2020 TCRs

[galaxy401]

I actually was a little surprised to see Zeta get upgraded. We can now discard that supposed leak earlier about those unreleased storms.

With that and Gamma's upgrade, the Greek storms were a very impressive 9-6-5.

[ncforecaster89]

Zeta’s upgrade pretty much eliminates any chance of Iota’s downgrade being possible since the table is now officially known to have been incorrect

I’m pleased to see that the aforementioned chart isn’t indicative of the NHC’s forthcoming intensity estimates. So strange that it had modified intensities for both Iota and Eta on it. I think Eta being increased to 135 kt is warranted, however, but would keep Iota at 140 kt.

[ncforecaster89]

As others have noted, I find it rather strange that the Sally TCR contains no discussion or reference to the radial velocity data, yet it was such an integral part of the upgrade for Zeta.

Consequently, I’m wondering if these subjective determinations could be influenced by who actually writes the reports...similar to how some forecasters are more bullish while others are more conservative when assessing intensities during operational advisories? In other words, I wonder if these BT intensities are discussed collectively amongst all forecasters or just made by the authors, themselves. I’d think it’d be the former, but I’d be interested to know for sure.

[ColdMiser123]

As others have noted, I find it rather strange that the Sally TCR contains no discussion or reference to the radial velocity data, yet it was such an integral part of the upgrade for Zeta.

Consequently, I’m wondering if these subjective determinations could be influenced by who actually writes the reports...similar to how some forecasters are more bullish while others are more conservative when assessing intensities during operational advisories? In other words, I wonder if these BT intensities are discussed collectively amongst all forecasters or just made by the authors, themselves. I’d think it’d be the former, but I’d be interested to know for sure.

My understanding with research in general is that the lead author does the overwhelming majority of the work when it comes to both the results, and writing up the actual article itself. Blake was the lead author for Zeta, and Berg was the lead author for Sally. Had Blake also written the Sally TCR, we may have seen the WSR-88D radial velocity bins mentioned, and perhaps a resultant different conclusion for the final intensity.

WSR-88D radial velocity measurements give you a high resolution, frequently updating measurement of the storm's wind structure. Arguably the best we have in terms of complete coverage of a landfalling storm. Not using it when determining max intensity will by definition give you an incomplete picture as to what was actually taking place leading up to landfall.

[Hammy]

As others have noted, I find it rather strange that the Sally TCR contains no discussion or reference to the radial velocity data, yet it was such an integral part of the upgrade for Zeta.

Consequently, I’m wondering if these subjective determinations could be influenced by who actually writes the reports...similar to how some forecasters are more bullish while others are more conservative when assessing intensities during operational advisories? In other words, I wonder if these BT intensities are discussed collectively amongst all forecasters or just made by the authors, themselves. I’d think it’d be the former, but I’d be interested to know for sure.

My understanding with research in general is that the lead author does the overwhelming majority of the work when it comes to both the results, and writing up the actual article itself. Blake was the lead author for Zeta, and Berg was the lead author for Sally. Had Blake also written the Sally TCR, we may have seen the WSR-88D radial velocity bins mentioned, and perhaps a resultant different conclusion for the final intensity.

WSR-88D radial velocity measurements give you a high resolution, frequently updating measurement of the storm's wind structure. Arguably the best we have in terms of complete coverage of a landfalling storm. Not using it when determining max intensity will by definition give you an incomplete picture as to what was actually taking place leading up to landfall.

Berg seems hesitant to upgrade anything--he also did the reports for Joaquin in 2015 and Jose in 2017, both of which had some subjective evidence for upgrades where it comes down to a judgement call, and opted to keep the operational category.

[EquusStorm]

Jose not being a category five and others (Matthew/Lorenzo) making the cut is forever bizarre. Forecaster subjectivity irks me tremendously

[Iceresistance]

Jose not being a category five and others (Matthew/Lorenzo) making the cut is forever bizarre. Forecaster subjectivity irks me tremendously

Well, even though that Jose in 2017 was impressive, it was likely just shy of a CAT 5 storm . . .

