Atlantic Tropical Action 2011 - Part III

[wxmx]

which is why any comparison to pre-satellite era storm history is meaningless. Cindy would be extremely unlikely to be named in the past unless a ship was unlucky enough to be in the core path for the 18-24 hours she was alive. You could even make the case that the first two storms this year would have been problematic being classified 100 years ago.

That is not to say that I disagree at all with the NHC. I am just making the comparison among eras.

Well, you're correct about #storms, but ACE wise, the difference should be a lot smaller.

[k***]

Pre-1995, that wasn't Dr. Frank's fault.

It wasn't just the AMO state (or a lack of technology)...it was a direct result of NHC policy that the 70's look so screwed up. They really stick out like a sore thumb.

[Ed Lizard]

It wasn't just the AMO state (or a lack of technology)...it was a direct result of NHC policy that the 70's look so screwed up. They really stick out like a sore thumb.

Not busting chops, but do you have any links to articles/opinion pieces that support that?

I was a lot younger than, and didn't have internet or cable in the 1970s, but Belle and Frederick are about the only hurricanes I even remember making US landfall, and Belle was pathetic.

[wxmx]

Not busting chops, but do you have any links to articles/opinion pieces that support that?

I was a lot younger than, and didn't have internet or cable in the 1970s, but Belle and Frederick are about the only hurricanes I even remember making US landfall, and Belle was pathetic.

Celia, Carmen and Eloise as majors and 7 others as cat 1 or 2

[Ed Lizard]

Celia, Carmen and Eloise as majors and 7 others as cat 1 or 2

Ack. How could I forget Celia.?.?

I wasn't in Texas, but everyone has heard of Celia.

[Sunny and Warm]

Well, you're correct about #storms, but ACE wise, the difference should be a lot smaller.

Smaller yes, but the results are still skewed toward the present having higher ACE values on average. What is odd is that the number of storms in the past were undercounted, but the ones that were counted were overestimated on strength. Not always, but consistently IMHO.

[am19psu]

It wasn't just the AMO state (or a lack of technology)...it was a direct result of NHC policy that the 70's look so screwed up. They really stick out like a sore thumb.

Celia, Carmen and Eloise as majors and 7 others as cat 1 or 2

To be fair, I think the state of the science was in turmoil back then, too. Look at all the nonsense in the WPAC and Aussie regions from using the A-H pressure/wind relationship. Just completely silly.

[Sunny and Warm]

Celia, Carmen and Eloise as majors and 7 others as cat 1 or 2

Allen??

Edit: nevermind, it was 1980

[Ed Lizard]

To be fair, I think the state of the science was in turmoil back then, too. Look at all the nonsense in the WPAC and Aussie regions from using the A-H pressure/wind relationship. Just completely silly.

Google looks kind of daunting on Atkinson/Holliday pressure/wind relationships. Can you do a one or two paragraph executive summary?

[k***]

To be fair, I think the state of the science was in turmoil back then, too. Look at all the nonsense in the WPAC and Aussie regions from using the A-H pressure/wind relationship. Just completely silly.

I understand that we didn't have scatterometer data and microwave and how that's a big deal, but I think part of it goes beyond that...look at how Frank still complains this decade about how the NHC is naming storms too willy nilly despite plenty of evidence and reasoning to back up just about any declaration they've made. In fact, the weenies often argue that the NHC is *too* stingy with upgrades. Imagine if we had to live through some of those years where we had 15 TD's not make it to TS status.

[am19psu]

Google looks kind of daunting on Atkinson/Holliday pressure/wind relationships. Can you do a one or two paragraph executive summary?

I can do it in two words: it sucked. Unfortunately, it was the gold standard for close to two decades. When we had recon in the WPAC, they would actually estimate the MSLP from the plane, disregard the flight level winds, and use A-H to estimate wind intensity.

[am19psu]

I understand that we didn't have scatterometer data and microwave and how that's a big deal, but I think part of it goes beyond that...look at how Frank still complains this decade about how the NHC is naming storms too willy nilly despite plenty of evidence and reasoning to back up just about any declaration they've made. In fact, the weenies often argue that the NHC is *too* stingy with upgrades. Imagine if we had to live through some of those years where we had 15 TD's not make it to TS status.

Right. My point is that everybody sucked in the 70s, not just NHC. I agree with everything you wrote, the science of the time was just crappy.

[k***]

I can do it in two words: it sucked. Unfortunately, it was the gold standard for close to two decades. When we had recon in the WPAC, they would actually estimate the MSLP from the plane, disregard the flight level winds, and use A-H to estimate wind intensity.

...and that's why WPAC recon was worthless, totally inaccurate crap

[Srain]

Adam, Josh, remind me to ask B Read this weekend. He and Neil are friends and speak very regularly and I suspect BR could shed some light on this very subject. Good discussion guys…

[k***]

Right. My point is that everybody sucked in the 70s, not just NHC. I agree with everything you wrote, the science of the time was just crappy.

