Atlantic Tropical Action 2014

[wxtrackercody]

Westerly winds have subsided across the equator for now.

 

 

Mike put out this tweet earlier:
 

 

 

Michael Ventrice ‏@MJVentrice  14h
MJO event forcing anomalous westerly flow o/Andes, tanking atmos. angular momentum. Atm to move back to La Nina pttrn

[saltysenior]

I take exception to your comments.  My company handles emergency generators for power outages, and we're based in Florida.  We provide a critical service to the community, and frankly we *need* periodic hurricanes to stay in business.  Just like the fire department needs fires and the trauma surgeon needs car accidents.  Yeah, wouldn't it be great if the world didn't need generators? But when storms strike, they do.  So, who needs storms? We do.  

 

Also, quiet seasons are a real problem for *anybody* in the disaster preparedness community, from FEMA to local EMAs and fire departments, etc.  Quiet seasons breed complacency as a natural human reaction.  Try getting people to have an evacuation plan and take the threat seriously when there hasn't been a storm in 10 years.  It's hard.

 

And in any case, you're coming to the wrong place to talk about how you hope there are no storms.  Personally, I want some fresh, red hurricane meat.

 

go thru a few and experience the suffering and the financial loss and long term after effects and you'll change your mind......or like most hope and pray they hit somewhere else........I find it hard to believe,in this modern world  world where images and stories of the suffering of people who are victims of disastrous weather events, there are folks who wish, hope, and pray for such an event just for their own enjoyment .......

[Macintosh]

go thru a few and experience the suffering and the financial loss and long term after effects and you'll change your mind......or like most hope and pray they hit somewhere else........I find it hard to believe,in this modern world  world where images and stories of the suffering of people who are victims of disastrous weather events, there are folks who wish, hope, and pray for such an event just for their own enjoyment .......

 

So you're assuming people like me haven't seen the effects first hand.  Bad assumption.  It's because we've seen it that we got into the business of protecting people against it.  We are not gawkers. We get people prepared, and when people refuse to prepare, we suffer because our chosen line of work is making money helping people prepare.  It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

Do you think the firefighters at your local firehouse sit around hoping for fires? No.  But firefighters need fires to keep their jobs.  And people in the disaster preparedness field need storms to keep their jobs.  Anyway, this is a tired argument.  

[Cypress]

Jim Williams at http://hurricanecity.com/ posted a video about his updated hurricane database and city rankings, pretty interesting if you want to check it out:

[Superstorm93]

5C.6 Reanalysis of the 1955-1964 Atlantic Hurricane Seasons

 

Teaser: 

 

 

 

Changes to the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, major hurricanes, accumulated cyclone energy, and U.S. landfalling hurricanes are recommended for most of the years. A brief overview of the reanalysis methodology will be provided and the preliminary results of the reanalysis of the 1955-1964 hurricane seasons accomplished thus far will be shown. Some of the most interesting results thus far include decreasing the landfall intensity of Hurricane Audrey of 1957 (that killed more than 400 people in Cameron Parrish, LA) from 125 kt originally in HURDAT to 105 kt, increasing the landfall intensity of Hurricane Gracie of 1959 from 105 to 115 kt, and adding 12 new tropical storms.

[HurricaneJosh]

5C.6 Reanalysis of the 1955-1964 Atlantic Hurricane Seasons

 

Teaser: 

 

I'm excited about this period in reanalysis-- lots of interesting storms.  I agree totally Re: Gracie-- all indications are that that was a really strong storm.  I still feel they're too high for Audrey-- I'm convinced it was a big, loose, 90-kt Cat 2.

 

I know they kept Janet as a solid, 150-kt Cat 5 for the Yucatan landfall, which totally makes sense and is well-supported by surface obs.

[ncforecaster89]

I'm excited about this period in reanalysis-- lots of interesting storms. I agree totally Re: Gracie-- all indications are that that was a really strong storm. I still feel they're too high for Audrey-- I'm convinced it was a big, loose, 90-kt Cat 2.

I know they kept Janet as a solid, 150-kt Cat 5 for the Yucatan landfall, which totally makes sense and is well-supported by surface obs.

I couldn't agree more with everything you stated, with one minor exception-I honestly think that they are making the right decision by leaving Audrey as a "major" hurricane landfall.

The observed wind gusts recorded in inland La. (Such as the 86 mph gust in Lafayette, 5.5 hours post landfall) and the relatively well-defined eye it maintained 60 nm inland, are consistent with a marginal category three landfall.

