Cat 4 hurricanes very unlikely north of Florida on E Coast

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
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#221 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:59 pm

(some of which are reading this garbage in utter dismay)


Well, at least this is the case for one. :wink: Feel better now, nic? You know I would have agreed with the majority of what you said until I read this particular line. I certainly wasn't out to "lambast" anyone, I can speak for no one else, and while it's obvious we got off into yet another tangential debate (while struggling to pull it back to topic), I wouldn't agree that it is "garbage" which, to me, seems a very subjective assessment tantamount to little less than a not-so-subtle slap on the wrist (perhaps deserved) ... but then again, the old addage goes "one man's food is another's poison" --just substitute "garbage" for "poison".... so be it.

But before you reach for that Maalox, consider this: rest assured the brilliant minds will, hopefully, return to the topic. I might also suggest that a lot of what has taken place here is only consequent to people with some fairly frayed nerves, and equally in "dismay", who are still living in this nightmare and very tired of having some people telling them from an outside area what they went through--and that also gets to where one could, as you perhaps not tactfully, but decidedly aptly put it--"puke". That get's rather old. as well--and I'm sure we both know how "old" food sits in the stomach. Sometimes simply expressing one's frustrations after hearing something being repeated and repeated, over and over--grants one a therapeutic catharsis... With no offense intended, your post is an object lessson in exactly this principle: I suspect, and certainly hope, you felt much better after the nanny-lecture you've given to the brilliant minds who've produced the aforementioned garbage.

Now in deference to the "pretty please"... and frankly, all fairness to the originator of the thread--more topic related:

storms in NC, we have strong depressions in the UK that down Oak Trees


Yes, I've heard about such storms, KWT, in fact I've read about "storms" that are almost as rough as "major" hurricanes (although obviously not tropical--hence not hurricanes)..striking the UK and North Sea areas. I don't know what region of the UK you live in; but perhaps folks along the North Sea coast, or along that peninsula extending forward out into the Atlantic (What is that Devon and Cornwall?), might be familiar with these types of storms. I don't know the meteorological term, except perhaps cold-core, for them--but I know they do exist and can sustain some fairly impressive winds.

Which brings me back to the specific topic... would someone define "very" unlikely? I mean the probability of a hurricane of Cat 4 or higher striking almost any specified area is probably identifiable as "unlikely" since they thankfully are not frequent. Hugo has proven they can travel north of the the Florida coast, and while the great New England storm (Long Island Express?) showed that a major (travelling fast enough) can get up to some impressive strengths. I guess once again one can get into the semantic quagmire of some of these intense storms striking areas like the Maritimes, and New England as not technically "hurricanes" but equally, one wonders just what their highest potential intensity could be, name notwithstanding.

A2K
0 likes   

User avatar
KWT
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 31415
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:02 am
Location: UK!!!

#222 Postby KWT » Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:27 pm

I live close to the north-sea A2K, abot 20 miles west of the area that got flooded severely in 1953 from a nasty depression that ran down the north-sea. I won't talk to long about the system as its off-topic as you've said but all I'll say is the 1987 was very rough for the SE of England and London itslef, 94mph gusts in London and even higher in rural areas, heres one last picture then back on topic for me!!!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3 ... fs_238.jpg


I must admit I'm rather intrested in seeing just how strong storms can get in theory in regions above 30N, I mean in theory it must be possible for category-5's to make landfall north of 30N, even if its hard i'd guess if you get perfect condtions and water temps above average then its just about possible if you get a fairly fast moving system.
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
Pearl River
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 825
Age: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: SELa

#223 Postby Pearl River » Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:34 pm

KWT wrote

Pearl River, yes thats true the ground was a little soggy at the time, though I'd have thought the pre-hurricane squalls gave equally as much rain if not more so then the previous depressions in that storm, mind you how much of that tropical rainfall gets into the soil I don't know!
Mind you the gusts of 90-100mph were strong enough to rip of the roofs of some houses and flip caravans and so to cause destructive damage isn't really as hard as some would think. It was an impressive storm for the south though, we don't get gusts into the 80-90kt range often here. jus tout of intrest here s a satelite image of the system, wrapped up almost like a hurricane had it not been for the fronts it would have fooled me:

http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Resources/We ... /16oct.jpg


Thanks for the pic KWT. It is very impressive. We were in a drought for Katrina, so the ground was extremely dry, but compact. Most of the tree damage I observed around here were snapped at different heights, but there wer also a lot of total blow overs.

