2005 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Reports Discussion Thread

[P.K.]

Didn't Maxfield mentioned this subtropical system during his interview in Talkin' Tropics? Did he anything when did it form or something like it?

He mentioned it in that talk that was streamed via HurricaneTrack.com.

[senorpepr]

Green star for you, Sandy, on asking the questions we've all been wondering.

(It would be a gold star... but it's Saint Patty's Day! )

[Andrew92]

My thoughts on each report to come out today:

Rita - I'm surprised it was kept as a C3 at landfall given how deteriorated it looked at landfall. However, I probably shouldn't have been so surprised to see the winds up to 180 mph. But I didn't see the 895-mb pressure coming. WOW! And damage at $10 billion, that's also the first time that three hurricanes hit the U.S. causing double-digit billion dollars in damage in one season. WHAT A YEAR!

Franklin - No surprises here.

Harvey - Ditto to Franklin

Zeta - A little longer life as a remnant low, but not much here either. But now we have a notice that we have TWO reports to go, Beta and a newly-discovered subtropical storm.

-Andrew92

[Derek Ortt]

I was surprised as well, but what surprised me enev more was the cat 4 on the 22nd. I flew into the storm that day, and we did not come close to finding a cat 4 wind, along with the other 3 aircraft that flew. Very surprising

[wxman57]

It appears that Rita was probably a high-end Cat 2 at landfall with about 90-95 kt sustained wind. However, it looks like the NHC didn't want to start another controversy by declaring that Rita was "only a Cat 2" when it came ashore. Can't fault them too much for that, I suppose.

[Derek Ortt]

IMO, in best track, if there is a debate regarding the wind speeds, one should always go with the lower value, so that next time residents know that if a 2 could do this, a real 3 will be many times worse. However, for the advisories, always go with the higher value so that nobody lets their guard down

[weatherwoman132]

when you get the report on the unnamed tropical system, can you private me the info please?

[cycloneye]

when you get the report on the unnamed tropical system, can you private me the info please?

They only said at the Zeta report about the unnamed system.They are working on a report on it and will be out soon.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL302005_Zeta.pdf

[HURAKAN]

Dear Sandy,

The system, which was in the far eastern sub-tropical Atlantic, was indeed noted operationally, but it was considered non-tropical at the time and handled in marine products (by Meteo-France, if I recall). A later review concluded it had enough tropical characteristics to be considered subtropical.

Regards,

James

--
James L. Franklin

Hurricane Specialist, National Hurricane Center
NOAA/NWS/Tropical Prediction Center
11691 SW 17th Street, Miami FL 33165

Email: James.Franklin@noaa.gov
Ph: 305-229-4475
Fax: 305-553-1901


SOMETHING NEW!

[ROCK]

very surprised with keeping Rita a 3. I agree with WX probably closer to a high 2...

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

The recon data did show it as a 3 at landfall. But the system did not look so good...In good at landfall in so the winds might of not made it to the surface.

[wxman57]

IMO, in best track, if there is a debate regarding the wind speeds, one should always go with the lower value, so that next time residents know that if a 2 could do this, a real 3 will be many times worse. However, for the advisories, always go with the higher value so that nobody lets their guard down

Probably so, but I guess the NHC forecasters are just tired and ready to call it a season so they can get ready for 2006. Perhaps they don't feel like starting an argument?

[caneflyer]

IMO, in best track, if there is a debate regarding the wind speeds, one should always go with the lower value, so that next time residents know that if a 2 could do this, a real 3 will be many times worse. However, for the advisories, always go with the higher value so that nobody lets their guard down

I don't think social engineering should be a factor in any debate over wind speeds. The best tracks should be an attempt to get it as right as possible. Building in a low bias to try to accomplish some social goal, aside from having questionable effectiveness, does a disservice to the scientific record.

[Weatherfreak000]

IMO, we can sure have quite a debate on Rita. I would consider Rita the NHC's biggest blunder of 2005. I mean the forecast tracks where just so horribly off. And in my opinion it just exposed how highly the NHC forecasters relied on the model guidance which clearly didn't pick up on the sudden NW Movement.


Geez Rita had decades of history on her side that showed storms forming that late rarely if ever strike That part of Texas. My feelings are that Rita was handled very badly.


Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying I can do the NHC's job any better and they are IMO the best forecasting specialists on the planet today but....geez...



In any case Rita really exposed how significantly important it is to take hurricane WATCHES in mind. I remember seeing on the news how stores in Texas where closing so early. God only knows how many people evacuated INTO the storm thinking it would track further down.


It's not just Lousiana, Evacuation Blunders happen EVERYWHERE. Even Florida people, suddenly the Key West parades before Wilma ring in my mind very well. If we are to be ready for hurricanes we have to correctly prepare for them.


And cars running out of gas during evacuations is simply not gonna cut it.

[Derek Ortt]

Matt,

the recon data did not come close to showing a cat 3. You CANNOT use a blind 90% reduction factor, when the range is from .6 to 1.2. The SFMR, drops, and surface obs, as well as an 80% reduction factor, which is more appropriate for a stratiform hurricane, which was abundant in Rita, also yielded a category 2 hurricane. It is upon this that I disagree with the cat 3 designation of Rita (though I can accept 100KT for Rita far more than I can accept 105KT for Ivan)

[ROCK]

IMO, we can sure have quite a debate on Rita. I would consider Rita the NHC's biggest blunder of 2005. I mean the forecast tracks where just so horribly off. And in my opinion it just exposed how highly the NHC forecasters relied on the model guidance which clearly didn't pick up on the sudden NW Movement.


