[Rhodes22-list] IKE - Heads-Up Call/tracking link

[elle]

Here is a good link for hurricane tracking:

http://hurricane.terrapin.com/

elle

We can't change the angle of the wind....but we can adjust our sails.

1992 Rhodes 22   Recyc '06  "WaterMusic"   (Lady in Red)


--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Brad Haslett <flybrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Brad Haslett <flybrad at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] IKE - Heads-Up Call
> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 10:39 PM
> Info for Texas coastal Rhodies - Brad
> 
> ----------------
> 
>  September 9th, 2008 6:07 pm
> Ike reaches the Gulf; could be a "worst-case"
> storm for Texas
> 
> 
> Hurricane Ike has emerged in the Gulf of Mexico, having
> survived its
> long passage over Cuba relatively intact, and it has a good
> chance of
> intensifying into a major hurricane — and aiming for a
> highly
> vulnerable part of the Texas coast. According to Dr. Jeff
> Masters,
> "There is a significant chance that Ike will be the
> worst hurricane to
> hit Texas in over 40 years."
> 
> The standard caveats apply. Landfall in Texas is more than
> three days
> away. We don't know — we can't know — exactly
> where Ike will go, how
> strong it will get, or whether it will maintain its
> strength all the
> way to the coast. There are plenty of plausible scenarios
> which are
> not "worst case." The odds do not favor a
> calamity. They never do, at
> 72+ hours out. But Ike is a real threat.
> 
> This new sense of worry is fueled partly by the track. As I
> mentioned
> earlier, the trend toward a landfall in more sparsely
> populated south
> Texas or northern Mexico has halted, and now the computer
> model tracks
> are inching north — and getting uncomfortably close to
> the heavily
> populated, highly vulnerable Houston/Galveston region. In
> Eric
> Berger's words, "if the models were to shift just
> 50 or so miles up
> the coast, a landfall at Freeport or just to the northeast
> would bring
> the strongest winds to Houston."
> 
> The new official forecast track brings Ike ashore just
> north of Corpus
> Christi, and the National Hurricane Center's 5:00 PM
> discussion
> acknowledges that this may be too far south:
> 
>     THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT NARROWING IN THE SPREAD OF
> THE LATEST
> MODEL RUNS…WITH THE GFS…GFDL…AND NOGAPS ALL SHOWING
> LESS RIDGING TO
> THE NORTH OF IKE LATE IN THE PERIOD AND SHIFTING THEIR
> TRACKS
> NORTHWARD TO BE IN BETTER AGREEMENT WITH THE UKMET AND
> ECMWF RUNS. IKE
> IS NOW EXPECTED TO RECURVE AROUND THE PERIPHERY OF THE
> SUBTROPICAL
> RIDGE NEAR THE END OF THE FORECAST PERIOD. THE OFFICIAL
> FORECAST IS
> ADJUSTED NORTHWARD ON DAYS FOUR AND FIVE…BUT ALL OF THE
> BETTER
> DYNAMICAL MODELS ARE EVEN FARTHER TO THE RIGHT.
> 
> Translation: if the models don't lurch back to the
> left, the NHC's
> forecast landfall point will move further away from Corpus
> Christi and
> closer to Freeport — the west edge of
> Houston/Galveston's "worst-case"
> landfall zone.
> 
> The other reason for alarm is Ike's failure to fall
> apart during its
> on-again, off-again overland trek across Cuba, which has
> just ended.
> It took Ike almost 48 hours to traverse the island from end
> to end,
> and the storm's winds diminished from 135 mph a few
> hours before
> landfall, and 125 mph at landfall, to 75 mph now. But the
> storm's core
> remains structurally well put-together, which is the key to
> future
> strengthening.
> 
> This is a crucial difference between Gustav and Ike.
> Although Gustav's
> passage over Cuba was quite brief — just a few hours —
> the effects of
> land interaction, combined with wind shear, were enough to
> significantly disrupt the storm's central core,
> delaying rapid
> intensification until it was too late for Gustav to
> re-intensify into
> a monster. By contrast, Ike's much lengthier passage of
> Cuba did not
> have the same effect. According to the National Hurricane
> Center's
> 5:00 PM discussion:
> 
>     IKE MAINTAINED A FAIRLY WELL ORGANIZED CORE STRUCTURE
> DURING ITS
> PASSAGE OVER WESTERN CUBA . . . IT APPEARS THAT THE CORE IS
> INTACT
> ENOUGH TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOME VERY FAVORABLE CONDITIONS
> IN THE GULF
> OF MEXICO.
> 
> Dr. Masters summarizes things even more bluntly:
> 
>     All indications are that Ike will intensify into a very
> dangerous
> major hurricane . . . [S]atellite loops show that Ike has
> maintained a