Now, back to the thread. As I stated in a previous post, I feel the conditions need to be right for a cat4 or higher to hit. In history, it may have happened with a hit in an area where population was very sparse.[/b]
0 likes   

User avatar
P.K.
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Watford, England
Contact:

#224 Postby P.K. » Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:46 pm

KWT wrote:we have strong depressions in the UK that down Oak Trees hundreds of years old that have been downed, one storm in 1987 (p.K could confirm) downed thousands of Oak's as well as other trees with wind gusts that compare with a strong cat-1. you'd be suprised at the power of winds at say cat-1, even if we don't get hurricane shere there is usually at least one storm thats gusts into the cat-1 range!


We lost a LOT of trees that day around here, not just the odd few. The Met Office quote a figure of 15 million lost in total. Now based on "The strongest gust over the UK was 100 knots at Shoreham on the Sussex coast at 0310 UTC, and gusts of more than 90 knots were recorded at several other coastal locations" using a 40% gust factor (It could be more in this case) it was around 70kts sustained (10 minute average) with a minimum pressure of 953hPa. Here however gusts were only in the 70kt range See here.

Good thing I checked this thread for the first time :lol:.
0 likes   

User avatar
KWT
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 31415
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:02 am
Location: UK!!!

#225 Postby KWT » Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:57 pm

wow, I must admit p.K I didn't think it was quite that many, though my idea of thousands does sound a little stupid now considering a wood would easily have that sort of amount!!!

From what I know the max winds were 63kts sustained for 10-mins and the met-office report shows that max gusts were actually about 90-95kts. what does this prove...wel lthat even us in trhe UK don't agree on everything!!
certainly was powerful though thats for usre!

sorry were taking over this thread!!! :roll: :wink:
0 likes   

User avatar
P.K.
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Watford, England
Contact:

#226 Postby P.K. » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:16 pm

The Met Office report quotes a 10 min sustained wind of 75kts at a lighthouse near Eastbourne although the light itself is 28m up and so this is likely a bit high for the 10m wind. All I had done was take a 100kt gust and then estimate the sustained wind from that. http://www.meto.gov.uk/education/secondary/students/1987.html I know this is off topic so this is my last post in this thread on it. :wink:
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#227 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:37 pm

sorry were taking over this thread!!!


Personally I don't see anything wrong with a stimulating and informative discussion as an occasinal sidebar--even the occasional debate or rant... as long as it's kept civil.

Additionally, I don't see it as wandering that far afield inasmuch as we certainly are speaking of hurricane force winds, and they're well north of the Florida coast. :wink: I sure wish I could remember where I'd once read that occasionally these North Sea storms could pack the wallop of a major... nevertheless, simply by the nature of semantics, they are not "hurricanes"... they are nonetheless impressive storms. I recall seeing several news snippets in 1987 of the one which you two are speaking about.

Now exactly to the purpose of the thread: Is there anyone with a fairly reliable statistical evaluation of possible/probable Cat 4 strikes N. of the Florida coast? I'd be interested in seeing what kind of ratio would be implicated by such data.

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

User avatar
P.K.
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Watford, England
Contact:

#228 Postby P.K. » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:52 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
I sure wish I could remember where I'd once read that occasionally these North Sea storms could pack the wallop of a major... nevertheless, simply by the nature of semantics, they are not "hurricanes"... they are nonetheless impressive storms.


They can be very bad. Thisone for example is I believe the worst natural disaster in the UK in recent history, well at least since the 1703 storm. http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/1703_storm.shtml
0 likes   

timNms
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1371
Age: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:45 pm
Location: Seminary, Mississippi
Contact:

#229 Postby timNms » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:56 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:best track dropped Katrina's MS landfall slightly to 120 m.p.h.

