ncforecaster89

10 hours ago, Amped said:

This would be the first year in a long time that nothing formed in October. Still a long way to go.

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.  

4 hours ago, Prospero said:

It was the sloppy eyes for me!

Edit: Except the Yucatan eyes which were amazing...

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:

13 hours ago, cptcatz said:

Interesting to think back how this season would compare to other seasons say in the past 20 years (even though it's not even over yet).  In terms of US impacts, obviously 2004, 2005, 2017, and 2020 stand alone.  But other than those, 2011 had Irene, 2012 had Sandy, 2016 had Matthew brushing the coast, 2018 had Michael and Florence.  2007 and 2008 destruction was mostly in the Caribbean and Central America.  I can't think of any really bad US impacts in 2000-2003, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2013-2015, and 2019.  With the mere presence of Ida, in terms of US impacts I'd put this season just behind 2004, 2005, 2017, 2020, and maybe 2008 in the past 21 years.  Definitely wouldn't call it a dud.

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.  

3 hours ago, Tezeta said:

I’m not sure Michael was actually a 5. 

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.   

6 hours ago, Windspeed said:

6 hours ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Really interesting discussion 

Hurricane Sam Discussion Number  14NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL       AL1820211100 PM AST Sat Sep 25 2021It's been an interesting evening with regards to analyzing the various data from a NOAA Hurricane Hunter research flight into Hurricane Sam. Dropsonde data in both the southeast and northwest quadrants indicate that small eyewall mesovortices and possibly even tornado-scale vortices were present based on the wind profiles showing sharply opposite-direction winds from what would normally be expected in those regions of the hurricane. Some dropsonde surface winds have been as high as 162 kt, which is more representative of a gust, while SFMR surface winds have been as high as 133 kt. However, the strongest 700-mb flight-level winds have been 138-139 kt in the northeastern quadrant, which equates to about 125-kt tangential surface winds. Three dropsondes released in the eye indicate that the pressure had remained steady at 943-944 mb during the duration of the aircraft reconnoiter. That pressure equates to about 125 kt based on various pressure-wind relationships. Based on that estimate and the 700-mb flight-level to surface-wind conversion, the advisory intensity is 125 kt, which is representative of the mean tangential winds and no localized wind perturbations.The initial motion is toward the west-northwest, or 295/07 kt.  Not to sound like a broken record, but no significant changes were made to the previous track forecast and reasoning. Sam is expected to move slowly west-northwestward and northwestward over the next few days around the southwestern periphery of a deep-layer subtropical ridge that is situated to the north and northeast of the small hurricane. On days 4 and 5, an upper-level trough/low is forecast to dig southward and amplify off the U.S. east coast and extend all the way to the Bahamas. This feature should act to lift Sam northward at a faster forward speed. The latest NHC model guidance based on 12Z and 18Z model runs has shifted noticeably to the east of the previous runs, and the new NHC track forecast has been nudged in that direction as well. However, since the NOAA G-IV jet aircraft has been out there sampling the environment around Sam, it's best to remain conservative and not shift the track any farther to the east until the new 00Z model runs with that new aircraft data come in for the next advisory package at 0600Z. The new NHC track forecast lies about halfway between the previous advisory track on the left and the tightly packed consensus track models on the right.The radar images from the reconnaissance aircraft indicated that the eyewall was thin in many locations due to dry-air intrusions, and the latest SHIPS intensity output indicates that Sam will remain within a fairly dry mid-level environment. Also, the depth of the warm water beneath the hurricane isn't overly deep, which could result in cold upwelling owing to Sam's slow forward motion of only 5-7 kt during the next couple of days. Eyewall replacement cycles are also likely now due to the hurricane's small size and strong intensity. Thus, fluctuations in intensity seem likely for the next couple of days even though the vertical wind shear is expected to remain quite low at only 5-10 kt. On days 3-5, however, the shear is forecast to increase to 15-20 kt from the southwest, which is expected to induce a slow weakening trend. However, it is likely that Sam will remain a major hurricane through 120 h, even on days 3-5 due to the cyclone moving over warmer and deeper water during that 3-day period. The new official intensity forecast is essentially the same as the previous advisory, and remains above the consensus model and is near the higher end of the intensity guidance.FORECAST POSITIONS AND MAX WINDSINIT  26/0300Z 13.5N  49.0W  125 KT 145 MPH12H  26/1200Z 14.0N  49.9W  130 KT 150 MPH24H  27/0000Z 14.7N  51.0W  125 KT 145 MPH36H  27/1200Z 15.4N  52.1W  120 KT 140 MPH48H  28/0000Z 16.3N  53.2W  120 KT 140 MPH60H  28/1200Z 17.1N  54.3W  115 KT 130 MPH72H  29/0000Z 18.0N  55.6W  115 KT 130 MPH96H  30/0000Z 20.1N  58.5W  110 KT 125 MPH120H  01/0000Z 23.7N  61.4W  110 KT 125 MPH$$Forecaster Stewart

 

 

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. 

