Discussion of Intense Tropical Cyclones

[404UserNotFound]

The SPAC paper mentioned in earlier posts is now freely accessible ...

Where?

[supercane4867]

The SPAC paper mentioned in earlier posts is now freely accessible ...

Where?

It should be only available to some educational institutions. I was able to view the full article using internet at my university, but I noticed it still requires access when I view it at home.

[CrazyC83]

Based on all that and what we have learned, I would go ahead and upgrade Felix to 160 or 165 kt at peak intensity at 0300Z on September 3, 2007 (shortly after Recon was chased away). I'd treat that SFMR reading as pretty much reasonable, despite the graupel in the eyewall at the time. The backside SFMR of 142 kt in a storm moving reasonably fast would also support such.

Some other things on Irma: the highest flight level winds were 171 kt, which is supportive in itself of a 155 kt intensity (SFMR supported 160 kt at the time). At that time the satellite signature didn't support an extreme intensity, but it improved later on. During the ensuing day or so, the flight level winds were largely in the 162-167 range, which would translate to about 150 kt if no SFMR data was available (the SFMR consistently supported 160, although there was a short while around the Barbuda landfall where I would make a case for an intensity of 165 kt).

[mrbagyo]

I think the most important takeaway from recon observation of CAT5s in recent years is that the flight level to surface wind relationship is more complex than we thought.

It's not more complex. The Black et al paper gave a range of reduction factors from 700mb to the surface of .6 to 1.2. What we've been able to tell conclusively in the past couple of years with a relatively large dataset is that for storms in the deep tropics, or moving westward under a strong ridge in a purely barotropic environment (and not undergoing an EWRC), the surface winds are usually equal to or greater than the flight level winds.

This is why I believe Andrew was 170 kts at landfall, not the 145 that reanalysis found (the initial 25 kts failed almost any basic science test as a gradient wind analysis found winds at 140 kts)

I think the forgotten brother of Super Typhoon Tip 1979 would qualify based on your criteria.

Typhoon Vera was a classic WPAC November sprinter at times moving at a forward speed between 37 to 41 kph (as noted on ATCR). Max flight level wind of 170 knots was also observed when it was undergoing RI about 1 hour before this BD enhanced ir image was taken.
Minimum pressure was quite high at 915 mb ( but still lower than Andrew and almost the same as Irma)
Official intensity per ATCR is "only" at 140 knots

[Alyono]

I think the most important takeaway from recon observation of CAT5s in recent years is that the flight level to surface wind relationship is more complex than we thought.

It's not more complex. The Black et al paper gave a range of reduction factors from 700mb to the surface of .6 to 1.2. What we've been able to tell conclusively in the past couple of years with a relatively large dataset is that for storms in the deep tropics, or moving westward under a strong ridge in a purely barotropic environment (and not undergoing an EWRC), the surface winds are usually equal to or greater than the flight level winds.

This is why I believe Andrew was 170 kts at landfall, not the 145 that reanalysis found (the initial 25 kts failed almost any basic science test as a gradient wind analysis found winds at 140 kts)

I think the forgotten brother of Super Typhoon Tip 1979 would qualify based on your criteria.

Typhoon Vera was a classic WPAC November sprinter at times moving at a forward speed between 37 to 41 kph (as noted on ATCR). Max flight level wind of 170 knots was also observed when it was undergoing RI about 1 hour before this BD enhanced ir image was taken.
Minimum pressure was quite high at 915 mb ( but still lower than Andrew and almost the same as Irma)
Official intensity per ATCR is "only" at 140 knots

seems like it was at least 155 kts if not higher. The fast motion seems to indicate a strong ridge. Megi had the mean reduction factor of about 90%, but it was larger and had a weaker ridge

[FireRat]

Another blast from the past, Super Typhoon Sisang/ Nina 30th anniversary landfall coming up on 11/25:





That one wrecked the Philippines, killing over 1000 people. Struck just after recon ended in the WPAC, who knows what they would've found!

[euro6208]

Might as well do a complete reanalysis on the WPAC. I see a lot of underestimated storms after recon and even some during the recon era.

[mrbagyo]

Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah


The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.

[doomhaMwx]

Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah

[img]---[/img]
The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.

I have read that paper before, and its VERY interesting/informative!

[xtyphooncyclonex]

Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah


The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.