One should not use advisory information to determine an actual landfall intensity, as that is an operational estimate, not subject to extensive data analysis


Forgive the ignorance, but who is "best track"?
Also, according to the SS Scale, 120 is still Cat 3, thus rendering the map being discussed invalid.
0 likes   

User avatar
baygirl_1
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: Mobile, AL

#230 Postby baygirl_1 » Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:28 pm

Sorry I "disappeared" after asking my question yesterday. My mother became ill and we spent much of the day at hospital. Thankfully, she's much better today. I've been sifting through this thread. I'm not sure if I was able to pick out the answer-- I'm still quite tired and fuzzy-brained-- but I realize the Camille question wasn't really on topic, anyway. Ya'll go back to your discussion... I'm enjoying reading.
0 likes   

User avatar
P.K.
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Watford, England
Contact:

#231 Postby P.K. » Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:34 pm

timNms wrote:Forgive the ignorance, but who is "best track"?


Storms are looked at again after they have occured by the various RSMCs/TCWCs and this data is put into a "best track" file as the best known data for the storm.
0 likes   

User avatar
Hybridstorm_November2001
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: SW New Brunswick, Canada
Contact:

#232 Postby Hybridstorm_November2001 » Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:36 pm

Ah yes the storm of 1703. Correct me if I'm wrong; that storm was greatest to effected Southern England in recorded history, was it not?
0 likes   

User avatar
P.K.
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Watford, England
Contact:

#233 Postby P.K. » Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:01 pm

As far as I know yes. There are various links on it here and a nice article here.
0 likes   

User avatar
Huckster
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 394
Age: 43
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 2:33 am
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Contact:

#234 Postby Huckster » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:59 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
I challenge the HRD people to personally come on down to the coast,


Spittin' in the wind, MGC... quite literally.. did you notice how WIDELY that contour of Cat 3 is around Plaquemines? That area literally down to the MOUTH of the River is MUCH narrower than what those lines show...so they don't think Cat 3 even reached ANY land area in Louisiana at first landfall. it's Cat 2 even over WATER down there ... ummm... sorry... that's beyond unbelievable IMO... but this is, sad to say, just rehashing the same dead-horse we beat to death in umpteen other threads, and this is NOT where I wanted this to go. The discussion is about Category 4 storms being "very unlikely" north of Florida on the E. Coast. But these things do have a way of taking on a life all their own. My only beef is the dogmatism that some seem to embrace whenever this topic is broached. I'm willing to allow for room for error; but there are those who won't budge an inch.

Oh well... C'est la vie, in the Northern Gulf.

A2K


That wind map seems to assume that southeast LA is just like almost any other area, in that the "land" is solid. It also assumes a fixed, definable partition between the Gulf and land. "Land" can only loosely be employed when describing what consitutes coastal Louisiana. Excepting the few natural levees along bayous and the Mississippi River, most of lower Terrebonne, lower Lafourche, lower Jefferson, Plaquemines, and St. Bernard Parishes is marsh at best and open water at worst. That map seems to be basing the wind contours on old parish boundaries that are no longer valid.

This seems to be how most people think of Louisiana, since this is the usual kind of map we see:

Image

Even if that map did accurately depict the real coastal boundaries, I'm still not sure how accurate the wind countours would be, given that so much of the area was marsh. Now, before someone jumps down my throat about how marsh is still going to cause friction and reduce sustained wind speeds, just calm down. I KNOW that, but what if any research has been done on the effects of marsh on sustained wind speeds vs. that of land typical elsewhere along the U.S. coast, i.e. land that is densely covered with forests or buildings? Whatever the case is, much of the marsh in those areas has now been converted to open water, especially in Plaquemines Parish.

This map is a real satellite image of Louisiana with boundaries overlaid, and it demonstrates just how watery SE Louisiana really is.

Image

We're not just talking about marsh, but the actual Gulf which is encroaching on that narrow leveed thread of land in Plaquemines Parish, which is where Buras is located. Does this have any significance to the wind-at-landfall debate?
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cycloneye, eyesontropics and 47 guests