HurricaneJosh Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 we've seen that type of stuff before...even in N GOM hurricanes. It seems that once you lose that inner core...even in relatively favorable environments it's extremely tough for hurricanes to re-strengthen. Yeah, I feel like Irene was structurally messed up in the tropics, even. The max winds (105 kt) occurred on the 24th... and from there the pressure fell another 15 mb while the winds decreased to 90 kt. Ugh-- just ugh. I wonder how much physical evidence there is for large hurricanes not weakening as fast. I'll bet someone's done a study on it. We also notice that small 'canes weaken much faster-- they just die as soon as they hit land-- even when they're potent at landfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 It's also interesting to see the second tropical storm in 2 years with such a low central pressure north of 40. The Unisys site hasn't updated the status yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 It's also interesting to see the second tropical storm in 2 years with such a low central pressure north of 40. The Unisys site hasn't updated the status yet. Don't hold your breath waiting for Unisys updates. I've found it's not a great research tool, as it's never totally up-to-date with the latest HURDAT changes. Also, since it only has 6-hr plots, it loses important details. For example, it shows Andrew 1992 as a Cat-4 landfall in FL and a Cat-4 landfall in LA. Actually, it was a 5 in FL and a 3 in LA. It's just not a great research tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Don't hold your breath waiting for Unisys updates. I've found it's not a great research tool, as it's never totally up-to-date with the latest HURDAT changes. Also, since it only has 6-hr plots, it loses important details. For example, it shows Andrew 1992 as a Cat-4 landfall in FL and a Cat-4 landfall in LA. Actually, it was a 5 in FL and a 3 in LA. It's just not a great research tool. I know. The point of the post was to illustrate the really deep low pressures for tropical storms at this latitude. To my knowledge Irene had the deepest pressure for a tropical storm crossing this area. Irene 28/0935...39.4...74.4...959...60 28/1200..40.3....74.1...963..55 28/1300..40.6....74.0..965...55 Earl 04/0000...39.1....70.6...961...60 04/0600...40.7....68.4...961...60 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJwinter23 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 It weakened about as fast as I'd expect. It had size going for it and slow motion going against it. The landfall intensities in NJ and NY were basically what you'd expect, given the setup-- no surprises. And I honestly don't think it was all that intact in NY/NJ. I was at the landfall point in NC (just N of Cape Lookout) and at the landfall point in NY (Cony Island), and it wasn't recognizable in the second landfall. There was no "eye"-- no coherent core to it. It was just this stew of crappy weather. That day made a huge difference. In terms of the high winds not mixing to the surface, I feel that's par for the course once you're dealing with a weakening cyclone N of 35N. Gloria was similar-- the landfall advisory indicated 120-mph winds because they didn't realize the highest winds weren't mixing to the surface. (But with Gloria, damaging winds were still making it to the surface-- just not as much.) I don't feel like Irene was all that unique, really-- except that the winds were consistently craptastic for the central pressure, even down in the Bahamas. This cyclone never had a good gradient going. I think what I remember hearing Josh and my last post had mainly to do with was the minimum central pressure slowly weakening, rather than the winds. It was still very low when it got up here I believe. Really most of the history of Irene was defined by a very low minimum central pressure that was not well reflected by max sustained winds we usually see. The pressure as I recall was actually still lowering/holding steady even a few hours after making land fall in NC.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I think what I remember hearing Josh in my last post had mainly to do with the minimum central pressure slowly weakening, rather than the winds. It was still very low when it got up here I believe. Really most of the history of Irene was defined by a very low minimum central pressure that was not well reflected by max sustained winds we usually see. The pressure as I recall was actually still lowering/holding steady even a few hours after making land fall in NC.. Agreed. The pressure actually dipped a couple of millibars after the NC landfall, and it was still very low in NY/NJ-- what you'd expect in a hurricane, even at a higher latitude. This weird characteristic of Irene's-- very low surface winds for the pressure-- appeared soon after peak intensity and remained a defining trait of this system. As I mentioned above-- and as you probably saw in the report-- the peak intensity of 105 kt was reached on the 24th. After that, the pressure dropped another 15 mb while the winds decreased to 90 kt. Just a weird cyclone-- never really had a good kick, it seemed like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJwinter23 