the NHC area of responsibility, Isabel 2003 is probably a good candidate due to its stable, warm, and circular eye with deep convection limited to a warm tropopause, which screams Dvorak outrunner to me. Some EPAC hurricanes may fit this bill but I’m less certain in part because the tropopause is colder than in the Western Atlantic. As for Igor, not sure what a re-run modern ADT version would give but SAB and TAFB did reach T7.0, and that’s only a 5 knot difference anyway. Jose also likely peaked in between flights but there’s no way of knowing for sure.

Also more notably tons of WPAC storms fit this bill and by a solid margin. Meranti, Nepartak, and Megi just to name a few, with surface observations supporting Meranti, the extreme eye warmth supporting Nepartak, and Recon supported Megi.
3 likes   

User avatar
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5594
Age: 40
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#24 Postby Hammy » Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:45 pm

Yellow Evan wrote:Eta and Iota were not likely to be much stronger than advertised if we assume the 2015-2021 SFMR is not running hot but it’s possible Eta was 135 knots.

FWIW I think a lot of the arguments listed in this thread such as “looks better” are not very strong.

If limited to the NHC area of responsibility, Isabel 2003 is probably a good candidate due to its stable, warm, and circular eye with deep convection limited to a warm tropopause, which screams Dvorak outrunner to me. Some EPAC hurricanes may fit this bill but I’m less certain in part because the tropopause is colder than in the Western Atlantic. As for Igor, not sure what a re-run modern ADT version would give but SAB and TAFB did reach T7.0, and that’s only a 5 knot difference anyway. Jose also likely peaked in between flights but there’s no way of knowing for sure.

Also more notably tons of WPAC storms fit this bill and by a solid margin. Meranti, Nepartak, and Megi just to name a few, with surface observations supporting Meranti, the extreme eye warmth supporting Nepartak, and Recon supported Megi.


Personally I generally limit this to instances where satellite estimates were the sole basis for intensity.
1 likes   
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

Sciencerocks
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 7266
Age: 38
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:51 am

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#25 Postby Sciencerocks » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:22 pm

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.



Igor was a cat5! ;)
Isabel 150 knots before recon

Eta was one of the biggest shock of my life as I thought for sure it was a 150-155 knot monster based on satellite.
0 likes   

User avatar
Yellow Evan
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 15948
Age: 25
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: Henderson, Nevada/Honolulu, HI
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#26 Postby Yellow Evan » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:27 pm

Hammy wrote:
Yellow Evan wrote:Eta and Iota were not likely to be much stronger than advertised if we assume the 2015-2021 SFMR is not running hot but it’s possible Eta was 135 knots.

FWIW I think a lot of the arguments listed in this thread such as “looks better” are not very strong.

If limited to the NHC area of responsibility, Isabel 2003 is probably a good candidate due to its stable, warm, and circular eye with deep convection limited to a warm tropopause, which screams Dvorak outrunner to me. Some EPAC hurricanes may fit this bill but I’m less certain in part because the tropopause is colder than in the Western Atlantic. As for Igor, not sure what a re-run modern ADT version would give but SAB and TAFB did reach T7.0, and that’s only a 5 knot difference anyway. Jose also likely peaked in between flights but there’s no way of knowing for sure.

Also more notably tons of WPAC storms fit this bill and by a solid margin. Meranti, Nepartak, and Megi just to name a few, with surface observations supporting Meranti, the extreme eye warmth supporting Nepartak, and Recon supported Megi.


Personally I generally limit this to instances where satellite estimates were the sole basis for intensity.


Probably better to base stuff off Dvorak as a starting point and then adjust some from IR/Microwave presentation even in that case.
0 likes   

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

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#27 Postby supercane4867 » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:36 pm

Yellow Evan wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Yellow Evan wrote:Eta and Iota were not likely to be much stronger than advertised if we assume the 2015-2021 SFMR is not running hot but it’s possible Eta was 135 knots.

FWIW I think a lot of the arguments listed in this thread such as “looks better” are not very strong.

If limited to the NHC area of responsibility, Isabel 2003 is probably a good candidate due to its stable, warm, and circular eye with deep convection limited to a warm tropopause, which screams Dvorak outrunner to me. Some EPAC hurricanes may fit this bill but I’m less certain in part because the tropopause is colder than in the Western Atlantic. As for Igor, not sure what a re-run modern ADT version would give but SAB and TAFB did reach T7.0, and that’s only a 5 knot difference anyway. Jose also likely peaked in between flights but there’s no way of knowing for sure.

Also more notably tons of WPAC storms fit this bill and by a solid margin. Meranti, Nepartak, and Megi just to name a few, with surface observations supporting Meranti, the extreme eye warmth supporting Nepartak, and Recon supported Megi.


Personally I generally limit this to instances where satellite estimates were the sole basis for intensity.


Probably better to base stuff off Dvorak as a starting point and then adjust some from IR/Microwave presentation even in that case.

