2016 TCRs
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.
Re: 2016 TCRs
Nicole is out before Lisa which is just making me more curious as to what's going on with that one.
0 likes
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
-
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 33398
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
- Location: Deep South, for the first time!
Re: 2016 TCRs
Hammy wrote:Nicole is out before Lisa which is just making me more curious as to what's going on with that one.
There is often one or two storms that come out strangely late. But usually late TCR's are either for the most notable storms (i.e. major landfalls) or those with disputed statuses or classifications.
0 likes
-
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 33398
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
- Location: Deep South, for the first time!
Re: 2016 TCRs
Nicole was NOT a landfall on Bermuda, which makes sense given the relatively modest winds recorded there compared to aircraft (I had previously suspected it had weakened well below the operationally assessed 105 kt at the time, despite the fact that aircraft supported such).
0 likes
- galaxy401
- Category 5
- Posts: 2300
- Age: 29
- Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:04 pm
- Location: Casa Grande, Arizona
Re: 2016 TCRs
Big thing to note with Nicole was after it passed Bermuda. It remained a tropical cyclone but according to the report, Nicole was transitioning to an extratropical cyclone before it regained tropical characteristics. May have been close to subtropical.
0 likes
Got my eyes on moving right into Hurricane Alley: Florida.
Re: 2016 TCRs
CrazyC83 wrote:Nicole was NOT a landfall on Bermuda, which makes sense given the relatively modest winds recorded there compared to aircraft (I had previously suspected it had weakened well below the operationally assessed 105 kt at the time, despite the fact that aircraft supported such).
Being small as it is, wouldn't Bermuda have missed the strongest winds as the island is smaller than the eye and thus didn't receive any of the eastern half?
0 likes
The above post is not official and should not be used as such. It is the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is not endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
-
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 33398
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
- Location: Deep South, for the first time!
Re: 2016 TCRs
Lisa and Seymour are out.
Remaining NHC TCR's: Matthew, Blas, Howard, Roslyn, Ulika
Remaining NHC TCR's: Matthew, Blas, Howard, Roslyn, Ulika
0 likes
- galaxy401
- Category 5
- Posts: 2300
- Age: 29
- Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:04 pm
- Location: Casa Grande, Arizona
Re: 2016 TCRs
After a lull, Ulika has been released.
0 likes
Got my eyes on moving right into Hurricane Alley: Florida.
-
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 33398
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
- Location: Deep South, for the first time!
Re: 2016 TCRs
It seems the NHC is late publishing them, usually they are all out by now especially with the WMO meeting next week. I wonder why the delay?
1 likes
- TheAustinMan
- Category 5
- Posts: 1015
- Age: 24
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:26 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: 2016 TCRs
In case anyone was curious in the average amount of time it takes for a TCR to be published... here's a chart. I wasn't able to get data on some storms because only the date of revision was listed and not the original publication date. Atlantic storms only for this data below, but I imagine EPAC figures would look similar.
0 likes
-
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 33398
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
- Location: Deep South, for the first time!
Re: 2016 TCRs
TheAustinMan wrote:In case anyone was curious in the average amount of time it takes for a TCR to be published... here's a chart. I wasn't able to get data on some storms because only the date of revision was listed and not the original publication date. Atlantic storms only for this data below, but I imagine EPAC figures would look similar.
http://i.imgur.com/kZyJxvc.png
Slower seasons (especially when both the EPAC and Atlantic are near or below normal) are generally quicker, plus before about 2003 or so they were not as in depth.
0 likes
- galaxy401
- Category 5
- Posts: 2300
- Age: 29
- Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:04 pm
- Location: Casa Grande, Arizona
Re: 2016 TCRs
Nice to see a report again, been awhile since the last one. Blas formed over 9 months ago. Surprised Howard and Roslyn are taking awhile considering they were short lived storms. Matthew is understandable due to a lot of stuff to write and detail.
0 likes
Got my eyes on moving right into Hurricane Alley: Florida.
-
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 33398
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
- Location: Deep South, for the first time!
Re: 2016 TCRs
Howard and Roslyn just released, finishing off the EPAC.