Meanwhile, Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts insist Typhoon Haiyan was just pure hype and was "just a cat 5 with 140-145 kt winds." They have probably never heard of the Japanese Koba Scale, which equates CI8.0 to 122 kts, which is the absolute limit of their scale. Wonder how tip got 140 kts, btw... One thing's for sure: RMW and pressure gradient were extremely tight in the case of Haiyan

I'm going to be extremely frank and say the following

(1) Let's not take these two seriously at all

(2) Abolish the Koba scale, or even the JMA being RSMC (maintain 10-min winds with another agency if otherwise)

(3) Propose talks among member countries and WMO to begin reconnaisance flights over the West Pacific

[Ptarmigan]

Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah


The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.

Super Typhoon Haiyan was really strong. I think the central pressure was lower than 910 millibars, possible as low as 890 millibars.

It also produce monsterous storm surge that acted like tsunami.

[Alyono]

Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah


The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.

Meanwhile, Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts insist Typhoon Haiyan was just pure hype and was "just a cat 5 with 140-145 kt winds." They have probably never heard of the Japanese Koba Scale, which equates CI8.0 to 122 kts, which is the absolute limit of their scale. Wonder how tip got 140 kts, btw... One thing's for sure: RMW and pressure gradient were extremely tight in the case of Haiyan

I'm going to be extremely frank and say the following

(1) Let's not take these two seriously at all

(2) Abolish the Koba scale, or even the JMA being RSMC (maintain 10-min winds with another agency if otherwise)

(3) Propose talks among member countries and WMO to begin reconnaisance flights over the West Pacific

Bastardi does not know what he's talking about in this case. No other way to put it. There is ZERO objective data to say that Haiyan was 140-145 kts. Absolutely zero. If he insists upon that, I will question his credentials as a scientist. We has Megi, which had LOWER Dvorak numbers, that had measured 175 kt surface winds from the SFMR. You're telling me that a TC with a higher Dvorak number was 30 kt weaker?

Haiyan was likely around 180-185 kts, similar to Patricia at its peak intensity

[xtyphooncyclonex]

Just read the Kubota, Cayanan et al paper regarding Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Whoah


The lowest VERIFIED, observed pressure (Station pressure) in Guiuan was 910 mb. The Guiuan doppler radar measured winds in excess of 100m/s or 360kph.

Meanwhile, Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts insist Typhoon Haiyan was just pure hype and was "just a cat 5 with 140-145 kt winds." They have probably never heard of the Japanese Koba Scale, which equates CI8.0 to 122 kts, which is the absolute limit of their scale. Wonder how tip got 140 kts, btw... One thing's for sure: RMW and pressure gradient were extremely tight in the case of Haiyan

I'm going to be extremely frank and say the following

(1) Let's not take these two seriously at all

(2) Abolish the Koba scale, or even the JMA being RSMC (maintain 10-min winds with another agency if otherwise)

(3) Propose talks among member countries and WMO to begin reconnaisance flights over the West Pacific

Bastardi does not know what he's talking about in this case. No other way to put it. There is ZERO objective data to say that Haiyan was 140-145 kts. Absolutely zero. If he insists upon that, I will question his credentials as a scientist. We has Megi, which had LOWER Dvorak numbers, that had measured 175 kt surface winds from the SFMR. You're telling me that a TC with a higher Dvorak number was 30 kt weaker?

Haiyan was likely around 180-185 kts, similar to Patricia at its peak intensity

I find this article insensitive. Here it is, containing their "proof"

Bastardi tweeted in 2013 something relating to this and questioning the "hype"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/ ... n-yolanda/

[euro6208]

Plain and simple. If the EPAC can produce Patricia out from nowhere after having only Linda from 1997 peaking at 905 mb and the Atlantic can produce Wilma after Gilbert more than 14 years apart, how much more can the WPAC produce? The recon era proved that this basin can produce incredibly powerful historic typhoons mostly every year which had been talked about for years. Now no recon...We have seen incredibly powerful typhoons come and go since post recon but no honorable mention of them because they are just estimated from satellite but these typhoons have the most powerful satellite presentations we have ever seen worldwide. Dvorak peaking at 7.5 or higher and a very warm eye. It's sad to think what we might have found.

[xtyphooncyclonex]

Plain and simple. If the EPAC can produce Patricia out from nowhere after having only Linda from 1997 peaking at 905 mb and the Atlantic can produce Wilma after Gilbert more than 14 years apart, how much more can the WPAC produce? The recon era proved that this basin can produce incredibly powerful historic typhoons mostly every year which had been talked about for years. Now no recon...We have seen incredibly powerful typhoons come and go since post recon but no honorable mention of them because they are just estimated from satellite but these typhoons have the most powerful satellite presentations we have ever seen worldwide. Dvorak peaking at 7.5 or higher and a very warm eye. It's sad to think what we might have found.

