Atlantic Tropical Action 2011 - Part III

[Juliancolton]

The 1851-1930 period has been carefully reanalyzed. Yes, it's possible that a small 'cane might have slipped through the cracks, but if we're going to second-guess every bit of historical data, where does it stop? Are you suggesting we shouldn't try to put current events in an historical context because the data might not be complete?

I've done a lot of research on seasons from the 1860s to the 1910s, and the data for back then is largely made up, as I see it. Take 1861, for instance. TS 6, which has a 16-point track in HURDAT, is based entirely off of two ship reports: one of which may or may not have been from the same half of the month as the storm, and another which happened to observe a gale four days after Jose Partagas said the first ship report was "actually" from, contrary to its stated date. The next storm was described by an author in the 60s (I forget who), and neither Partagas nor the committee found any evidence that a TC actually existed; however, it was kept basically out of respect for the author and is recorded as a single point on an arbitrary day in October.

There's a rumor that after the current reanalysis is done, the committee is considering extending HURDAT to 1750 or thereabouts. Personally, I think this is going to lead to even more "forced" storms based on really dubious reconstructions of tracks, and we should have an entirely separate file for the notable storms we know existed. For me, reliable fish data stops in the very early 1900s, and before that it's anyone's guess whether or not there was actually a storm. Generally the case, anyway. What are your thoughts?

[HurricaneJosh]

I've done a lot of research on seasons from the 1860s to the 1910s, and the data for back then is largely made up, as I see it. Take 1861, for instance. TS 6, which has a 16-point track in HURDAT, is based entirely off of two ship reports: one of which may or may not have been from the same half of the month as the storm, and another which happened to observe a gale four days after Jose Partagas said the first ship report was "actually" from, contrary to its stated date. The next storm was described by an author in the 60s (I forget who), and neither Partagas nor the committee found any evidence that a TC actually existed; however, it was kept basically out of respect for the author and is recorded as a single point on an arbitrary day in October.

There's a rumor that after the current reanalysis is done, the committee is considering extending HURDAT to 1750 or thereabouts. Personally, I think this is going to lead to even more "forced" storms based on really dubious reconstructions of tracks, and we should have an entirely separate file for the notable storms we know existed. For me, reliable fish data stops in the very early 1900s, and before that it's anyone's guess whether or not there was actually a storm. Generally the case, anyway. What are your thoughts?

I agree with you-- that there are simply limits with regard to the fish. No doubt. And I don't think anyone anywhere has any illusions that the best-track database from the 1800s accounts for every storm.

But for cyclones landfalling in the USA, I think we have a pretty good picture. Is it perfect? No-- no way. But I think it's close enough to be useful. Granted, the Gulf Coast did not have large cities like Houston, Corpus Christi, Tampa, etc., back then-- but there were small ports and settlements and ships-- and usually just enough data and eyewitness accounts to "forensically" reconstruct what happened in a landfall event. Using just a few data points and standardized equations, they can usually get a rough idea of a cyclone's landfall intensity-- particularly if they have a pressure reading from the center or even the periphery, and if they have an idea of the RMW.

[gil888]

The 1851-1930 period has been carefully reanalyzed. Yes, it's possible that a small 'cane might have slipped through the cracks, but if we're going to second-guess every bit of historical data, where does it stop? Are you suggesting we shouldn't try to put current events in an historical context because the historical data might not be complete?

I accept the reanalyzed data as workable for modern comparisons when it comes to landfalling cyclones. The stuff out to sea? Yeah, I'm sure a lot was missed, and seasonal totals back then are shaky.

Yes, Ike would have been called a major based on the pressure-- and, likewise, several hurricanes from earlier this century have been incorrectly described as majors based on this criterion. For example, most of the 'canes in the Northeast USA have been rated way too high due to landfall pressures. Reanalysis is fixing all that, so that many 'canes from the 1950s in particular are going to be downgraded (and a few upgraded).

But, again, these are the records we have now. Until they're changed, we need to use what we have.

