2005 Atl Reports=Unnamed Subtropical Storm Report Posted

[cycloneye]

Tropical Storm Arlene= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL012005_Arlene.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/AR ... hics.shtml






Tropical Storm Bret= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/BR ... hics.shtml






Tropical Storm Cindy= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/CI ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Dennis= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL042005_Dennis.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/DE ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Emily= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/EM ... hics.shtml






Tropical Storm Franklin= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/FR ... hics.shtml






Tropical Storm Gert= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL072005_Gert.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/GE ... hics.shtml






Tropical Storm Harvey= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/HA ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Irene= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/IR ... hics.shtml






Tropical Depression Ten= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL102005_Ten.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/TEN_graphics.shtml






Tropical Storm Jose= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL112005_Jose.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/JO ... hics.shtml







Hurricane Katrina= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/KA ... hics.shtml





Tropical Storm Lee = http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL132005_Lee.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/LEE_graphics.shtml






Hurricane Maria= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/MA ... hics.shtml







Hurricane Nate= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/NA ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Ophelia= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/OP ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Philippe= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/PH ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Rita= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/RI ... hics.shtml







Tropical Depression Nineteen= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL192005_Nineteen.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/NI ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Stan= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/ST ... hics.shtml







Tropical Storm Tammy= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/TA ... hics.shtml







Sub-Tropical Depression Twenty-Two= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL222005_Twenty-two.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/TW ... hics.shtml







Hurricane Vince= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/VI ... hics.shtml







Hurricane Wilma= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL242005_Wilma.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/WI ... hics.shtml









Tropical Storm Alpha= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL252005_Alpha.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/AL ... hics.shtml







Hurricane Beta= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/BE ... hics.shtml








Tropical Storm Gamma= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/GA ... hics.shtml







Tropical Storm Delta= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/DE ... hics.shtml







Hurricane Epsilon= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL292005_Epsilon.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/EP ... hics.shtml







Tropical Storm Zeta= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/ZE ... hics.shtml


New page the list posted.The much anticipated Hurricane Wilma report is posted with 25 pages long and our friend and Hurricane Chaser Mark Sudduth is mentioned in it.

[Scorpion]

120 has been very popular recently

Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, now Wilma

Katrina was 125.

[wxman57]

It could also do with the fact that Katrnia was a cat5 not less then 8 hours before landfall. In Wilma was not a cat5 in the gulf at all.

It's not really so much the PEAK wind that makes a surge, as that peak intensity usually covers only a tiny area of the ocean. Charley was a good example of that, with it's 145 mph winds generating only a 6-8 foot storm surge. It's the coverage of the higher wind speeds that interacts with the ocean surface. I believe that both hurricanes had similar radii of hurricane force winds and above. And the 50 kt radii were very similar as well. Katrina, though, moved much more slowly and those 150nm radii of 50kt winds and 100nm radii of 74+ mph winds created waves of 50-70 feet across the Gulf. Wilma's wind field would have created a similar wind field had it been moving slowly to the west vs. quickly to the northeast and near Cuba in the southeast quadrant.

[wxman57]

looking at the wind gust reports I am starting to question this 120 downgrade alot of gusts (though unofficial) are over 120 and several near 135

What do gusts have to do with 1-minute sustained wind? A hurricane will typically produce gusts of from 22-28% higher than the 1-minute sustained wind. That would be about 150 mph for a 120 mph hurricane. That's just a TYPICAL range, though. Some hurricanes could produce gusts of twice the sustained wind, like when Lili moved ashore in 2002. Sustained winds inland were in the 40-50 mph range but gusts reached 100 mph. That kind of gustiness occurs more with a rapidly-weakening hurricane, though.

Wilma appeared to have a very small area of peak (105kt) winds in the SE quadrant at landfall. It did have a large area of 75-100 mph winds, though. But over land, surface friction reduced those winds perhaps a category. Thus the recorded Cat 1 and maybe small pockets of Cat 2 over land. But as I pointed out in a recent talk, those 75+ mph observed winds over land coverd a larger area than either Frances or Jeanne last year, and maybe nearly twice as large an area. Thus the significant damage to the Miami/PBI area.

[HurricaneBill]

I'm surprised no mention was made of the surge in the northern Bahamas. Didn't they get a large surge?