I'd argue that visible satellite features including stadium effect surrounding the eye and banding features as well as CDO cloud pattern are all good indicators of intensity. Non-objective dvorak is also done by one's subjective interpretation after all.
3 likes   

User avatar
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5594
Age: 40
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#28 Postby Hammy » Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:06 pm

Yellow Evan wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Yellow Evan wrote:Eta and Iota were not likely to be much stronger than advertised if we assume the 2015-2021 SFMR is not running hot but it’s possible Eta was 135 knots.

FWIW I think a lot of the arguments listed in this thread such as “looks better” are not very strong.

If limited to the NHC area of responsibility, Isabel 2003 is probably a good candidate due to its stable, warm, and circular eye with deep convection limited to a warm tropopause, which screams Dvorak outrunner to me. Some EPAC hurricanes may fit this bill but I’m less certain in part because the tropopause is colder than in the Western Atlantic. As for Igor, not sure what a re-run modern ADT version would give but SAB and TAFB did reach T7.0, and that’s only a 5 knot difference anyway. Jose also likely peaked in between flights but there’s no way of knowing for sure.

Also more notably tons of WPAC storms fit this bill and by a solid margin. Meranti, Nepartak, and Megi just to name a few, with surface observations supporting Meranti, the extreme eye warmth supporting Nepartak, and Recon supported Megi.


Personally I generally limit this to instances where satellite estimates were the sole basis for intensity.


Probably better to base stuff off Dvorak as a starting point and then adjust some from IR/Microwave presentation even in that case.


There was a Google Earth archive of the microwave imagery (satellite in general) that you could download, though I'm not entirely sure where to find it now.
0 likes   
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

User avatar
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5270
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#29 Postby Ptarmigan » Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:44 pm

I think these were Category 5 hurricanes
Freeport Hurricane (1932)
Gloria (1985)
Opal (1995)
Georges (1998)
Floyd (1999)
Lenny (1999)
Gustav (2008)
Igor (2010)
Joaquin (2015)
Eta (2020)
Iota (2020)
Last edited by Ptarmigan on Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5594
Age: 40
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#30 Postby Hammy » Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:09 am

Found the TD2 (1981) source, it's WPC:

https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/td2of1981.html

The cyclone's central pressure fell to between 991 and 996 hPa by the time of landfall, based on surface observations.
Galveston Scholes Field recorded a maximum sustained wind of 41 mph as the system passed by.
0 likes   
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

LARanger
Tropical Depression
Tropical Depression
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:45 pm

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#31 Postby LARanger » Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:08 pm

Katrina was a 4 at landfall; come fight me.
1 likes   
Baton Rouge area cyclone dilettante, PSWAGGER* tropical weather & hydrology model developer
(* Pseudo-Scientific Wild-A** Guesses Generally Expressed Ridiculously)
The GFDL would've had all this figured out by now.

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

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#32 Postby zal0phus » Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:27 pm

LARanger wrote:Katrina was a 4 at landfall; come fight me.

What makes you think so?
1 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
Hammy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5594
Age: 40
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#33 Postby Hammy » Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:16 pm

LARanger wrote:Katrina was a 4 at landfall; come fight me.


There's no data to suggest this. The reason the surge was so high given the landfall intensity was the size and intensity while it was over the Gulf, and the weakening occurred fairly quickly due to continental air and further spreading out of the wind field.
0 likes   
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

Fancy1001
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:16 pm

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#34 Postby Fancy1001 » Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:23 pm

I think Jose in 2017 got to 140kt
2 likes   

User avatar
AJC3
Admin
Admin
Posts: 3865
Age: 60
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: West Melbourne, Florida
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#35 Postby AJC3 » Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:11 am

Gang. Be civil.
0 likes   

User avatar
Kingarabian
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 15423
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:06 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#36 Postby Kingarabian » Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:51 am

For me, it's the majority of the WPAC/EPAC systems that reached major hurricane status. Those were probably under estimated by 10-15kts.
2 likes   
RIP Kobe Bryant

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?

#37 Postby kevin » Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:26 am

And worldwide I think the most notorious example is typhoon Haiyan. The official value is 195mph/895mbar. While the wind value might be roughly accurate, I just can't imagine Haiyan 'only' being 895 mbar. There's this great article I recently came across from 2017 where the most intense storms were re-assessed using ADT (you can read it here btw https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/145/3/mwr-d-16-0312.1.xml). And based on that they estimate Haiyan to have been 200mph/878mbar due to its final adjT# of 8.2. And this is just one article, there is tons of research on Haiyan and its estimated peak intensity and some NOAA estimates even go down all the way to a value between 885 and 858 mbar (see here https://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/2013/adt/text/31W-list.txt and https://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/2013/tdata/wpac/31W.html). I think Haiyan was probably closer to the 878 value than the 858 value, but whatever it was I'm willing to bet it was a lot lower than 895 mbar. Of course 895 mbar or 878 mbar didn't really matter to the people who were impacted by Haiyan, it's an absolute monster typhoon either way, but as someone who basically breathes statistics and likes to keep track of meteorological records and storm statistics I'm always a bit annoyed when I look at a 'most intense' storm list and see Haiyan at only 895 mbar.
Last edited by kevin on Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
3 likes   

User avatar
Europa non è lontana
Tropical Depression
Tropical Depression
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:01 pm

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#38 Postby Europa non è lontana » Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:31 am

I think Grace 2009 was probably a minimal hurricane (65kt) at maximum intensity, but because of the lack of observations and obviously no recon around here, it's more based on a gut feeling from a combination of satellite presentation, the fact that it was intensifying for several hours after ASCAT observed 55kt winds, and knowledge of how mid-lat TCs tend to look.
1 likes   

LARanger
Tropical Depression
Tropical Depression
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:45 pm

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#39 Postby LARanger » Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:41 am

AJC3 wrote:Gang. Be civil.


