Cape Verde Blues

[Drz1111]

I don't think the best track is "flawed", rather, I think it has a predictable limitation - pre satellites, it's going to be biased against showing weak storms away from shore. I mean, when they looked at the (limited) data for Edna, they "found" a previously missing TD that had been combined with Edna's track. The error bars around these pre-1960 tracks is very large and diffcult to quantify - but qualitatively, we know it's going to create the "appearance" of an underrepresntation of CV cyclones.

My particular quibble with Edna is that the track doesn't look "right". What I mean is this: assume we could "calibrate", so to speak, pre-satellite tracks with contemprary tracks without the known bias. In the best track, Edna forms just to the east of the Antilles and promptly tracks NNW as a TD, until it bends back west as a TS and then recurves in a normal fashion.

That's a just a really odd track. Look, for example, at 1995-present:

http://www.nhc.noaa....1995atlan.shtml

There's nothing really Edna-like in the last 17 years. At that time of year, at that location . . . if the track is real, it's highly anomalous. Of course, a Cat-3 landfall on LI is highly anomalous as well . . . so maybe it just happens to be a rare track that's effective for generating a strong NE landfall.

DRZ, if you would like to reject the Landsea/best track data as inadequate, flawed, etc, then I guess that's your own (misguided) prerogative.

However, I think everyone (myself included) loses you because you essentially cut off your explanation of the methods of your madness once you make this rejection clear. I think you fly off the rails when it comes to: (1) the parameters and specifics of your (re)definition of what constitutes a CV cyclone; and (2) the evidence you have to back up your assertions that cyclones hitherto labeled as non-CV were erroneously classified as such.

I think it fair and reasonable to place upon you the burden of demonstrating for us a sufficient alternative to prevailing best track data, which, as Josh correctly points out, is the best we seem to have despite its universally-acknowledged shortcomings. You correctly point out that Landsea recognized the imperfection of the data, but discarding it on that basis alone is akin to dispensing with general relativity because Einstein felt there was more work to be done.

It then follows that your hasty rejection of the prevailing data and the accounts of past events premised upon it is hardly a freestanding justification for your reclasification of past storms as CV ones. If there are some alternate ground on which you are doing so, none of us seem to see it. Put it in crayon for me if you must; my lack of 'parchment' seems to be rearing its ugly head again. ;-)

I don't think anybody here is apt to dismissing alternative theories, explanations, narratives, etc. I personally relish the prospect of new, better accounts displacing old, antiquated ones. But if the minimal, scientific standards of clarification, revelation of evidence, etc cannot be met, then perhaps recourse to David Hume's suggestion is appropriate: "To the flames!"

[Ed Lizard]

In a way, Josh does have social currency. And he has earned it. Nothing brings this forum together, despite our differences, than the pressure filled hours leading to a chase. Then the not posting for a couple of hours. Or more. Than the video, taking us places most of us could wish to go.

Without Reed Timmer smugness.

If the guy is a tight core low latitude snob, it is America, where people are entitled. If I am personally hoping for a Charley Redux this year, it isn't wishing anything bad on Florida, I don't control the weather, they are as prepared as anyone, and they have flat land and good roads.

And, despite the fact that Josh has pretty much proven significant CV cyclones hitting the Northeast are rare, I am still a little "tingly", to steal a phrase, based on early modelling and trends, for that Black Swan of the weather, a major or at least significant hurricane approaching NYC/SNE around Labor Day.

Best of both worlds, before I was born, would obviously be Hurricane Donna. Josh could chase a below 30ºN landfall major, we'd have a chase thread, videos, and the NYC/SNE crowd would also be rewarded. In some ways, that would top 1938

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

I don't think the best track is "flawed", rather, I think it has a predictable limitation - pre satellites, it's going to be biased against showing weak storms away from shore. I mean, when they looked at the (limited) data for Edna, they "found" a previously missing TD that had been combined with Edna's track. The error bars around these pre-1960 tracks is very large and diffcult to quantify - but qualitatively, we know it's going to create the "appearance" of an underrepresntation of CV cyclones.

