HurricaneJosh Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 It should be noted (or emphasized, if it's been noted already) that this particular reanalysis is not official and has not been reviewed or approved by the Best Track Committee. I first saw this thesis a couple weeks ago, and I'm a bit cautious of accepting any changes as fact. Nonetheless, I think it's obvious that Dog '50 will ultimately be downgraded by HURDAT, for example, and this paper provides a plethora of valid information by which to base their alterations on. Yes-- agreed. I'm not sure if you read the posts above, but I made sure to point out that these are just recommendations, and not yet approved by the best-track committee-- About the whole effort: Since Chris Landsea and another dude from the HRD have approved it, it's reasonable to assume that the findings of this report will be seriously considered by the best-track committee when they evaluate these years. And about King specifically: Hagen's thesis concludes King was a Cat 4 at landfall at Miami. This still has to be reviewed/accepted by the NHC's best-track committee-- it's not official HURDAT yet-- but I think he's on the right track with this. What I'm currently more interested in is the official HURDAT reanalysis from 1926 to 1930, which was released just a couple days ago publicly. The relevant discussions can be found here: 1930: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/nhcreply-sep2010.htm 1929: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/nhcreply-jul2010.htm 1928: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/nhcreply-jun2010b.htm 1927: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/nhcreply-jun2010.htm 1926: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/nhcreply-may2010.htm Oh, cool! Chris Landsea mentioned in his eMail that these would be coming out. Exciting stuff-- I love when they release new reanalysis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 Re: the 1926-1930 reanalysis findings... No big surprises with regard to American 'canes. The two biggies from that era-- the Great Miami Hurricane (1926) and the Lake Okeechobee Hurricane (1928)-- remain solid Cat 4s, as has always been assumed. The two 'canes were very similar in terms of intensity, although the 1928 one was quite a bit larger: 1926 Great Miami Hurricane: 930 mb/125 kt; RMW 20 n mi 1928 Lake Okeechobee Hurricane: 929 mb/125 kt; RMW 30 n mi The Great Miami 'cane's landfall point has been nudged a tad S and is very close to Coral Gables/South Miami, which would have brought the right-front quad squarely over Downtown Miami. The reanalyzed data Re: American landfalls (1851-1930) are summarized here: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/usland1851-1930.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliancolton Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Yes-- agreed. I'm not sure if you read the posts above, but I made sure to point out that these are just recommendations, and not yet approved by the best-track committee-- Oops, sorry. I read the first page of this thread and posted a bit too hastily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 Oops, sorry. I read the first page of this thread and posted a bit too hastily. No prob. I just didn't want you to think I was spreading unofficial info as official-- because it would annoy me, too, if someone were doing that. Anyhoo, it's always nice to meet others who are interested in the reanalysis project, so I'm glad you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliancolton Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 No prob. I just didn't want you to think I was spreading unofficial info as official-- because it would annoy me, too, if someone were doing that. Anyhoo, it's always nice to meet others who are interested in the reanalysis project, so I'm glad you posted. Understood fully. Also, I don't want to sound like I'm dissing Mr. Hagen's research, since he did a pretty awesome job with it. Personally, I'm waiting for the reanalysis to catch up with 1933, to see how many new storms we can find. Probably won't be able to find the seven storms needed to tie 2005, but I'll take any bonus additions to the database. And who knows, maybe in 20 years when they get to the late '90s, Floyd will get Cat 5 status after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 Understood fully. Also, I don't want to sound like I'm dissing Mr. Hagen's research, since he did a pretty awesome job with it. Personally, I'm waiting for the reanalysis to catch up with 1933, to see how many new storms we can find. Probably won't be able to find the seven storms needed to tie 2005, but I'll take any bonus additions to the database. And who knows, maybe in 20 years when they get to the late '90s, Floyd will get Cat 5 status after all. Yeah, I really look forward to each new reanalysis installment. The project is moving along slowly-- the initial plan was to complete it several years ago-- but it's still encouraging to see this steady progress. I'm very curious to see what they do with a lot of the 1950s/'60s cyclones as well-- particularly Camille 1969, which many feel has been historically overestimated. We've discussed Camille at length (back on Eastern), and the general prediction among the guys here seems to be that they'll keep it as a Cat 5 for the LA/MS landfalls-- but a low-end 5 (140 or 145 kt). I read another research paper Re: a lot of 1950s storms, and the recommendation was to keep Hazel 1954 as a Cat 4 for NC, but at the low end (115 kt). That would seem to be a good call for a large, mid-latitude, transitioning system with a pressure of 938 mb. One storm that I personally think might make a go at Cat 4 would be Celia 1970-- another small cyclone that bombed out as it made landfall near Corpus Christi, TX. The central pressure (945 mb), latitude (<28N), rapid strengthening trend, and small wind radius hint at Cat 4. This aside, the surface obs-- including a gust to a whopping 140 kt at Corpus Christi Airport, an official reporting station-- were impressive, not to mention the very heavy wind damage across the city. It might be a contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekuasepinniW Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Yeah, I really look forward to each new reanalysis installment. The project is moving along slowly-- the initial plan was to complete it several years ago-- but it's still encouraging to see this steady progress. I'm very curious to see what they do with a lot of the 1950s/'60s cyclones as well-- particularly Camille 1969, which many feel has been historically overestimated. We've discussed Camille at length (back on Eastern), and the general prediction among the guys here seems to be that they'll keep it as a Cat 5 for the LA/MS landfalls-- but a low-end 5 (140 or 145 kt). I read another research paper Re: a lot of 1950s storms, and the recommendation was to keep Hazel 1954 as a Cat 4 for NC, but at the low end (115 kt). One storm that I think might make a go at Cat 4 would be Celia 1970-- another small cyclone that bombed out as it made landfall near Corpus Christi, TX. The central pressure (945 mb), latitude (<28N), rapid strengthening trend, and small wind radius hint at Cat 4. This aside, the surface obs-- including a gust to whopping 140 kt at Corpus Christi Airport, an official reporting station-- were impressive, not to mention the very heavy wind damage across the city. It might be a contender. Pretty extreme hurricane nerdery going on in here... fussing over the ratings of storms that happened 50 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 Pretty extreme hurricane nerdery going on in here... fussing over the ratings of storms that happened 50 years ago. O.m.g. So evil. You. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Not the right place for this, but I didn't know if it was new-threadworthy or if it had already been talked about. Interesting graph per Roger Pielke Jr. What is interesting is that that presently we are in the midst of the third longest period (over 1900-2011) during which a major hurricane has not hit the US, since 1915. It will become the second longest streak if a major storm does not strike before August 31, 2011. http://rogerpielkejr...-cat-bonds.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorpion Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Its amazing that it will be 6 years now since the US has been hit by a major. Who would have thought with this supposedly active period? I definitely think this season will change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 OK, so I decided to morph this thread into a general Atlantic reanalysis thread—for reevaluating/debating past cyclones. Next up will be a famous TX 'cane that I've done a little of my own reanalysis on. I'll post it later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 OK, so I decided to morph this thread into a general Atlantic reanalysis thread—for reevaluating/debating past cyclones. Next up will be a famous TX 'cane that I've done a little of my own reanalysis on. I'll post it later today. Which TX cane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Which TX cane? It's a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I wasn't born yet, but Carla, with an apparent F-4 tornado hundreds of miles from landfall. 935 mb, but it was a large storm, and max sustained (reliable) seems to be in the 115 mph to 120 mph range, maybe a downgrade to Cat 3. The 170 mph gust estimates, well, those are estimates. Maybe the Great DR, who apparently studied Carla while visiting Blacks in Abbeville for oysters and shrimp, can weigh in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 I wasn't born yet, but Carla, with an apparent F-4 tornado hundreds of miles from landfall. 935 mb, but it was a large storm, and max sustained (reliable) seems to be in the 115 mph to 120 mph range, maybe a downgrade to Cat 3. The 170 mph gust estimates, well, those are estimates. Carla's central pressure at landfall was 931 mb. A large portion of the TX coast was devastated. Max winds were probably 125 kt. There will be very little debate about its Cat-4 status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Huh? Carla's central pressure at landfall was 931 mb, and it was most certainly a 125-kt Cat 4. There will be very little debate about its Cat-4 status. Where did you get 931? I saw 935? And what reliable station at standard height had 125 knot winds? (Quite willing to admit wrongness if shown to be a 'tard). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I PM'd The Great DR for his take on Carla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srain Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Huh? Carla's central pressure at landfall was 931 mb, and there were wind readings over 130 kt near the center. A large portion of the TX coast was devastated. Max winds were probably 125 kt. There will be very little debate about its Cat-4 status. Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Where did you get 931? I saw 935? And what reliable station at standard height had 125 knot winds? (Quite willing to admit wrongness if shown to be a 'tard). The 931 mb is the official landfall value for Carla, as per all NHC records and documents-- for example: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.txt Re: the 125 kt, I didn't say a land station measured them-- I said that's what they probably were. Port Lavaca measured a gust over 130 kt before the instrument failed. I have no desire to insult you-- I'm just setting the record straight Re: the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Bingo! I went off this page during a quick Google search. Like I say, I wasn't around. But Carla Cradle this and Carla Cradle that, what other Texas storm is that famous short of the 1900 storm? http://web.archive.org/web/20061211194623/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/crp/docs/research/hurrhistory/Carla/carla.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott747 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Carla a three. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Carla a three. lol I was trying to guess what Texas hurricane Josh was going to analyze, and he seems to have a Carla fetish, that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 I went off this page during a quick Google search. Like I say, I wasn't around. But Carla Cradle this and Carla Cradle that, what other Texas storm is that famous short of the 1900 storm? http://web.archive.org/web/20061211194623/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/crp/docs/research/hurrhistory/Carla/carla.html Dude, c'mon. This is a thread for hardcore hurricane nerds. Use real sources to debate this stuff-- NHC records, MWR articles, HRD analyses, etc. A single, random page hand-picked out of cyberspace is hardly a good source for suggesting a major downgrade of an historic storm-- especially when discussing it among some serious tropical nerds. Back to Carla... It is one of the sure Cat 4s of the last sixty years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Dude, c'mon. This is a thread for hardcore hurricane nerds. Use real sources to debate this stuff-- NHC records, MWR articles, HRD analyses, etc. Some random schlock page hand-picked out of cyberspace is hardly a good source for suggesting a major downgrade of an historic storm-- especially when discussing it among some serious tropical nerds. Back to Carla... It is one of the sure Cat 4s of the last sixty years. OK, I'll put more thought into Texas hurricanes that might interest you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 OK, I'll put more thought into Texas hurricanes that might interest you. No need to guess-- I'll post it a little later today. It will be a sexy upgrade-- not a downgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott747 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I was trying to guess what Texas hurricane Josh was going to analyze, and he seems to have a Carla fetish, that is all. Josh has a fetish with Celia. I'm the one with Carla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Josh has a fetish with Celia. I'm the one with Carla. Shhhhhhh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srain Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Those darn Texas "Johnny comes lately". Look at 1970, Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Those darn Texas "Johnny comes lately". Look at 1970, Ed. I was six. My appreciation for hurricanes comes from the rather lame Hurricane Belle. No power for a couple of days, evacuation to the Harkin's house, and they had cable, my Dad wouldn't let me go outside to be in a hurricane. But next door, a weeping willow tree did punch a hole in the Smith's roof. The 2 1978 storms, snow fetishist events, got me started, really, in a major way, and the move to Texas in 1980 redirected me to tornadoes. I did sail through the edges of Typhoon Skip (not Tip) in the South China Sea, which was cool. Hugo and Andrew, living on TWC coverage before Al Gore invented the internets. Alison came an inch from flooding the house, and Isabel, wife's middle name and beautiful on satellite. Isabel obviously came nowhere near Texas, but I learned the joy of beautiful storms many time zones away. I have been following the NYC and New England sub-forums the past 2 days, reliving my snow fetishist days vicariously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott747 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Twelve more hours and Alicia = Celia Yo Josh. Bring the old stuff from Eastern over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.