Well, you need people to live in places. Before 1900, there weren't many at all in S Florida. And when Florida is the hurricane capital of the USA, that puts into doubt a lot of records. And I'll use whatever records I want, TYVM! Don't take my word for it-- take the word of the reanalysis lead scientist, Chris Landsea:

From: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html

"

Additional Note: Because of the sparseness of towns and cities before 1900 in

some coastal locations along the United States, the above list is not complete

for all states. Before the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts became settled,

hurricanes may have been underestimated in their intensity or missed completely

for small-sized systems (i.e., 2004's Hurricane Charley). The following list

provides estimated dates when accurate tropical cyclone records began for

specified regions of the United States based upon U.S Census reports and other

historical analyses. Years in parenthesis indicate possible starting dates for

reliable records before the 1850s that may be available with additional research:

Texas-south > 1880, Texas-central > 1851, Texas-north > 1860, Louisiana > 1880,

Mississippi > 1851, Alabama < 1851 (1830), Florida-northwest > 1880,

Florida-southwest > 1900, Florida-southeast > 1900, Florida-northeast > 1880,

Georgia < 1851 (1800), South Carolina < 1851 (1760), North Carolina < 1851 (1760),

Virginia < 1851 (1700), Maryland < 1851 (1760), Delaware < 1851 (1700), New

Jersey < 1851 (1760), New York < 1851 (1700), Connecticut < 1851 (1660), Rhode

Island < 1851 (1760), Massachusetts < 1851 (1660), New Hampshire < 1851 (1660)"

and Maine < 1851 (1790)."

[Amped]

I agree with you-- that there are simply limits with regard to the fish. No doubt. And I don't think anyone anywhere has any illusions that the best-track database from the 1800s accounts for every storm.

But for cyclones landfalling in the USA, I think we have a pretty good picture. Is it perfect? No-- no way. But I think it's close enough to be useful. Granted, the Gulf Coast did not have large cities like Houston, Corpus Christi, Tampa, etc., back then-- but there were small ports and settlements and ships-- and usually just enough data and eyewitness accounts to "forensically" reconstruct what happened in a landfall event. Using just a few data points and standardized equations, they can usually get a rough idea of a cyclone's landfall intensity-- particularly if they have a pressure reading from the center or even the periphery, and if they have an idea of the RMW.

I agree and 1804-1821 the limited data is enough to tell me that.

[HurricaneJosh]

Well, you need people to live in places. Before 1900, there weren't many at all in S Florida. And when Florida is the hurricane capital of the USA, that puts into doubt a lot of records. And I'll use whatever records I want, TYVM! Don't take my word for it-- take the word of the reanalysis lead scientist, Chris Landsea:

Thanks, but I'm well-acquainted with the reanalysis methodology and limitations.

My main point is that what you're saying is obvious-- yes, of course storms slipped through the cracks in the 1880s. I don't know a person on the planet who thinks it's a complete, 100%-accurate dataset.

Yes, you can use whatever records you want-- and so can I. This exchange started because you seemed to be telling me how I should or shouldn't reference the official (although imperfect) historical data.

[HurricaneJosh]

Back to the main point... It remains useful to go back to 1851 in these discussions. The very fact that we have to go back to the 1860s to find an instance of three consecutive calendar years without a hurricane hitting the USA in itself shows us how rare that is. The historical records might be missing some storms-- but they probably don't invent ones that didn't occur. So, if the historical records are wrong and a hurricane did hit the USA in the 1862-1864 period, it makes the current hurricane-landfall drought all the more remarkable.

[Amped]

I think that might be the ugliest SAL I've ever seen.

If this verifies some of the lesser antilies are going to need a CAT 3 just to get rid of all the sand the Sahara dust cloud dropped.

[Radius]

Pissy mood here. Is it because its Sunday night? Too many fish? Whatever...go here and catch a break - http://www.jerryseinfeld.com/

In 2 or 3 weeks we will all be riveted with an inbound Cat 4 headed for the gulf or east coast....

[HurricaneJosh]

Pissy mood here.

Yes.

Is it because its Sunday night? Too many fish? Whatever...go here and catch a break - http://www.jerryseinfeld.com/

That's the only reason I can think of for gil888 lashing out at me like that.

In 2 or 3 weeks we will all be riveted with an inbound Cat 4 headed for the gulf or east coast....

[thewxmann]

I think that might be the ugliest SAL I've ever seen.

If this verifies some of the lesser antilies are going to need a CAT 3 just to get rid of all the sand the Sahara dust cloud dropped.

Yeah, it's been pretty well-modeled that an easterly surge of mid-level winds will drive a strong SAL through the tropical Atlantic in the coming days. The pattern looks a lot better after that leaves though.

[GaWx]

0Z gfs fwiw as of 180 hours apears as if its solution may be more interesting than the 18Z gfs for a TC near the L.A. at 180 hours. There's less troughing in the east vs. the 18Z. May not be a fish. Cruiser??

Edit: no, it is a Greater Antilles hopper turning into a Bahama Momma ..will trough take it out? Yes, trough wins.

[kab2791]

This is the GFS system coming off the coast of Africa. The same system in which last night's Euro straightened into 993mb low pressure NE of the Greater Antilles.