My particular quibble with Edna is that the track doesn't look "right". What I mean is this: assume we could "calibrate", so to speak, pre-satellite tracks with contemprary tracks without the known bias. In the best track, Edna forms just to the east of the Antilles and promptly tracks NNW as a TD, until it bends back west as a TS and then recurves in a normal fashion.

That's a just a really odd track. Look, for example, at 1995-present:

http://www.nhc.noaa....1995atlan.shtml

There's nothing really Edna-like in the last 17 years. At that time of year, at that location . . . if the track is real, it's highly anomalous. Of course, a Cat-3 landfall on LI is highly anomalous as well . . . so maybe it just happens to be a rare track that's effective for generating a strong NE landfall.

You act as if there was nothing going on in the middle of the Atlantic to be able to determine if there were cyclones or not.

[Drz1111]

You act as if there was nothing going on in the middle of the Atlantic to be able to determine if there were cyclones or not.

Compared to current data, what they had back then is a drop in the bucket. Obviously there was more data than what they had from the E.Pac, but it's not like the MDR is in the main shipping lanes: see, e.g., http://cdn.billjaquette.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/316_1866_F2.jpeg?4d9d5d

[Ed Lizard]

Compared to current data, what they had back then is a drop in the bucket. Obviously there was more data than what they had from the E.Pac, but it's not like the MDR is in the main shipping lanes: see, e.g., http://cdn.billjaque..._F2.jpeg?4d9d5d

I linked above, Landsea does admit some cyclones were missed, and attempts to quantify. But almost 50 years into the satellite era, including both phases of the AMO, there is probably a pretty good handle on what percentage of CV storms recurve, and while SNE hurricanes are rare, we have a handle on where they develop.

[GaWx]

I largely agree that CV storms are teases with regard to reaching the U.S. (contiguous 48), even for those that form during August (whose storms have hit more frequently than Sep. storms). These Aug. storms are more of a tease during an El Nino:

For the period 1900-2011 using KNOWN tracks for August CV formations:

- Non-El Nino seasons: 69 CV storms formed in August during 79 seasons or 0.9 CV formations/August. Out of those 69, 19 later hit the U.S. That is still only a 28% U.S. hit rate or 1 in 3.5 that hit the U.S. during non-Ninos for Aug. formations. Since 1960, there have been 1.1 CV formations/August (48 in 42 Aug.'s) and a 25% U.S. hit rate (12 of 48) during non-Ninos.

- El Nino seasons: 19 CV storms formed in August during 33 seasons or ~0.6/August. Out of these 19, only 3 later hit the U.S. (1900's Galveston storm, 1930's storm #2, and 2004's Frances), which equates to a mere 16% U.S. hit rate during Ninos for Aug. formations. Since 1960, there have been 0.8 CV formations/August (14 in 17 Aug.'s) and a mere 7% U.S. hit rate (1 of 14).

- Two of the three El Nino CV storms that formed in August and that later hit the U.S.,1900's Galveston storm and 2004's Frances, were both during WEAK El Ninos. So, out of the 18 moderate or stronger El Ninos, only one CV storm formed in August and later hit the U.S. (1 in 8 or 13%). Only 8 formed during the 18 moderate or stronger El Ninos or only 0.4/August. This rises only to 0.6/August for mod.+ Ninos since 1960.

- For weak El Ninos, alone, there have been 11 August CV formations during 15 Aug.'s (0.7/August).

Out of these 11, 2 later hit the U.S. (18%). Since 1960, the respective stats are 1.2 formations/August (7 in 6 Aug.'s) and a U.S. hit rate of 14% (1 in 7).

I know Josh would probably prefer to see some central America/MX hits included. However, my stats aren't broken out that way. Also, my def. of a CV storm is a bit different: tropical storm/hurricane that first became a TD E of 50W (instead of 40W) and S of 20N. Even so, one can see that they still are teases, overall.

** Edit: I had originally left off one strong El Nino's CV storm that formed in August and later hit the U.S.: #2 of 1930. The old track had it form west of 50W. However, the newer track has it formed east of 50W. I've since edited my stats in this post to reflect this storm.