Only Matthew is still outstanding, and that should be over 100 pages long.
Only Matthew is still outstanding, and that should be over 100 pages long.
0 likes
-
- Tropical Depression
- Posts: 68
- Age: 24
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 9:43 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
Re: 2016 TCRs
I hope the TCR is released soon for Matthew.... its been killing me to know what Matthew was really doing during its lifetime.
Any predictions from you all about what the NHC may change intensity, track, damage estimates, etc?
Any predictions from you all about what the NHC may change intensity, track, damage estimates, etc?
0 likes
The following post is NOT an official forecast and should not be used as such. It is just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is NOT endorsed by any professional institution including storm2k.org For Official Information please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
- cycloneye
- Admin
- Posts: 139596
- Age: 67
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
- Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Re: 2016 TCRs
Hurricane Matthew report is up.
A extract of report:
Matthew’s estimated peak intensity of 145 kt at 0000 UTC 1 October is based on SFMRmeasured surface winds of 143 kt at 0010 UTC. Post-storm quality control checks made by the NOAA Hurricane Research Division (HRD) suggest that was a reliable report. These peak wind speeds were observed at the end of the rapid intensification cycle, during which time Matthew’s radius of maximum winds had contracted down from 30 n mi to approximately 5 n mi.
Matthew’s estimated minimum central pressure of 934 mb, which was first observed at 0000 UTC 4 October, is based on a dropwindsonde surface pressure measurement of 934 mb at 2343 UTC 3 October, which was accompanied by a surface wind of 4 kt. The estimated central pressure of 942 mb at the time of Matthew’s 145-kt peak intensity is based on a dropwindsonde surface pressure measurement of 944 mb at 0125 UTC 1 October, which was accompanied by a surface wind of 18 kt
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL142016_Matthew.pdf
A extract of report:
Matthew’s estimated peak intensity of 145 kt at 0000 UTC 1 October is based on SFMRmeasured surface winds of 143 kt at 0010 UTC. Post-storm quality control checks made by the NOAA Hurricane Research Division (HRD) suggest that was a reliable report. These peak wind speeds were observed at the end of the rapid intensification cycle, during which time Matthew’s radius of maximum winds had contracted down from 30 n mi to approximately 5 n mi.
Matthew’s estimated minimum central pressure of 934 mb, which was first observed at 0000 UTC 4 October, is based on a dropwindsonde surface pressure measurement of 934 mb at 2343 UTC 3 October, which was accompanied by a surface wind of 4 kt. The estimated central pressure of 942 mb at the time of Matthew’s 145-kt peak intensity is based on a dropwindsonde surface pressure measurement of 944 mb at 0125 UTC 1 October, which was accompanied by a surface wind of 18 kt
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL142016_Matthew.pdf
0 likes
Visit the Caribbean-Central America Weather Thread where you can find at first post web cams,radars
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here
-
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 33398
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
- Location: Deep South, for the first time!
Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up
Quite a few interesting things I noted in the Matthew report.
1) If you look at the graph near the end, the KZC P-W for 145 kt at its wind peak was 916mb, while the actual pressure was 942mb. There was a significant difference in pressure there - so there may have been some other factors that allowed it to become a Cat 5 during that time.
2) They kept the intensity constant in the 11 hours before Haiti landfall. Yet it appears the satellite presentation improved in that time (with no Recon available). I would have at least gone 135 kt there and had a lower minimum pressure.
3) Some of the intensities near the coast were increased - the SC landfall upped from 65 to 75 kt.
1) If you look at the graph near the end, the KZC P-W for 145 kt at its wind peak was 916mb, while the actual pressure was 942mb. There was a significant difference in pressure there - so there may have been some other factors that allowed it to become a Cat 5 during that time.
2) They kept the intensity constant in the 11 hours before Haiti landfall. Yet it appears the satellite presentation improved in that time (with no Recon available). I would have at least gone 135 kt there and had a lower minimum pressure.
3) Some of the intensities near the coast were increased - the SC landfall upped from 65 to 75 kt.
0 likes
Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up
CrazyC83 wrote:Quite a few interesting things I noted in the Matthew report.
