2022 TCRs

[wxman57]

$113B good Lord

Lots of expensive things for a hurricane to "break" in south Florida. Would have been a lot higher if Ian hit from the southeast into Miami (double? triple?). If Ian were to strike south Texas, the damage would be far less. Population density & per-capita wealth play a big part in hurricane damage totals.

[cycloneye]

Hurricane Kay is up. With this report released, now all of them in both basins are up.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/EP122022_Kay.pdf

[Hurricane2022]

Hurricane Kay is up. With this report released, now all of them in both basins are up.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/EP122022_Kay.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/QUUIwJT.jpg

Cool, although I don't think Kay deserves to be a Category 2, ditto the recon data

[galaxy401]

They didn't mention the upgrade in the head text for Ian so I was surprised to see that. This makes Ian at least the 4th hurricane to be upgraded to a Cat 5 postseason (Andrew, Emily? 2005, Michael).

These reports came out a little quicker compared to the last couple years (probably due to less storms).

[dexterlabio]

If Iota wasn't downgraded to Cat4 post season and Sam was somehow analyzed as Cat5, we could have an impressive 7-year streak of Cat5's in the Atl since Matthew '16.

[Category5Kaiju]

Anybody know why Ian's pressure was in the 930s despite being a Cat 5? I was initially under the impression that Cat 5s typically have CPs in the 920s or below, and I find it interesting that Ian seems to be the first Atlantic Cat 5 in recent times that peaked as a Cat 5 with such a high pressure (even higher than Matthew's, though I have a feeling Matthew will be downgraded in the future as a Cat 4).

[weeniepatrol]

Anybody know why Ian's pressure was in the 930s despite being a Cat 5? I was initially under the impression that Cat 5s typically have CPs in the 920s or below, and I find it interesting that Ian seems to be the first Atlantic Cat 5 in recent times that peaked as a Cat 5 with such a high pressure (even higher than Matthew's, though I have a feeling Matthew will be downgraded in the future as a Cat 4).

Pressure gradient. Ians’ was tighter than normal due to the strong surface high to its north, and so 937mb was sufficient for cat 5 winds

[Iceresistance]

They didn't mention the upgrade in the head text for Ian so I was surprised to see that. This makes Ian at least the 4th hurricane to be upgraded to a Cat 5 postseason (Andrew, Emily? 2005, Michael).

These reports came out a little quicker compared to the last couple years (probably due to less storms).

Yes, Hurricane Emily was upgraded to CAT 5 in the TCR for it.

[cycloneye]

This is the most important message.

 https://twitter.com/DrRickKnabb/status/1643038071682736128

[HurricaneBelle]

I haven't read any of the other TCRs for 2022 but is this something new this year where they don't include the surface obs with peak winds/minimum pressure like they always have in the past? I couldn't find any, just tables with ship reports and storm surge values.

[tolakram]

I haven't read any of the other TCRs for 2022 but is this something new this year where they don't include the surface obs with peak winds/minimum pressure like they always have in the past? I couldn't find any, just tables with ship reports and storm surge values.

Ship reports of winds of tropical storm force associated with Ian are given in Table 2, and
selected significant storm surge observations given in Table 3. A supplemental file containing a
larger selection of surface and buoy observations is available for download on the NHC website
at https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/supplemental/ian.xlsx. This file also contains rainfall reports
from National Weather Service Cooperative (COOP) stations and the Community Collaborative
Rain, Hail and Snow Network (CoCoRaHS) sites.

Not sure why they decided to leave out a table of surface observations, though it looks like many are inland. My guess is most of the reliable observation stations did not survive the peak of the storm.

[Foxfires]

Here are their words about the upgrade to cat 5.

https://i.imgur.com/ha1ykEn.jpg

"It should be noted that the NHC best track intensities typically have an uncertainty of around ±10%, and that there is very little practical difference between a 140-kt category 5 and a 135-kt category 4 hurricane"

The 135kt vs 140kt debate is imo far hotter than it should be so I'm glad this is mentioned.

[PavelGaborik10]

https://youtu.be/iGPzlzx6X4Y?t=391

Not to beat a dead horse, but another example of why I believe Fiona was one of the most intriguing cyclones to not only make landfall in Canada, but overall period context considered.

These destructive, crashing waves are literally eating houses, swallowing and pushing vehicles are if they are childrens toys at an absurd 76 feet above sea level. It's something that the CHC(Canadian Hurricane Center) and nobody else expected.

It genuinely looks like a tsunami, truly horrifying and what disgusts me the most is that this type of cataclysmic damage is not covered by insurance in Canada.

[CrazyC83]

Anybody know why Ian's pressure was in the 930s despite being a Cat 5? I was initially under the impression that Cat 5s typically have CPs in the 920s or below, and I find it interesting that Ian seems to be the first Atlantic Cat 5 in recent times that peaked as a Cat 5 with such a high pressure (even higher than Matthew's, though I have a feeling Matthew will be downgraded in the future as a Cat 4).

Pressure gradient. Ians’ was tighter than normal due to the strong surface high to its north, and so 937mb was sufficient for cat 5 winds

Correct. It was in the vicinity of a ridge, which helped increase its winds a lot more than expected for a 937 pressure. (I would have also gone with cat 4 at Cuba landfall based on the combination of the rapid deepening and the pressure reading after landfall.)

If Matthew gets downgraded ultimately, I think 130 kt would be its southern Caribbean peak intensity (a blend of all the data), which is still quite high for 942 mb.

[PavelGaborik10]

I know the CHC had Fiona landfalling at 90 KTS in Nova Scotia PT, so it's interesting to see the NHC go with 85.

Personally considering the Sting jet reading a few hours before landfall and the fact that the winds were noticeably stronger than Juan(85 KTS) I'm a bit surprised they went with 85, I was anticipating 90, minimum.

There was also a 930 MB reading on land that missed the "center" of the low on Cape Breton Island.

That 930 may have been faulty or not representative. In the case of Juan, the winds were in a very small area (i.e., near and over Halifax Harbour) as it was a fully tropical, compact system, while Fiona was much, much larger. I've been incredibly busy the last few days with my Ph.D. dissertation and other work.

I think 120 kt is right for a peak (I estimated such as well) as well as the 931 mb tropical minimum pressure, but would have gone 85 kt at the landfall in the Dominican Republic and would have kept 90 kt for Nova Scotia landfall, thinking stronger winds were in place over water at the time (due to the sting jet location). As far as minimum pressure (while extratropical), I'd have estimated it at 928 mb at landfall, based on the earlier aircraft data and the wind speeds at the time of the Hart Island data (which was not the true landfall point).

I know they set 00Z as the time where it became ET, but you could argue it might have been a couple hours later (definitely before 06Z or landfall though, it was a quick transition).

So there is some rather significant disagreement between the CHC and NHC regarding this particular system. I'm not trying to get anybody into trouble, but through an "anonymous" source from the CHC, Juan while having a much tighter gradient of wind, still produced less wind, while with an extremely potent Sting Jet, Fiona still pumped out a 111 MPH gust, despite her strongest winds clearly being well to her south and offshore at the time as evident by the reading from recon.

The CHC feels as if max winds offshore were around 95 KTS when she came ashore, NHC went with 85 KTS, which is pretty absurd to me at least, considering Juan punched through tight core and all right through the the heart of Halifax and produced less wind than a post tropical system with it's maximum winds clearly offshore.

85 knots is just poor, I can see 90, 85? No, it simply doesn't make sense given the data presented. I tend to concur with the CHC here, 90-95 is the correct landfall intensity, despite those winds being offshore.