My view on the re-analysis project is that it is a GREAT opportunity to look over the important facts of past storms. My thoughts on re-analysis for 2003 storms.....
Ana- In the NHC's re-analysis they upgraded Ana's intensity from 50 mph to 60 mph. They stressed that it may have been stronger, and since there was an eye-like feature on satellite for a while, I think it was 65 mph- 70 mph. Not a hurricane though.
Bill- Bill's seems just fine. But, an eyewall began to form....
Claudette- NHC said Claudette made her Texas landfall at 80 mph. Then it was 85 mph, then 86 mph. Now they say it was 90 mph. With an 84 kt sustained wind recorded, I think it came ashore as a 100 mph hurricane. Thank god it sped up unexpectedly or else Claudette would have been a major hurricane landfall.
http://images.ibsys.com/2003/0715/2334149_320X240.jpg
Danny- I first said that Danny would be downgraded to a peak of 70 mph with the high pressures in that area, but NHC saw an eye as we all did so, Danny's is fine.
Erika- I think Erika's origin was as Tropical Depression Eight Over South Florida, also I think she reached Hurricane strength slightly earlier than said.
Fabian- I believe Fabian was 125 mph as it brushed Bermuda, not 120 mph.
Grace- I doubt she was a storm for longer than 3 hours.
Henri- I think Henri became a 40 mph storm off the Southeast coast on the 6th.
Isabel- At first the NHC said Isabel hit NC at 100 mph. I thought she hit at 105 mph. Later, the upgraded it to 105 mph.
Juan- Juan seems fine.
Kate- When Kate reached 125 mph, I thought it looked more in the 135 mph range.
Larry- I believe Larry hit Mexico as a 50 mph storm not 60 mph.
Mindy- Mindy seems fine.
Nicholas- I believe Nick reached 80 mph on OCT 17th.
Odette- I think Odette was 70 mph not 60 mph, at landfall.
Peter- I think Peter was a 75 mph hurricane for a 2-4 hour period on DEC 9th.
Re-analysis of 2003....
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.
-
Stormsfury
- Category 5
- Posts: 10549
- Age: 53
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:27 pm
- Location: Summerville, SC
Floydbuster, in the prelim report from the NHC, the surface wind report was suspect ...
Many unofficial observations were received from the landfall area, with a selection included in Table 3. A storm chaser (Tony Whitener) in Port O'Connor reported 83-kt sustained winds with a gust to 93 kt measured at the top of a vehicle with good exposure. While this observation is included in Table 3, it is notable that the winds are 15-20 kt higher than the nearby TCOON station and thus appear unrepresentative. A report from Seadrift indicated 84-kt sustained winds with a gust to 96 kt. However, an inspection of the site by National Weather Service (NWS) personnel showed that the anemometer placement may have caused funneling of the winds across the instrument. Thus, the report is not included in Table 3.
The 84-kt and 83-kt unofficial observations suggest the possibility that Claudette strengthened to a Category 2 hurricane as it was making landfall. This was not supported by the aircraft data, which suggest maximum sustained winds of 75-80 kt as the eye crossed the coast. Data from the NWS WSR-88D Doppler radars indicated winds of 95-105 kt between 5,000-10,000 ft in the northwest eyewall after Claudette made landfall. It is uncertain how to convert these winds to sustained surface winds over land. However, reduction factors derived from GPS dropsonde data over water suggest 85-90 kt sustained surface winds. A further reduction for land friction would reduce the radar winds to at or below the 75-80 kt range suggested by the aircraft data.
Damage surveys were conducted by the staffs of NWS forecast offices in Corpus Christi and Houston in order to help define the surface winds at landfall. These surveys concluded the damage was consistent with Category 1 sustained winds. Unpublished information from a damage survey by a wind engineering expert with the commercial engineering firm Haag Engineering supports this determination.