On 9/20/2021 at 1:34 PM, TheDreamTraveler said:

He's just upset Florida hasn't gotten anything. Like I said before people are spoiled lol. Just a storm like Ida alone is a type of event that may only happen once every few years in other eras yet we've had Harvey, Ida, Laura and Michael in the past 4 years alone. And that's not even counting all the countless other hurricanes that have hit

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.     

4 hours ago, OSUmetstud said:

500mb is just all wrong for a US landfall. Theres a trough where you'd want a ridge and a ridge where'd you want a trough. So much has to change for it to happen. I'd put it at less than 10 percent...and that might be generous. 

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.   

1 hour ago, StormchaserChuck! said:

We are on pace for 32 named storms, I dont ever see this ending in my lifetime, through the 2040s.

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!

On 9/18/2021 at 9:03 PM, Normandy said:

From what I remember Grand Isle did get into the eyewall....Port Fourchoun was in the middle of the eye and Grand Isle is a few miles east of that location.  Its fairly likely Grande Isle received the worst winds in Ida

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.  

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

13 hours ago, Normandy said:

Instantaneous gust or not that still a ridiculous observation.  And what exactly is the definition of instantaneous (1-second long?)? I don't know why but since you claimed you saw stronger winds than Josh did in Dorian I always view your posts as angling to keep Michael greater than "x".

First of all, I’m a meteorologist first and foremost…and a chaser/weather enthusiast, second.  This means I’m far more concerned with the accuracy of scientific data than anything else. 
 

Your ignorant assumption that I give two cents about supposedly “angling to keep Michael greater than x” has zero merit!  
 

As for Dorian, I’ve already given my unbiased, wholly objective scientific opinion (has nothing whatsoever to do with me) as to why I still believe the winds in Michael (at the west end of MX Beach) were just a little stronger than what anyone experienced in Marsh Harbor.  It’s not just simply the video evidence (as it’s virtually impossible to accurately compare wind speeds at such extreme velocities), but also the fact that the strongest winds of Dorian remained well N of that area, and offshore, thankfully.  
 

Despite your false presuppositions, I genuinely could care less if someone records stronger winds on video than myself.  Why would I?  I’m not that kind of narcissistic, immature, attention-seeking individual…but nice try to discredit my well-reasoned viewpoint.  
 

There will be many far more intense tropical cyclones in the WPAC, for example, that I’m sure one day someone will capture even stronger winds than I saw in Michael.  It certainly won’t be me, because I have no interest whatsoever in chasing TCs outside the U.S. mainland.  For me, I don’t chase hurricanes to bring attention to myself, but rather to share that experience with others.  How many selfie’s have you ever seen of me?   Furthermore, I stay behind at least 1-2 days following each intercept to help in the cleanup…not rushing to get out of the area to showcase the footage I captured.  I bring these things up simply to highlight how misguided and ignorant your mischaracterization of me and my motives truly are…not to begrudge other chasers who may choose to do things differently.  
 

Back to Ida, “instantaneous” wind gusts are exactly that; they aren’t even of 1 second duration.  As I stated in the post you found so objectionable, those wind gusts should be viewed in their proper context.  Instead, I keep reading posts all over social media wrongly assuming these measurements correspond to a category-five MSW at 10 m.  That aside, we can agree that it’s an impressive recorded value, regardless.  

As I’ve been discussing on Twitter, it’s important to recognize that the Port Fourchon measurement was an instantaneous gust and not representative of the standard three-second value.  It’s just not simply the fact that it was also measured above 30 m height.  
 

Moreover, we have no idea as to the capability of said anemometer to accurately record wind speeds at such high velocities.  Some might recall the 212 mph observation during hurricane Andrew that was subsequently revised to 177 mph after tunnel testing of that particular model. 
 

