Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    19,036
    Total Members
    49,013
    Most Online
    loganboehmewx
    Newest Member
    loganboehmewx
    Joined

E Pacific Tropical Action of 2014


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Looks like we have a war going on. Euro keeps this offshore as a high builds in, while the GFS has this hitting MX around ~975 mbar.

After how horribly the GFS did in late October two years ago in that region while the Euro did well, I'm going to lean heavily toward the Euro at least for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After how horribly the GFS did in late October two years ago in that region while the Euro did well, I'm going to lean heavily toward the Euro at least for now.

I would not completely discount the GFS solution. The 10/27 00Z Euro mean is suggesting a rather deep trough developing across the West and as mentioned yesterday, climatology may be a bit less of an issue as we are transitioning to a weak El Nino pattern.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

I'm not completely discounting the GFS but I'm leaning to the Euro while they have very different solutions. Regarding the climo of major MX hits from the Pacific, I actually think that the highest concentration having been late Oct. til 11/1 is supportive rather than the opposite, especially with a weak Niño likely starting. A projected hit of ~11/3-5 is close enough to that high concentration period as far as I'm concerned for climo to be supportive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I'm getting excited about next week in the EPAC...

 

But since today is the 55th anniversary of the Great Mexico Hurricane of 1959, I wanted to announce the preliminary results of our detailed study of this historic storm. Check it out—the results may surprise those of you who know this storm. Like many such reanalyses, this was a tough one, as we were working with sparse data, and the team had many in-depth worksessions to come to our hard-fought verdict. Lead author Andrew Hagen (ImpactWeather), me (iCyclone), and Jorge Abelardo González are now working on a formal paper to present our analysis to the National Hurricane Center’s Best Track Committee. Remember, at this point our verdict represents our opinion only—it is not official unless the Best Track Committee decides to accept our findings.

 

http://icyclone.com/now/2014/oct/27-october-2014.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I'm getting excited about next week in the EPAC...

 

But since today is the 55th anniversary of the Great Mexico Hurricane of 1959, I wanted to announce the preliminary results of our detailed study of this historic storm. Check it out—the results may surprise those of you who know this storm. Like many such reanalyses, this was a tough one, as we were working with sparse data, and the team had many in-depth worksessions to come to our hard-fought verdict. Lead author Andrew Hagen (ImpactWeather), me (iCyclone), and Jorge Abelardo González are now working on a formal paper to present our analysis to the National Hurricane Center’s Best Track Committee. Remember, at this point our verdict represents our opinion only—it is not official unless the Best Track Committee decides to accept our findings.

 

http://icyclone.com/now/2014/oct/27-october-2014.html

 

You don't go into much about the reasoning for the the intensity and pressure of the hurricane at landfall. Also, any chance it might have been stronger offshore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't go into much about the reasoning for the the intensity and pressure of the hurricane at landfall. Also, any chance it might have been stronger offshore?

 

I don't go into the reasoning at all, actually-- because we haven't published the paper yet. These are just the preliminary results, and the paper-- which describes the analysis in depth-- is coming. Believe me, there's plenty of reasoning behind the findings-- we really wrestled with it over many worksessions and did not reach our verdict lightly. Even for the landfall wind, we went back and forth 5 kt a few times.

 

We don't believe it was stronger offshore-- we believe it strengthened up to landfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, the storm doesn't lose any of its luster due to our downgrade. A small, tightly-wound, strengthening, 125-kt cyclone making a direct hit on a busy port city is a pretty nuclear event.

 

Based on our analysis, it's still tied for first in terms of strongest landfall in the basin. And, once we get to MADELINE 1976, who knows-- the 1959 storm might once again be sole king-- if we find MADELINE was also overestimated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, the storm doesn't lose any of its luster due to our downgrade. A small, tightly-wound, strengthening, 125-kt cyclone making a direct hit on a busy port city is a pretty nuclear event.

 

Based on our analysis, it's still tied for first in terms of strongest landfall in the basin. And, once we get to MADELINE 1976, who knows-- the 1959 storm might once again be sole king-- if we find MADELINE was also overestimated.

Tbh, I never considered it a true C5 at landfall. As for Madeline, I don't think that was obviously overestimated by a substantial amount. The 1957 MX hurricane is also one taking a look at as HURDAT has it at 120 knts at landfall, comparable to the 125 you estimated from the 1959 cane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbh, I never considered it a true C5 at landfall. As for Madeline, I don't think that was obviously overestimated by a substantial amount. The 1957 MX hurricane is also one taking a look at as HURDAT has it at 120 knts at landfall, comparable to the 125 you estimated from the 1959 cane.

 

Yeah, I think after we complete this paper, we're going to look at 1957 and MADELINE. I want to hit all the really intense landfalls-- maybe OLIVIA 1967, too, which is considered 110 kt.  I have no opinion about whether MADELINE was overestimated until we really look at it-- but the storm happened long ago enough that it needs to be vetted.

 

Re: 1959, I was always wondering about the Cat-5 rating but went into the reanalysis with an open mind-- just ready to accept whatever the calculations  yielded.

 

At the end of the day, it's up to the NHC. They might not accept our findings and keep it a Cat 5-- although they're interested to see the paper and asked that we make it as detailed as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think after we complete this paper, we're going to look at 1957 and MADELINE. I want to hit all the really intense landfalls-- maybe OLIVIA 1967, too, which is considered 110 kt.  I have no opinion about whether MADELINE was overestimated until we really look at it-- but the storm happened long ago enough that it needs to be vetted.