[The Dude]

I don't think the best track is "flawed", rather, I think it has a predictable limitation - pre satellites, it's going to be biased against showing weak storms away from shore. I mean, when they looked at the (limited) data for Edna, they "found" a previously missing TD that had been combined with Edna's track. The error bars around these pre-1960 tracks is very large and diffcult to quantify - but qualitatively, we know it's going to create the "appearance" of an underrepresntation of CV cyclones.

My particular quibble with Edna is that the track doesn't look "right". What I mean is this: assume we could "calibrate", so to speak, pre-satellite tracks with contemprary tracks without the known bias. In the best track, Edna forms just to the east of the Antilles and promptly tracks NNW as a TD, until it bends back west as a TS and then recurves in a normal fashion.

That's a just a really odd track. Look, for example, at 1995-present:

http://www.nhc.noaa....1995atlan.shtml

There's nothing really Edna-like in the last 17 years. At that time of year, at that location . . . if the track is real, it's highly anomalous. Of course, a Cat-3 landfall on LI is highly anomalous as well . . . so maybe it just happens to be a rare track that's effective for generating a strong NE landfall.

I decided to take a slightly approach to analyzing your suggestion that "CV cyclones are the best chance, by far, for a major landfall." Given the paucity of actual major landfalls in the NE, it seemed to me that the dataset was perhaps too small to draw reliable conclusions. So, instead of focusing on actual landfalls, I expanded the search to include near-misses.

To do that I searched for all storms that were at least a Cat 2 within 200 miles of 70W, 40N during the satellite era. My expectation was that I'd find a number of CVs that were near-misses. Instead, of the 11 storms fitting the criteria, only 3 were CV storms (Donna, Eduoard, and Esther). Of the remaining storms, 4 formed in the Bahamas (Alma '62, Ginny '63, Gerda '69, and Bob '91), 2 off the SE coast (Gustav '02, Alex '04), 1 in the W. Caribbean (Irene '99), and 1 in the mid-Atlantic (~50W) (Emily '93).

Bob actually is a pretty close match for Edna's track.

Source: link

[GaWx]

To show how rare the big payoff is...

Here's the consolidated product of my and Jorge's (wxmx's) research from a while ago-- the complete list of known Cape Verde cyclones that made landfall in the USA as major (Cat-3+) 'canes, including categories for states experiencing max impact and landfall intensities. As you can see, there just ain't that many for the last century and a half:

1893 #6 Sea Islands - GA3, SC3 (954 mb/100 kt)

1893 #9 --- - SC3 (955 mb/105 kt)

1899 #3 San Ciriaco, Outer Banks - NC3 (945 mb/105 kt)

1915 #2 Galveston - TX4(N) (940 mb/115 kt)

1928 #4 Lake Okeechobee - FL4(SE) (929 mb/125 kt)

1938 #4 "Long Island Express" - NY3, CT3, RI3, MA2 (940 mb/105 kt)

1947 #4 Fort Lauderdale - FL4(SE) (940 mb/115 kt)

1960 Donna - FL4(SW) (930 mb/115 kt)

1979 Frederic - MS3, AL3 (946 mb/115 kt*)

1980 Allen - TX3(S) (945 mb/100 kt)

1989 Hugo - SC4 (934 mb/120 kt)

1992 Andrew - FL5(SE) (922 mb/145 kt)

1996 Fran - NC3 (954 mb/100 kt)

2004 Ivan - AL3, FL3(NW) (946 mb/105 kt)

Note that a respectable 8 of these 14 had at least a little WSW motion in their tracks in the E Atlantic. I don't think that is a coincidence.

[Wannabehippie]

Hurricane David didn't make landfall as a major?

To show how rare the big payoff is...