These important points aren’t to minimize the fact hurricane Ida was most certainly a high-end Cat 4 at landfall, but rather to view these elevated and instantaneous wind gust measurements in their proper context.  

All the collective data is supportive of the operational landfall intensity of 130 kt.  At its peak (roughly 3.5 hours preceding landfall), I’d argue for 135 kt…based mainly on the 148 kt 700 mb FLWs measured by Recon.  

On 9/1/2021 at 6:05 PM, Intensewind002 said:

Grand isle only got brushed by the inner eyewall too which is kinda crazy

The most unfortunate part of Ida’s track is that it drove the highest storm surge into Grand Isle.  It’s also important to note that the aborted ERC that made Ida a double-eyewall hurricane likely contributed to the devastation left in its wake. 

7 hours ago, NorthHillsWx said:

Serious damage in Grand Isle:

 

Those images look way too familiar to what I observed in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael in Mexico Beach.  The bare slabs and the shredded upper-levels of some homes are eerily similar!    
 

It was every bit of a high-end category four wind producer combined with a catastrophic storm surge.  Goes to show that it doesn’t technically have to be a category-five hurricane to produce catastrophic damage!

 I like the way 130 kt is characterized as a super Typhoon in the WPAC as a TC of such intensity is truly a “super” destructive storm.   

On 8/29/2021 at 9:33 PM, jojo762 said:

This is that dude who's stream everybody had to, very unfortunately, listen to earlier.

As a veteran storm chaser and one who was stranded in Mexico Beach (because I lost my car to the surge by placing myself within 400 yards of the GOM and in the RFQ of the inner-eyewall of hurricane Michael), I have very little sympathy for chasers who intentionally get too close and THEN, except others to risk their own lives to help/save them!

When I made the aforementioned similar/foolish decision, I accepted responsibility for my actions and dealt with the consequences (which weren’t fun).   

I could be wrong, but there seems to be too many chasers trying to one-up the others and their corresponding attention-seeking, selfie-centered attitude has been leading to more of these situations.  Unfortunately, I expect we’ll continue to see this occur on a more regular basis, as the years go by.

To avoid any misinterpretations, I want to clarify that my issue isn’t that they chose to get that close, but rather, the expectation that someone should help them…that would require someone else to endanger their own lives in the process.  
 

P.S. Mods, please move this post to banter if you feel it belongs there, instead.  

30 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

I have no clue what this post is about 

 

Me neither!  Must be a new type of differential equation.  After all, it was the least favorite course I took towards obtaining my meteorological degree...aside from Calc II.  Then again, I’m not sure anyone could decipher it. 
 

2 hours ago, ldub23 said:

A few  waves but  conditions arent  improving. Waves were stronger  in June.

It’s still a little early, relatively speaking, and we’re right on schedule for a typically active hurricane season.  You’ll see...the ocean and atmosphere have steadily been building the right environment, and they’re going to come.   

7 hours ago, shaggy said:

I'm definitely sitting on the slightly concerned side here in Eastern NC as the season cranks up. We are way above normal (a surplus of 13.34 officially) on rainfall with 4-8  inches more coming this week. Wet ground and a hurricane would be bad for downed trees and flooding concerns. Of course we could just as easily see no local hurricane traffic with everything going OTS or into the GOM. 

I'll be paying far more attention over the next week as we start to see the models spit out different scenarios.

I’m also in eastern NC (Wilmington) and share the same concerns.  As a result of Florence in 2018, my house sustained more than $12,000 in damage from the wind providing entry through the roof for the torrential rains to damage the sheet rock.   Don’t wish such hardship on anyone else.   
 

Interestingly, Wilmington has been struck directly by the eyewall of 10 separate hurricanes and an additional TC of borderline TS/H intensity during the past 25 years...far exceeding every other town/city in the U.S., during that time.

Based on all the major oceanic and atmospheric teleconnections, there’s an increased risk that there will be multiple U.S hurricane landfalls for the 6th consecutive season.  If, and more likely when, they occur, I fully intend to be in the eyewall to document the brunt of their fury.   

I intercepted the NE eyewall (so to speak, if not technically accurate given it wasn’t a hurricane) at Horseshoe Beach, Fl.  The highest wind gust was recorded up to 71 mph, with the strongest winds surprisingly being in the SE quadrant of the storm...as the winds shifted to a direct onshore flow.  I chose to avoid the storm surge since I was driving my wife’s car and weren’t looking for a divorce.