[ElectricStorm]

Jose not being a category five and others (Matthew/Lorenzo) making the cut is forever bizarre. Forecaster subjectivity irks me tremendously

Well, even though that Jose in 2017 was impressive, it was likely just shy of a CAT 5 storm . . .

I don't want to get too far OT here but I personally think Jose was more of a Cat 5 than Matthew was...

[MarioProtVI]

As others have noted, I find it rather strange that the Sally TCR contains no discussion or reference to the radial velocity data, yet it was such an integral part of the upgrade for Zeta.

Consequently, I’m wondering if these subjective determinations could be influenced by who actually writes the reports...similar to how some forecasters are more bullish while others are more conservative when assessing intensities during operational advisories? In other words, I wonder if these BT intensities are discussed collectively amongst all forecasters or just made by the authors, themselves. I’d think it’d be the former, but I’d be interested to know for sure.

My understanding with research in general is that the lead author does the overwhelming majority of the work when it comes to both the results, and writing up the actual article itself. Blake was the lead author for Zeta, and Berg was the lead author for Sally. Had Blake also written the Sally TCR, we may have seen the WSR-88D radial velocity bins mentioned, and perhaps a resultant different conclusion for the final intensity.

WSR-88D radial velocity measurements give you a high resolution, frequently updating measurement of the storm's wind structure. Arguably the best we have in terms of complete coverage of a landfalling storm. Not using it when determining max intensity will by definition give you an incomplete picture as to what was actually taking place leading up to landfall.

Berg seems hesitant to upgrade anything--he also did the reports for Joaquin in 2015 and Jose in 2017, both of which had some subjective evidence for upgrades where it comes down to a judgement call, and opted to keep the operational category.

Ironically he did the peak advisory for Igor and held it at 155 mph despite the white ring mostly wrapping around

[aspen]

My understanding with research in general is that the lead author does the overwhelming majority of the work when it comes to both the results, and writing up the actual article itself. Blake was the lead author for Zeta, and Berg was the lead author for Sally. Had Blake also written the Sally TCR, we may have seen the WSR-88D radial velocity bins mentioned, and perhaps a resultant different conclusion for the final intensity.

WSR-88D radial velocity measurements give you a high resolution, frequently updating measurement of the storm's wind structure. Arguably the best we have in terms of complete coverage of a landfalling storm. Not using it when determining max intensity will by definition give you an incomplete picture as to what was actually taking place leading up to landfall.

Berg seems hesitant to upgrade anything--he also did the reports for Joaquin in 2015 and Jose in 2017, both of which had some subjective evidence for upgrades where it comes down to a judgement call, and opted to keep the operational category.

Ironically he did the peak advisory for Igor and held it at 155 mph despite the white ring mostly wrapping around

If Berg is writing the report on Iota, would he be conservative enough to actually downgrade it?

[ncforecaster89]

As others have noted, I find it rather strange that the Sally TCR contains no discussion or reference to the radial velocity data, yet it was such an integral part of the upgrade for Zeta.

Consequently, I’m wondering if these subjective determinations could be influenced by who actually writes the reports...similar to how some forecasters are more bullish while others are more conservative when assessing intensities during operational advisories? In other words, I wonder if these BT intensities are discussed collectively amongst all forecasters or just made by the authors, themselves. I’d think it’d be the former, but I’d be interested to know for sure.

My understanding with research in general is that the lead author does the overwhelming majority of the work when it comes to both the results, and writing up the actual article itself. Blake was the lead author for Zeta, and Berg was the lead author for Sally. Had Blake also written the Sally TCR, we may have seen the WSR-88D radial velocity bins mentioned, and perhaps a resultant different conclusion for the final intensity.