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Agreed. Believe it or not, I think the pressure might even have dipped a millibar or two after the NC landfall-- and it was still very low in NY/NJ-- what you'd expect in a hurricane-- even at a higher latitude. This weird characteristic of Irene's-- very low surface winds for the pressure-- appeared soon after peak intensity and remained a defining trait of this system. As I mentioned above-- and as you probably saw in the report-- the peak intensity of 105 kt was reached on the 24th. After that, the pressure dropped another 15 mb while the winds decreased to 90 kt. Just a weird cyclone-- never really had a good kick, it seemed like. Definitely, that is what I was trying to get at before. It had something to do with the dry air surrounding the storm or stable air near the surface, I can't remember exactly what was going on in the surrounding environment. But whatever it was, the winds werent mixing down, the wind speeds were definitely speedy aloft, and this allowed for less friction effects once it hit land and hence no immediate weakening. Cool stuff and like you said, very weird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Definitely, that is what I was trying to get at before. It had something to do with the dry air surrounding the storm or stable air near the surface, I can't remember exactly what was going on in the surrounding environment. But whatever it was, the winds werent mixing down, the wind speeds were definitely speedy aloft, and this allowed for less friction effects once it hit land and hence no immediate weakening. Cool stuff and like you said, very weird Yeah, I think we're totally in agreement on all this. Perhaps we disagree Re: the level of reaction, but meteororologically, yeah, we're on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersWx92 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I dunno-- is the hyping inevitable? I remember Charley 1986, which was remarkably similar to Irene-- a Cat 1 hitting NC and then creeping N and threatening the Mid-Atlantic states. This was a year after Gloria, and despite that, I don't remember much hype at all with that. People weren't freaking out-- the reaction seemed somehow more proportional to the threat. There are definite consequences to overreaction-- not just the dollar costs but also future apathy when a truly dangerous 'cane threatens the region-- something which will happen again at some point. To be clear, I'm not faulting the NHC-- they did a fine job. I'm faulting the news media and local authorities in NY Metro for freaking out. Was Charley ever forecasted to be a solid Cat 1 or Cat 2 hurricane by the time it got up to this area? Because up until only a couple days out, Irene definitely was forecasted to be a major hurricane by the time it hit NC and a solid Cat 1 or even 2 in this area, and the projected track took it potentially very close to NYC. The real weakening only occurred like the day before the event started and after evacuations had already taken place. With those kinds of forecasts I can see why the event was hyped so much, because the impacts would've been far worse had it made up here at the intensity that was originally forecasted by the NHC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Was Charley ever forecasted to be a solid Cat 1 or Cat 2 hurricane by the time it got up to this area? Because up until only a couple days out, Irene definitely was forecasted to be a major hurricane by the time it hit NC and a solid Cat 1 or even 2 in this area, and the projected track took it potentially very close to NYC. The real weakening only occurred like the day before the event started and after evacuations had already taken place. With those kinds of forecasts I can see why the event was hyped so much, because the impacts would've been far worse had it made up here at the intensity that was originally forecasted by the NHC. See my posts above. By the time it reached NC, it was a moderate (75-kt) Cat 1 and creeping up the coast very slowly (for this region). It was game over. At that point, the media and local authorities should have stopped acting like the apocalypse was coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 To give you guys some climatological perspective... All of the really damaging hurricanes in this region shot up the coast very fast-- like, very fast. Gloria 1985 was moving at between 35 and 40 kt when it hit Long Island. It was so fast, the core of it was like a bad thunderstorm. It was rainy and windy for a couple of hours, at around 11 am branches were coming off of trees, then at 12 noon we had some particularly big, damaging gusts (we lost a large tree)-- and then we were in the eye. It just tore through-- boom! Donna 1960 was moving ~30 kt. Carol 1954 was moving ~30 kt. The Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 was moving ~30 kt. By some accounts I've read, the Long Island Express of 1938 was moving at a whopping 50 kt (!!!) or maybe even faster when it hit. Irene was moving at 15-20 kt. That's why it sucked. 'Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersWx92 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Hey...no takebacks!!! :-P Was