Smallest eye at landfall in the United States

[MiamiensisWx]

SMALLEST TC EYE DIAMETER AT LANDFALL

1. 1950 (King) - 5 mi/4 nmi (Miami, FL) at Cat 3
2. 2004 (Charley) - 5 mi/4 nmi (Cayo Costa, FL) at Cat 4
3. 1935 (Storm 2) - 10 mi/8.5 nmi (Craig Key, FL) at Cat 5
4. 1943 (Storm 1) - 10 mi/8.5 nmi(?) (Galveston, TX) at Cat 1 (likely near Cat 2)
5. 2005 (Dennis) - 12 mi/10 nmi (E of Pensacola, FL) at Cat 3
6. 2005 (Katrina) - 12 mi/10 nmi (Miami-Dade/Broward border) at Cat 1
7. 1969 (Camille) - 15 mi/13 nmi (Waveland, MS) at Cat 5
8. 1992 (Andrew) - 15 mi/13 nmi (Homestead, FL) at Cat 5
10. 1999 (Bret) - 17 mi/15 nmi (Padre Island, TX) at Cat 3
11. 1926 (Storm 6) - 25 mi/22 nmi (Coral Gables, FL) at Cat 4
12. 1928 (Storm 4) - 25 mi/22 nmi (Palm Beach Shores, FL) at Cat 4
13. 2005 (Katrina) - 35 mi/30 nmi (Buras, LA) at Cat 3

INTENSITIES AT LANDFALL*

*Some are personal estimates

1. 1950 (King) - 100 kt/955 mb
2. 2004 (Charley) - 130 kt/941 mb
3. 1935 (Storm 2) - 160 kt/892 mb
4. 1943 (Storm 1) - 85 kt/971 mb
5. 2005 (Dennis) - 105 kt/946 mb
6. 1969 (Camille) - 145 kt/909 mb
7. 1992 (Andrew) - 145 kt/922 mb
8. 1926 (Storm 6) - 120 kt/934 mb
9. 1928 (Storm 4) - 115 kt/939 mb
10. 2005 (Katrina) - 110 kt/920 mb**

**Note: I believe the maximum 1-min winds may have been slightly higher (115 kt), though I would round that value to 130 mph (borderline Cat 3/4)

I can only find data for these tropical cyclones... can anyone recall other small TC eyes at landfall? For example, what was the diameter of Gaston's center in SC? Additionally, was Celia 1970's eye more compact than 30 mi? Other reports would be interesting, too.

[MiamiensisWx]

Bump... can anyone answer these questions?

[Category 5]

You're not alone, this is some information I'd love to see. I haven't been able to find it.

Gaston's was pretty tiny.

[Ptarmigan]

What about Hurricane Opal in 1995? It had a small eye. Katrina's eye at 35 mile diameter is above average size for eye.

[Cyclone1]

Yeah why is Katrina on that list?

A small eye in my opinion is 10mi and smaller. Opal and Lili had small eyes, Charley definitely did.

[Ptarmigan]

Yeah why is Katrina on that list?

A small eye in my opinion is 10mi and smaller. Opal and Lili had small eyes, Charley definitely did.

I read that the average eye size is 15 miles.

[Category 5]

Dennis had a small one too. Bret's wan't big ether.

[Derek Ortt]

Opal's eye at landfall was about 50 miles wide

[Cyclone1]

Opal? What?

Got proof? I didn't think it had an eye at landfall, and if it did, I thought it was 7-10 miles.

[whereverwx]

This is Opal at landfall:

Image

[Category 5]

I think Opal was EWRC'ing at landfall if I'm not mistaken.

[MGC]

Camille had an eye diameter on the order of 8-10 miles at landfall. Pretty steep pressure gradient also. 909mb in Bay St Louis while 950mb was reported 15 miles away at the NASA test facility......MGC

[Cyclone1]

Wow, I guess Opal was EWRC'ing at landfall.

Kinda makes you think what would have happened if it went through that phase about 24 hours earlier,.

