Atlantic Tropical Action 2011 - Part III

[wxmx]

There is a reason why you shouldn't use sea level pressure to forecast landfall TC potential. Tropical cyclones are driven by a large part of the vertical column, not just the surface. That's why it is a lot more important to look at the mid-levels of the atmosphere to gauge the steering currents, and ultimately the landfall potential of each individual system. While the seasonal averages of mid-level heights can sometimes show you clues to the overall steering currents, there are often anomalous patterns within a year that allow some tropical systems to make landfall, while others follow the mean pattern and are steered out to sea.

This is why using the past couple of months to gauge how likely the United States will be impacted by a tropical cyclone is sketchy at best. All it takes is a week variation in the weather pattern from the mean trends to have a system move further west and strike the US coastline.

I think Nick's point is for activity overall, not steering currents. That point belongs to RS and MWW.

[phil882]

I think Nick's point is for activity overall, not steering currents. That point belongs to RS and MWW.

Understood... Certainly wasnt trying to go against Nick's thoughts which appear sound.

That said I think the plots above show rainstorm's flawed argument By showing that 2005 and 2011 are actually much closer in terms of SLP pattern than last year.

[HurricaneJosh]

The irony of all this is that EC strikes are the worst kinds of hurricane strikes anyways. Gimme the GOM or FL any day...even if that means the EC never gets hit again.

Agreed. Except for Hugo, I can't think of one structurally beautiful cyclone that's hit the East Coast N of FL during the satellite/radar era.

I'm curious what Hazel 1954 might have looked like. It was an extremely severe hurricane (a low-end Cat 4), but it was also showing signs of extratropical transition even as it was making landfall in the Carolinas.

[Srain]

12z Euro has the same wave entering the Caribbean. Displaced zonal ridge to the south would enhance the probabilities of a west mover if it indeeds become a discreet entity. Has peeked my interest some.

Mine as well...what's that trailing the ITCZ spin up just W of the Windwards...?

[icebreaker5221]

I'm curious what Hazel 1954 might have looked like. It was an extremely severe hurricane (a low-end Cat 4), but it was also showing signs of extratropical transition even as it was making landfall in the Carolinas.

<ot><> I'd rather see what the Labor Day Hurricane looked like </:weenie:> </ot>

[GaWx]

Sea Level pressure anomalies during the peak of hurricane season for 2010, 2005, and 1995. Sea level pressure anomalies for June and July this year.

Seasons with 19+ NS, including the three you mentioned, have let the EC N of FL off pretty easily vs. FL and the non-FL GC. I looked at 1887, 1933, 1936, 1995, 2005, and 2010. (If I missed any, let me know.) Only one of those six seasons (1933, which had two) had a TC actually cross the EC and one of those two TC's barely crossed. OTOH, FL had 13 for those six seasons, combined, with at least one in all six seasons and GC had 16 with five of the six seasons having a direct hit. So, EC above FL had an avg. of only 1/3 a hit per year while FL had 2.2 and GC had 2.7. As many of us know, the EC often gets fewer hits than the other two areas. However, FL doesn't get anywhere near 6.5 times and GC eight times the EC #'s on avg. The point is that the conditions that lead to seasons with very large numbers of TC's, which appear to be favorable for above avg. GC and FL hits, may not be all that favorable to EC direct hits.

[HurricaneJosh]

I'd rather see what the Labor Day Hurricane looked like

I'd sure like to see that, too-- but we were talking about East Coast hurricanes.

What's with the symbols?

[Amped]

Well HM said active august so I'm awaiting my canes. No more Tropi****s please.

[matthewweatherwatcher]

Well HM said active august so I'm awaiting my canes. No more Tropi****s please.

Crossing my fingers as I wait for the August canes.

[OSUmetstud]

Seasons with 19+ NS, including the three you mentioned, have let the EC N of FL off pretty easily vs. FL and the non-FL GC. I looked at 1887, 1933, 1936, 1995, 2005, and 2010. (If I missed any, let me know.) Only one of those six seasons (1933, which had two) had a TC actually cross the EC and one of those two TC's barely crossed. OTOH, FL had 13 for those six seasons, combined, with at least one in all six seasons and GC had 16 with five of the six seasons having a direct hit. So, EC above FL had an avg. of only 1/3 a hit per year while FL had 2.2 and GC had 2.7. As many of us know, the EC often gets fewer hits than the other two areas. However, FL doesn't get anywhere near 6.5 times and GC eight times the EC #'s on avg. The point is that the conditions that lead to seasons with very large numbers of TC's, which appear to be favorable for above avg. GC and FL hits, may not be all that favorable to EC direct hits.

