Typhoon Tip Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I share in a lot of the sentiments of the NHC on this one: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/30/how-irenes-forecast-missed-the-mark-and-why-it-could-happen-again/ It was pleasant to hear these words spoken from the director down there, because I was a bit nonplussed by the apparent inability of Irene to tap into favorable parameters and actually intensify the way she could have. It seems I was not alone. In the end, with 38 deaths to go along with all those images of damage and disruption, it is probably for the better - no doubt! But, this is an homage to what could have been, and perhaps to serve as a warning. A non-Meteorologist friend of mine was commenting about the attitudes around the office in the wake of Irene - as a lay-person his sentiments there echoed my own. There is a kind of apathy in the wake of Irene, where folks of less enlightenment about this sort of thing are tending to conclude, "Okay, so that was a hurricane". As he put it, that is somewhat dangerous as very few places from the Del Marva up the coast verified a hurricane. It was an interesting life for Irene, no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Star Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 During Irene, I was observing the anemometers along the New Jersey coastline that were on the Weather Underground site. It appeared that the strongest winds of the entire storm were during Sunday afternoon. I saw a peak gust around 66 mph. The average wind speeds were between 25 and 50 mph. The eye of Irene passed just inshore. As the eye approached, wind speeds actually decreased. Did Irene really go through New Jersey as a Category 1, or as a tropical storm? I guess I need a refresher on hurricanes. I know measurements are taken from a plane, but are the winds reported by the NHC supposed to be estimated for the surface? I am accepting the Weather Underground's wind speeds to be relatively accurate since they all couldn't be wrong. My ultimate question is: Is a hurricane's category based on actual ground speed, upper level wind speed, or estimated (or corrected for height) wind speeds. I'm glad the winds were less than a category 1 along the Jersey coast since I have a house on the bay on Good Luck Point. (Should I post this here, or maybe go to ask a Pro Met? I'm actually a met, but moved on after only 1 year in the field). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 During Irene, I was observing the anemometers along the New Jersey coastline that were on the Weather Underground site. It appeared that the strongest winds of the entire storm were during Sunday afternoon. I saw a peak gust around 66 mph. The average wind speeds were between 25 and 50 mph. The eye of Irene passed just inshore. As the eye approached, wind speeds actually decreased. Did Irene really go through New Jersey as a Category 1, or as a tropical storm? I guess I need a refresher on hurricanes. I know measurements are taken from a plane, but are the winds reported by the NHC supposed to be estimated for the surface? I am accepting the Weather Underground's wind speeds to be relatively accurate since they all couldn't be wrong. My ultimate question is: Is a hurricane's category based on actual ground speed, upper level wind speed, or estimated (or corrected for height) wind speeds. I'm glad the winds were less than a category 1 along the Jersey coast since I have a house on the bay on Good Luck Point. (Should I post this here, or maybe go to ask a Pro Met? I'm actually a met, but moved on after only 1 year in the field). When Irene hit NJ, she was Cat 1 storm. Irene was downgraded to a Tropical Storm when she hit Coney Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 In summary, Vermont got the worst damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 In summary, Vermont got the worst damage. I saved all the images from the Irene tracking thread. Not one had anything to do with Vermont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 During Irene, I was observing the anemometers along the New Jersey coastline that were on the Weather Underground site. It appeared that the strongest winds of the entire storm were during Sunday afternoon. I saw a peak gust around 66 mph. The average wind speeds were between 25 and 50 mph. The eye of Irene passed just inshore. As the eye approached, wind speeds actually decreased. Did Irene really go through New Jersey as a Category 1, or as a tropical storm? I guess I need a refresher on hurricanes. I know measurements are taken from a plane, but are the winds reported by the NHC supposed to be estimated for the surface? I am accepting the Weather Underground's wind speeds to be relatively accurate since they all couldn't be wrong. My ultimate question is: Is a hurricane's category based on actual ground speed, upper level wind speed, or estimated (or corrected for height) wind speeds. I'm glad the winds were less than a category 1 along the Jersey coast since I have a house on the bay on Good Luck Point. (Should I post this here, or maybe go to ask a Pro Met? I'm actually a met, but moved on after only 1 year in the field). You would expect the strongest winds to be east of the low in most situations. This was a really broad deep low pressure so it was seemingly displaced even further east than normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 When Irene hit NJ, she was Cat 1 storm. Irene was downgraded to a Tropical Storm when she hit Coney Island. Well that settles it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I saved all the images from the Irene tracking thread. Not one had anything to do with Vermont. I was thinking Per capita. Some of the NYC bouroughs have more people than Verrmont and if you lived in Vermont you probably had the best chance of dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I was thinking Per capita. Some of the NYC bouroughs have more people than Verrmont and if you lived in Vermont you probably had the best chance of dying. nyc is like 15x the pop of vermont, but still, i guess hpc was underhyped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 In summary, Vermont got the worst damage. Judging from the national news coverage, yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 nyc is like 15x the pop of vermont, but still, i guess hpc was underhyped Not exactly what verified. We'll know when NWS Burlington gets back online and can take spotter reports. The media has just picked Vermont. The Catskills and Berkshires maybe close to as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulen Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Moral of the story their's no such thing as a weak huurcane . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Not exactly what verified. We'll know when NWS Burlington gets back online and can take spotter reports. The media has just picked Vermont. The Catskills and Berkshires maybe close to as bad. Still, that was a really good QPF. Until Katrina skewed the number, inland flooding had been the biggest killer with tropical systems. But inland flooding is often the least discussed potential hazard by the national media outlets until after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApacheTrout Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Here's a preliminary precipitation map from BTV. I suspect that adjustments will be made along the spine of the Green Mountains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terpeast Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 After seeing first-hand what Ike can do (was a borderline cat 2/3 storm when it hit the TX coast and Houston), I don't take even high-end TS lightly. Not just because of the wind, but because of flooding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Still, that was a really good QPF. Until Katrina skewed the number, inland flooding had been the biggest killer with tropical systems. But inland flooding is often the least discussed potential hazard by the national media outlets until after the fact. And that was a thursday forecast.. Too many in big media places saying "rain overperformed". I think it just got lost in everything else. Even Dr. Greg on CWG said something to the effect "we need to do more research about rain with tropical systems".... which is perplexing as we already know inland flooding is such a big threat and HPC was directly highlighting that issue (as I'm sure were local offices etc) prior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 And that was a thursday forecast.. Too many in big media places saying "rain overperformed". I think it just got lost in everything else. Even Dr. Greg on CWG said something to the effect "we need to do more research about rain with tropical systems".... which is perplexing as we already know inland flooding is such a big threat and HPC was directly highlighting that issue (as I'm sure were local offices etc) prior. I don't agree with Forbes. The biggest bust for the storm was the wind speeds. The models, especially the euro were way to strong with the storm. We actually know quite a bit about rain and tropical systems. Bosart and Suny Albany have done lots on where the heaviest precipitation will fall relative to the storms track. This storm fit the west side composites really well. We've also known that storms that interact with fronts and jet streaks are often some of the biggest rain makers along the east coast. Floyd and Agnes were two prime examples and Irene had the same type of interaction. Heck, I mentioned that in at least one post. Hence, HPC had out really good rainfall forecasts. As you noted, I'm sure the NWS forecast offices in upstate NY and Vermont were talking about flash flooding prior to the storm. I think one of the problems that the TWC has is they hyped the rainfall and dire consequences so much for NYC that when the impact was less than forecast for that area they generalized that the impact was less than forecast overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApacheTrout Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 And that was a thursday forecast.. Too many in big media places saying "rain overperformed". I think it just got lost in everything else. Even Dr. Greg on CWG said something to the effect "we need to do more research about rain with tropical systems".... which is perplexing as we already know inland flooding is such a big threat and HPC was directly highlighting that issue (as I'm sure were local offices etc) prior. The loss of life (four) in Vermont was very low considering the magnitude of the destruction. I think this was a direct result of the activation of the emergency management boards (EMB) of many towns. The activation was based on the predicted rainfall amounts (such as the QPF noted above) and wind speeds. the EMBs posted very clear warnings at post offices, general stores, and gas stations for people to stay inside during the storm and expect power outages and water damage to roads. In my opinion, this was an example of excellent civil emergency preparedness using highly accurate NWS forecasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Cherry's Jacket Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 My takeaways were 1) pretty good job by the models coming together on a consensus, which bodes well for the future, and 2) scratching my head about the low pressure readings and relatively "poor" performance by her wind strength. I'm not a met, so I've read various mets talking about why the storm wasn't as strong or organized as we thought, but the fact that many of us watchers (pro and am alike) were peeing ourself at the pressure readings just 24-36 hours before landfall, and then didn't see the strengthening or holding of strength that some of seemed to think was a real possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan88 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Dr. Jeff Masters had a nice writeup on Irene that is worth a read http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1910 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.