Weird cyclones - Impressive cyclones

[Category 5]

...Katrina wasn't close to being annular).

These look a lot alike to me (Katrina vs. Isabel):


Katrina and Isabel have about the same CDO vs eye-size ratio (Katrina actually has the larger eye, relatively). I disagree with the notion that the presence of rainbands excludes a hurricane from consideration of being annular -- very few areas have an oceanic heat-content as extreme as the GOM loop-current. Note that Katrina easily meets all of the other annular characteristics.

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula. I wouldn't really put Isabel and Katrina in the same category; while Isabel was steady "maxi-state", Katrina was hindered a bit by dry continental air in the vicinity, which inevitably led to the inner core near-collapse near landfall.

Katrina steady-stated at 160+mph with a giant eye for twelve or more hours prior to continental air intrusion:

19 25.20 -86.70 08/28/06Z 125 930 HURRICANE-4
20 25.70 -87.70 08/28/12Z 145 909 HURRICANE-5
21 26.30 -88.60 08/28/18Z 150 902 HURRICANE-5
22 27.20 -89.20 08/29/00Z 140 905 HURRICANE-5
23 28.20 -89.60 08/29/06Z 125 913 HURRICANE-4

But it had lots and lots of rainbands.

That's what an annular hurricane is - part of the definition. You can't decide to change that - it's not up to you.

Theres no reasoning with people who like to make up their own facts STC, stop wasting your time.

[RL3AO]

Katrina wasn't annular.

[cheezyWXguy]

Katrina was not annular. End of story. They dont look anything alike. The only thing is that they have similar eyes. I dont believe there has EVER been an annular hurricane in the gulf, nor do I think there ever will be as long as temps are warm. You do know that annularity has to do with the conditions around the storm, dont you? It consists of a fairly marginal environment with marginal sst's. That is what impacts the structure and makes it look the way it does.

[Cyclenall]

-In the EPAC/CPAC, rest of WPAC, and open ATL, the morphology of major storms can vary, but small pinhole eyes are uncommon if any documented cases have occurred at all. Most times eyes are medium sized.

Small detail here, are you saying that pinhole eyes are extremely rare/nonexistent in the Epac? If that is what you meant, then I disagree because I have seen more then several over the last few years with one (Lane?, Sergio (2006)).

[Ad Novoxium]

-In the EPAC/CPAC, rest of WPAC, and open ATL, the morphology of major storms can vary, but small pinhole eyes are uncommon if any documented cases have occurred at all. Most times eyes are medium sized.

...

That's a pinhole eye if I've ever seen one.

[Category 5]

[Honeyko]

But it had lots and lots of rainbands.
That's what an annular hurricane is - part of the definition. You can't decide to change that - it's not up to you.

Theres no reasoning with people who like to make up their own facts

Is it obliquely within the realm of possibility that you would accept that max-intensity Katrina shared all of the salient characteristics of an annular hurricane except for her retention of outer rainbands, a characteristic one could, I think, rationally assert is the least important among those listed on p206 of Knaff & Kossin's seminal study? Katrina's core "going truck-tire" southwest of Florida is immediately comparable to the evolution of Hurricane Howard, as depicted on p212. I'm far from the only person to contemplate it.

The Eskimos don't actually have twenty different words for types of snow, nor do we as many labels for types of hurricanes. When one meets most of the criteria for a particular type, it is reasonable to include it within that type (with provisos such "..., but with rainbands") for purposes of expediency, until such time as a new paper is written by authors who'll coin a new term for hurricanes which are very similar to annular hurricanes in all respects save retaining outer rainbands.

You do know that annularity has to do with the conditions around the storm, dont you? It consists of a fairly marginal environment with marginal sst's.

"...Composite analysis reveals that the typical annular hurricane exists in a very favorable hurricane environment...."
-- Knaff & Kossin, p221

Note that Isabel was advancing into warmer SSTs when she want annular. If EPAC annular hurricanes appear to go annular upon reaching cooler water, I'd assert it's merely a coincidence of them running out of warm water just as they've become completely evolved. Farther west, CPAC storms like Ioke and John (below) took very long tracks over warm SSTs and had CDOs with "truck tire" IR signatures, but otherwise had one large rainband.

Now, if the surrounding atmosphere were a bit more stable, enough to inhibit outer rainband activity at any rate, we'd be calling John annular, right? So, then, what term should we employ to describe an otherwise annular hurricane which is an environment conducive to also permitting peripheral convection?

[Category 5]

But it had lots and lots of rainbands.
That's what an annular hurricane is - part of the definition. You can't decide to change that - it's not up to you.

Theres no reasoning with people who like to make up their own facts

Is it obliquely within the realm of possibility that you would accept that max-intensity Katrina shared all of the salient characteristics of an annular hurricane except for her retention of outer rainbands, a characteristic one could, I think, rationally assert is the least important among those listed on p206 of Knaff & Kossin's seminal study? Katrina's core "going truck-tire" southwest of Florida is immediately comparable to the evolution of Hurricane Howard, as depicted on p212. I'm far from the only person to contemplate it.