In the active phase since 1995, the EC of the USA has had 8 hurricane impacts: Fran, Bonnie, Floyd, Isabel, Alex, Gaston, and Ophelia. So 8 EC storms in 17 years. In the inactive phase from 1965 to 1994, the EC received 10 hurricane impacts.

[GaWx]

In the active phase since 1995, the EC of the USA has had 8 hurricane impacts: Fran, Bonnie, Floyd, Isabel, Alex, Gaston, and Ophelia. So 8 EC storms in 17 years. In the inactive phase from 1965 to 1994, the EC received 10 hurricane impacts.

We're making different points. I agree with yours. There's no doubt that the +AMO has lead to more EC activity, on average, vs. the -AMO. However, I was just looking at the six years with the very highest numbers of named storms (19+) and going back further. They appeared to me to have underperformed for the EC. Being that it is usually quite difficult to get an EC hit, perhaps having so many different storms itself tends to result in what would seemingly be counterintuitive, rather unimpressive EC action. So, perhaps those people who desire an EC hit this year should root for a season with, say, 12-16 NS as opposed to, say, 19+ NS.

[OSUmetstud]

We're making different points. I agree with yours. There's no doubt that the +AMO has lead to more EC activity, on average, vs. the -AMO. However, I was just looking at the six years with the very highest numbers of named storms (19+) and going back further. They appeared to me to have underperformed for the EC. Being that it is usually quite difficult to get an EC hit, perhaps having so many different storms itself tends to result in what would seemingly be counterintuitive, rather unimpressive EC action. So, perhaps those people who desire an EC hit this year should root for a season with, say, 12-16 NS as opposed to, say, 19+ NS.

I didn't name Bertha by mistake...but it was included in the eight.

[wxmx]

I'd sure like to see that, too-- but we were talking about East Coast hurricanes.

What's with the symbols?

they are opening and closing weenie tags.

[HurricaneJosh]

they are opening and closing weenie tags.

Ah. There were also opening and closing OT tags. What an elaborately constructed bit of wx-nerd satire.

[Srain]

There could be some interesting days ahead...it is August...

[Mencken_Fan]

Seasons with 19+ NS, including the three you mentioned, have let the EC N of FL off pretty easily vs. FL and the non-FL GC. I looked at 1887, 1933, 1936, 1995, 2005, and 2010. (If I missed any, let me know.) Only one of those six seasons (1933, which had two) had a TC actually cross the EC and one of those two TC's barely crossed. OTOH, FL had 13 for those six seasons, combined, with at least one in all six seasons and GC had 16 with five of the six seasons having a direct hit. So, EC above FL had an avg. of only 1/3 a hit per year while FL had 2.2 and GC had 2.7. As many of us know, the EC often gets fewer hits than the other two areas. However, FL doesn't get anywhere near 6.5 times and GC eight times the EC #'s on avg. The point is that the conditions that lead to seasons with very large numbers of TC's, which appear to be favorable for above avg. GC and FL hits, may not be all that favorable to EC direct hits.

That's interesting and immediately it came to mind that during earlier active cycles almost all notable East Coast hits were early in the alphabet - but not early in the season.

I can think of two reasons that may have contributed to this:

1) During years when the East Coast got hit, there were more undetected fish storms?

2. During years when the East Coast got hit, there were more "junk" storms that never got names?

I'm a little bit confused...but wondering.

[thewxmann]

The irony of all this is that EC strikes are the worst kinds of hurricane strikes anyways. Gimme the GOM or FL any day...even if that means the EC never gets hit again.

GOM strikes are also kinda messy too... cores tend to fall apart before landfall there. It's all about the amount of westerly component of motion at landfall. Gimme a Isabel/Hugo-esque landfall with an anomalous blocking ridge, FL, or Yucatan anyday.

[HurricaneJosh]

GOM strikes are also kinda messy too... cores tend to fall apart before landfall there. It's all about the amount of westerly component of motion at landfall. Gimme a Isabel/Hugo-esque landfall with an anomalous blocking ridge, FL, or Yucatan anyday.

You thought Isabel was a good-looking 'cane at landfall? Really? In that case, all Gulf landfalls must look like Mona Lisas to you.

Re: Gulf landfalls, there have been plenty of very attractive ones that had a mostly-N component to their tracks-- for example, Charley 2004, the sexiest of them all from the last two decades. Eloise 1975 probably looked great as it accelerated N and intensified to landfall as a strong Cat 3 on the FL Panhandle. And what little radar we have of Camille 1969 suggests it was hawt.

And of course there are all of the tremendous events that occurred before the radar/satellite era.

Bottom line: the Gulf is a great place for sexy landfalls.

People are so quick to derive universal truth from a decade of duds.