[Jim Cantore]

the 10 foot was about 60 miles from the eye in Marathon.

reports from mainland monroe (the glades) were that the surge came 10-20 miles inland. Had it hit naples with the RFQ, populated areas would have received the devastating surge of 15-20 feet. Same thing if this would have tracked 40 miles to the south, Florida Bay would have submerged the Keys

Wilmas southern side packed her strongest winds thats why

[Jim Cantore]

looking at the wind gust reports I am starting to question this 120 downgrade alot of gusts (though unofficial) are over 120 and several near 135

What do gusts have to do with 1-minute sustained wind? A hurricane will typically produce gusts of from 22-28% higher than the 1-minute sustained wind. That would be about 150 mph for a 120 mph hurricane. That's just a TYPICAL range, though. Some hurricanes could produce gusts of twice the sustained wind, like when Lili moved ashore in 2002. Sustained winds inland were in the 40-50 mph range but gusts reached 100 mph. That kind of gustiness occurs more with a rapidly-weakening hurricane, though.

Wilma appeared to have a very small area of peak (105kt) winds in the SE quadrant at landfall. It did have a large area of 75-100 mph winds, though. But over land, surface friction reduced those winds perhaps a category. Thus the recorded Cat 1 and maybe small pockets of Cat 2 over land. But as I pointed out in a recent talk, those 75+ mph observed winds over land coverd a larger area than either Frances or Jeanne last year, and maybe nearly twice as large an area. Thus the significant damage to the Miami/PBI area.

You have brought up a good point that is starting to swing my feeling I say I dont agree after comparing it to other 120mph hurricanes

I realize one diffrence though

Wilma unlike Ivan, Dennis, and Katrina was strengthening at the time

[Jim Cantore]

I'm surprised no mention was made of the surge in the northern Bahamas. Didn't they get a large surge?

I'd think they got some in Abaco and Grand Bahama Wilmas south eyewall hit that area

[MiamiensisWx]

There are some things in the report I am critical of. I am not trying to bash the NHC, but here are my points. The report is good in some parts, such as the upgrade of Wilma's peak intensity to 160KT, but there are several other things in the report that may not be quite right.

First, the report is rather lacking in details - especially GOOD details - in some parts. I expected the report to be longer... it is actually shorter than I expected. The report lacks some details in the parts on Wilma's damage to the Yucatan Peninsula, southern Florida, Cuba, and the Bahamas. It also makes little mention - if any at all - on the damage, winds, and surge the northern Bahamas received. I thought the report would be more specific on many fronts than it actually turned out to be. The same things happened in many areas of the Katrina report.

Secondly, I find the damage estimate in the U.S. (Florida) of $12.2 billion to be rather low, especially when you account factors such as inflation and high population densities of southeastern Florida. I think the actual amount of damage is closer to $13,000,000,000 or $14,000,000,000, at the very least. Also, Wilma's damage was very widespread. Saying damage was only $12.2 billion just does not seem quite right when you take in all these factors. Who agrees?

Thirdly, I am rather questionable of the downgrading of Wilma to 105KT at Florida landfall, especially since they downgraded it while giving little mention and analysis of the RECON which reported sustained flight-level winds near 126KT as Wilma was making landfall. This corresponds to at least 130MPH sustained surface winds (115KT). When you blend in all the factors, the intensity at landfall should probably have been left at 110KT (125MPH). Also, since the highest winds were in unpopulated areas, there still could easily have been a small pocket of sustained 125MPH winds. This would make sense, especially since Wilma had many small vortices and areas of higher winds within it's eyewall. Finally, doppler radar can be deceiving at times, especially given that Wilma was reacting baroclinically with the front. Interactions like this means that sustained winds are often higher than what the convective activity and radar hints at. With all this said, I believe Wilma was still at least 125MPH in sustained winds at Florida landfall. Who agrees?

These are my thoughts. Personally, I think several parts of the report are rather weak, as I said in all my points above. Who agrees with my points?

[wxman57]

The reports are starting to come out slowly but surely.Interesting that Gert had a long track from West Africa as a tropical wave but it had a very short life in the Bay of Campeche as a Storm due to land.

It also may be of interest that the wave that would become Katrina moved off the west coast of Africa on August 5th, 24 days prior to its arrival in LA/MS .

[HURAKAN]

The reports are starting to come out slowly but surely.Interesting that Gert had a long track from West Africa as a tropical wave but it had a very short life in the Bay of Campeche as a Storm due to land.

It also may be of interest that the wave that would become Katrina moved off the west coast of Africa on August 5th, 24 days prior to its arrival in LA/MS .

By the way, it could be said that one wave gave life to 3 systems. TD 10, Jose, and Katrina, all three have some relationship with the same wave. TD 10 and Jose came from the same wave, and because TD 10 united with another wave to form Katrina. Interesting!