[HurricaneJosh]

Quick overview of the NATL on 15 August-- near the beginning of peak season:

* Gert is looking more like a real cyclone, although I want it to die so we reach our record of 7 crap systems with no 'cane.

* 92L seems to be getting sucked into Gert.

* The convection associated with "The Impulse Formerly Known As 93L" is flaring up nicely tonight-- and I daresay there's a hint of an arcing pattern to it-- so I guess it's not totally dead.

* That intense flareup in the SW Caribbean (the "Carla Cradle", as I like to call it) has been firing hot all day.

[Eyewall2005]

Indeed the 06z GFS appears to develope this strong tw currently rolling of the african coast and developes it into a formidable hurricane bringing up the eastcoast of the U.S. in its long ranges.

[Scorpion]

At least its something to finally look at, hopefully it stays consistent with it

[Ellinwood]

At least its something to finally look at, hopefully it stays consistent with it

Yep... it's going to stay consistent with a 360hr fantasycane from the 06z GFS.

[Eyewall2005]

Yep... it's going to stay consistent with a 360hr fantasycane from the 06z GFS.

With the european model developing this also its worthing keeping an eye on especially as we are approaching the peak of the season.

[Ed Lizard]

The ensembles at 12Z yesterday seemed somewhat favorable for East Coast action at Day 10, although it appeared the Northeast wasn't in good shape yet.

The Raleigh site wasn't working for me this morning. Lets see what happiness today's 240 hour ensembles hold...

Euro ensembles look 'fishy', GFS suggests interesting times for Florida.

[Ellinwood]

With the european model developing this also its worthing keeping an eye on especially as we are approaching the peak of the season.

Worth keeping an eye on, yes. Thinking it'll be consistent, no.

00z ECM jukes it north and keeps it out of the Caribbean due to a weaker ridge. It is also slower to develop.

[wxmx]

The ensembles at 12Z yesterday seemed somewhat favorable for East Coast action at Day 10, although it appeared the Northeast wasn't in good shape yet.

The Raleigh site wasn't working for me this morning. Lets see what happiness today's 240 hour ensembles hold...

Euro ensembles look 'fishy', GFS suggests interesting times for Florida.

Some crazy low pressures on those maps... >20 storms?

[LakeEffectKing]

The ensembles at 12Z yesterday seemed somewhat favorable for East Coast action at Day 10, although it appeared the Northeast wasn't in good shape yet.

The Raleigh site wasn't working for me this morning. Lets see what happiness today's 240 hour ensembles hold...

Euro ensembles look 'fishy', GFS suggests interesting times for Florida.

Didn't we just go through this with 93L??? Hopefully one of these CV waves break the TS streak we're on!

[Srain]

Some crazy low pressures on those maps... >20 storms?

[Stebo]

Yep... it's going to stay consistent with a 360hr fantasycane from the 06z GFS.

Nice sarcastic undertone, I agree with the undertone.

Joking aside, the key is to watch the pattern to see if it stays consistent, as we move on though anything beyond 180hr IMO is a crapshoot. If you want to really extend it, 240hr. The thing that has been consistent though is the pattern looks to get a bit more favorable for the east coast, but the key is having a storm. If there is no storm the synoptic pattern doesn't mean much.

[icebreaker5221]

* That intense flareup in the SW Caribbean (the "Carla Cradle", as I like to call it) has been firing hot all day.

SW Caribbean = Carla Cradle

NW Caribbean = Don Cradle?

[apm]

Don't we have at least a depression, albeit a sheared one, at about 42N 62W?

[Cory]

SW Caribbean = Carla Cradle

NW Caribbean = Don Cradle?

Josh luring Don into Texas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gj8ahHvrPs

[am19psu]

Don't we have at least a depression, albeit a sheared one, at about 42N 62W?

0z GFS had it initialized as cold core. If it's not an invest, we can't really look at any AMSU cross sections to know for sure, but I'd say it's pretty unlikely to be warm cored.

[phil882]

0z GFS had it initialized as cold core. If it's not an invest, we can't really look at any AMSU cross sections to know for sure, but I'd say it's pretty unlikely to be warm cored.

It is an invest though... 96l although I haven't been able to find the cross sections on http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/products/tc_realtime/.

[am19psu]

It is an invest though... 96l although I haven't been able to find the cross sections on http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/products/tc_realtime/.

Yeah, that's where I was looking... in any case, doesn't that microwave look pretty strongly like a warm front? Not to say we couldn't get tropical transition (why not? every other system this year has), but that doesn't scream warm core to me.

[Srain]

Updated Roundy TC genesis probs for late August...