1) If you look at the graph near the end, the KZC P-W for 145 kt at its wind peak was 916mb, while the actual pressure was 942mb. There was a significant difference in pressure there - so there may have been some other factors that allowed it to become a Cat 5 during that time.
2) They kept the intensity constant in the 11 hours before Haiti landfall. Yet it appears the satellite presentation improved in that time (with no Recon available). I would have at least gone 135 kt there and had a lower minimum pressure.
3) Some of the intensities near the coast were increased - the SC landfall upped from 65 to 75 kt.
That's why you NEVER rely upon a P/W relationship 100%. The south-central Caribbean almost ALWAYS has higher pressures than what would be expected given a particular wind speed. Likewise, the NW Caribbean and Gulf often require lower than expected pressures to support a given wind
1 likes
- 1900hurricane
- Category 5
- Posts: 6044
- Age: 33
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
- Contact:
Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up
The finalized data pushes Matthew's ACE above 50*10**4 kt**2 and put the year almost to 140*10**4 kt**2, the highest since 2010.
0 likes
Contract Meteorologist. TAMU & MSST. Fiercely authentic, one of a kind. We are all given free will, so choose a life meant to be lived. We are the Masters of our own Stories.
Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Follow me on Twitter at @1900hurricane : Read blogs at https://1900hurricane.wordpress.com/
Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Follow me on Twitter at @1900hurricane : Read blogs at https://1900hurricane.wordpress.com/
-
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 33398
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
- Location: Deep South, for the first time!
Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up
It makes me wonder - should Felix in 2007 be revisited?
At peak intensity, it had some similarities to Matthew - quite a high pressure, very deep convection and tons of lightning in the eyewall. It was analyzed at 150 kt based on a blend of data including an SFMR reading of 163 kt and flight-level winds of 161 kt, which supports about 145 kt (a data gap also existed as Recon was forced to leave due to graupel in the eyewall). Maybe the 163 kt SFMR is accurate and the peak intensity should be raised to 160 or 165 kt?
In the case of Matthew, the flight-level winds never supported Cat 5 (highest were 143 kt at the time of lowest pressure, and they were around 140 kt at peak intensity, supporting an intensity of around 125 kt at that time), and in rapidly intensifying storms the 90% rule has been proven to often be inaccurate and an underestimate, particularly when convectively active.
At peak intensity, it had some similarities to Matthew - quite a high pressure, very deep convection and tons of lightning in the eyewall. It was analyzed at 150 kt based on a blend of data including an SFMR reading of 163 kt and flight-level winds of 161 kt, which supports about 145 kt (a data gap also existed as Recon was forced to leave due to graupel in the eyewall). Maybe the 163 kt SFMR is accurate and the peak intensity should be raised to 160 or 165 kt?
In the case of Matthew, the flight-level winds never supported Cat 5 (highest were 143 kt at the time of lowest pressure, and they were around 140 kt at peak intensity, supporting an intensity of around 125 kt at that time), and in rapidly intensifying storms the 90% rule has been proven to often be inaccurate and an underestimate, particularly when convectively active.
0 likes
Re: 2016 TCRs= Hurricane Matthew report is up
CrazyC83 wrote:It makes me wonder - should Felix in 2007 be revisited?
At peak intensity, it had some similarities to Matthew - quite a high pressure, very deep convection and tons of lightning in the eyewall. It was analyzed at 150 kt based on a blend of data including an SFMR reading of 163 kt and flight-level winds of 161 kt, which supports about 145 kt (a data gap also existed as Recon was forced to leave due to graupel in the eyewall). Maybe the 163 kt SFMR is accurate and the peak intensity should be raised to 160 or 165 kt?
In the case of Matthew, the flight-level winds never supported Cat 5 (highest were 143 kt at the time of lowest pressure, and they were around 140 kt at peak intensity, supporting an intensity of around 125 kt at that time), and in rapidly intensifying storms the 90% rule has been proven to often be inaccurate and an underestimate, particularly when convectively active.
of course it should. As should Andrew
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: BigB0882, Emmett_Brown, HurricaneBelle, JtSmarts, TheAustinMan and 96 guests