Dvorak was most likely RIGHT about Haiyan seeing the damage over Tanauan, Guiuan, Homonhon and Tolosa---all seeing cat 5 winds during the onslaught. It isn't reliable esp with pinhole eyes, large eyes or cold convection. Remember having cat 2- low end 3 hurricane Bill 2009 nearing cat 5 in Dvorak. It isn't wasting so much ACE or many typhoons, but Dvorak can't get the intensity right--this shouldn't be another opportunity to mention typhoons are more than hurricanes all the time..... or something like it

[Shell Mound]

Speaking of intense tropical cyclones, I would like to add to the discussion some pre-satellite Atlantic storms for which there is ample (though far from ideal) observational coverage: the twin Indianola hurricanes in Texas (1875 and '86), the twin Galveston hurricanes (1900 and '15), the 1926 Miami hurricane, Hurricane San Felipe Segundo / Okeechobee (1928), the 1935 Labor Day hurricane, the 1938 (New England) and 1944 (Great Atlantic) hurricanes, and Donna (1960). A recent study (see the appendix) found that the 1875 hurricane may have had a pressure as low as 928 mb as it neared Texas, apparently based on newly uncovered ship reports as well as storm-surge data. A storm surge of fifteen feet affected portions of the Texas coastline in and near Indianola. The 1886 hurricane produced a similarly high surge and generated a pressure of 965 mb at San Antonio, well inland from the barrier islands. A study by a storm-surge specialist estimated that the 1915 hurricane was a strong Category 4 cyclone with a 930-mb pressure at landfall in Texas that produced a potential storm-surge height of at least thirty feet, though the reanalysis project found the system to be 115 knots (940 mb) at landfall, making it a low-end Category 4 cyclone. The 1926 hurricane may have briefly been a Category 5 cyclone over the Bahamas, given the damage and sparseness of observations as well as later data from South Florida. The 1928 cyclone definitely appears to have been a solid Category 5 over Puerto Rico, based on observations; it may well have been stronger than 120 knots over Guadeloupe. The 1935 Labor Day hurricane was almost certainly stronger than the 160 knots it received in the reanalysis, based on the tiny RMW, rapid deepening, and high background pressures, given its proximity to a subtropical ridge. Ship reports at sea (not land data) strongly suggest that the 1938 and 1944 hurricanes may well have exceeded the minimum Category-5 threshold at their peaks; one study assessed the central pressure to be 909 mb in the latter storm to the northeast of the Bahamas. Donna's radar presentation in the Keys, with its concentric, closed, intense eyewall, was extremely impressive, even when the crudeness of the technology in 1960 is considered.

[tolakram]

I find this article insensitive. Here it is, containing their "proof"

Bastardi tweeted in 2013 something relating to this and questioning the "hype"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/ ... n-yolanda/

Bastardi likes to see his name thrown around, so here we are throwing it around. This is why I react so negatively when I see the 'hype' word used, most of the time the person claiming hype has no clue what they are talking about or is working with subjective data. Hype is not a word that belongs in a scientific analysis, IMO.

[storm_in_a_teacup]

I find this article insensitive. Here it is, containing their "proof"

Bastardi tweeted in 2013 something relating to this and questioning the "hype"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/ ... n-yolanda/

Bastardi likes to see his name thrown around, so here we are throwing it around. This is why I react so negatively when I see the 'hype' word used, most of the time the person claiming hype has no clue what they are talking about or is working with subjective data. Hype is not a word that belongs in a scientific analysis, IMO.

You have not seen the things people say about astronomical events, then. Obviously severe weather is dangerous, and so can never be reduced to "hype," but if someone starts spouting off about a "supermoon?"... yeah hype is the scientific term for that.

[euro6208]

One of the most underestimated typhoons EVER is coming up. 11 years since Super Typhoon Cimaron made landfall over the Philippines. Assigned only as a 140 knot system but AFWA and SSD gave it 7.5, JTWC at 7.8 (Near 190 mph), and a forecaster from SAB using a second type of estimate gave it 8.0 due to restrictions stemming from it's rapid intensification.

My oh my...

[xtyphooncyclonex]

Haiyan may not have a central pressure as low as many estimate, but the winds were powerful---more than the JTWC/JMA have given officially. I reckon 890-905 hPa at peak with winds of 180-190 kts