Based on the surveys, the data, and uncertainties (i.e., the possibility that the aircraft did not sample the strongest winds), the landfall intensity of Claudette is estimated to be 80 kt - at the high end of Category 1 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale.
Many unofficial observations were received from the landfall area, with a selection included in Table 3. A storm chaser (Tony Whitener) in Port O'Connor reported 83-kt sustained winds with a gust to 93 kt measured at the top of a vehicle with good exposure. While this observation is included in Table 3, it is notable that the winds are 15-20 kt higher than the nearby TCOON station and thus appear unrepresentative. A report from Seadrift indicated 84-kt sustained winds with a gust to 96 kt. However, an inspection of the site by National Weather Service (NWS) personnel showed that the anemometer placement may have caused funneling of the winds across the instrument. Thus, the report is not included in Table 3.
The 84-kt and 83-kt unofficial observations suggest the possibility that Claudette strengthened to a Category 2 hurricane as it was making landfall. This was not supported by the aircraft data, which suggest maximum sustained winds of 75-80 kt as the eye crossed the coast. Data from the NWS WSR-88D Doppler radars indicated winds of 95-105 kt between 5,000-10,000 ft in the northwest eyewall after Claudette made landfall. It is uncertain how to convert these winds to sustained surface winds over land. However, reduction factors derived from GPS dropsonde data over water suggest 85-90 kt sustained surface winds. A further reduction for land friction would reduce the radar winds to at or below the 75-80 kt range suggested by the aircraft data.
Damage surveys were conducted by the staffs of NWS forecast offices in Corpus Christi and Houston in order to help define the surface winds at landfall. These surveys concluded the damage was consistent with Category 1 sustained winds. Unpublished information from a damage survey by a wind engineering expert with the commercial engineering firm Haag Engineering supports this determination.
Based on the surveys, the data, and uncertainties (i.e., the possibility that the aircraft did not sample the strongest winds), the landfall intensity of Claudette is estimated to be 80 kt - at the high end of Category 1 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale.
0 likes
-
Anonymous
-
hurricanetrack
- HurricaneTrack.com
- Posts: 1781
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:46 pm
- Location: Wilmington, NC
- Contact:
Lili and Claudette winds, etc.
I was in New Iberia for Lili with my team. We only had our Isuzu Rodeo for that one- but it had a 5 meter mast with the RM Young anemometer on it.
As luck would have it, early on the morning of the 3rd of October, just as the sun was coming up and we could begin to see more than just shapes, we snagged a sagging phone line going across the road. It took off our anemometer and destroyed it ($750.00!!!). Thus, we had no reliable wind data from that mission. In fact, we were headed to Avery Island to position ourselves in the remaining eyewall when the mishap took place. No one was hurt and there was no electricity in the line- it was a phone line. Still, that incident underscores the real dangers of "chasing hurricanes". You can never be too careful.
During Claudette- I flew to Houston on the morning of the 15th with our spare RM Young system. I then rented an SUV and drove to Victoria where I worked with the Lowe's staff to set up a 4 foot mast on the SUV. In the Lowe's parking lot at Victoria, TX, I recorded one gust to 75mph- at about 9 feet off the ground. I can only imagine what it was at 15 feet and 30 feet.
The point is that I have come so close to being able to record wind data from some significant hurricanes. However, things do go wrong. During Claudette, if I had only left one day sooner, I would have been in position at Port O'connor to record the maximum winds. Bummer.
And as for Lili. Well, that will always haunt me. My partner and I on the mission were ready to go the distance to record wind speeds during the landfall. One phone line in the way ended all of that.
So- I am one who cannot say for sure what the winds were at their maximum during Lili and Claudette. I can estimate and look at video that I took. But nothing beats having a solid anemometer out there to measure hurricane winds. That's why we still go at it year after year. Each one is different and sooner or later, my team will be in the right place at the right time to provide some extraordinary wind data.
There's my input on the matter....