Here's the consolidated product of my and Jorge's (wxmx's) research from a while ago-- the complete list of known Cape Verde cyclones that made landfall in the USA as major (Cat-3+) 'canes, including categories for states experiencing max impact and landfall intensities. As you can see, there just ain't that many for the last century and a half:

1893 #6 Sea Islands - GA3, SC3 (954 mb/100 kt)

1893 #9 --- - SC3 (955 mb/105 kt)

1899 #3 San Ciriaco, Outer Banks - NC3 (945 mb/105 kt)

1915 #2 Galveston - TX4(N) (940 mb/115 kt)

1928 #4 Lake Okeechobee - FL4(SE) (929 mb/125 kt)

1938 #4 "Long Island Express" - NY3, CT3, RI3, MA2 (940 mb/105 kt)

1947 #4 Fort Lauderdale - FL4(SE) (940 mb/115 kt)

1960 Donna - FL4(SW) (930 mb/115 kt)

1979 Frederic - MS3, AL3 (946 mb/115 kt*)

1980 Allen - TX3(S) (945 mb/100 kt)

1989 Hugo - SC4 (934 mb/120 kt)

1992 Andrew - FL5(SE) (922 mb/145 kt)

1996 Fran - NC3 (954 mb/100 kt)

2004 Ivan - AL3, FL3(NW) (946 mb/105 kt)

Re: the above list, some notes:

* These are all systems that become cyclones E of 40W.

* We used the NHC's official landfall list: http://www.aoml.noaa...Hurricanes.html

* The period from 1936 thru 1979 has not been reanalyzed-- therefore, the listed landfall wind speeds are from the latest reputable research papers but are not yet officially approved values. Therefore, this part of the table is colored.

* I excluded hurricanes from this period that will probably get downgraded below Cat 3 in reanalysis, based on papers by reputable researchers-- i.e., Chris Landsea, etc. An example would be Connie 1955, which probably was not a major hurricane at landfall in NC. I also excluded Gloria 1985 based on recent research which suggests winds of 95 kt at landfall in NC (Cat 2) and 75 kt at landfall in NY (Cat 1).

* The best-track wind speed for Frederic 1979 at landfall (115 kt) would make it a Cat 4-- however, it's listed as Cat 3. This discrepancy needs to be resolved in reanalysis.

* I'm sure there were probably at least a few more examples from the pre-satellite era-- i.e., cyclones that actually did form E of 40W but weren't detected until later and therefore don't show up in HURDAT until they're W of 40W. For example, Galveston 1900 was probably a Cape Verde 'cane, but it wasn't detected until W of 40W.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

I kinda agree with Drz. The statistics aren't telling the whole story. The CV storms maybe fish storms more often than they are beast, but I always feel like the Eastern seaboard has a much greater chance of getting a hit by the "big one" by a CV storm than any other type of forming storm. I don't really particularly like the subjectiveness of the definition of a CV storm either. I would gather just about 85% or more storms come directly from Africa in one form or another. Just because it didn't form at a certain longitude is kinda irrelevant. Africa provides the seeds for virtually all tropical systems even if they are just "waves" crossing the Atlantic. I would even argue even random spinups in the GOM are from African origins with the exception of cold front type generation storms that are the real definition of home brewed. But even some of these "home brewed" systems traversed the atlantic at some point and strengthened closer to home when the conditions became ripe. I have to agree with Josh on one BIG key point though, Bahama Brew is definitely a great breeding ground for Eastern big storms. But in the larger picture, even these spinups that are classified as Bahama Brew were garbage waves from Africa at one point. Easterlies FTW

[HurricaneJosh]

In a way, Josh does have social currency. And he has earned it. Nothing brings this forum together, despite our differences, than the pressure filled hours leading to a chase. Then the not posting for a couple of hours. Or more. Than the video, taking us places most of us could wish to go.

Without Reed Timmer smugness.

If the guy is a tight core low latitude snob, it is America, where people are entitled. If I am personally hoping for a Charley Redux this year, it isn't wishing anything bad on Florida, I don't control the weather, they are as prepared as anyone, and they have flat land and good roads.

And, despite the fact that Josh has pretty much proven significant CV cyclones hitting the Northeast are rare, I am still a little "tingly", to steal a phrase, based on early modelling and trends, for that Black Swan of the weather, a major or at least significant hurricane approaching NYC/SNE around Labor Day.

Best of both worlds, before I was born, would obviously be Hurricane Donna. Josh could chase a below 30ºN landfall major, we'd have a chase thread, videos, and the NYC/SNE crowd would also be rewarded. In some ways, that would top 1938

Thanks for the kind words, Ed-- I appreciate it.