expecting a downgrade at some point....the lack of sustained winds over land killed any chance of surviving re-analysis with hurricane status intact. Still, a very impactful storm for this state, arguably the widest impact of my lifetime, due to the combo of freshwater flooding and wind related power problems which lingered more than a week in some areas. Down by me here in South Jersey, we had decent strong TS type damage, not an overwhelming amount of downed trees and power lines, more than what I would call "scattered." Fatalities: check. Farther north also had widespread minor damages, with localized effects that were every bit up to the "hype". The week after Irene I worked in Milburn NJ...downtown was slammed with flooding, and every block I went past had a tree or power line down. The theater where I worked that week only had partial power for 4 days after the storm, several of my coworkers had no power for 10 days, one had severe damage from flooding in his basement that nearly reached the first floor, and one had home that was totally flooded and just now moving back into the rehabed structure.... knowing of and seeing some of those impacts puts me on tilt when non weather people claim that Irene did "nothing"....nonetheless it is the correct call, and my screenname goes unfulfilled. EDIT/NOTE: Grew up in Morris county and was a kid when Gloria brushed us, and from what I saw Irene had way more impact than that storm for that area. Irene will likely go down as the costliest natural disaster in the history of NJ, even worse than Floyd. Anyone who calls this a non-event for this area doesn't know what they are talking about. While the winds may not have been as high as originally forecasted, they were still stronger than Floyd's winds were and were enough to cause a good amount of tree damage and record-breaking power outages throughout the state. I saw several large trees down around where I live after the storm, and I was outside during the peak winds, and while they were nothing like a real hurricane, they were still nothing to sneeze at. I was afraid a tree was going to fall on top of me, and I remember seeing lots of blown transformers lighting up the night sky as this was happening. Of course the worst effects from this storm were due to the flooding, which was just as bad as forecasted. Many river basins throughout the state, including the Passaic and Raritan rivers, had near-record to record-breaking crests. Numerous roads and even some homes were flooded in my town the day after the storm, including places that I've never seen flood before. I witnessed a water rescue just down the street from where I live. Parts of Manville (a town close by me) were devastated by flooding. I was also without power for I think four days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 To be clear, I'm not judging Irene as a natural disaster or as a freshwater-flooding event. Obviously from that point of view, it was significant. I'm judging it as a tropical cyclone-- on a total tropical-nerd level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 To be clear, I'm not judging Irene as a natural disaster or as a freshwater-flooding event. Obviously from that point of view, it was significant. I'm judging it as a tropical cyclone-- on a total tropical-nerd level. Of course, if you want to be a total tropical nerd then you should acknowledge that freshwater flooding is the usual biggest single cause of damage in TC's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Of course, if you want to be a total tropical nerd then you should acknowledge that freshwater flooding is the usual biggest single cause of damage in TC's Actually, a true tropical nerd does not judge a cyclone by the amount of damage, but by the beauty and perfection of its structure and the strength of its surface winds. For this reason, deep tropical nerds don't ever show wood over freshwater flooding. Zzzzzzzzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 Actually, a true tropical nerd does not judge a cyclone by the amount of damage, but by the beauty and perfection of its structure and the strength of its surface winds. For this reason, deep tropical nerds don't ever show wood over freshwater flooding. Zzzzzzzzz. That sounds more like a true tropicalphile, not a nerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 That sounds more like a true tropicalphile, not a nerd OK, fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersWx92 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 See my posts above. By the time it reached NC, it was a moderate (75-kt) Cat 1 and creeping up the coast very slowly (for this region). It was game over. At that point, the media and local authorities should have stopped acting like the apocalypse was coming. At that point they should have toned down the hype, yes, but in the days leading up to the storm I can definitely see why it was hyped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 At that point they should have toned down the hype, yes, but in the days leading up to the storm I can definitely see why it was hyped. Agreed. Pre-NC, it looked like a real threat; post-NC, they should have toned it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.