> large, well-organized circulation during its passage of
> Cuba. The 4 pm
> EDT center fix from the Hurricane Hunters found a central
> pressure of
> 968 mb, which is characteristic of a Category 2 hurricane.
> Passage
> over Cuba did not disrupt the storm enough to keep Ike from
> intensifying into a major hurricane over the Gulf of
> Mexico.
> 
> The barometric pressure issue is particularly interesting.
> Ike's
> pressure just before landfall in Cuba was 945 mb, typical
> of a
> borderline Category 3/4 hurricane, which is exactly what
> Ike was at
> the time. During the passage of Cuba, the pressure rose
> "only" to 968
> mb, its current value, which is typical of a borderline
> Category 2/3
> hurricane — not the borderline tropical storm/Cat. 1 that
> Ike actually
> is. One reason for this, as I understand it, is that Ike
> has responded
> to land interaction by spreading out its wind field over a
> wider area,
> which (I believe) tends to cause a hurricane to be
> "weaker,"
> wind-speed-wise, than its central pressure would normally
> indicate.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken — and here I must add the caveat
> that I'm not a
> meteorologist, I just play one on the Internet, so someone
> please
> correct me if I'm wrong — it would not be surprising
> to see Ike
> "tighten up" a bit over the Gulf, allowing its
> winds to ramp up to
> something more typically in line with the low barometric
> pressure. In
> other words, Ike might not actually have to
> "deepen" all that much to
> become a Category 2 or 3 hurricane.
> 
> In any case, assuming Ike does become a major hurricane
> over the Gulf
> — which seems likely, given its core's organization,
> and given that
> both the Loop Current and a Loop Current Eddy stand between
> it and
> Texas — the big question is whether, and how much, it
> will then weaken
> before making landfall.
> 
> Alan Sullivan (who, like me, is an amateur weather buff,
> not a
> meteorologist) foresees substantial weakening:
> 
>     [Ike's track will take it] into a zone of shear,
> cooler water, and
> interaction with an approaching cold front. Such a scenario
> could
> yield very heavy rains, but it would not be likely to put a
> major
> hurricane ashore. Ike would weaken.
> 
> But Dr. Masters, who is a meteorologist (indeed, the
> co-founder of
> Weather Underground), is less confident of such an
> eventuality:
> 
>     The wind shear for Friday has changed, and we are
> expecting wind
> shear to remain around 15 knots, which is still low enough
> to allow
> intensification. There is much higher oceanic heat content
> off the
> Texas coast than was present off the Louisiana coast for
> Gustav. Thus,
> it is more likely that Ike will be able to maintain major
> hurricane
> status as it approaches the coast. . . . Given the
> impressive
> appearance of Ike on satellite imagery, and the forecasts
> of high heat
> content and low shear along its path, I would be surprised
> if Ike hit
> as anything weaker than a Category 2 hurricane with 100 mph
> winds.
> Here's my rough probability break-down for Ike's
> strength at landfall,
> I forecast a 50% chance Ike will be a major hurricane at
> landfall:
> 
>     Category 1 or weaker: 20%
>     Category 2: 30%
>     Category 3: 30%
>     Category 4 or 5: 20%
> 
> A major-hurricane landfall anywhere along the middle Texas
> coast would
> be a very bad thing, as Dr. Masters points out with his
> explanation of
> why "Texas is highly vulnerable to storm surge."
> But nowhere is the
> threat greater than in  Houston/Galveston, as this 2005
> article by
> Berger explains in detail:
> 
>     Houston's perfect storm would feed on late
> summer's warm waters as
> it barreled northward across the Gulf of Mexico, slamming
> into the
> coast near Freeport.
> 
>     A landfall here would allow its powerful upper-right
> quadrant,
> where the waves move in the same direction as the storm, to
> overflow
> Galveston Bay. Within an hour or two, a storm surge,
> topping out at 20
> feet or more, would flood the homes of 600,000 people in
> Harris
> County. The surge also would block the natural drainage of
> flooded
> inland bayous and streams for a day or more.
> 
>     Coastal residents who ignored warnings to flee would
> have no hope
> of escape as waters swelled and winds roiled around their
> homes. Very
> likely, hundreds, perhaps even thousands, would die.
> 
>     Meanwhile, as the storm moved over western Harris
> County, its most
> dangerous winds, well in excess of 120 mph even inland,