And, yes, a Donna redux would have something for everyone. It would be the tropical version of Santa Claus coming to town!

I decided to take a slightly approach to analyzing your suggestion that "CV cyclones are the best chance, by far, for a major landfall." Given the paucity of actual major landfalls in the NE, it seemed to me that the dataset was perhaps too small to draw reliable conclusions. So, instead of focusing on actual landfalls, I expanded the search to include near-misses.

To do that I searched for all storms that were at least a Cat 2 within 200 miles of 70W, 40N during the satellite era. My expectation was that I'd find a number of CVs that were near-misses. Instead, of the 11 storms fitting the criteria, only 3 were CV storms (Donna, Eduoard, and Esther). Of the remaining storms, 4 formed in the Bahamas (Alma '62, Ginny '63, Gerda '69, and Bob '91), 2 off the SE coast (Gustav '02, Alex '04), 1 in the W. Caribbean (Irene '99), and 1 in the mid-Atlantic (~50W) (Emily '93).

Bob actually is a pretty close match for Edna's track.

Source: link

That's actually a smart idea-- a good methodology for tackling this topic, given the microscopic sample set. And it's interesting that it pretty-much validates the existing assumptions.

Note that a respectable 8 of these 14 had at least a little WSW motion in their tracks in the E Atlantic. I don't think that is a coincidence.

Yep! Since you mentioned this telltale attribute a couple of years ago, I actually look for signs of it in new CV systems-- as a clue to what might happen down the road.

Hurricane David didn't make landfall as a major?

Not in the USA-- only in Dominican Republic. In FL, GA, and SC, it was ~85 kt-- a low-end Cat 2.

[HurricaneJosh]

As I mentioned in my general chase thread, one of the hawtest cyclones ever-- a Grade-A Caribbean Cruiser and one of my personal and sentimental favorites, because I chased it-- was a a Cape Verde system.

So, I don't want to give the impression that I don't like 'em-- it's just that I view 'em skeptically. That's all.

[free_man]

As I mentioned in my general chase thread, one of the hawtest cyclones ever-- a Grade-A Caribbean Cruiser and one of my personal and sentimental favorites, because I chased it-- was a a Cape Verde system.

So, I don't want to give the impression that I don't like 'em-- it's just that I view 'em skeptically. That's all.

The track is phenomenal, in retrospect.

[isohume]

For me, one of the biggest wx teases has always been clear air turbulence. Talk about a letdown when no extreme PIREPs are reported in forecasted CAT areas. You know there is pure terror on those flights. lol!

[HurricaneJosh]

The track is phenomenal, in retrospect.

Isn't it??

Just constant speed and direction for ten days-- from birth near Africa to dissipation over Mexico-- like it was drawn with a ruler.

[Eduardo]

Eduardo should post more.

I will definitely try to make more of an effort. I am usually too busy for meaningful input, but I couldn't resist wading into this discussion.

I don't think the best track is "flawed", rather, I think it has a predictable limitation - pre satellites, it's going to be biased against showing weak storms away from shore. I mean, when they looked at the (limited) data for Edna, they "found" a previously missing TD that had been combined with Edna's track. The error bars around these pre-1960 tracks is very large and diffcult to quantify - but qualitatively, we know it's going to create the "appearance" of an underrepresntation of CV cyclones.

My particular quibble with Edna is that the track doesn't look "right". What I mean is this: assume we could "calibrate", so to speak, pre-satellite tracks with contemprary tracks without the known bias. In the best track, Edna forms just to the east of the Antilles and promptly tracks NNW as a TD, until it bends back west as a TS and then recurves in a normal fashion.

That's a just a really odd track. Look, for example, at 1995-present:

http://www.nhc.noaa....1995atlan.shtml

There's nothing really Edna-like in the last 17 years. At that time of year, at that location . . . if the track is real, it's highly anomalous. Of course, a Cat-3 landfall on LI is highly anomalous as well . . . so maybe it just happens to be a rare track that's effective for generating a strong NE landfall.

I think you make a valid point regarding Edna's track. It certainly seems anamalous and such may be attributable to the inadequacies of the best track data discussed at length above. Nonetheless, I still fail to recognize any better alternative. More importantly, I still do not see how, on the basis of the data's limitations alone, you arrive at your conclusion that CV cyclones offer the "best chance for a major landfall." All I see underlying your shroud of multisyllabic words and ostentatious verbiage is a bare assumption which just so happens to also be your conclusion.

I am not trying to marginalize or put you down here, but if there is more to what you are saying, then out with it! That is, if you know of some ample alternative to best track and this alternative is a sound basis from which to draw such a novel conclusion, then spell it out for us in clear terms. Although I do not post often, I have been a part of this community for a very long time (SnowLover on Eastern) and I can tell you that everyone here keeps an open mind. In all sincerity, we are all ears!

[HurricaneJosh]

Bump.

[Floydbuster]

Josh, I still believe the next most serious U.S. Hurricane impact won't come from the "Carla Cradle" (exceptionally rare or always a Yucatan hit), and it likely won't come from a homegrown system.

 

I think a classic, long tracked Cape Verde hurricane that gets caught under a ridge will be the next monster. Whether it's this year (or even TD-5) or next year or three years from now, it's bound to happen.

 

1919 - Key West, FL - 150 mph (9/10)

1926 - Coral Gables, FL - 150 mph (9/18)

1928 - West Palm Beach, FL - 145 mph (9/17)

1945 - Key Largo, FL - 135 mph (9/15)

1947 - Fort Lauderdale, FL - 150 mph (9/17)

1949 - West Palm Beach, FL - 140 mph (8/26)

 

With the exception of Donna 1960 and Andrew 1992, nothing has even come close to these monsters in the last half century. It's not a question of if, but when.

 

Frances was going to be one of those storms, I believe at one time it was forecast to hit the East Central Florida coastline with 145 mph winds, but weakened to a large, ragged Cat 2 storm. Hurricane Ike would have hit South Florida as a Cat 4 or even Cat 5 storm but the ridge was so strong that it went to Northeastern Cuba instead.

 

Also, many of these storms (despite being in the era before satellite coverage) were weak or even non-existant until 60W or so, and still became monsters. That's why these storms like TD-5 cannot be dismissed even if they are open waves by 65W.

[HurricaneJosh]

Josh, I still believe the next most serious U.S. Hurricane impact won't come from the "Carla Cradle" (exceptionally rare or always a Yucatan hit), and it likely won't come from a homegrown system.

 

I think a classic, long tracked Cape Verde hurricane that gets caught under a ridge will be the next monster. Whether it's this year (or even TD-5) or next year or three years from now, it's bound to happen.

 

1919 - Key West, FL - 150 mph (9/10)

1926 - Coral Gables, FL - 150 mph (9/18)

1928 - West Palm Beach, FL - 145 mph (9/17)

1945 - Key Largo, FL - 135 mph (9/15)

1947 - Fort Lauderdale, FL - 150 mph (9/17)

1949 - West Palm Beach, FL - 140 mph (8/26)

 

With the exception of Donna 1960 and Andrew 1992, nothing has even come close to these monsters in the last half century. It's not a question of if, but when.

 

Frances was going to be one of those storms, I believe at one time it was forecast to hit the East Central Florida coastline with 145 mph winds, but weakened to a large, ragged Cat 2 storm. Hurricane Ike would have hit South Florida as a Cat 4 or even Cat 5 storm but the ridge was so strong that it went to Northeastern Cuba instead.

 

Also, many of these storms (despite being in the era before satellite coverage) were weak or even non-existant until 60W or so, and still became monsters. That's why these storms like TD-5 cannot be dismissed even if they are open waves by 65W.

 

I don't totally disagree with your post, but see Post No. 2 of this thread:  http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/36118-cape-verde-blues/?p=1702259

 

Those are the Cape Verde major landfalls in the USA.  Storms like 1919, 1926, 1945, and 1949 don't technically meet the criteria-- they're not known to have become cyclones E of 40W.

 

P.S.  You left out Hugo 1989, which actually was a classic Cape Verde cyclone that had a devastating USA impact.