WSR-88D radial velocity measurements give you a high resolution, frequently updating measurement of the storm's wind structure. Arguably the best we have in terms of complete coverage of a landfalling storm. Not using it when determining max intensity will by definition give you an incomplete picture as to what was actually taking place leading up to landfall.

Thanks for the reply! I wasn’t sure given that the HURDAT best track reanalysis project has a team (committee) that meets to approve the intensities suggested by those like Chris Landsea, and wondered if a similar process could be involved. If not, it might be a good idea to insure consistency when making such decisions.

Like you noted, I’m most disappointed that “Berg” apparently chose to ignore some of the most accurate and significant data available to best determine the intensity of Sally. Based on those data, the in-situ wind measurement just inland of Orange Beach, and the 700 mb FL winds, I’d argue there’s more support for a 100 kt Cat 3 estimate rather than 95 kt.

[ColdMiser123]

As others have noted, I find it rather strange that the Sally TCR contains no discussion or reference to the radial velocity data, yet it was such an integral part of the upgrade for Zeta.

Consequently, I’m wondering if these subjective determinations could be influenced by who actually writes the reports...similar to how some forecasters are more bullish while others are more conservative when assessing intensities during operational advisories? In other words, I wonder if these BT intensities are discussed collectively amongst all forecasters or just made by the authors, themselves. I’d think it’d be the former, but I’d be interested to know for sure.

My understanding with research in general is that the lead author does the overwhelming majority of the work when it comes to both the results, and writing up the actual article itself. Blake was the lead author for Zeta, and Berg was the lead author for Sally. Had Blake also written the Sally TCR, we may have seen the WSR-88D radial velocity bins mentioned, and perhaps a resultant different conclusion for the final intensity.

WSR-88D radial velocity measurements give you a high resolution, frequently updating measurement of the storm's wind structure. Arguably the best we have in terms of complete coverage of a landfalling storm. Not using it when determining max intensity will by definition give you an incomplete picture as to what was actually taking place leading up to landfall.

Thanks for the reply! I wasn’t sure given that the HURDAT best track reanalysis project has a team (committee) that meets to approve the intensities suggested by those like Chris Landsea, and wondered if a similar process could be involved. If not, it might be a good idea to insure consistency when making such decisions.

Like you noted, I’m most disappointed that “Berg” apparently chose to ignore some of the most accurate and significant data available to best determine the intensity of Sally. Based on those data, the in-situ wind measurement just inland of Orange Beach, and the 700 mb FL winds, I’d argue there’s more support for a 100 kt Cat 3 estimate rather than 95 kt.

No problem! At the very least, you can say definitively that the Sally TCR is an incomplete analysis, since it doesn't incorporate all the data that it could have. Which is unfortunate, since the point of post-season analysis is to analyze all data not readily available in real time.

[tolakram]

Everyone: Let's back away from the SUBJECTIVE review of individual forecasters please. Give opinions about the TCR's, not who you think is responsible for it.

[InfernoFlameCat]

I think Laura will have a peak of 135 knots however with a landfall intensity of 130 knots reason being a weaker structure with loss in both cloud tops and eye symmetry in the hurricane. Also the pressure did slightly rise before landfall from 937 mb to 940mb and back to 938mb.

[ColdMiser123]

This is Figure 5 from the Zeta TCR. I think this is great, it shows you the WSR-88D radar velocity analysis that was done, and it also shows you that hurricane hunter aircraft missed the strongest winds, undersampling Zeta's max winds as a result.

[Shell Mound]

As others have noted, I find it rather strange that the Sally TCR contains no discussion or reference to the radial velocity data, yet it was such an integral part of the upgrade for Zeta.

Consequently, I’m wondering if these subjective determinations could be influenced by who actually writes the reports...similar to how some forecasters are more bullish while others are more conservative when assessing intensities during operational advisories? In other words, I wonder if these BT intensities are discussed collectively amongst all forecasters or just made by the authors, themselves. I’d think it’d be the former, but I’d be interested to know for sure.