 

Re: 1959, I was always wondering about the Cat-5 rating but went into the reanalysis with an open mind-- just ready to accept whatever the calculations  yielded.

 

At the end of the day, it's up to the NHC. They might not accept our findings and keep it a Cat 5-- although they're interested to see the paper and asked that we make it as detailed as possible.

 

There's also Tico 83 to deal with as IIIRC, that was 115 knts at landfall. While many keyt 70s and 80s hits have no known pressure, I will say that assuming your 1959 cane landfall pressure of 953 mbar stands, you can say that you have chased the stronger hurricane landfall by mbar on record (Odile, 930 mbar operationally, likely closer to 940).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6z GFS brings this into the GOC and have this hitting near Jalisco/Sinaloa border.

 

 Fwiw, the 12Z GFS boomerangs it to near that area early on 11/4. At the very least, the last four runs of the GFS have shown a similar hit for late 10/3-early 10/4 fwiw. I maintain that climo is supportive since its peak ends only a few days prior to 11/3-4 and we're supposedly going into a weak Nino.

 For folks not recalling this, we went down this road in 2012 but this time we've had support from the Euro on a good number of runs, including the last few. In 2012, there was zero Euro support and the Euro ended up being correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also Tico 83 to deal with as IIIRC, that was 115 knts at landfall. While many keyt 70s and 80s hits have no known pressure, I will say that assuming your 1959 cane landfall pressure of 953 mbar stands, you can say that you have chased the stronger hurricane landfall by mbar on record (Odile, 930 mbar operationally, likely closer to 940).

 

Ha!  I didn't even think of that. B)

 

My pressure in ODILE's eye was 943 mb. We were a few miles from the center of the eye, and there was definitely some gradient in the eye (1-2 mb/n mi), so I think a landfall pressure around 938 mb would make sense, based on my data alone.  (But I am sure the NHC has other factors and data aside from mine.)  Here's a link to my report, in case you didn't see it:  http://icyclone.com/now/2014/oct/06-october-2014.html

 

Re: TICO... My research has it at 110 kt, but hey, that's close to your estimate. Maybe we'll tackle that one next, since it's an important landfall (was near Mazatlan).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Fwiw, the 12Z GFS boomerangs it to near that area early on 11/4. At the very least, the last four runs of the GFS have shown a similar hit for late 10/3-early 10/4 fwiw. I maintain that climo is supportive since its peak ends only a few days prior to 11/3-4 and we're supposedly going into a weak Nino.

 For folks not recalling this, we went down this road in 2012 but this time we've had support from the Euro on a good number of runs, including the last few. In 2012, there was zero Euro support and the Euro ended up being correct.

 

OTOH, the 12Z Euro is back to stalling it offshore and then weakening it. It stalls as an upper high forms over MX and blocks it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha!  I didn't even think of that. B)

 

My pressure in ODILE's eye was 943 mb. We were a few miles from the center of the eye, and there was definitely some gradient in the eye (1-2 mb/n mi), so I think a landfall pressure around 938 mb would make sense, based on my data alone.  (But I am sure the NHC has other factors and data aside from mine.)  Here's a link to my report, in case you didn't see it:  http://icyclone.com/now/2014/oct/06-october-2014.html

 

Re: TICO... My research has it at 110 kt, but hey, that's close to your estimate. Maybe we'll tackle that one next, since it's an important landfall (was near Mazatlan).

 

As for Tico, HURDAT has it at 110 knts. Not 115. My bad.

 

Operationally, the pressure for Odile

 

Kinda gettin' excited about VANCE.... I'm sensing a cool Last Supper...

 

It hasn't even formed yet, and I'm starting to think dry air may hold it in check for a while. We don't have CCKW support like what we've had for all the other majors this season. But shear and SST's are perfect.

at landfall was 930 mbar. I'd go with 936mbar ish for pressure at landfall. But estimating landfall intensities is not my strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Tico, HURDAT has it at 110 knts. Not 115. My bad.

 

Operationally, the pressure for Odile

 

 

It hasn't even formed yet, and I'm starting to think dry air may hold it in check for a while. We don't have CCKW support like what we've had for all the other majors this season. But shear and SST's are perfect.

at landfall was 930 mbar. I'd go with 936mbar ish for pressure at landfall. But estimating landfall intensities is not my strength.

 

Yeah, operationally ODILE was 930 mb, but I feel that might be a little low. Your value or mine make sense, I think.

 

Still excited about 93E. An informed source tells me the future for this could get very interestin'.  We'll see with the first advisory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, guys--

 

Re: the EPAC's landfall history... I meant to confirm that, yes, when I was referring to the only two known November hurricane landfalls, I was talking about TARA 1961 and RICK 1997. I should clarify that I limit my comments about statistics, climatology, and records to the HURDAT era-- which for the NATL is 1851-present and for the EPAC is 1949-present.

 

That having been said... GaWx, thanks for the heads-up Re: those other Nov landfalls from the 19th century. Cool stuff. Gonna research those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, guys--

 

Re: the EPAC's landfall history... I meant to confirm that, yes, when I was referring to the only two known November hurricane landfalls, I was talking about TARA 1961 and RICK 1997. I should clarify that I limit my comments about statistics, climatology, and records to the HURDAT era-- which for the NATL is 1851-present and for the EPAC is 1949-present.

 

That having been said... GaWx, thanks for the heads-up Re: those other Nov landfalls from the 19th century. Cool stuff. Gonna research those.

 

Josh,

 You're welcome. Well, guess what..the wishy washy Euro is back on your side. It is a hit on 11/4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...