The Eskimos don't actually have twenty different words for types of snow, nor do we as many labels for types of hurricanes. When one meets most of the criteria for a particular type, it is reasonable to include it within that type (with provisos such "..., but with rainbands") for purposes of expediency, until such time as a new paper is written by authors who'll coin a new term for hurricanes which are very similar to annular hurricanes in all respects save retaining outer rainbands.

You do know that annularity has to do with the conditions around the storm, dont you? It consists of a fairly marginal environment with marginal sst's.

"...Composite analysis reveals that the typical annular hurricane exists in a very favorable hurricane environment...."
-- Knaff & Kossin, p221

Note that Isabel was advancing into warmer SSTs when she want annular. If EPAC annular hurricanes appear to go annular upon reaching cooler water, I'd assert it's merely a coincidence of them running out of warm water just as they've become completely evolved. Farther west, CPAC storms like Ioke and John (below) took very long tracks over warm SSTs and had CDOs with "truck tire" IR signatures, but otherwise had one large rainband.

Now, if the surrounding atmosphere were a bit more stable, enough to inhibit outer rainband activity at any rate, we'd be calling John annular, right? So, then, what term should we employ to describe an otherwise annular hurricane which is an environment conducive to also permitting peripheral convection?

Why do you continue to deny facts?

Heres the definition

An annular hurricane is a term used in the north Atlantic Ocean and northeastern Pacific Ocean east of the International Dateline. An anuular hurricane has a rare type of hurricane that has a big, circular eyewall, and thick, deep convection around it with no spiral rainbands.


Thats means ZERO. Katrina had more then ZERO.

[Honeyko]

Were you going to answer the question?

[Category 5]

Were you going to answer the question?

I answered you with facts. Sorry if you got confused.

Trying to convince you is pointless, so I'll stop trying.

[RL3AO]

Only rain bands you say?

1) the hurricane has a normal-to-large-sized
circular eye surrounded by a single band of deep convection
containing the inner-core region and 2) the hurricane
has little or no convective activity beyond this
annulus of convection.

[Honeyko]

I asked:

"What term should we employ to describe an otherwise annular hurricane which is an environment conducive to also permitting peripheral convection?"

...and am receiving an apparent response of "Who cares?" I find it very disappointing that some do not believe that meaningful designations are useful in differentiating large-eyed hurricanes such as Katrina from small-eyed storms (even cat-5s) of lesser stature.

[Category 5]

I asked:

"What term should we employ to describe an otherwise annular hurricane which is an environment conducive to also permitting peripheral convection?"

...and am receiving an apparent response of "Who cares?" I find it very disappointing that some do not believe that meaningful designations are necessary to differentiate hurricanes such as Katrina from small-eye storms (even cat-5s) of lesser stature.

Meaningful designations, aka names.

We don't wanna put a bunch of meaningless labels on things, then people would get confused.

[Honeyko]

We don't wanna put a bunch of meaningless labels on things, then people would get confused.

Terms like Knaff & Koffin created?



==//==

Er, anyway..... Here's a weird and impressive cyclone: Dora, while at hurricane intensity, did not vary more than 4 degrees of latitude while traveling almost 70 degrees of longitude.

[arkestra]

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula.

Is it physically possible, if conditions are good?

[Category 5]

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula.

Is it physically possible, if conditions are good?

I doubt it is in the atlantic. MAYBE in the WPAC.

[Honeyko]

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula.

Is it physically possible, if conditions are good?

Doubtful; you'd be more likely to see that kind of pressure in a tiny pinhole eye storm (e.g., TC Monica) than a sprawling one with a big eye. (There's a body of thought that holds there's good reason to think Monica may have had a lower pressure than Tip.)

[Category 5]

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula.

Is it physically possible, if conditions are good?

If the Gulf loop-current were a bigger feature and the hurricane were almost stationary....why not? But it isn't, and any moving 'cane will shift off the sweet spot quickly enough.

I don't think ambient pressures are low enough for an 850mb Hurricane in the Atlantic Basin. Can a pro met or someone with the answer shine some light on this?

[Honeyko]

Augh! You quoted me as I was putting in my edit....I'll jump it forward:

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula.

Is it physically possible, if conditions are good?

Doubtful; you'd be more likely to see that kind of pressure in a tiny pinhole eye storm (e.g., TC Monica or Hu Wilma) than a sprawling one with a big eye. (There's a body of thought that holds there's good reason to think Monica may have had a lower pressure than Tip.)

[Category 5]

Augh! You quoted me as I was putting in my edit....I'll jump it forward:

However, Katrina was nowhere near its maximum intensity possible, which was around 850 mb or something outrageous like that according to Dr. Emmanuel's MPI formula.

Is it physically possible, if conditions are good?

Doubtful; you'd be more likely to see that kind of pressure in a tiny pinhole eye storm (e.g., TC Monica or Hu Wilma) than a sprawling one with a big eye. (There's a body of thought that holds there's good reason to think Monica may have had a lower pressure than Tip.)

Monica didn't have a pinhole eye at her peak.