Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ncforecaster89

  • Birthday 05/03/1970

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
  • Gender
  • Location:
    Wilmington, NC
  • Interests
    Hurricanes and blizzards are my primary interests relative to a specific atmospheric phenomenon. Tropical meteorology was, and has been, my focus since my first hurricane experience at the impressionable age of 14. It was this fateful encounter that led me to pursue a degree in atmospheric sciences. While in college, I was most fortunate to have interned at the NHC (by way of a student internship) with the late Bob Case as a mentor. Although I no longer work in the meterological field professionally, I still enjoy helping others by sharing the knowledge others have so generously given me. Thus, one is most likely to see the vast majority of my posts being centered on tropical meterology.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,708 profile views
  1. It’s not a perfect science, so it’s unlikely we’ll ever truly know the exact intensity of storms such as Irma, Michael, and Dorian. It appears that the SFMR isn’t the most reliable tool/method in determining the strength of these high-end systems. Although imperfect, flight-level Recon wind obs and dropwindsounde data (especially WL-150 winds) are far more trustworthy for assessing intensity…as a result of long-term application and research. Given the aforementioned, and the fact the SFMR measurements are the only data supportive of an intensity greater than 145 kt…it’s likely the peak surface winds were closer to 150 kt for Dorian. The same applies for Irma, albeit it actually had higher 700 mb FLWs in support of a 150 kt intensity. As well-detailed in the TCR, Michael’s peak intensity was highly likely somewhere in the 140-145 kt range…or about 5-9 kt (6-10mph) below that of Irma and Dorian, respectively. Edit: I suspect the NHC will ultimately revise the respective intensities…as a compromise between the adjusted SFMR recalibration results and the Recon data…to arrive at the following: Dorian: 155 kt Irma: 150 kt Michael: 140 kt
  2. Hi Roger! Thanks for all the work you put into this effort. Just wanted to note that all of us below the 20/9/4 numbers should be listed a position higher (e.g. after BKViking, since they have the same forecast as WxWatcher007). By counting both, as equal, we get unfairly knocked down a place…due to our efforts to provide a distinct forecast from everyone else. Edit: This post isn’t meant to disparage BKVing and it’s not a big deal, necessarily. I’m just big on fairness in general.
  3. “Ida” is a prime example of why I wish the NHC would add the descriptive term of “Super” for major hurricanes with a MSW of 130 kt or greater…similar to the WPAC. Reasoning being there is a significant difference in the ferocity of the wind and its destructive ability at these velocities in comparison with those at the lower-end of the Cat 4 range.
  4. To better understand (determine) how that 223 mph instantaneous wind gust corresponds to a one-minute sustained wind speed at standard height…one can use the power law to covert from that 30 meter height to 10 meters elevation. First, we need to convert the instantaneous gust to a 1-minute sustained wind speed. Extensive research https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/12031496/estimating-3-second-and-maximum-instantaneous-gusts-from-1-/3 has shown that an instantaneous wind gust can be converted to a 1-minute wind speed by a factor of 1.45. In this case, it would translate to 154 mph. Then, we’ll simply use the power law equation to extrapolate the aforementioned 154 mph wind at 30 m to a 10 m equivalent. To do so accurately, you need to utilize the appropriate surface roughness length. In this case, I’m using 0.10 for open ocean. This converts to a 139 mph (120 kt) one minute sustained wind value. That’s a very impressive in-situ measurement to be captured at landfall in Port Fourchon. Given its highly unlikely that any anemometer would be positioned perfectly to capture the highest wind speed in the eyewall, and taking into account that the strongest winds were likely found just to the E…this measurement provides excellent additional support for the operational intensity of 130 kt.
  5. You’re correct, as I totally missed that particular season and the 2015 season. That’s what I get for relying on memory lol Thus, its actually only been 6 years (feels like so much longer) since there’s been a season without an October formation. Thanks for catching my aforementioned error. Interestingly, they (2006, 2015) were both El Niño years, as well.
  6. Very true, Amped! Not since the 1993 season has there been no TS or H formations after September 30. 1994 for last “October” without a NATL basin TC. I’d be very surprised if the season concludes without at least one additional TS. In contrast, I’ll be very surprised if the U.S. mainland experiences another hurricane landfall, however.