My understanding with research in general is that the lead author does the overwhelming majority of the work when it comes to both the results, and writing up the actual article itself. Blake was the lead author for Zeta, and Berg was the lead author for Sally. Had Blake also written the Sally TCR, we may have seen the WSR-88D radial velocity bins mentioned, and perhaps a resultant different conclusion for the final intensity.

WSR-88D radial velocity measurements give you a high resolution, frequently updating measurement of the storm's wind structure. Arguably the best we have in terms of complete coverage of a landfalling storm. Not using it when determining max intensity will by definition give you an incomplete picture as to what was actually taking place leading up to landfall.

Why not send an email to the NHC and/or Robbie Berg inquiring as to why the NEXRAD data were not applied to Sally’s case?

In my view, Sally should be upgraded to 100 kt, Jose to 145–50 kt, and Joaquin to 140 kt. Matthew should be listed as 130 kt.

Edit: Name has been corrected in bold.

[Iceresistance]

As others have noted, I find it rather strange that the Sally TCR contains no discussion or reference to the radial velocity data, yet it was such an integral part of the upgrade for Zeta.

Consequently, I’m wondering if these subjective determinations could be influenced by who actually writes the reports...similar to how some forecasters are more bullish while others are more conservative when assessing intensities during operational advisories? In other words, I wonder if these BT intensities are discussed collectively amongst all forecasters or just made by the authors, themselves. I’d think it’d be the former, but I’d be interested to know for sure.

My understanding with research in general is that the lead author does the overwhelming majority of the work when it comes to both the results, and writing up the actual article itself. Blake was the lead author for Zeta, and Berg was the lead author for Sally. Had Blake also written the Sally TCR, we may have seen the WSR-88D radial velocity bins mentioned, and perhaps a resultant different conclusion for the final intensity.

WSR-88D radial velocity measurements give you a high resolution, frequently updating measurement of the storm's wind structure. Arguably the best we have in terms of complete coverage of a landfalling storm. Not using it when determining max intensity will by definition give you an incomplete picture as to what was actually taking place leading up to landfall.

Why not send an email to the NHC and/or Ronnie Berg inquiring as to why the NEXRAD data were not applied to Sally’s case?

In my view, Sally should be upgraded to 100 kt, Jose to 145–50 kt, and Joaquin to 140 kt. Matthew should be listed as 130 kt.

Matthew was initially at 160 mph, but further analysis showed that it was STRONGER, because it had a pinhole eye . . . As shown in the 2016 TCR of Matthew

Matthew underwent a 24-h period of rapid intensification (RI) between 0000 UTC 30 September and 0000
UTC 1 October, during which time Matthew’s eye diameter contracted from roughly 30 n mi to 5
n mi. The hurricane strengthened an extraordinary 75 kt, reaching an estimated peak
intensity of 145 kt at 0000 UTC 1 October when located less than 80 n mi north of Punta Gallinas,
Colombia. This intensity made Matthew the southernmost category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic
basin, surpassing a record previously set by Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

[ColdMiser123]

As others have noted, I find it rather strange that the Sally TCR contains no discussion or reference to the radial velocity data, yet it was such an integral part of the upgrade for Zeta.

Consequently, I’m wondering if these subjective determinations could be influenced by who actually writes the reports...similar to how some forecasters are more bullish while others are more conservative when assessing intensities during operational advisories? In other words, I wonder if these BT intensities are discussed collectively amongst all forecasters or just made by the authors, themselves. I’d think it’d be the former, but I’d be interested to know for sure.

My understanding with research in general is that the lead author does the overwhelming majority of the work when it comes to both the results, and writing up the actual article itself. Blake was the lead author for Zeta, and Berg was the lead author for Sally. Had Blake also written the Sally TCR, we may have seen the WSR-88D radial velocity bins mentioned, and perhaps a resultant different conclusion for the final intensity.