Sure, but some have moved past that suckage...and others like Neil Frank go around bashing the current NHC for using cutting edge science to parse out the borderline named storms. I think it was the 2007 season where there were a bunch of articles quoting him re: the issue.

[Ed Lizard]

Sure, but some have moved past that suckage...and others like Neil Frank go around bashing the current NHC for using cutting edge science to parse out the borderline named storms. I think it was the 2007 season where there were a bunch of articles quoting him re: the issue.

That sounds about right. There were stories in the local paper.

How long has some variety of Dvorak been in use, and how accurate was Dvorak before wind estimates could be compared to actual data from sondes or whatnot?

Edit-

Google says 1973, so there was no easy way to verify how accurate initial satellite based estimates were.

[am19psu]

That sounds about right. There were stories in the local paper.

How long has some variety of Dvorak been in use, and how accurate was Dvorak before wind estimates could be compared to actual data from sondes or whatnot?

The seminal papers are from 1975 and 1984. Not sure when the techniques became operational.

Here is Kossin and Velden (2004) criticizing it: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/kossin_velden_MWR.pdf

And here is Knaff et al. (2010) with the numbers behind it: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010WAF2222375.1?journalCode=wefo

[phil882]

Good discussion guys... I always wondered about the 70's and why there were so many TD's with only a few total number of named storms. Could the A-H pressure/wind relationship be to blame, or was that primarily used out in the WPAC, SPAC, and IND basins?

[am19psu]

Good discussion guys... I always wondered about the 70's and why there were so many TD's with only a few total number of named storms. Could the A-H pressure/wind relationship be to blame, or was that primarily used out in the WPAC, SPAC, and IND basins?

I'm under the impression that A-H and neutercanes were independently bad science, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

[Ed Lizard]

The seminal papers are from 1975 and 1984. Not sure when the techniques became operational.

Here is Kossin and Velden (2004) criticizing it: http://journals.amet.../1520-0493(2004)132%3C0165%3AAPBITC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

And here is Knaff et al. (2010) with the numbers behind it: http://journals.amet...ournalCode=wefo

Top link is broken.

I haven't worked enough today...

[am19psu]

Top link is broken.

Fixed.

[phil882]

I'm under the impression that A-H and neutercanes were independently bad science, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Ahh yes, neutercanes... what a horrible name. I mean seriously, what were they thinking?

As for my two cents, I don't care how storms were identified in the past. The way we designate systems today is far superior despite the fact it might skew the numbers towards an increase number of named systems over time. An easy way to fix that problem is either look at storm totals from 1978 and beyond when Geostationary Satellites became operational, or limit the latitude and longitude on where storms have been observed. That way you limit the bias of not identifying storms far out in the open Atlantic where there were no observations. It is not perfect obviously... but the 1978-2010 period should be a large enough sample to gather general trends in tropical cyclone activity.

[GaWx]

Not busting chops, but do you have any links to articles/opinion pieces that support that?

I was a lot younger than, and didn't have internet or cable in the 1970s, but Belle and Frederick are about the only hurricanes I even remember making US landfall, and Belle was pathetic.

You're also forgetting David of 1979, which is the only hurricane that has hit Savannah since 1947. This was a pretty large Cape Verde type when it hit the U.S. It first skirted FL near Melbourne. After going back into the water, the eye came onshore just S of Savannah and it moved barely west of there putting them in the right quad. It was a borderline cat1/cat 2 storm. For those who like to make light of storms of that strength, this caused massive amounts of inconvenience caused by fallen trees/power outages that lasted up to two weeks in isolated areas and four days or more in most areas. It was a huge mess and nothing at which to sneeze even though the surge was trivial and the actual amount of structural damage wasn't out of hand. We were largely cut off from the outside world as all TV and all but one local radio station (for as long as they were able to stay on the air) weren't available. A lot of the damage was to roofs and windows, largely from falling trees. There were trees down everywhere!

Also, as I recall, this caused tropical storm force winds well up into the NE US. In addition, this was King David down in the Caribbean.

Aside: It has been 32 years since Savannah has been hit by a hurricane (David). The prior one was 32 years earlier in 1947. There were 29 years between the 1911 and 1940 canes. There were several during the 1890's. There were 27 years between the 1854 and 1881 storms. Going back to at least the 1804 storm, 32 years is the longest between canes here, which is a bit scarey.

[toad strangler]

You're also forgetting David of 1979, which is the only hurricane that has hit Savannah since 1947. This was a pretty large Cape Verde type when it hit the U.S. It first skirted FL near Melbourne. After going back into the water, the eye came onshore just S of Savannah and it moved barely west of there putting them in the right quad. It was a borderline cat1/cat 2 storm. For those who like to make light of storms of that strength, this caused massive amounts of inconvenience caused by fallen trees/power outages that lasted up to two weeks in isolated areas and four days or more in most areas. It was a huge mess and nothing at which to sneeze even though the surge was trivial and the actual amount of structural damage wasn't out of hand. We were largely cut off from the outside world as all TV and all but one local radio station (for as long as they were able to stay on the air) weren't available. A lot of the damage was to roofs and windows, largely from falling trees. There were trees down everywhere!