As luck would have it, early on the morning of the 3rd of October, just as the sun was coming up and we could begin to see more than just shapes, we snagged a sagging phone line going across the road. It took off our anemometer and destroyed it ($750.00!!!). Thus, we had no reliable wind data from that mission. In fact, we were headed to Avery Island to position ourselves in the remaining eyewall when the mishap took place. No one was hurt and there was no electricity in the line- it was a phone line. Still, that incident underscores the real dangers of "chasing hurricanes". You can never be too careful.
During Claudette- I flew to Houston on the morning of the 15th with our spare RM Young system. I then rented an SUV and drove to Victoria where I worked with the Lowe's staff to set up a 4 foot mast on the SUV. In the Lowe's parking lot at Victoria, TX, I recorded one gust to 75mph- at about 9 feet off the ground. I can only imagine what it was at 15 feet and 30 feet.
The point is that I have come so close to being able to record wind data from some significant hurricanes. However, things do go wrong. During Claudette, if I had only left one day sooner, I would have been in position at Port O'connor to record the maximum winds. Bummer.
And as for Lili. Well, that will always haunt me. My partner and I on the mission were ready to go the distance to record wind speeds during the landfall. One phone line in the way ended all of that.
So- I am one who cannot say for sure what the winds were at their maximum during Lili and Claudette. I can estimate and look at video that I took. But nothing beats having a solid anemometer out there to measure hurricane winds. That's why we still go at it year after year. Each one is different and sooner or later, my team will be in the right place at the right time to provide some extraordinary wind data.
There's my input on the matter....
0 likes
-
Anonymous
I e-mailed the NHC asking about Hurricane Lili's true intensity at landfall. They said it was offically 100 mph or 85 kts. They stressed that with the winds recorded, and damage, it was more likely 75 kts, 85 mph or 70 kts, 80 mph. I still marvel about what Lafayette, and New Iberia and other parts of Louisiana would have looked like if Lili had not weakened, turned north quicker, sped up. 6 hours saved Louisiana.
0 likes
-
hurricanetrack
- HurricaneTrack.com
- Posts: 1781
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:46 pm
- Location: Wilmington, NC
- Contact:
Lili experience
Oh yes. My partner and I (his name is John) drove to Morgan City on the 2nd. We spent the night at a Holiday Inn and were working with CNN on covering the hurricane. That night, friends of mine from the Army Corps of Engineers were almost to the point of begging me to leave Morgan City and go to Layfayette. We were very concerned about the 20-25 ft storm surge- obviously. Plus, 145 mph winds were something that no one on my team had ever seen before. Even the CNN crew was nervous about this one. However, by 11pm ET on the 2nd, we noticed the eye had begun to fill with clouds. The pressure had come up a few millibars too. So we went to sleep for about 3 hours and awoke to a much weaker hurricane. The power was out in Morgan City and we left the hotel to observe and measure the winds, etc.
The way I look at it is this: if it had been early September, instead of early October, my feeling is that Lili would have been a borderline category 5 hurricane at landfall. The water temps would have been warmer and the atmosphere would have been more conducive nearer the Gulf Coast. As it was, shear, dry air and lower sea surface temps did their work to save probably hundreds of lives- maybe even mine! I would not regret it at all if I NEVER witness a category 4 or 5 hurricane. Lili was close. We shall see what the future holds.
The way I look at it is this: if it had been early September, instead of early October, my feeling is that Lili would have been a borderline category 5 hurricane at landfall. The water temps would have been warmer and the atmosphere would have been more conducive nearer the Gulf Coast. As it was, shear, dry air and lower sea surface temps did their work to save probably hundreds of lives- maybe even mine! I would not regret it at all if I NEVER witness a category 4 or 5 hurricane. Lili was close. We shall see what the future holds.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Blown Away, Cpv17, Datsaintsfan09, facemane, Hurricaneman, Hurrilurker, Ian2401, IsabelaWeather, Jagno, Killjoy12, pepecool20, Steve H., Stratton23, TampaWxLurker and 115 guests