WSR-88D radial velocity measurements give you a high resolution, frequently updating measurement of the storm's wind structure. Arguably the best we have in terms of complete coverage of a landfalling storm. Not using it when determining max intensity will by definition give you an incomplete picture as to what was actually taking place leading up to landfall.

Why not send an email to the NHC and/or Ronnie Berg inquiring as to why the NEXRAD data were not applied to Sally’s case?

In my view, Sally should be upgraded to 100 kt, Jose to 145–50 kt, and Joaquin to 140 kt. Matthew should be listed as 130 kt.

This was a good suggestion! I reached out to Robbie and he responded promptly to me.

The most interesting tidbit from his email to me was that the typical 80% reduction factor at 1200 meters, where those 121-122 kt velocity bins were found, accounts for undersampling by aircraft measurements (which is up to 8% as he wrote in the TCR). With radial velocity measurements though, there is little to no undersampling, so the factor should actually be even lower compared to the standard 80% conversion for a height of ~1200 meters. He also mentioned the importance of averaging multiple bins (i.e. a 4 bin average) in order to filter out noise among the velocity bins, which can impact the analysis as well. He concluded by saying the balance of evidence (including the radar derived wind data) led to an estimate of 95 kt overall.

So they did analyze the WSR-88D velocity bins, but they just didn't include it into the report. As a result, the Sally TCR is a more complete analysis than I initially thought. This was a learning experience for me, since there are two different conversion factors you should use for radar derived winds versus winds measured by aircraft. And it also highlights that there is a lot of extra hard work being done behind the scenes, even if it isn't being included in the report.

[Shell Mound]

My understanding with research in general is that the lead author does the overwhelming majority of the work when it comes to both the results, and writing up the actual article itself. Blake was the lead author for Zeta, and Berg was the lead author for Sally. Had Blake also written the Sally TCR, we may have seen the WSR-88D radial velocity bins mentioned, and perhaps a resultant different conclusion for the final intensity.

WSR-88D radial velocity measurements give you a high resolution, frequently updating measurement of the storm's wind structure. Arguably the best we have in terms of complete coverage of a landfalling storm. Not using it when determining max intensity will by definition give you an incomplete picture as to what was actually taking place leading up to landfall.

Why not send an email to the NHC and/or Ronnie Berg inquiring as to why the NEXRAD data were not applied to Sally’s case?

In my view, Sally should be upgraded to 100 kt, Jose to 145–50 kt, and Joaquin to 140 kt. Matthew should be listed as 130 kt.

This was a good suggestion! I reached out to Robbie and he responded promptly to me.

The most interesting tidbit from his email to me was that the typical 80% reduction factor at 1200 meters, where those 121-122 kt velocity bins were found, accounts for undersampling by aircraft measurements (which is up to 8% as he wrote in the TCR). With radial velocity measurements though, there is little to no undersampling, so the factor should actually be even lower compared to the standard 80% conversion for a height of ~1200 meters. He also mentioned the importance of averaging multiple bins (i.e. a 4 bin average) in order to filter out noise among the velocity bins, which can impact the analysis as well. He concluded by saying the balance of evidence (including the radar derived wind data) led to an estimate of 95 kt overall.

So they did analyze the WSR-88D velocity bins, but they just didn't include it into the report. As a result, the Sally TCR is a more complete analysis than I initially thought. This was a learning experience for me, since there are two different conversion factors you should use for radar derived winds versus winds measured by aircraft. And it also highlights that there is a lot of extra hard work being done behind the scenes, even if it isn't being included in the report.

Thank you for seeking to clarify the matter. In this case I now concur with the NHC’s estimate of 95 kt, given the reasoning being presented.

[InfernoFlameCat]

I think our great peeps up in the NHC know what they are doing. Also Sally probably did not have time to work those fast high winds down to the surface. I think if it had one more hour it could have made it to cat 3.