[Mencken_Fan]

In the active phase since 1995, the EC of the USA has had 8 hurricane impacts: Fran, Bonnie, Floyd, Isabel, Alex, Gaston, and Ophelia. So 8 EC storms in 17 years. In the inactive phase from 1965 to 1994, the EC received 10 hurricane impacts.

You forgot Charley. Though it was his 2nd landfall, he struck Cape Fear (Wilmington) N.C. as a Cat 1 (after making an official landfall just south of us - grazing the upper S.C. coast.)

Generally, in this cycle we're seeing 1 hit every 2 years. The inactive '65 to '94 cycle was according to your records, 1 hit every 3 years. That's a notable difference between cycles.

[thewxmann]

You thought Isabel was a good-looking 'cane at landfall? Really? In that case, all Gulf landfalls must look like Mona Lisas to you.

Re: Gulf landfalls, there have been plenty of very attractive ones that had a mostly-N component to their tracks-- for example, Charley 2004, the sexiest of them all from the last two decades. Eloise 1975 probably looked great as it accelerated N and intensified to landfall as a strong Cat 3 on the FL Panhandle. And what little radar we have of Camille 1969 suggests it was hawt.

And of course there are all of the tremendous events that occurred before the radar/satellite era.

Bottom line: the Gulf is a great place for sexy landfalls.

People are so quick to derive universal truth from a decade of duds.

Well, in general, westward moving storms are better than northward moving storms. Sure there are exceptions -- Camille, Frederic, and Charley come to mind for the northward moving cases, and Allen for the westward moving case - but I'm talking about in general, I'd bank on a westward moving storm (e.g. FL, maybe SC, TX, defin Yucatan) with weaker midlatitude steering influences.

Isabel was a good setup, similar to Hugo I think. The TUTT sheared it to death though. If I had to choose a setup for an E Coast landfall, I'd take an Isabel/Hugo-esque 500mb pattern.

[HurricaneJosh]

Well, in general, westward moving storms are better than northward moving storms. Sure there are exceptions -- Camille, Frederic, and Charley come to mind for the northward moving cases, and Allen for the westward moving case - but I'm talking about in general, I'd bank on a westward moving storm (e.g. FL, maybe SC, TX, defin Yucatan) with weaker midlatitude steering influences.

Isabel was a good setup, similar to Hugo I think. The TUTT sheared it to death though. If I had to choose a setup for an E Coast landfall, I'd take an Isabel/Hugo-esque 500mb pattern.

I generally agree with your W-moving rule-- which is why I always say S TX, the Yucatan, and SE FL are my favorite chase zones. That having been said, I'm just constantly trying to disabuse people here of these myths Re: the so-called "rules" of the Gulf.

Isabel still sucked and should not be mentioned in the same breath as Hugo-- it's just rude.

[OSUmetstud]

You forgot Charley. Though it was his 2nd landfall, he struck Cape Fear (Wilmington) N.C. as a Cat 1 (after making an official landfall just south of us - grazing the upper S.C. coast.)

Generally, in this cycle we're seeing 1 hit every 2 years. The inactive '65 to '94 cycle was according to your records, 1 hit every 3 years. That's a notable difference between cycles.

ahh yeah that's true...I was generally trying to only use hurricanes that made a first strike on the US East Coast.

[wxmx]

Another Bret-like development before Cape Verde season starts?

[Ed Lizard]

Another Bret-like development before Cape Verde season starts?

A cool 20th Century style Bret?

[Ed Lizard]

Judging from the reforecast GFS ensembles based on the 8 August 0Z runs showing a precip max East of Florida, I'd think Jorge is talking a 2011 Bret development as a possibility.

If the ensembles are right, the East Coast still doesn't look like much of a target in 10 days, but Florida and points West seem on the table if there is something in the area that hasn't gotten too much latitude too early.

[Srain]

TC genesis probs continue to raise an eyebrow once we get beyond the 20th or so...just in time for peak season...

[Eyewall2005]

[Ed Lizard]

12Z GFS on board for something of limited interest forming East of Florida. Under almost 50 knot 250 mb winds at hour 60, 700 mb and 850 mb heights suggesting its not really warm core. Waiting for FSU model site to update so I can see what the phase diagrams show.

Edit to add- GFS isn't really deep cold core, but it isn't warm core either...

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/gfs/fcst/archive/11080912/85.html

[k***]

155 years ago today the Last Island Hurricane was gathering steam and preparing to slam into Louisiana....130 kts, 934 mb and not weakening at landfall.

That'd be nice.

[Ed Lizard]

Darn. Forgot to post the San Ciriaco hurricane anniversary post yesterday. At Storm2K, one of the mods lived in Puerto Rico, and he never missed the 1899 storm anniversary.