[wxman57]

.....
Thirdly, I am rather questionable of the downgrading of Wilma to 105KT at Florida landfall, especially since they downgraded it while giving little mention and analysis of the RECON which reported sustained flight-level winds near 126KT as Wilma was making landfall. This corresponds to at least 130MPH sustained surface winds (115KT). When you blend in all the factors, the intensity at landfall should probably have been left at 110KT (125MPH). Also, since the highest winds were in unpopulated areas, there still could easily have been a small pocket of sustained 125MPH winds. This would make sense, especially since Wilma had many small vortices and areas of higher winds within it's eyewall. Finally, doppler radar can be deceiving at times, especially given that Wilma was reacting baroclinically with the front. Interactions like this means that sustained winds are often higher than what the convective activity and radar hints at. With all this said, I believe Wilma was still at least 125MPH in sustained winds at Florida landfall. Who agrees?

These are my thoughts. Personally, I think several parts of the report are rather weak, as I said in all my points above. Who agrees with my points?

I agree that the report seems somewhat lacking in the areas you mentioned. As for the landfall intensity, though, I'm in agreement with NHC. FL winds are just ONE way to estimate surface winds in a hurricane. Some of the recon planes now have a special Doppler radar that measures surface wind rather than using FL reductions. Also, the same frontal interactions you mentioned could possibly affect the downward transport of Wilma's stronger winds, reducing the surface winds. Finally, the maximum sustained winds reported are over a relatively frictionless ocean environment. Such winds are almost immediaetly reduced by as much as 15-20% once they move over land. So it would take a hurricane with a large area of 100-120 mph winds over water to produce a large area of 75-100 mph wind over land, as Wilma did.

Wilma was a Cat 3 hurricane as strong as and nearly as big as Katrina. It's no wonder there was so much damage to Florida. Fortunately, a combination of factors prevented the buildup of a large storm surge (like Katrina).

As for the damage estimates, I'm not sure how you can estimate that the actual cost was a few hundred thousand to 1 billion low. How in the world can you calculate that? All we have are reported insurance losses. From that, they make some assumptions about uninsured losses and come up with the total. But the estimate could be off a good bit either way.

[wxman57]

The reports are starting to come out slowly but surely.Interesting that Gert had a long track from West Africa as a tropical wave but it had a very short life in the Bay of Campeche as a Storm due to land.

It also may be of interest that the wave that would become Katrina moved off the west coast of Africa on August 5th, 24 days prior to its arrival in LA/MS .

By the way, it could be said that one wave gave life to 3 systems. TD 10, Jose, and Katrina, all three have some relationship with the same wave. TD 10 and Jose came from the same wave, and because TD 10 united with another wave to form Katrina. Interesting!

I just looked back at the progression of the wave that became TD 10 and Katrina, as I saved daily satellite shots with all waves identified. The wave that became Katrina was completely separate from the wave from which Jose formed. That wave was about 1500 miles out ahead of Katrina near Honduras while Katrina was NE of the Antilles.

[cycloneye]

Two new reports are posted now TD#10 and Subtropical Depression 22.Now there are 12 reports up and 18 that are left.Interesting to read the TD#10 report about why they didn't continue with it and it was TD#12 which gave birth to Katrina.

[RattleMan]

Two new reports are posted now TD#10 and Subtropical Depression 22.Now there are 12 reports up and 18 that are left.Interesting to read the TD#10 report about why they didn't continue with it and it was TD#12 which gave birth to Katrina.

Finally they fixed the "Tropical Depression Twenty-two" typo on the reports page

[cycloneye]

Two new reports are posted now TD#10 and Subtropical Depression 22.Now there are 12 reports up and 18 that are left.Interesting to read the TD#10 report about why they didn't continue with it and it was TD#12 which gave birth to Katrina.

Finally they fixed the "Tropical Depression Twenty-two" typo on the reports page

Oh yes.

[senorpepr]

TD 19L and STD 22L have been posted as well onto the S2K Worldwide Tropical Update page.

http://tropicalupdate.storm2k.org/
http://tropicalupdates.nhcwx.com/reports.htm

[mike815]

thanks they were short but good i forgot about 22

[cycloneye]

thanks they were short but good i forgot about 22

The only interesting things for both depressions was,for TD 10 how they decided that what eventually was borned as Katrina formed from TD 10 or TD 12.and about Subtropical Depression 22 if the remanant low of TD 19 was the same as the 22 one.Both reports clear those aspects.

[Margie]

It could also do with the fact that Katrnia was a cat5 not less then 8 hours before landfall. In Wilma was not a cat5 in the gulf at all.

It does have to do with that. I found out that is similar to what occured with that surge from Dennis that inundated that one area of FL.

What happens is that some of the energy gets transferred to deeper water, where it does not dissipate easily. It is like the energy from a tsunami wave in that respect.