The aforementioned radar presentation of the eye around 115 pm CDT (almost 5 hours after landfall) and the 959 mb pressure recorded in Cameron, La, also justify "Audrey" retaining her major hurricane status.

Although the radar image captured near landfall seems to show an open eyewall signature, and thus, a far less intact eye, I would suggest that it's also possible it might be more representative of the poor radar angle-for it's totally inconsistent with the aforementioned eye signature displayed well inland, and captured many hours thereafter.

All that being said, the lack of wind observations (in the area of landfall) will always leave substantial doubt as to whether or not, Audrey, did in fact, come ashore at major hurricane intensity. Regardless, it will be most interesting to read how the researchers and best-track committee came to their conclusions.

In addition to the surface obs for Gracie, I suspect that Hugo may have also been used as a proxy storm, as well. As you noted, all the available data is most certainly consistent with a 115 kt. category four landfall.

Note: Since I'm apparently unable to link the url directly from my mobile phone, I will simply post it below. This is an excellent source for Audrey obs and radar imagery.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/?n=audrey

[ncforecaster89]

5C.6 Reanalysis of the 1955-1964 Atlantic Hurricane Seasons

Teaser:

Thanks so much for posting this info! I have been, and are continuing to anticipate the reanalysis results for this period of HURDAT.

Not only the reanalysis of Audrey and Gracie, but many others as well. These include, but aren't limited to the following:

- Ione 1955 (NC)

- Janet 1955 (MX)

- Cleo 1958 (Atl.)

- Carla 1961 (TX/Atl.)

- Esther 1961 (NY/RI) Cat. 1?

- Hattie 1961 (Atl.) Cat. 5?

- Ginny 1963 (NC) Cat. 1?

- Dora. 1964 (Fl) Cat. 3?

Note: I corresponded with Chris Landsea regarding the merits of classifying Esther of 1961 as a category one impact for NY and RI.

[HurricaneJosh]

I couldn't agree more with everything you stated, with one minor exception-I honestly think that they are making the right decision by leaving Audrey as a "major" hurricane landfall.

The observed wind gusts recorded in inland La. (Such as the 86 mph gust in Lafayette, 5.5 hours post landfall) and the relatively well-defined eye it maintained 60 nm inland, are consistent with a marginal category three landfall.

The aforementioned radar presentation of the eye around 115 pm CDT (almost 5 hours after landfall) and the 959 mb pressure recorded in Cameron, La, also justify "Audrey" retaining her major hurricane status.

Although the radar image captured near landfall seems to show an open eyewall signature, and thus, a far less intact eye, I would suggest that it's also possible it might be more representative of the poor radar angle-for it's totally inconsistent with the aforementioned eye signature displayed well inland, and captured many hours thereafter.

All that being said, the lack of wind observations (in the area of landfall) will always leave substantial doubt as to whether or not, Audrey, did in fact, come ashore at major hurricane intensity. Regardless, it will be most interesting to read how the researchers and best-track committee came to their conclusions.

In addition to the surface obs for Gracie, I suspect that Hugo may have also been used as a proxy storm, as well. As you noted, all the available data is most certainly consistent with a 115 kt. category four landfall.

Note: Since I'm apparently unable to link the url directly from my mobile phone, I will simply post it below. This is an excellent source for Audrey obs and radar imagery. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/?n=audrey

I'm still skeptical about Audrey. Even taking into account attenuation, the radar signature really degraded as it came in-- I've looked at that radar loop many times-- and in pics from Cameron, LA, the houses and trees show very little wind damage. Brian Jarvinen, in his paper on hurricane storm surges, suggested it was a large, loose, 80-kt storm. That seems a bit harsh, but I personally doubt it was a major.

I think Audrey is a classic example of how they used to confuse wind and water damage-- or at least not distinguish between them.

[HurricaneJosh]

Thanks so much for posting this info! I have been, and are continuing to anticipate the reanalysis results for this period of HURDAT.

Not only the reanalysis of Audrey and Gracie, but many others as well. These include, but aren't limited to the following:

- Ione 1955 (NC)

- Janet 1955 (MX)

- Cleo 1958 (Atl.)

- Carla 1961 (TX/Atl.)

- Esther 1961 (NY/RI) Cat. 1?

- Hattie 1961 (Atl.) Cat. 5?

- Ginny 1963 (NC) Cat. 1?

- Dora. 1964 (Fl) Cat. 3?

