ATL: DANNY - Remnants - Discussion

[ozonepete]

The eye is embedded almost dead center now. This has to be very near a cat 3. Man do I wish there was RECON in there.

[AJC3]

I'm putting this out there for everyone's benefit before we get to that point...

It's perfectly fine to respectfully disagree with the NHC on their intensity estimate...just refrain from getting snarky to the point where you're bashing them. Thanks in advance.

[tropicwatch]

No recon, no current sat passes and no weather buoys. This stinks.

[CrazyC83]

We won't know the real intensity until Recon gets in there.

[HurricaneRyan]

This reminds me of Hurricane Kirk back in 2012 when I swore it had become a major at some point. Looks like Danny is on its way there

[blp]

And everyone was laughing at the HWRF a couple days ago.

[NDG]

And everyone was laughing at the HWRF a couple days ago.

Even the HWRF started doubting itself yesterday when it starting backing away from forecasting Danny to become a hurricane today, but you are right for days it was forecasting Danny to become a hurricane today.

[blp]

I really think the problem starts with the forward speed increase forecasted when the ridge builds in. Right now it is carrying the right speed that is keeping it away enough from the shear and dry air which is backing away West at a similar speed. It is even in the right spot where the shear is ventillating the system. Once it speeds up it will be in trouble. This storm has absolutely played it's cards right up till now. Amazing system to watch...

[ROCK]

As a general rule of thumb usually see midget cyclones with infrared satpic with a visible eye as it appears now @90kts.

I would agree given what I am seeing in the sat loops. IMO, it wont last long as globals kill him in a few days. I think we are seeing his peak....

[ROCK]

watch the research missions find a cat 2 or 3 hurricane

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast 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.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products

If indeed it's @3 i like the odds of this storm getting past that shear with the structure still reasonably intact likely as a high end TS.

Have tracked many small core cyclones in more hostile conditions than this across the NT and most have managed to track a few hundred miles and shrug off the shear and dry air with a live llcc and re-intensify in better conditions.

Just my 2cents.

dude thats 40knots of shear sitting in fromt of it.lol...there is a reason globals kill it and that map alone tells the story.

[ozonepete]

watch the research missions find a cat 2 or 3 hurricane

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast 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.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products

If indeed it's @3 i like the odds of this storm getting past that shear with the structure still reasonably intact likely as a high end TS.

Have tracked many small core cyclones in more hostile conditions than this across the NT and most have managed to track a few hundred miles and shrug off the shear and dry air with a live llcc and re-intensify in better conditions.

Just my 2cents.

dude thats 40knots of shear sitting in fromt of it.lol...there is a reason globals kill it and that map alone tells the story.

Except that's a narrow band of shear, so if it gets through that zone and then north of PR the shear is near ZERO.

[La Breeze]

As a general rule of thumb usually see midget cyclones with infrared satpic with a visible eye as it appears now @90kts.

I would agree given what I am seeing in the sat loops. IMO, it wont last long as globals kill him in a few days. I think we are seeing his peak....

100 % agree, Rock.

[Cyclenall]

Have tracked many small core cyclones in more hostile conditions than this across the NT and most have managed to track a few hundred miles and shrug off the shear and dry air with a live llcc and re-intensify in better conditions.

Just my 2cents.

*Shear Image Cut*

That shear map is probably the same as 23 years ago minus 3 or so days.

Danny is one of the smallest hurricane's I've ever seen in the Atlantic, the other two that I've tracked that were close were Kirk and Humberto. How does this rank overall? I haven't seen much of the thread so excuse me if it was asked and answered a few times already. Its a cute storm .

[Hammy]

Hurricane Danny - 75 knots
[url]tropicalatlantic.com[/url]

I agree with most other posters that this looks closer to 85kt, but given the proximity to the shear and forward motion, it'll likely weaken before the plane gets there so we'll never know the actual peak intensity.

[chaser1]

Hurricane Danny - 75 knots
[url]tropicalatlantic.com[/url]

I agree with most other posters that this looks closer to 85kt, but given the proximity to the shear and forward motion, it'll likely weaken before the plane gets there so we'll never know the actual peak intensity.

I'd say you thoughts on present intensity and whatever that will be measured at the point when recon can perform proper analysis... is right on target Hammy. Too damn bad we have no way of having a more finite means to measure the wind speed in Danny. Seems that NHC is fairly confident however that its not that much stronger than they are projecting. That said, I'd be comfortable with betting closer to 85 knots.

[MBryant]

Just a couple of questions.

1. Is "small core cyclone" the same thing that used to be called a Neutercane?

2. Is a Knot simply a Nautical Mile/hour or is there more to it? Would that make X Knots = (X * 6000/5280) MPH the accurate conversion?

OK. I can't count either.

[chaser1]

Just a couple of questions.

1. Is "small core cyclone" the same thing that used to be called a Neutercane?

2. Is a Knot simply a Nautical Mile/hour or is there more to it? Would that make X Knots = (X * 6000/5280) MPH the accurate conversion?

OK. I can't count either.

Good questions! Wow, havn't heard that expression lately. A small core cyclone generally implies a true cyclone which is not only quite small, but that its core might be uncharacteristically tight. This of course might apply to a low over land, but as in this case clearly a purely tropical cyclone over water. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the phrase "Neutercane" was created to also define a relative small cyclonic feature but am thinking that it might have shown characteristics that might appear tropical in nature, yet might also exhibit sub tropical characteristics as well. I"m almost picturing a vort center spit out of draped front in the mid latitudes, where vorticity rides up and along the front and a more baroclinic origin might be what tends to develop such a feature that might have been defined as a "Neutercane"

[Nederlander]

Just a couple of questions.

1. Is "small core cyclone" the same thing that used to be called a Neutercane?

2. Is a Knot simply a Nautical Mile/hour or is there more to it? Would that make X Knots = (X * 6000/5280) MPH the accurate conversion?

OK. I can't count either.

The term neutercane is used for small subtropical systems that share features of both a tropical cyclone and a frontal low.

A knot is actually a nautical mile. A nautical mile per hour would be a kph. I guess over time people have shortened knots per hour to simply "knots." 1 kt is equal to 1.1508 miles. I've never really understood the point of using kph as a wind measurement because it was always used as a distance measurement due to equaling a minute of arc along a meridian. Maybe someone else could provide insight as to why kph is used as opposed to mph for wind speeds.

[N2FSU]

Not as symmetrical this morning.

[chaser1]

Oh... and i've always made the quick calculation of 1 knot being equal to 1.2 miles per hour. In actuality though, I think that is technically incorrect and 1 knot is probably closer to 1.15 miles per hour. Doesn't seem like that much of a distinction, but when one hear's that sustained winds are 105 kt.'s, well then dong the math one can see that the actual winds are significantly more (about 120 mph). Now, if one REALLY wants to split hairs LOL, you might hear one day that a future recon is measuring steady 100-105 knot winds, and yet NHC might use an 80% rule, where realizing that the stronger winds are typically above the surface, and thus will calculate wind speed to miles per hour... and then potentially deduct somewhere between 10%-20% to reach a determined "surface wind" estimate. Silly as it may sound, winds that might accurately be measured at 5-20 meters above sea level, don't always flow unimpeded (due to buildings or natural land elevation changes) and so that, along with the fact that those winds were perceived as the "top" winds recorded at that time, will sometimes cause a slightly more conservative estimate of actual anticipated surface wind speed that us folk here on the ground might be apt to see or feel