Here’s a brief clip of what I observed during this particular event:

https://youtu.be/_oejAgsjAhM

7 hours ago, cheese007 said:

When was the last time a system landfalled as tropical on both the western coast of Florida and New England? 

Agnes in 1972 and hurricane Donna in 1960 are the most recent to the very best of my knowledge.  

9 minutes ago, Windspeed said:

17 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Where’s [mention=845]Windspeed[/mention]?

I'll give it another go next season. Good luck!

I vote to extend the deadline another hour for windspeed, without any penalty, if he were to wish to make an entry and his preferred numbers haven’t already been taken; which I presume may be the case.   
 

?

Edit: It appears there’s still almost two hours remaining for new entries without any penalty.  

19/9/4

Prefer 19/10/4, but it’s already taken.

The list I provided was produced by meticulously researching the data from both the Wilmington, NC daily climate report as well as reviewing the track maps for the period of 1940 to the present.  
 

Here are the respective links where the aforementioned data was obtained:

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html
 

https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/nc/wilmington/KILM/date/2020-5-17

Hi!  I’m so sorry to hear that he and his family endured such a horrible loss.  I was born thirty years (1970) after your neighbor, in Wilmington, and have been a hurricane researcher from the time I experienced my very first hurricane eyewall in 1984 (Diana). 

Here’s a list of all known TS’ and H’s that have made a direct hit on Wilmington, NC (1940-2020):

Storm 3 (1944) Cat 1 H (eye)

Storm 1 (1945) TS winds (H-offshore)

Storm 2 (1946) TS

Storm 7 (1949) TS

Storm 3 (1952) TS

Barbara (1953) TS winds (H-offshore)

Carol (1954)  TS winds (H-offshore)

Edna (1954)  TS winds (H-offshore)

Hazel (1954) Cat 4 (eyewall)

Connie (1955) Cat 1

Diane (1955) Cat 1 (eye)

Ione (1955) Cat 2 

Storm 11 (1956) TS (offshore)

Helene (1958) Cat 3 (eyewall)

Gracie (1959) TS (SC landfall)

Brenda (1960) TS

Donna (1960) Cat 2 (eyewall)

Storm 6 (1961) TS

Ginny (1963)  TS winds (H-offshore)

Dora (1964) TS

Alma (1966) TS (offshore)

Gladys (1968)  TS winds (H-offshore)

Ginger (1971) TS winds (H-north)

David (1979) TS winds (H-SC landfall)

Dennis (1981) TS

Storm 2 (1982) STS (offshore)

Diana (1984) Cat 2 (eyewall)

Bob (1985) TS winds (H-SC landfall)

Gloria (1985) TS winds (H-offshore)

Kate (1985)  TS

Hugo (1989) TS winds (H-SC landfall)

Gordon (1994)  TS winds (H-offshore)

Opal (1995)  TS winds (TS-west)

Bertha (1996) Cat 2 (eye)

Fran (1996) Cat 3 (eye)

Bonnie (1998) Cat 2 (eye)

Dennis (1999) TS winds (H-offshore)

Floyd (19999) Cat 2 (eye)

Irene (1999) TS winds (H-offshore)

Kyle (2002) TS

Isabel (2003) TS winds (H-north)

Charley (2004) Cat 1 (eye)

Gaston (2004) TS winds (H-SC landfall)

Ophelia (2005) Cat 1 (eyewall)

Ernesto (2006) TS/Cat 1 (eye)

Hanna (2008) TS

Irene (2011) TS winds (H-offshore)

Beryl (2012) TS

Sandy (2012) TS winds (H-offshore)

Andrea (2013) TS 

Arthur (2014) TS winds (H-offshore)

Ana (2015) TS

Hermine. (2016) TS

Matthew (2016) Cat 1 (eyewall)

Florence (2018) Cat 1 (eye)

Michael (2018) TS winds (TS-west)

Dorian (2019) TS winds (H-offshore)

Isaias (2020) Cat 1 (eye) 

14 hours ago, cptcatz said:

I was also looking for the Sally thread a while back and couldn't find it either, only the banter thread.

As you noted, the various banter threads are available but the actual storm threads are missing for Laura, Sally, Dorian, Michael, and Harvey...just to name the most obvious.