[MGC]

Yep a well timed EWRC just before landfall....MGC

[HurricaneRobert]

Look at the teeny eye of Floyd:

[MiamiensisWx]

Personally, I doubt the timing of Opal's ERC would have affected the weakening trend. Contrary to popular belief, the northern Gulf Coast CAN support a Category 5 landfall (likely within the 140-150 kt range), but that event can only take place if the factors are conducive. In the case of Opal, Ivan, and Dennis, the subject tropical cyclone was interacting with a continental shortwave trough. This allowed the storms to gradually turn north and NNE, while unidirectional upper-level shear increased over the cyclones. The increasing shear likely played a significant role in the alteration of these cyclones' inner structure. They all displayed a common theme: in the last few hours prior to landfall, radar data indicated that their small, well-defined inner cores (tight eyewalls surrounding a small eye) weakened, followed (at least in Opal's case) by a developing outer concentric eyewall. I don't believe the outer eyewall development occurred in the case of Ivan. Regardless, the structural changes and enlarging pressure fields contributed to a significant weakening of these cyclones' maximum sustained winds shortly before landfall. The shortwave troughs also may have enabled the ingestion of low-level subsidence into the storms' circulations.

The shortwave trough interaction separates these cyclones (and Katrina) from the synoptic setup of Hurricane Camille. Although Camille likely weakened from its peak prior to landfall, it maintained its structure much better than the previous cyclones, which still allowed the cyclone to strike land at Category 5 intensity. Camille developed under a strong 500 mb ridge, which remained prominent throughout the cyclone's transit of the Gulf of Mexico. The shortwave trough was also weaker, which resulted in less shear prior to landfall. A portion of Camille's inflow circulation also extended south into the Caribbean Sea as the storm made landfall on SE LA; although Camille was more compact than Katrina, it received adequate low-level moisture return from the south, which may have reduced the effects of subsidence on the core (I believe). Camille apparently did not experience temperature inversions further north, so its convective structure remained intense at the time of landfall. Additionally, upper tropospheric temperatures may have been quite cold shortly prior to landfall, since the cold core low associated with the s/w trough resulted in a strong southerly jet.

Overall, these significant differences was ideal for Camille to maintain its intensity further north than the other cyclones, although Camille was likely experiencing an ERC at the time of landfall. Pensacola, FL radar images do uncover a "moat" structure and an outer concentric eyewall when the hurricane was near landfall, although the symmetric inner core looks substantially healthier than Ivan, Opal, and Dennis' structures when they moved ashore. Although I previously stated that Camille may have not been a Category 5 strike, closer investigation reveals that the pressure gradient (especially the gradient) and surrounding ambient pressures were much stronger than I originally believed. Consequently, I am now a believer in the assigned Category 5 landfall status, though I still believe the 1-min winds were solidly below 165 kt (190 mph). The pressure gradient is enough to support the Category 5 status. Although the central pressure was 909 mb at landfall over Waveland, Mississippi, Keesler AFB's minimum pressure (~25 miles from the center) in Biloxi did not drop below 980 mb. I think Camille's maximum sustained winds were similar to Andrew 1992 at landfall, and my estimate for Camille is 145 kt/909 mb.

Here are some good resources...

1969 MWR - http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/mwr_pdf/1969.pdf

Rare Pensacola, FL radar images of Camille near landfall:

172115 UTC - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/_cdmp_scanning/dvd0003-jpg/1969/atlantic/camille/radarpic/r0817.01.jpg

172215 UTC - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/_cdmp_scanning/dvd0003-jpg/1969/atlantic/camille/radarpic/r0817.jpg

[Hurricaneman]

Andrew had a small eye, was annular and nearly hit a Major city, if the eye was normal sized Miami would have been destroyed

[Derek Ortt]

As for the NGOM...


It can support cat 5 if you go by the Emanuel (1986) (available at http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520- ... -6-585.pdf) theory that MPI is based upon SST and not heat content (more recent work has suggested that the heat content may be the better indicator)

As for Camielle, in Powell (2007), (available at http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520- ... -4-513.pdf) he did a H-WIND reanalysis and found it was a cat 4 at landfall with 125-130KT winds

[Category 5]

Look at the teeny eye of Floyd:

It didn't have much of an eye, but it was tiny.

It had one when it past by NJ, people reported several calm minutes.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Is there a formula for pressure gradient conversion to wind speed?
For example over 100 miles a gradient G gives a windspeed V?

V = kG/D --> V= windspeed, g = gradient. D= distance
and k is a proportionality constant...