Note: I corresponded with Chris Landsea regarding the merits of classifying Esther of 1961 as a category one impact for NY and RI.

Re: Hattie.... They're going to propose 135 kt for the BZ landfall (high-end Cat 4). Janet is going to stay a 150-kt Cat 5 for the Yucatan. Ione will be downgraded-- was likely not a major in NC.

I'd be shocked if they made Dora a Cat 3-- it was a large, loose circulation at a relatively high latitude on a slow weakening trend with a pressure in the mid-960s. As with so many mid-century storms, the wind reports are hard to take at face value. I think that one was a Cat 2.

[ncforecaster89]

Re: Hattie.... They're going to propose 135 kt for the BZ landfall (high-end Cat 4). Janet is going to stay a 150-kt Cat 5 for the Yucatan. Ione will be downgraded-- was likely not a major in NC.

I'd be shocked if they made Dora a Cat 3-- it was a large, loose circulation at a relatively high latitude on a slow weakening trend with a pressure in the mid-960s. As with so many mid-century storms, the wind reports are hard to take at face value. I think that one was a Cat 2.

 

Hey Josh.  Like you, I strongly suspect that Dora was very likely a 90 kt. category two hurricane at landfall in NE Fl.  Although I also anticipate the NHC best-track committee will keep Dora as a cat. 2 landfall, I have nonetheless been looking forward to the reanalysis on this particular TC, for quite some time.  

 

I should've clarified that I too fully expect Ione to legitimately be downgraded to a cat. 2 designation in reanalysis.  Regardless, I am still interested in the specific intensity that they ascribe to its NC landfall (85 or 90 kt.?).  The main reason being that it was a significant hurricane that struck my home state.  The same applies to Connie (of 1955) that will no doubt be downgraded below  "major" hurricane intensity. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they even assigned a high-end category one intensity (80 kt.) at landfall in NC.

 

Edit:  I am also very interested in seeing what they propose to be the max intensity for Hattie on the 30th of October, preceding its Belize landfall.

[ncforecaster89]

This is yet another one of the HURDAT reanalysis updates I've been most looking forward to, myself.  Important to note that the results of the reanalysis won't be released until after the presentation prefaced below.

 

5C.8

A Reanalysis of 1969's Hurricane Camille

Christopher W. Landsea, NOAA/NWS/NCEP/National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL; and M. E. Kieper and J. L. Beven II

 

A proposed reanalysis of 1969's Hurricane Camille has been completed, as part of the Atlantic Hurricane Database Reanalysis Project. This overall reassessment of the main archive for tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico has been necessary to correct systematic biases and random errors in the data as well as to search for previously unrecognized systems. The reanalysis of Hurricane Camille has been expedited to allow for a homogeneous comparison of all four of the U.S. landfalling Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale Category 5 hurricanes since 1900 (the 1928 “San Felipe” Hurricane in Puerto Rico, the 1935 “Labor Day Hurricane” in the Florida Keys, 1969's Hurricane Camille in Louisiana/Mississippi, and 1992's Hurricane Andrew in southeastern Florida). A review of the available ship, station, radar, aircraft and satellite observation is presented, along with the reanalysis methodology. Finally, highlights of the Best Track Change Committee approved changes to Camille's genesis, track, intensity, and dissipation are discussed.

[Sunny and Warm]

 

This is yet another one of the HURDAT reanalysis updates I've been most looking forward to, myself.  Important to note that the results of the reanalysis won't be released until after the presentation prefaced below.

 

5C.8

A Reanalysis of 1969's Hurricane Camille

Christopher W. Landsea, NOAA/NWS/NCEP/National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL; and M. E. Kieper and J. L. Beven II

 

A proposed reanalysis of 1969's Hurricane Camille has been completed, as part of the Atlantic Hurricane Database Reanalysis Project. This overall reassessment of the main archive for tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico has been necessary to correct systematic biases and random errors in the data as well as to search for previously unrecognized systems. The reanalysis of Hurricane Camille has been expedited to allow for a homogeneous comparison of all four of the U.S. landfalling Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale Category 5 hurricanes since 1900 (the 1928 “San Felipe” Hurricane in Puerto Rico, the 1935 “Labor Day Hurricane” in the Florida Keys, 1969's Hurricane Camille in Louisiana/Mississippi, and 1992's Hurricane Andrew in southeastern Florida). A review of the available ship, station, radar, aircraft and satellite observation is presented, along with the reanalysis methodology. Finally, highlights of the Best Track Change Committee approved changes to Camille's genesis, track, intensity, and dissipation are discussed.