Geez Rita had decades of history on her side that showed storms forming that late rarely if ever strike That part of Texas. My feelings are that Rita was handled very badly.


Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying I can do the NHC's job any better and they are IMO the best forecasting specialists on the planet today but....geez...



In any case Rita really exposed how significantly important it is to take hurricane WATCHES in mind. I remember seeing on the news how stores in Texas where closing so early. God only knows how many people evacuated INTO the storm thinking it would track further down.


It's not just Lousiana, Evacuation Blunders happen EVERYWHERE. Even Florida people, suddenly the Key West parades before Wilma ring in my mind very well. If we are to be ready for hurricanes we have to correctly prepare for them.


And cars running out of gas during evacuations is simply not gonna cut it.

Just b/c climo suggests that storms do not hit that part of Texas doesn't mean it can't happen. I don't think the NHC was going to take anything for granted after what we saw in LA a few weeks earlier. It was a good call all the way around. If Rita would have jogged west 6 or more hours before her turn, she would have hit the 4th largest city in America. You think gas was high after Kat. Rita would have done a lot worse.

[Weatherfreak000]

Geez, I typed out a nice response and it got deleted.....it almost made me not even wanna retype my thoughts so i'll be blunt.


Evacuation is a pain, and sometimes people rely heavily on the NHC and don't look at weather patterns it's pretty obvious. The High protecting the Northern Gulf Coast was allready weakening very very much prior to landfall. And even when the system was clearly making it's move the models stayed consistent with a main Texas landfall (and of course the NHC followed in suit).

We all have our opinions and I thought the NHC could have done better, but it was an overall good job this season.

[CrazyC83]

It appears that Rita was probably a high-end Cat 2 at landfall with about 90-95 kt sustained wind. However, it looks like the NHC didn't want to start another controversy by declaring that Rita was "only a Cat 2" when it came ashore. Can't fault them too much for that, I suppose.

That's what I think. However, we could see more of that in the future. The local agencies should be redrawing their storm surge forecasts, as a REAL Category 5 storm could put up a 40-50 foot surge in some areas!!!!!!

[CrazyC83]

Based on all the data, here is how I would have assessed each storm (at peak intensity and key landfalls):

Arlene - 65 mph/50 mph (downgrades, due to low damage and disorganization)
Bret - 40 mph/40 mph
Cindy - 75 mph/75 mph
Dennis - 155 mph/140 mph Cuba/120 mph Florida
Emily - 160 mph/90 mph Grenada/135 mph Yucatan/135 mph NE Mexico (I think it was Cat 4 at that point)
Franklin - 65 mph (due to pressure)
Gert - 45 mph/45 mph
Harvey - 65 mph
Irene - 105 mph
Jose - 65 mph/65 mph (it was in rapid intensification)
Katrina - 175 mph/80 mph Florida/140 mph Louisiana/140 mph Mississippi (based on inland land data)
Lee - 40 mph
Maria - 115 mph
Nate - 90 mph
Ophelia - 90 mph
Philippe - 75 mph
Rita - 185 mph/115 mph
Stan - 85 mph/45 mph Yucatan/85 mph Veracruz
Tammy - 45 mph/45 mph
Vince - 80 mph/35 mph
Wilma - 190 mph/160 mph Cozumel/145 mph Cancun/120 mph Florida
Alpha - 50 mph/50 mph
Beta - 125 mph/125 mph
Gamma - 45 mph/45 mph
Delta - 80 mph/75 mph (they were stubborn - ship data had hurricane winds)
Epsilon - 85 mph
Zeta - 65 mph

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Arlene - 70 mph/50 mph
Bret - 40 mph/40 mph
Cindy - 75 mph/75 mph
Dennis - 155 mph/150 mph Cuba/125 mph Florida
Emily - 160 mph/Yuctan 135 mph/Mexico 125 mph
Franklin - 65 mph
Gert - 45 mph/45 mph-was starting to strengthen at landfall...
Harvey - 65 mph
Irene - 105 mph possibly 110 mph?
Jose - 65 mph I agree started to develop a eye...65 also for landfall.
Katrina - 175 mph/85 mph Florida/140 mph Louisiana/125 mph Mississippi-hard to disagree.
Lee - 40 mph
Maria - 115 mph-she did look very good...
Nate - 90 mph
Ophelia - 90 mph
Philippe - 75 mph-maybe 80 for a short time.
Rita - 185 mph/115 mph-very very agree. But could be 110 mph at landfall but I would go with keeping it 115 mph.
Stan - 85 mph/45 mph Yucatan/85 mph Veracruz-got to agree
Tammy - 45 mph/45 mph
Vince - 80 mph/35 mph-It had developed a nice eye maybe more like 85 mph.
Wilma - 190 mph/155 mph Cozumel/130 mph Cancun/135 mph Florida
Alpha - 55 mph/50 mph
Beta - 125 mph/125 mph-agree
Gamma - 45 mph/45 mph
Delta - 80 mph/75 mph-man theres alot of things we agree with.
Epsilon - 85 mph-so true
Zeta - 65 mph-possible