> would lash the
> Interstate 45 corridor, including Clear Lake, the Texas
> Medical Center
> and downtown.
> 
>     Many older buildings could not withstand such winds.
> 
>     Anything not tied down, from trees to mobile homes to
> light poles,
> would become missiles, surreally tumbling and flying
> through the air,
> flattening small houses, shattering skyscraper windows and
> puncturing
> roofs.
> 
>     "Unfortunately, we're looking at massive
> devastation," said Roy
> Dodson, president of the engineering firm Dodson &
> Associates, which
> Harris County asked to model realistic "worst-case
> scenarios" for a
> major hurricane hitting the area.
> 
>     Dodson's firm modeled more than 100 storms of
> varying power, speed
> and landfall. It concluded that a large Category 4 or
> Category 5 . . .
> would cause as much as $40 billion to $50 billion in
> damage.
> 
> Now, before anyone accuses me of "hype," please
> re-read the second
> paragraph of this post. The odds do not favor a calamity.
> But a
> worst-case scenario, or something close to it, is now a
> realistic
> possibility, albeit one that's far from certain. Texas
> residents need
> to watch this storm very closely, and not be lulled into a
> false sense
> of security by previous false alarms (Rita, Edouard, etc.).
> Ike could
> be the real deal. Maybe it won't be — but it could
> be.
> 
> Berger, circa 2008, says of Ike: "The bottom line is
> that the Houston
> area could face a near worst-case scenario with Ike,
> although I'd
> still peg the chances of this happening at one-in-four, or
> less." He
> is, I believe, including any major hurricane landfall (Cat.
> 3 or
> above, not just Cat. 4 or 5) hitting between Freeport and
> Galeveston
> in his "near worst-case" category.
> 
> Dr. Masters, for his part, spells out "a realistic
> worse-case scenario
> for Texas":
> 
>     There is a significant chance that Ike will be the
> worst hurricane
> to hit Texas in over 40 years. The latest run of the HWRF
> and GFDL
> models paint a realistic worst-case scenario for Texas.
> These models
> bring Ike to the coast as a Category 4 hurricane (which I
> give a 20%
> probability of happening). The HWRF predicts a 170-mile
> stretch of
> coast will receive hurricane force winds of 74 mph or
> greater. A
> 100-mile stretch of coast will receive winds of Category 3
> strength
> and higher, 115 mph. Hurricane force winds will push inland
> up to 50
> miles, along a 50-mile wide region where the eyewall makes
> landfall. A
> 100-mile stretch of Texas coast will receive a storm surge
> of 10-15
> feet, with bays just to the right of where the eye makes
> landfall
> receiving a 20-25 foot storm surge. This is what Hurricane
> Carla of
> 1961 did to Texas. Carla was a Category 4 hurricane with
> 145 mph winds
> at landfall, and drove a 10 foot or higher storm surge to a
> 180-mile
> stretch of Texas coast. A maximum storm surge of 22 feet
> was recorded
> at Port Lavaca, Texas. Despite the fact that the center of
> Carla hit
> over 120 miles southwest of Houston, the hurricane drove a
> 15-foot
> storm surge into the bays along the south side of the city.
> 
> Bottom line: for folks in Texas, it is not time to panic,
> but it is
> time to prepare. Determine, if you don't know already,
> whether you're
> in an evacuation zone. The rule of thumb is "run from
> the water, hide
> from the wind," so unless you're in a storm surge
> zone, a flood plain,
> a poorly constructed home, or quite close to the shore, you
> can, and
> probably should, plan to hunker down rather than get the
> hell out. But
> don't listen to me — listen to your local
> authorities. And if you are
> in an evacuation zone, make the necessary preparations to
> leave
> tomorrow or Thursday, if and when the order comes.
> 
> Again, listen to the local authorities on this: if they
> tell you to
> leave, you should leave. Ike is nothing to trifle with. As
> I've said,
> it may, for a variety of reasons, prove to be something
> less than a
> disaster — and if this happens, it will not mean the
> storm was
> "overhyped," it will just mean you got lucky. Be
> grateful, if so. But
> you should not play Russian roulette with this storm. Yes,
> previous
> hurricanes have made lucky turns. Yes, last-minute
> weakening often
> happens, and is possible here. But those fortuities are not
> guaranteed. Take Ike seriously.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing
> list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________