 

Any early bets on Camille?

[hurricaneman]

Any early bets on Camille?

150kts at peak and 140kt landfall

[wxmx]

Interested on the reanalysis results as well, those were some interesting years for MX...especially 1955. I expect Hilda '55 to be upgraded to a major at landfall (a little bird confirmed me this ).

 

Currently Hilda is listed as a 85kt LF, but that was based on an airport observation before the anemometer failed, and most other data suggests it was, at least, holding it's own prior to landfall. Hilda with Gladys and Janet configured what is considered the worst natural disaster for the Tampico area on record, with areas over 50" of rain in a short period of time, strong wind damage and significant storm surge. That on top of the well known Chetumal disaster, which is also considered the worst on record for that city.

[HurricaneJosh]

Hey Josh.  Like you, I strongly suspect that Dora was very likely a 90 kt. category two hurricane at landfall in NE Fl.  Although I also anticipate the NHC best-track committee will keep Dora as a cat. 2 landfall, I have nonetheless been looking forward to the reanalysis on this particular TC, for quite some time.  

 

I should've clarified that I too fully expect Ione to legitimately be downgraded to a cat. 2 designation in reanalysis.  Regardless, I am still interested in the specific intensity that they ascribe to its NC landfall (85 or 90 kt.?).  The main reason being that it was a significant hurricane that struck my home state.  The same applies to Connie (of 1955) that will no doubt be downgraded below  "major" hurricane intensity. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they even assigned a high-end category one intensity (80 kt.) at landfall in NC.

 

Edit:  I am also very interested in seeing what they propose to be the max intensity for Hattie on the 30th of October, preceding its Belize landfall.

 

Agreed with all of the above. And like you, I'm very interested in the 1964 work. I heard a rumor that Cleo might be upgraded to Cat 3. The pressure suggests a Cat 2 (according to a standard pressure/wind relationship for that latitude), but it was a very small storm with a narrow RMW, and it was bombing out as it came ashore-- so those factors suggest a higher-than-normal wind for the given pressure.  Cleo was weirdly similar to King 1950, although definitely not as strong as King, which was a violent and intense cyclone.

[HurricaneJosh]

Interested on the reanalysis results as well, those were some interesting years for MX...especially 1955. I expect Hilda '55 to be upgraded to a major at landfall (a little bird confirmed me this ).

 

Currently Hilda is listed as a 85kt LF, but that was based on an airport observation before the anemometer failed, and most other data suggests it was, at least, holding it's own prior to landfall. Hilda with Gladys and Janet configured what is considered the worst natural disaster for the Tampico area on record, with areas over 50" of rain in a short period of time, strong wind damage and significant storm surge. That on top of the well known Chetumal disaster, which is also considered the worst on record for that city.

 

Am I your "little birdie"?

 

Yeah, 1955 was a hawt year for MX.  Janet was my favorite cyclone until Yolanda kinda dethroned it.  Sorryz.  

[hurricaneman]

Another that might be added to the cat 5 list is Inez in the northern BOC

[wxmx]

What data would support a cat 5 Inez? It was a solid cat 4, for sure, pretty solid sat presentation in the GoM, but I think recon did quite a few penetrations, and I don't know of any data that supports cat 5. That was Tampico's last major, and pretty solid wind observations there (100kt sustained, 110 Gusts)

 

Edit: OTOH, Inez could have been a cat 5 prior to hitting Shredderola.

[HurricaneJosh]

What data would support a cat 5 Inez? 

 

So sassy since ya became a green tagger.  

 

[ncforecaster89]

Agreed with all of the above. And like you, I'm very interested in the 1964 work. I heard a rumor that Cleo might be upgraded to Cat 3. The pressure suggests a Cat 2 (according to a standard pressure/wind relationship for that latitude), but it was a very small storm with a narrow RMW, and it was bombing out as it came ashore-- so those factors suggest a higher-than-normal wind for the given pressure.  Cleo was weirdly similar to King 1950, although definitely not as strong as King, which was a violent and intense cyclone.