Also, as I recall, this caused tropical storm force winds well up into the NE US. In addition, this was King David down in the Caribbean.

Aside: It has been 32 years since Savannah has been hit by a hurricane (David). The prior one was 32 years earlier in 1947. There were 29 years between the 1911 and 1940 canes. There were several during the 1890's. There were 27 years between the 1854 and 1881 storms. Going back to at least the 1804 storm, 32 years is the longest between canes here, which is a bit scarey.

So, you are insinuating YBY is "due".

[Sunny and Warm]

You're also forgetting David of 1979, which is the only hurricane that has hit Savannah since 1947. This was a pretty large Cape Verde type when it hit the U.S. It first skirted FL near Melbourne. After going back into the water, the eye came onshore just S of Savannah and it moved barely west of there putting them in the right quad. It was a borderline cat1/cat 2 storm. For those who like to make light of storms of that strength, this caused massive amounts of inconvenience caused by fallen trees/power outages that lasted up to two weeks in isolated areas and four days or more in most areas. It was a huge mess and nothing at which to sneeze even though the surge was trivial and the actual amount of structural damage wasn't out of hand. We were largely cut off from the outside world as all TV and all but one local radio station (for as long as they were able to stay on the air) weren't available. A lot of the damage was to roofs and windows, largely from falling trees. There were trees down everywhere!

Also, as I recall, this caused tropical storm force winds well up into the NE US. In addition, this was King David down in the Caribbean.

Aside: It has been 32 years since Savannah has been hit by a hurricane (David). The prior one was 32 years earlier in 1947. There were 29 years between the 1911 and 1940 canes. There were several during the 1890's. There were 27 years between the 1854 and 1881 storms. Going back to at least the 1804 storm, 32 years is the longest between canes here, which is a bit scarey.

Terrible post. Please recant before the Gods see this.

<note my address>

[Ed Lizard]

OK, the Kossen and Velden thing about Dvorak missing pressures in higher latitudes due to tropopause temps-

Also a mention of lower winds per pressure at latitude. Is this an artifact of cooler SSTs and greater low level stability, larger systems with less gradient, or something else.

Inquiring minds and all that.

[Mencken_Fan]

I understand that we didn't have scatterometer data and microwave and how that's a big deal, but I think part of it goes beyond that...look at how Frank still complains this decade about how the NHC is naming storms too willy nilly despite plenty of evidence and reasoning to back up just about any declaration they've made. In fact, the weenies often argue that the NHC is *too* stingy with upgrades. Imagine if we had to live through some of those years where we had 15 TD's not make it to TS status.

Frank comes from a heartier generation; one that defines "storm" as more than some nickel and dime disturbance that after microscopic examination is found to have a few acres of 35kt winds.

Outside the limited tropical cyclone world, the word "storm" refers to serious weather. When folks in the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast (or most the world for that matter) see a gale get upgraded to a storm, they know they're in for some big-time weather. The word "storm" has a place in everyday vernacular; and more specifically, for mariners and coastal residents the word "storm" refers to cyclones with winds 50 knots or greater.

But in the tropics? As soon as there's a cluster of clouds people pull out their magnifying glasses in search of any spot with 35 knot winds - and whey they find it they bestow a name on it, no matter how wretched the creature is. I've seen tropical storms make landfall in the Gulf states with winds no stronger than what I may get from a stiff sea breeze on a hot summer day!

What's happened over the years is the "tropically anal" people have diluted the meaning of the word "storm" down to a minimal threshold; they've so diluted the test that almost anyone can pass. Well.....school wasn't always that way.

[am19psu]

Frank comes from a heartier generation; one that defines "storm" as more than some nickel and dime disturbance that after microscopic examination is found to have a few acres of 35kt winds.

Outside the limited tropical cyclone world, the word "storm" refers to serious weather. When folks in the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast (or most the world for that matter) see a gale get upgraded to a storm, they know they're in for some big-time weather. The word "storm" has a place in everyday vernacular; and more specifically, for mariners and coastal residents the word "storm" refers to cyclones with winds 50 knots or greater.

But in the tropics? As soon as there's a cluster of clouds people pull out their magnifying glasses in search of any spot with 35 knot winds - and whey they find it they bestow a name on it, no matter how wretched the creature is. I've seen tropical storms make landfall in the Gulf states with winds no stronger than what I may get from a stiff sea breeze on a hot summer day!

What's happened over the years is the "tropically anal" people have diluted the meaning of the word "storm" down to a minimal threshold; they've so diluted the test that almost anyone can pass. Well.....school wasn't always that way.

Yeah, or we use science to define things instead of nebulous subjective terms. Either way.

[wxmx]

I see a storm coming this way... one that mariners and coastal residents are going to flee in fear.

[Ed Lizard]

I see a storm coming this way... one that mariners and coastal residents are going to flee in fear.

Nuevo Leon isn't on the coast.