[Ed Lizard]

Sandy was the biggest storm of tropical origin to affect the Northeast in decades (I suspect more damage inflation adjusted dollars than Gloria) and officially was a Cat 1 storm in New York ( produced Cat 1 winds while offshore and still classified as a hurricane by NHC in Suffolk County) before it was declared post-tropical.  In the neighborhood of Carla cradle genesis.

 

Obviously not a classic tropical system when it was approaching the Northeast, but how many 'classic' tropical systems do affect the Northeast?  Even Gloria didn't look like a 'classic' TC with a clear eye, for that matter.

(Wiki, of course)

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

Sandy was the biggest storm of tropical origin to affect the Northeast in decades (I suspect more damage inflation adjusted dollars than Gloria) and officially was a Cat 1 storm in New York ( produced Cat 1 winds while offshore and still classified as a hurricane by NHC in Suffolk County) before it was declared post-tropical.  In the neighborhood of Carla cradle genesis.

 

Obviously not a classic tropical system when it was approaching the Northeast, but how many 'classic' tropical systems do affect the Northeast?  Even Gloria didn't look like a 'classic' TC with a clear eye, for that matter.

(Wiki, of course)

 

 

Bob 91 and Carol 54 are about as close to true tropical you can get in the NE and both were home grown.

 

It's hard to say what the structure was of some of the really old NE classics like 1821 and the 1600's coloniel. But I would imagine they were decaying cape verdes.  

 

Even 38 wasnt a true tropical.

 

We need some serious climate change induced warming before we start talking pure tropical NE canes.

[Ed Lizard]

Bob 91 and Carol 54 are about as close to true tropical you can get in the NE and both were home grown.

 

It's hard to say what the structure was of some of the really old NE classics like 1821 and the 1600's coloniel. But I would imagine they were decaying cape verdes.  

 

Even 38 wasnt a true tropical.

 

We need some serious climate change induced warming before we start talking pure tropical NE canes.

 

It isn't just SSTs.  1938 wasn't going that fast because of cold water.  Unless if climate change does occur, the predominant jet also relocated closer to the poles.

[HurricaneJosh]

People always say 1938 "wasn't tropical".  No, it wasn't purely tropical, but nothing up in Long Island and New England is-- not even Carol or Bob.

 

Either way, it was way more tropical than Sandy.  1938 had a core, an eyewall, and an eye when it came ashore, with an RMW (radius of max winds) of ~40 nmi.  Sandy had no core, and the RMW was well over 100 nmi.  Sandy was really far from its tropical origins at the time of landfall-- 1938, not nearly as  much.

[Thunder Road]

If this season of dullness keeps up, Ed and Josh could become front-runners for WOTY.

[Ed Lizard]

People always say 1938 "wasn't tropical".  No, it wasn't purely tropical, but nothing up in Long Island and New England is-- not even Carol or Bob.

 

Either way, it was way more tropical than Sandy.  1938 had a core, an eyewall, and an eye when it came ashore, with an RMW (radius of max winds) of ~40 nmi.  Sandy had no core, and the RMW was well over 100 nmi.  Sandy was really far from its tropical origins at the time of landfall-- 1938, not nearly as  much.

 

 

I wasn't putting down 1938 in any way, just noting the interactions with the strong mid-latitude jet isn't ( directly, anyway) a function of cool SSTs immediately off of Long Island.  Marginally favorable SSTs get within 200 miles of Long Island in late Summer, the rapid motion of 1938 not doubt gave it less time over unfavorable cool SSTs and less time to experience the post tropical transition process. 

[jm1220]

People always say 1938 "wasn't tropical".  No, it wasn't purely tropical, but nothing up in Long Island and New England is-- not even Carol or Bob.

 

Either way, it was way more tropical than Sandy.  1938 had a core, an eyewall, and an eye when it came ashore, with an RMW (radius of max winds) of ~40 nmi.  Sandy had no core, and the RMW was well over 100 nmi.  Sandy was really far from its tropical origins at the time of landfall-- 1938, not nearly as  much.

Sandy was a Perfect Storm, just a stronger version and somewhat differently formed than the 1991 event. "Perfect Storms" are the event I most fear for this area. Sandy was truly scary for a time. 1938 was probably headed that way but slammed Long Island before it could weaken and transition much-I think that was truly a once per few centuries storm. A Sandy-type hybrid phaser is more common in this area than a 70-mph zooming cat 3 or 4.

[HurricaneJosh]

I wasn't putting down 1938 in any way, just noting the interactions with the strong mid-latitude jet isn't ( directly, anyway) a function of cool SSTs immediately off of Long Island.  Marginally favorable SSTs get within 200 miles of Long Island in late Summer, the rapid motion of 1938 not doubt gave it less time over unfavorable cool SSTs and less time to experience the post tropical transition process. 

 

My post wasn't a response to yours-- I didn't think you were putting down 1938.  And, agreed, 1938 was so severe because it moved so fast.  The 1938 hurricane is essentially a near-perfect example of what happens when you have a Cat 5 near the Bahamas that then shoots N at max speed.

 

There's a chance the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 might have been a touch more severe-- but there's no way to know for sure.  Assuming 1635 and 1938 were roughly similar in terms of intensity, it suggests that these are basically 300-year events-- meaning it's unlikely we'll see a 1938 repeat in our lifetimes.

 

Sandy was a Perfect Storm, just a stronger version and somewhat differently formed than the 1991 event. "Perfect Storms" are the event I most fear for this area. Sandy was truly scary for a time. 1938 was probably headed that way but slammed Long Island before it could weaken and transition much-I think that was truly a once per few centuries storm. A Sandy-type hybrid phaser is more common in this area than a 70-mph zooming cat 3 or 4.

 

Mostly agreed.  The 1938 cyclone not only moved faster-- it was also much more severe to begin with.  1938 was a red-meat, hardcore Cat 5 that then shot N, toward Long Island, at tremendous speeds.  Sandy was never anything remotely like this.  1938's peak conditions affected a smaller area, but it was basically nuclear in the direct-hit zone-- which included C/E Long Island, E CT, and RI.  (As per reanalysis, conditions in MA were a bit less severe.)  The winds were off-the-charts for this region-- a solid 100 kt or higher-- as was the storm surge.

[am19psu]

There's a chance the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 might have been a touch more severe-- but there's no way to know for sure.  Assuming 1635 and 1938 were roughly similar in terms of intensity, it suggests that these are basically 300-year events-- meaning it's unlikely we'll see a 1938 repeat in our lifetimes.

I'm being an anal retentive nerd right now, but you really can't get return periods off two data points.

[HurricaneJosh]

I'm being an anal retentive nerd right now, but you really can't get return periods off two data points.

 

C'mon.

[jm1220]

My post wasn't a response to yours-- I didn't think you were putting down 1938.  And, agreed, 1938 was so severe because it moved so fast.  The 1938 hurricane is essentially a near-perfect example of what happens when you have a Cat 5 near the Bahamas that then shoots N at max speed.

 

There's a chance the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 might have been a touch more severe-- but there's no way to know for sure.  Assuming 1635 and 1938 were roughly similar in terms of intensity, it suggests that these are basically 300-year events-- meaning it's unlikely we'll see a 1938 repeat in our lifetimes.

 

 

Mostly agreed.  The 1938 cyclone not only moved faster-- it was almost much more severe to begin with.  1938 was a red-meat, hardcore Cat 5 that then shot N, toward Long Island, at tremendous speeds.  Sandy was never anything remotely like this.  1938's peak conditions affected a smaller area, but it was basically nuclear in the direct-hit zone-- which included C/E Long Island, E CT, and RI.  (As per reanalysis, conditions in MA were a bit less severe.)  The winds were off-the-charts for this region-- a solid 100 kt or higher-- as was the storm surge.

Yup. I guess thankfully Sandy wasn't "that" severe, but the huge area it affected and the heavily populated corridor it struck made it one for the record books for sure. The central pressure was that low and the overall area that large that it ensured severe/devastating conditions over a huge area vs. catastrophic over a relatively small area (and I would argue it was "catastrophic" for a number of places-my town was very hard hit). Perfect Storms IMO are the largest threat our area should worry about, at least on a semi-regular basis.