Removed? Ouch.

My "come fight me" after referencing Katrina as a 4 (at landfall, as Teban54 correctly noted) is a several-years-old internet joke, akin to "come at me, bro". The joke is meant to convey a defiant confidence in one's own appraisal, albeit in semi-jest. Sorry if this nuance caused any confusion.

I was composing a lengthy reply to Hammy's now-also-removed response, in which Hammy indicated that there was no evidence for a Cat4 landfall and proposed arguments against what's been referred to as a Cat5-level surge as being indicative of the wind strength. I fully agree that the surge is not relevant (excepting that it destroyed evidence for wind speeds), nor would it constitute part of my argument for Katrina as a 4 at landfall.

As a note about my perspective, at the time it occurred I found it entirely strange that the NHC came back around in December 2005, literally months after landfall, with the claim that Katrina was only a 3. Yes, storm information is fairly frequently tweaked in these post-season reports -- whole storms have come to be identified, after all -- but it was rather off-putting at the time.

More specifically on perspective: most recently with Ida, I caught northwestern and southwestern eyewall at a range of some 80-100 miles from the Gulf (leaving a lot of wiggle room there for the comparative haziness of the Louisiana coastline). For Katrina, I caught eastern (stronger) eyewall at a range of 70 miles north of the Mississippi coast. In my locations Katrina was, by a significant degree, the more destructive of the two, but this could be said to be the result of length of time of winds (Katrina was a big girl) and the side of the storm I was on. Ida was officially a borderline Category 2 as she passed me, and Katrina was officially a Cat1 as she passed, but even just on raw strength of winds there was no comparison . . . Katrina was significantly stronger. Even where I was for Katrina, the reports were of sustained winds of 100 miles per hour for *hours* in the heavily forested area. Officially, she passed me with winds somewhere below 95mph and gusts to 110, not losing hurricane strength for 150 miles.

Objectively, of course, Katrina was by far the larger storm, with a tremendously large windfield. The argument for Cat3 at landfall is basically that Katrina's highest winds near the eye close to landfall were at an unusually high altitude, corresponding to the HH aircraft's usual altitude, leaving rule-of-thumb estimates of surface winds too high. However, with most surface equipment rendered powerless or destroyed outright, the data simply isn't there to make the claim of a downgrade, and of course the huge and varied windfield means that Cat4-level winds could easily have existed a tad further out. The NHC made various finagling guesstimate adjustments to the data to draw the conclusion of a high Cat3, with some of those adjustments of nice round figures like 10 percent being based on the acknowledgement that they likely didn't have surface sampling of the strongest winds. I concur with that last part.

I would argue that without much firmer evidence that effectively rules out the original Cat4 designation, then the "ruling on the field" should stand. I further find it peculiar to assert that Katrina lost thirty miles per hour in a mere fifty miles inland but then only lost twenty miles per hour for the next 100 miles, especially given that higher wind speeds were felt inland at my location than would have been supported by the official speed as the eye passed. I mean, was she somehow a super-coupler of wind to surface?

Et cetera, et cetera . . . I can accept the possibility that the very center was not as strong at the surface as one would expect, but I simply don't think the evidence is there to assert this to the degree done, I don't think the tweaking and guesstimates are as well grounded as they should be, and I don't think the burden of proof is correctly applied in this case compared to how it's usually done for others.

Come figh . . . er, pleasantly discuss with . . . me. :-)

Edit: For a similar case, see this cat's argument for a Cat4 (or less!) Camille from 2012 and compare that to the 2016 reanalysis that, even with the questionable speed cut from 190 to 175, still has her at 175mph.

https://extremeplanet.wordpress.com/201 ... gory-five/
Last edited by LARanger on Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
2 likes   
Baton Rouge area cyclone dilettante, PSWAGGER* tropical weather & hydrology model developer
(* Pseudo-Scientific Wild-A** Guesses Generally Expressed Ridiculously)
The GFDL would've had all this figured out by now.

User avatar
AJC3
Admin
Admin
Posts: 3865
Age: 60
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: West Melbourne, Florida
Contact:

Re: Storms you believe were stronger than officially stated?

#40 Postby AJC3 » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:21 am

LARanger wrote:
AJC3 wrote:Gang. Be civil.


Removed? Ouch.

<snip>

Come figh . . . er, pleasantly discuss with . . . me. :-)


The non-offending posts in the thread have been restored. I took the liberty of editing your OP to make it clear what you meant, given that a few members misinterpreted it. Check your PMs for an explanation.

Carry on.
1 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tolakram and 50 guests