  7. Although 5 of the 6 U.S. hurricane landfalls were intensifying or steady-state at landfall…only two actually had well-defined eyewall structure (Hanna & Laura)…as you alluded to. Laura the best of those six:
  8. Personally, I’d rate them in the following order (2002-2021): (U.S. mainland only) 2005: (6 H strikes/4 MHs/Katrina) 2004: (6 H strikes/3 MHs/Charley) 2017: (3 H strikes/2 MHs/Harvey, Irma) 2020: (6 H strikes/3 MHs/Laura) 2018: (2 H strikes/1 MH/Michael) 2021: (2 H strikes/1 MH/Ida) 2008: (3 H strikes/0 MHs/Ike) 2012: (2 H strikes/0 MHs/Sandy) 2016: (2 H strikes/0 MHs/Matthew) 2003: (2 H strikes/0 MHs/Isabel) 2011: (1 H strike/0 MHs/Irene) 2014: (1 H strike/0 MHs/Arthur) 2002: (1 H strike/0 MHs/Lili) 2019: (2 H strikes/0 MHs/Dorian) 2007: (1 H strike/0 MHs/Humberto) 2006: (0 H strikes/0 MHs/Ernesto) 2010: (0 H strikes/0 MHs/Earl) 2015: (0 H strikes/0 MHs/Bill) 2009: (0 H strikes/0 MHs/Ida) 2013: (0 H strikes/0 MHs/Andrea) The list is naturally subjective. Speaking of subjective analysis, you’ll notice the inclusion of “Sally” as a MH (in the totals) for the 2020 season, as the data supports a 100 kt landfall intensity…in my personal opinion. It’s also important to note that “Ernesto” of 2006 may have actually achieved a 65 kt Cat 1 intensity, at landfall, as mentioned in its TCR. Also, H Earl of 2010 brought HF winds to the Outer Banks of NC even though it passed 90 nm offshore to the E. Gave 2015 the edge over the subsequent two seasons, shown on the aforementioned list, in deference to the historic flooding that occurred in SC…caused in part by MH Joaquin. Edit: Could possibly move 2002 above 2014 considering the significant impact of TS Isidore.
  9. Actually, there’s more evidential data to support 145 kt than 135 kt…much less 140 kt. SImply put, It was most certainly a Cat 5.
  10. Yeah I get the suspect meso/microvortices directtional changes and the 700mb 10% reduction but there was plenty of redundant data to support 130-135 kts / 155 mph on the advisory package. Either way, still an impressively intense Category 4 Cape Verde hurricane. I’d set it at 130 kt/150 mph and threw out the P/W relationship in leu of having direct in-situ data (I.e, Recon). Very surprised to see “Stewart” going with the conservative estimate, being he’s typically the HWRF of NHC f’casters.
  11. Ida is a relatively rare event that has generally only occurred about once every 15 years on average. The important caveats are that quite a few others were likely missed during the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, as well as other hurricanes that may have been stronger than currently analyzed in the historical record (1851-2021). All U.S. Hurricane Landfalls (=/> 130 kt) 8/10/1856, 8/20/1886, 9/10/1919, 8/14/1932, 9/02/1935*, 8/17/1969*, 8/26/1992*, 8/13/2004, 10/10/2018*, 8/27/2020, 8/29/2021 * Cat 5 All others 130 kt/150 mph Cat 4 When also taking into account the 125 kt/145 mph Cat 4’s (1926, 1928, 1960, 1961)…which could well be underestimated…it reduces to an average of 1 per 11 years, on avg. Essentially, it’s a once a decade event. Note, too, that there tends to be multiple occurrences within a very short time span, followed by a significant respite lasting a much longer period, relative to the mean. In short, one shouldn’t anticipate a hurricane of Ida’s extreme intensity to make landfall on the U.S. mainland more than once a decade, on average, and it’s possible it’ll be quite a bit longer than that.
  12. Completely concur with this assessment, unfortunately, as I’d like to see an East Coast landfall. Edit: But, there’s a reason I very rarely comment on a solution beyond 5-7 days. Specifically, there’s ample time for the synoptic pattern to change just enough to effect the eventual track. For those, like myself, who desire an EC strike, the current deepening trend is not welcome news and will likely mean a further N propagation of the track as it passes the Islands.
  13. Just wait for the next strong El Niño or a redux of 2013. They will happen in your lifetime if you live at least another five years…which I certainly hope you do!
  14. You’re absolutely correct. I’ll add that the strongest winds measured by Recon (located in the innermost portion of the E eyewall) actually moved in between the two aforementioned locations…with Grand Isle likely getting higher winds than Port Fourchon. See attached radar image, below. It’s important to remember that the most intense winds are generally located in the innermost portion of the NE eyewall…as the winds are not uniformly distributed throughout the eyewall, as some incorrectly assume.
  15. Mods: please feel free to move both the post from Normandy and my own (as I wouldn’t have made mine without theirs) to banter…if you feel appropriate, as I don’t think either belong here. Thanks, Tony
  • Create New...