Two Infamous NE Hurricanes Hurricane Reanalysis Findings

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
Hybridstorm_November2001
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: SW New Brunswick, Canada
Contact:

Two Infamous NE Hurricanes Hurricane Reanalysis Findings

#1 Postby Hybridstorm_November2001 » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:06 pm

Image

Boose et al. (2001) analyzed this hurricane as a Category 3 at U.S. landfall,
based upon widespread reports of wind-caused Fujita-scale 2 damage in
New England. Additionally, their reconstructed damage work analyzes a RMW of
30 nmi at landfall, which is substantially smaller than the earlier estimate of
40 nmi from Ho (1989). Ho's 963 mb central pressure estimate suggests
88 kt from the northern wind-pressure relationship. With a RMW slightly
smaller than that expected climatologically (around 34 nmi) for that central
pressure and latitude (Vickery et al. 2000), winds somewhat higher than
what the wind-pressure relationship suggests should be used. Additionally,
the extremely rapid forward motion of the hurricane (around 40 kt) would
also argue for higher winds than is usual on the right semi-circle of the
hurricane. Based upon all of these points, the estimated maximum sustained
winds at landfall are increased from 90 kt (Category 2) to 100 kt (Category 3),
making this a major hurricane landfall in New England. (No changes were
needed for the 6 hourly intervals within HURDAT.)
Additionally, as the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized
for this hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland
decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical
cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001). This model does decay systems faster
and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 06Z on the 9th, which is
reflected in the revised HURDAT.
0 likes   

User avatar
Hybridstorm_November2001
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: SW New Brunswick, Canada
Contact:

#2 Postby Hybridstorm_November2001 » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:09 pm

Image

Boose et al. (2001 and personal communication) analyzed this hurricane as a
Category 2 impact in Massachusetts and Category 3 impact in Maine during
its U.S. landfall. The original HURDAT had this hurricane listed as being
a high end Category 2 as it made U.S. landfall (90 kt), but with the RMW
staying offshore near Massachusetts. Given the low number of reports
utilized in the reconstructed versus actual damage in their damage-based
empirical wind modeling work for this case, a boost to the winds at landfall
to this extent is does not have enough substantiation. However, estimates
of winds at landfall are increased moderately, though this does not
necessitate any changes to the 6-hourly HURDAT itself. Boose et al. (2001)
also estimated a RMW of 30 nmi at landfall, which does suggest a slightly
higher central pressure to match the 90 kt given a slightly smaller than
usual RMW for this windspeed and latitude (Vickery et al. 2000).
Additionally, as the first Kaplan and DeMaria inland decay model was utilized
for this hurricane, it was appropriate to review the results with the inland
decay model explicitly designed for New England landfalling tropical
cyclones (Kaplan and DeMaria 2001). This model does decay systems faster
and suggests a downward revision to the winds at 06 and 12Z on the 5th, which
is reflected in the revised HURDAT.
0 likes   

User avatar
Hybridstorm_November2001
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: SW New Brunswick, Canada
Contact:

#3 Postby Hybridstorm_November2001 » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:13 pm

I recall some one asking awhile back if major hurricanes (cat. 3 and higher) can really hit New England. Well this seem like proof that they can.


Source: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/project2003/hurdat.html
0 likes   

User avatar
terstorm1012
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1314
Age: 43
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Millersburg, PA

#4 Postby terstorm1012 » Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:00 am

The second one is Saxby's Gale I believe...good find Hybridstorm!
0 likes   

User avatar
DESTRUCTION5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4423
Age: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Stuart, FL

#5 Postby DESTRUCTION5 » Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:24 am

How the hell can you re-evaluate a storm from the 1800's? :lol:
0 likes   
GATOR NATION IS E V E R Y W H E R E !

User avatar
Hybridstorm_November2001
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: SW New Brunswick, Canada
Contact:

#6 Postby Hybridstorm_November2001 » Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:29 am

Same as any other storm. You look at the damage patterns, the weather readings taken at the time, the ship reports, tree core samples (that were alive at the time), exct.


I suggest if you are skeptical check out the source. I'm certain NOAA knows what they are doing :lol: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/project2003/hurdat.html
0 likes   

User avatar
Hybridstorm_November2001
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: SW New Brunswick, Canada
Contact:

RE:

#7 Postby Hybridstorm_November2001 » Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:40 am

terstorm1012 wrote:The second one is Saxby's Gale I believe...good find Hybridstorm!


Indeed. I find it interesting that while they didn't upgrade it to a cat. 3 at Landfall. The findings (as they stated) seemed to suggest cat. 3 damage in Maine :eek: Truly frightening to think that a major hurricane maybe able to get that far North, and still be a major at landfall.


These are some of the findings we are going to use in the study I mentioned in another thread. Prelim reports also seem to support that Hurricane Edna of 1954 maybe upgraded to a cat. 2, or even a cat. 3 at landfall in Eastport, due to the extensive damage in the region. Of course will have to hold off on that until reanalysis is complete.
0 likes   

User avatar
DESTRUCTION5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4423
Age: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Stuart, FL

#8 Postby DESTRUCTION5 » Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:42 am

Between bulding codes in the 1800's and the scientific tools we had, whether its noaa or not I don't think history of this caliber should be tampered with...I still think its highly inaccurate...
0 likes   
GATOR NATION IS E V E R Y W H E R E !

User avatar
CentralFlGal
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL

#9 Postby CentralFlGal » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:16 am

I read somewhere (can't recall off the top of my head) about a team of scientists who are able to reconstruct surge levels based on sediment deposits inland in the Northeast.
0 likes   

User avatar
terstorm1012
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1314
Age: 43
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Millersburg, PA

#10 Postby terstorm1012 » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:16 am

DESTRUCTION5 wrote:Between bulding codes in the 1800's and the scientific tools we had, whether its noaa or not I don't think history of this caliber should be tampered with...I still think its highly inaccurate...


It's interesting (and bothersome) that everyone picks on building codes.

In Andrew, older construction from the 40s and early 50s survived a lot better than newer construction.

In Frances and Jeanne, the newer "hurricane resistant" stuff built to code I've read did not come through as well as the old-style concrete and cinder box construction from the 40s and 50s.

Hands down, I'd take an older building, even one built way back when in the 1800s, over one built last month. A lot of what they're putting up now is, sorry to say, cr*p.

the house I grew up in turns 90 this year. The house my parents moved to is only 15. The 15yo house is in worse condition then the 90 year old house because the developer cut corners. That's not to say the 90yo house has its issues, as it does. But if we were to put the two through a hurricane, the 15yo house would lose and the 90yo house (barring any trees falling on it) would probably stand up to it.

In fact, if it's from the 1800s and still standing today, and livable, that goes to tell ya they knew what they were doing back in the day.

NOAA knows what its doing in these reanalysies.
0 likes   

User avatar
jdray
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 853
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:07 pm
Location: NE Florida

#11 Postby jdray » Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:21 pm

^^

I agree with above. Older houses are generally built better than houses up until about 1996 or so..
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#12 Postby x-y-no » Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:27 pm

In Andrew, older construction from the 40s and early 50s survived a lot better than newer construction.


Absolutely agree with this. In my parents' neighborhood (where I rode out andrew) the houses from about 1950 through 1965 fared reasonably well (parents' house was built 1960) but the houses from the late '70s and '80s were very severely damaged.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests