[Index]
Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Summary May 2005
[Summaries and Track Data] [Prepared by Gary Padgett]
| Tropical
Cyclones
[Index] |
Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Summary May 2005 [Summaries and Track Data] [Prepared by Gary Padgett] |
MONTHLY GLOBAL TROPICAL CYCLONE SUMMARY
MAY, 2005
(For general comments about the nature of these summaries, as well as
information on how to download the tabular cyclone track files, see
the Author's Note at the end of this summary.)
*************************************************************************
MAY HIGHLIGHTS
--> Very quiet month--warnings issued for only two systems worldwide
--> Northeast Pacific hurricane takes very unusual track toward
Central America
*************************************************************************
***** Feature of the Month for May *****
WIND REPORTING CRITERIA
The is the final monthly feature synopsizing the results of a survey
I sent to the members of a tropical cyclone discussion group during the
summer (boreal) of 2003. I have previously presented the results of the
survey, usually taking two or three questions at the time, in several
monthly features, beginning with May, 2004. The survey consisted of ten
multiple-choice questions dealing with various tropical or subtropical
cyclone-related issues. This final feature summarizes the responses to
a question concerned with maximum wind reporting parameters.
The persons responding to the survey are listed below. A special
thanks to each for taking the time to respond to the questions.
Michael Bath - New South Wales, Australia
Bruno Benjamin - Guadeloupe, French West Indies
Eric Blake - TPC/NHC, Miami, Florida, USA
Pete Bowyer - Canadian Hurricane Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Kevin Boyle - Newchapel Observatory, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Jeff Callaghan - BoM, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Simon Clarke - Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Tony Cristaldi - NWS Office, Melbourne, Florida, USA
Roger Edson - University of Guam, USA
Chris Fogarty - Canadian Hurricane Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
James Franklin - TPC/NHC, Miami, Florida, USA
Bruce Harper - Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Julian Heming - UK Meteorological Office, UK
Karl Hoarau - Cergy-Pontoise University, Paris, France
Greg Holland - BoM, Australia
Mark Kersemakers - BoM, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
Mark Lander - University of Guam, USA
Chris Landsea - AOML/HRD, Miami, Florida, USA
Gary Padgett - Alabama, USA
Michael V. Padua - Naga City, Philippines
Michael Pitt - US Navy
David Roberts - TPC/NHC, Miami, Florida, USA
David Roth - NOAA/HPC, Maryland, USA
Matthew Saxby - Queanbeyan, New South Wales, Australia
Carl Smith - Queensland, Australia
Phil Smith - Hong Kong, China
John Wallace - San Antonio, Texas, USA
Ray Zehr - Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA
For each of the survey questions, the format will be as follows:
(1) the question as it appeared in the original survey
(2) summary of the responses to each of the possible choices
(3) some of the comments from various respondents
Following this I will attempt to present an analysis of the issues
plus interject my opinions on the subject.
This is the final in this series of monthly features reporting on the
results of the 2003 survey. Covered in this feature is the eighth
question, which dealt with the different methods or reporting the maximum
winds in tropical cyclones (i.e., various time averaging periods, peak
gusts, etc) utilized by the world's many tropical cyclone warning
centers.
There were 28 persons who responded to the survey questions. For
some questions, certain persons did not specify an answer, so the total
number of votes might not always add up to 28. Also, in some cases the
respondent was undecided between two of the choices. In those cases I
assigned 1/2 vote to each of the two choices. A word about the comments
included below: this article is extremely long as it is, and I could
not possibly include all the comments which the various respondents
made. I have selected certain ones which seem to cover the various
issues well, as well as a few which cast a different slant on the
question.
Question # 8 - Wind Reporting Criteria
--------------------------------------
(1) The question was: considering operational warnings (both public
advices and marine warnings) and also tropical cyclone classification
issues, what do you think is the best parameter(s) to describe the
intensity (i.e., current maximum winds) of tropical cyclones?
(A) 1-minute average sustained wind
(B) 10-minute average sustained wind
(C) Peak gusts (usually 3-second gusts)
(D) 1-minute average MSW plus peak gusts
(E) 10-minute average MSW plus peak gusts
(F) 5-minute average sustained wind
(G) Other
(2) Summary of Responses
(A) 1-min avg MSW: 4.0 votes - 14%
(B) 10-min avg MSW: 2.0 votes - 7%
(C) Peak gusts: 0.5 votes - 2%
(D) 1-min avg MSW plus peak gusts: 13.5 votes - 49%
(E) 10-min avg MSW plus peak gusts: 4.0 votes - 14%
(F) 5-min avg MSW: 0.0 votes - 0%
(G) Other: 4.0 votes - 14%
(3) Some Comments
Bruce Harper (E): "Definitely E, but drop the use of the word
'sustained' as it can be misleading."
Carl Smith (E): "10-min avg plus peak gusts gives the most realistic
warning of conditions--gusts can last some minutes with significant
'lulls' of some minutes between the gusts in strong cyclones, especially
in the most dangerous quadrant as a cyclone is approaching (at least in
my Australian experience)."
Chris Fogarty (D): "I feel strongly about D. I think the 1-minute is
standard--let's keep that, but the peak wind is also very important--it
represents a possible damaging gust threshold."
Dave Roberts (A): "Would like to see WMO square this away."
David Roth (G): "It is total nonsense to issue maximum sustained winds
in criteria that do not match what is used in the region's METARs and/or
ship/buoy reports, regardless of how small of a difference may be, and
wind reports need to be standardized worldwide. As far as I know, NO
ONE reports 1-min sustained winds anymore in the U. S., so for the U. S.
at least it should be changed to either 2-min or 10-min, which is used
in buoys and used to be used in the obs at least into the 1940s. After
all, aren't we supposed to be scientists? Scientists in other fields
normally work with uniform/universal standards so results can be easily
duplicated/proven."
Greg Holland (E): "It being that the rest of the world does 10-min,
I go for that, but there is no chance of a change, so we just have to
live with this (and all the confusion that it causes). Definitely should
be mean wind plus gust, and I prefer 1 sec as it is less ambiguous to
observe."
James Franklin (A): "I wish this issue would just go away. People here
(Atlantic) are used to the 1-min wind. There is no advantage that I can
see that outweighs the re-education if we were to change to a 10-min wind
or something else. Let each part of the world do what works best for
them."
Chris Landsea (A): "You forgot G--central pressure ;). James is right
about this one. It's completely arbitrary how one defines them since
it's quite straightforward to go from gusts to 1-min to 10-min maximum
winds. Yes, ideally it would be best for everyone around the world to
use the same system, but it's not a big issue with me."
Jeff Callaghan (B): "The gusts readings these days in OZ from electronic
AWS report much lower gusts than do the old Dynes anemographs. The gust
factors with the Almos AWS appear to be around 1.2 over water compared
with around 1.4 for the Dynes. They are quite different technology and
it is not unreasonable that they would be different; however, all the
old wind engineering stats are based on Dynes-type anemometer data."
John Wallace (D): "I see nothing wrong with the current NHC system, and
frankly the more sinister a strong storm looks with a 1-min MSW, the more
likely residents may take it seriously."
Julian Heming (D): "I can't see warning centres using 10-minute average
ever switching to 1-minute average and vice versa, but I think my
preference is the 1-minute average."
Mark Lander (D): "I recently talked with an engineer at the University
of Hawaii, and he told me that the ASCE standard for design practices in
the U. S. was going to become the peak gusts, rather than a time-averaged
wind. Since gust ratios change so much from land to sea, and for all
sorts of different land exposure categories, the only sensible metric for
wind speed would be the shortest possible time interval, or the 3-sec
gust."
Matthew Saxby (C or D): "I think the Australian idea of going off gusts
very sensible, as it is they that cause the damage. My favouring the
1-min wind is based on a political reality, namely that American warnings
all use it and have quite literally become a de facto global standard,
regardless of what the WMO says. Besides, I think the 10-minute MSW's
can be misleadingly low."
Michael V. Padua (D): "It's more precise rather than to wait for
10-minutes. And people will be prepared more. Example: here in the
Philippines, when PAGASA issued warnigns on Typhoon Rosing, its wind
speed was only 205 km/hr (111 kts), while JTWC had it at 288 km/hr
(156 kts). With these situations, people living along the coast will
not mind PAGASA's warning due to the fact that during the 1950s to
1980s the old PAGASA forecasters used (I think) 1-min--they were inline
with the U. S. Navy. I remember one STY Toyang (1983) wherein their
maximum winds were at 275 km/hr (150 kts)."
Pete Bowyer (G): "Whatever is used, it should agree with the values that
the forecasters are putting in the marine forecasts. Right now we're
comparing apples and oranges."
Phil Smith (D): "A gust can do a lot of damage. Because I use JTWC and
similar products a lot, I tend to get used to the 1-minute average
sustained wind method for deciding the classification. Sometimes this
appears to be "better"; sometimes the 10-minute average sustained wind
method appears to be "better" at determining when a system becomes a TS.
I chose "D" because it also takes into account the peak gusts, which may
often be the factor most reponsible for damage to people and property. I
think I want to say that the method which gives the best possible warning
to the general public is the method I would like to see in place."
Simon Clarke (G): "A combination of D & E. Peak gusts are extremely
important, so A & B would not be appropriate."
Tony Cristaldi (D): "D, though I'm sure I'll be at odds with the "other
side". :-)"
(4) Analysis and Gary's Opinion
First of all, I'll state that I chose Option D (1-min avg MSW plus
peak gusts). I've been used to the 1-min avg concept all my life, but
do feel that peak gusts should be mentioned in that the sudden bursts
of wind do account for much of the wind-related damage in tropical
cyclones. However, I'm also comfortable with the Australian procedure
of using a 10-min avg MSW in the marine warnings and peak gusts in the
public advices. No one wind measurement parameter can give a completely
adequate picture of the destructive winds inside a tropical cyclone.
I plan in a couple of future monthly features to discuss this issue
more fully, so for now I'll just comment on some of the comments given
above.
It seems like most respondents put an emphasis on peak gusts, although
most still want either of the 'sustained' wind parameters given also.
Perhaps using the peak gusts is the way to go, but there are some issues
here. For starters, should the 3-sec or 1-sec gust be the standard?
(Again, the problem of differing time periods raises its ugly head.)
From what I've been told, the reason for the 3-sec gust was simply that
the older rotating cup anemometers had an inertial lag which on the
average required about three seconds to overcome. But some of the newer
types of gust measurement devices can respond in one second or less.
Another issue to consider with using peak gusts as THE primary wind
reporting parameter in tropical cyclones is how to deal with situations
like Tropical Storm Gordon in November, 1994. At one point the system
was a fairly weak 40-kt sheared tropical storm located in the western
Caribbean Sea. As Gordon tracked eastward between Jamaica and eastern
Cuba, the Guantanamo Naval Base recorded peak gusts to 104 kts in a
thunderstorm microburst along with a peak 1-min avg wind of 60 kts,
but these winds were not considered representative of the average
intensity of the system. (This information from the official storm
report by Richard Pasch, archived on TPC/NHC's website.) Certainly
no one would want to classify Gordon as a hurricane based on that report,
much less a major hurricane, but an objective methodology for weeding out
such localized extremes of wind would need to be devised.
I do agree with Bruce Harper that the use of the term 'sustained wind'
to describe the wind averaged over some period of time can be misleading.
Most people in the general public and media interpret that as implying
a relatively steady wind. The wind velocity in many tropical cyclones is
anything but steady. Storm chaser Mike Theiss had this to say about
some of his hurricane-chase experiences (slightly edited):
"As far as my personal experiences, they are different. Charley was
really streaky or gusty. It went from 90 mph to 130 mph in a matter of
a few seconds, and then the 130 mph wind might last for 5-6 seconds, then
back down to 80 mph. The super intense blast lasted for about 40 seconds
and I really think it was one of those mesovortices which Andrew had a
bunch of. I think in the small, rapidly deepening storms you get more of
these quick gusts and less of a constant speed. In Hurricane Frances it
was a really steady blow, and when the eyewall came the winds increased
slowly. I didn't notice any of those really quick high speed gusts in
Frances. Also, in Frances I saw a lot of lightning, which is weird
because you would think you would only see that in a rapidly deepening
storm, and Frances was a bit on the ragged side when it came in. It
definitely was not power flashes--it was lightning because I saw it
over the water. Now in Ivan I did notice a lot of this really streaky
wind, not as obvious as Charley, but definitely some 10-second blasts
that were probably 35 kts higher than the average."
One final potential problem with using gusts as a wind reporting
criterion is this: many persons have commented, both in articles I've
read and in e-mails, that the excess of the peak gusts over the time-
averaged wind varies considerably from cyclone to cyclone, and Mike
Theiss' observations from the 2004 Atlantic hurricanes he experienced
seem to validate this assertion. Thus, rapidly deepening cyclones with
intense convection may have extreme gusts which exceed the MSW by a
considerable amount (e.g., Charley), while the peak gusts in steady-state
or weakening cyclones with less vigorous convection may not greatly
exceed the MSW (e.g., Frances). Yet, as far as I know, the peak gusts
reported in the forecast/advisories issued by TPC/NHC and CPHC, the
warnings from JTWC, and the public advices from BoM are all obtained by
simply applying a constant gust factor to the estimated maximum
sustained wind (around 1.25 for a 1-min avg MSW or 1.4 for a 10-min
avg MSW). Furthermore, there is also an issue which Mark Lander
alluded to above, namely that the peak gust to sustained wind factors
differ from land to over water, and also vary with differing types of
terrain, and with altitude.
As stated above, this is the final monthly summary reporting the
answers to my 2003 survey, but there will be a couple of future features
further discussing the wind reporting parameter issue.
*************************************************************************
CORRECTION TO APRIL FEATURE OF THE MONTH
In the monthly feature for April, 2005, I indicated that the highest
classification officially used by RSMC New Delhi was Very Severe
Cyclonic Storm for any cyclonic storm exceeding hurricane intensity.
Geoffrey Garden of the Darwin TCWC notified me that, according to the
2002 Annual Review of the WMO/ESCAP Panel on Tropical Cyclones, a
Very Severe Cyclonic Storm now has a MSW range of 64-119 kts. For
storms with the estimated MSW 120 kts or greater, the classification
Super Cyclonic Storm is now officially applied. (Thanks to Geoffrey
for pointing this out to me.)
*************************************************************************
ACTIVITY BY BASINS
ATLANTIC (ATL) - North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico
Activity for May: No tropical cyclones
Atlantic Tropical Activity for May
----------------------------------
The month of May lies outside the official 1 June-30 November Atlantic
hurricane season, but tropical cyclones have appeared from time to time
during the month. Since 1950 five systems of tropical storm or hurricane
intensity have developed in May, the last being Tropical Storm Arlene in
early May, 1981. Three hurricanes are known to have developed in May
since 1886: one in 1889, Hurricane Able in 1951, and Hurricane Alma in
1970. No tropical depressions formed in May, 2005, but a tropical
disturbance in the western Caribbean did require the issuance of a
Special Tropical Disturbance Statement by NHC on 24 May. A weak area
of low pressure just southeast of Jamaica was producing scattered showers
and thunderstorms over portions of the central Caribbean Sea and
Hispaniola with the potential for heavy rainfall over the island of
Hispaniola during the next couple of days. However, no further state-
ments were issued on the system.
*************************************************************************
NORTHEAST PACIFIC (NEP) - North Pacific Ocean East of Longitude 180
Activity for May: 1 hurricane
Sources of Information
----------------------
Most of the information presented below was obtained from the
various tropical cyclone products issued by the Tropical Prediction
Center/National Hurricane Center (TPC/NHC) in Miami, Florida (or the
Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC) in Honolulu, Hawaii, for
locations west of longitude 140W): discussions, public advisories,
forecast/advisories, tropical weather outlooks, special tropical
disturbance statements, etc. Some additional information may have
been gleaned from the monthly summaries prepared by the hurricane
specialists and available on TPC/NHC's website. All references to
sustained winds imply a 1-minute averaging period unless otherwise
noted.
Northeast Pacific Tropical Activity for May
-------------------------------------------
The official Eastern North Pacific hurricane season begins on 15 May
each year, and in recent years the trend has been for the first named
cyclone of the season to form during the latter half of the month.
The formation of Hurricane Adrian on 17 May marks the sixth consecutive
year in which a tropical storm or hurricane has formed during May. Since
1971 the previous record for consecutive Mays giving birth to tropical
storms was four years: 1981-1984, with May of 1984 producing two named
storms. Over the period 1971-2004, the annual average for May tropical
cyclone activity has been a tropical storm every other year and a
hurricane about once every four years. So Adrian's formation in late
May was in keeping with the trend of recent years. What made the storm
so unusual was its northeasterly track towards a landfall in Central
America, very rare at any time of year and unprecedented for so early
in the season. A report on Hurricane Adrian, authored by John Wallace,
follows.
HURRICANE ADRIAN
(TC-01E)
17 - 20 May
------------------------------------
A. Storm Origins
----------------
Like most Northeast Pacific tropical cyclones, Adrian's origin can be
traced back to an African tropical wave. The pre-Adrian wave crossed
Central America on 15 May (1), thereafter spawning a disturbance that
steadily organized over the succeeding two days, warranting its upgrade
to Tropical Depression One-E at 2100 UTC on 17 May when located about
400 nm west-southwest of the coastlines of Guatemala and El Salvador.
A deep southwest to northeast-oriented trough to its north steered the
tropical cyclone on a northeasterly track, one it was to maintain
throughout its life.
B. Synoptic History
-------------------
The depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Adrian on the next
advisory at 0300 UTC on the 18th. Adrian strengthened unevenly, but
steadily, for the next day and half. A special advisory upgraded
Adrian to hurricane strength at 1800 UTC on 19 May, a status confirmed
by data from a relatively rare Eastern Pacific hurricane reconnaissance
mission which found a CP of 983 mb and a 75-kt MSW. At the time of its
peak intensity Adrian was located about 80 nm southwest of San Salvador,
El Salvador.
Adrian weakened extraordinarily rapidly after its peak, making land-
fall as only a tropical depression in the Gulfo de Fonseca region of
Honduras around 0600 UTC on 20 May. (2) Its circulation quickly
disintegrated over the mountainous terrain of Central America, and the
last advisory was issued at 1500 UTC on 20 May. Strong shear to its
northeast and the disruption of its circulation by land precluded any
possible regeneration over the western Caribbean Sea. (Editor's Note:
Operationally Adrian was classified as a hurricane which made landfall
in El Salvador, although the discussion bulletin at the time indicated
that it was quite possible the system would be downgraded to a tropical
storm in post-analysis. However, a careful analysis of satellite and
surface data, including ship observations received after the event,
indicate that Adrian weakened rapidly offshore and the LLCC moved east-
ward, making landfall as noted above as a tropical depression in
Honduras.)
A graphic displaying the track of Hurricane Adrian may be found at
the following link:
http://www.tropicalcyclone2005.com/database/tc_besttracks_graphics/PACIFIC_EAST/2005_01E_ADRIAN_BT.gif>
C. Damage and Casualties
------------------------
There appear to be no casualties directly related to the storm, but
some indirect casualties are evident; for instance, a People's Daily
press release states that two Guatemalan ditch diggers were killed in a
collapse caused by rain before Adrian hit, along with a Salvadoran pilot
who lost control of his plane in strong winds ahead of the storm. (3)
Most sources, however, concur that there were no casualties or
significant damage directly associated with the storm. (4)
D. Climatological Discussion
----------------------------
Adrian will be more remembered for its unusual climatological and
track context than anything else. May hurricanes are uncommon in the
Northeast Pacific with an average of about one every four years. (5)
However, Adrian's track is truly noteworthy; it is exceptional for a
tropical cyclone to make landfall southeast of the Gulf of Tehuantepec,
let alone as early as May. The last storm to approach the Central
American coast was Andres (1997), though it officially dissipated
before making landfall and was a June system. The last tropical
cyclone on record which actually struck Central America from the Pacific
was the precursor depression to Hurricane Paul (1982). In October,
1968, Tropical Storm Simone made landfall along the Pacific coast of
Guatemala.
The media quoted that Adrian was the fifth tropical cyclone to make
landfall over Guatemala or El Salvador. (6) This figure probably
either includes depressions that never became tropical storms, or storms
that crossed Central America and regenerated in the Pacific. In any
event, this storm set a record with its early date. (7)
E. References
-------------
(1) Source: May 2005 Summary, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/tws/MIATWSEP_may.shtml?>
(2) Ibid.
(3) http://english.people.com.cn/200505/20/eng20050520_186014.html>
(4) http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/217167/111698863916.htm>
and May 2005 summary
(5) This particular tidbit of data was adapted from some figures
graciously compiled by Gary Padgett and sent to me.
(6) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050524000741.htm>
(7) Ibid.
(Report written by John Wallace)
*************************************************************************
NORTHWEST PACIFIC (NWP) - North Pacific Ocean West of Longitude 180
Activity for May: 1 tropical depression **
1 tropical storm ++
** - not treated as a tropical depression by JTWC
++ - system formed at end of month and will be covered in the June
summary
Sources of Information
----------------------
Most of the information presented below is based upon tropical
cyclone warnings and significant tropical weather outlooks issued
by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center of the U. S. Air Force and
Navy (JTWC), located at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. In the companion
tropical cyclone tracks file, I normally annotate track coordinates
from some of the various Asian warning centers when their center
positions differ from JTWC's by usually 40-50 nm or more. All
references to sustained winds imply a 1-minute averaging period
unless otherwise noted.
Michael V. Padua of Naga City in the Philippines, owner of the
Typhoon 2000 website, normally sends me cyclone tracks based upon
warnings issued by the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) and the
Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical & Astronomical Services
Administration (PAGASA). Also, Huang Chunliang of Fuzhou City, China,
sends data taken from synoptic observations around the Northwest
Pacific basin. A very special thanks to Michael and Chunliang for
the assistance they so reliably provide.
In the title line for each storm I have referenced all the cyclone
names/numbers I have available: JTWC's depression number, the
JMA-assigned name (if any), JMA's tropical storm numeric designator,
and PAGASA's name for systems forming in or passing through their
area of warning responsibility.
Northwest Pacific Tropical Activity for May
-------------------------------------------
The month of May was exceptionally quiet in the Northwest Pacific
basin. Warnings were issued by various TCWCs on two systems during the
month. A rather ill-defined system formed on 15 May just east of the
southernmost Philippine island of Mindanao. Christened Crising by
PAGASA, the depression remained quasi-stationary for 2 or 3 days before
weakening on the 17th. JTWC did not classify Crising as a tropical
depression--besides PAGASA, JMA and the Central Weather Bureau of Taiwan
were the other warning agencies treating Crising as a depression.
Maximum winds estimated by JMA and PAGASA were 30 kts. A graphic
displaying the track of Tropical Depression Crising may be found at the
following link:
http://www.tropicalcyclone2005.com/database/tc_besttracks_graphics/PACIFIC_WEST/2005_00_CRISING_BT.gif>
On the 30th another tropical depression formed and was numbered TD-04
by JTWC. The system was upgraded to a tropical storm on 31 May, and on
1 June JMA upgraded the system and named it Nesat. Nesat (known in the
Philippines at Dante) went on to become a very impressive typhoon which
almost reached the super typhoon threshold of 130 kts. A report on
Typhoon Nesat, which is currently being written by Kevin Boyle, will be
included in the June summary.
*************************************************************************
NORTH INDIAN OCEAN (NIO) - Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea
Activity for May: No tropical cyclones
*************************************************************************
SOUTHWEST INDIAN OCEAN (SWI) - South Indian Ocean West of Longitude 90E
Activity for May: No tropical cyclones
*************************************************************************
NORTHWEST AUSTRALIA/SOUTHEAST INDIAN OCEAN (AUW) - From 90E to 135E
Activity for May: No tropical cyclones
*************************************************************************
NORTHEAST AUSTRALIA/CORAL SEA (AUE) - From 135E to 160E
Activity for May: No tropical cyclones
Northeast Australia/Coral Sea
Tropical Activity for April
-----------------------------
The Brisbane TCWC issued gale warnings on 3 and 4 May for a LOW which
formed near 24S/162E and remained quasi-stationary. This short-lived
LOW developed equatorwards of a strong HIGH as an upper-level trough
moved deep into the tropics. QuikScat data revealed a good circulation
with gales present where the LOW was impinging on the large HIGH. This
LOW was not a tropical LOW, although it perhaps had some hybrid-like
characteristics. (Thanks to Jeff Callaghan for sending me some
information on this system.)
*************************************************************************
SOUTH PACIFIC (SPA) - South Pacific Ocean East of Longitude 160E
Activity for May: No tropical cyclones
*************************************************************************
EXTRA FEATURE
In order to shorten the amount of typing in preparing the narrative
material, I have been in the habit of freely using abbreviations and
acronyms. I have tried to define most of these with the first usage
in a given summary, but I may have missed one now and then. Most of
these are probably understood by a majority of readers but perhaps a
few aren't clear to some. To remedy this I developed a Glossary of
Abbreviations and Acronyms which I first included in the August, 1998
summary. I don't normally include the Glossary in most months in
order to help keep them from being too long. If anyone would like to
receive a copy of the Glossary, please e-mail me and I'll be happy
to send them a copy.
*************************************************************************
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This summary should be considered a very preliminary
overview of the tropical cyclones that occur in each month. The cyclone
tracks (provided separately) will generally be based upon operational
warnings issued by the various tropical cyclone warning centers. The
information contained therein may differ somewhat from the tracking and
intensity information obtained from a "best-track" file which is based
on a detailed post-seasonal analysis of all available data. Information
on where to find official "best-track" files from the various warning
centers will be passed along from time to time.
The track files are not being sent via e-mail. They can be retrieved
from the archive sites listed below. (Note: I do have a limited e-mail
distribution list for the track files. If anyone wishes to receive
these via e-mail, please send me a message.)
Both the summaries and the track files are standard text files
created in DOS editor. Download to disk and use a viewer such as
Notepad or DOS editor to view the files.
The first summary in this series covered the month of October,
1997. Back issues can be obtained from the following websites
(courtesy of Michael Bath, Michael V. Padua, Michael Pitt, Chris
Landsea, and John Diebolt):
http://australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/>
http://www.typhoon2000.ph>
http://mpittweather.com>
ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/pub/landsea/padgett/>
http://www.tropicalcyclone2005.com/>
Another website where much information about tropical cyclones may
be found is the website for the UK Meteorological Office. Their site
contains a lot of statistical information about tropical cyclones
globally on a monthly basis. The URL is:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/tropicalcyclone>
TROPICAL CYCLONE REPORTS AVAILABLE
JTWC now has available on its website the Annual Tropical Cyclone
Report (ATCR) for 2004 (2003-2004 season for the Southern Hemisphere).
ATCRs for earlier years are available also.
The URL is: http://199.10.200.33/jtwc.html>
Also, TPC/NHC has available on its webpage nice "technicolor"
tracking charts for the 2004 Atlantic and Eastern North Pacific
tropical cyclones; also, storm reports for all the 2004 Atlantic
and Eastern North Pacific cyclones are now available, as well as
track charts and reports on storms from earlier years.
The URL is: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov>
A special thanks to Michael Bath of McLeans Ridges, New South Wales,
Australia, for assisting me with proofreading the summaries.
PREPARED BY
Gary Padgett
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 334-222-5327
Kevin Boyle (Eastern Atlantic, Western Northwest Pacific, South
China Sea)
E-mail: [email protected]
John Wallace (Assistance with Eastern North Pacific)
E-mail: [email protected]
Huang Chunliang (Assistance with Western Northwest Pacific, South
China Sea)
E-mail: [email protected]
Simon Clarke (Northeast Australia/Coral Sea, South Pacific)
E-mail: [email protected]
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
|
Document: summ0505.htm
Updated: 25th June, 2005 |
[Australian Severe Weather index] [Copyright Notice] [Email Contacts] [Search This Site] |