 

Based on all the available evidence and the current wind-pressure relationship methodologies, I would also expect Cleo to be upgraded to a category three landfall for SE Fl.  As you alluded to, the officially measured 967.5 mb pressure in north Miami,  the radar observed 8 nm diameter eye, and the rapid intensification of the cyclone during the last few hours preceding landfall, all argue for the aforementioned upgrade in intensity.  Moreover, it's conceivable, if not likely, that the central pressure at landfall was a little lower than the 967.49 mb pressure measured in N Miami.  Taking these factors into consideration, I'm not sure how they could justify not increasing the intensity to 100 knots.

[ncforecaster89]

Any early bets on Camille?

 

My personal best guess would be 140 knots (160 mph) for landfall, and 155 knots (180 mph) for peak intensity. 

 

That said, here's the link to a very interesting blog entry posted by Dr. Jeff Masters last April (shortly after the last hurricane conference) where He suggests that the current ascribed peak intensity of 190 mph (165 kt.) "may be reasonable".  

 

I will add that based on all of the available evidence I've read and seen, it seems probable that Camille had a MSW that was on par with that of Rita (160 kt./185 mph)-when they each achieved peak intensity in the GOM.  The main reason being that Camille was a much smaller storm, with an eye that was half the size of Rita's (less than 8 nm), at peak intensity, even though Rita had a lower measured central pressure.

[ncforecaster89]

[quote name="HurricaneJosh" post="2880655"

I'd be shocked if they made Dora a Cat 3-- it was a large, loose circulation at a relatively high latitude on a slow weakening trend with a pressure in the mid-960s. As with so many mid-century storms, the wind reports are hard to take at face value. I think that one was a Cat 2.

I meant to add that although Dora did have a large eye, it was noted in the MWR (and corresponding post storm reports) that it had become much better defined a few hours prior to landfall and maintained its "well-defined" eye through landfall near St. Augustine. Consequently, there are no indications that it had a "loose circulation" at landfall. Regardless, I am still anticipating a solid category two intensity designation for this one, for the other reasons you noted.

[HurricaneJosh]

I meant to add that although Dora did have a large eye, it was noted in the MWR (and corresponding post storm reports) that it had become much better defined a few hours prior to landfall and maintained its "well-defined" eye through landfall near St. Augustine. Consequently, there are no indications that it had a "loose circulation" at landfall. Regardless, I am still anticipating a solid category two intensity designation for this one, for the other reasons you noted.

 

By "loose" I mean that it had a large eye and large wind radii.  It was not tight.

[ncforecaster89]

By "loose" I mean that it had a large eye and large wind radii.  It was not tight.

 

By "loose", I thought you meant that it had an open eyewall signature.  Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for the clarification.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Completely unscientific, of course, but if a moderate El Nino does develop, 2014 should be the year that we will be due for a season with 1 red meat US landfall with all other systems being crap...similar to 1992.  It's been a while since we've had a season like that, at least.

[isohume]

Here's an overview of changes for this season's HPC products and services. Hopefully the weenies here will approve. ;-D

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20140320_pa_2014seasonChanges.pdf

[Ginx snewx]

Well this sucks

Notice

The H*Wind analyses are no longer offered for public use in preparation for transition to a US private sector firm as allowed under the Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (15 US Code 3710).

[AvantHiatus]

I am constantly hearing good things about "west-based" el nino events. They can be favorable for the tropical atlantic basin. There are many factors that influence TC activity on a year-to-year basis. We have observed dry air and shear overwhelm the la nina signal. I am optimistic for this year, simply because last year was very quiet.

 

[wxmx]

El Niño of any kind is almost always bad for deep tropical cyclones. The LLJ is enhanced from the GoM, thru the Caribbean and tropical Central Atlantic, and this, as a consequences, increases shear in those areas. The very far north GoM (above 25N), the W Atlantic and a good deal of the subtropics is not affected by this on average, and is not uncommon to have lower shear there.

 

The problem is that if there's no development of TWs, they will tend to move with the low level flow, and flare up in the EPac. Also, the Nern GoM is not particularly a good breeding area, that's why if there's a cyclone there, it probably was aided in development by extratropical systems. OTOH, if the pattern is right, where robust TWs or sheared systems can get pulled out the C Atl into the W Atlantic, the environment is usually more conducive for development...probably even more so than with La Niña patterns. Think 2004, where strong-ish TWs/TDs, that were deep enough to get pulled out the deep tropics bloomed in the W Atl. 

 

Also, the stronger the Niño, the stronger the shear in the deep tropics, and the weaker the systems, so even if the pattern is right, there's less chance of hooking something out of there. This mostly affects the ASO trimester, which happens to be the most active period in the N Atl for hurricane genesis.