Eastern North Pacific Hurricane Season of 1996
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3068 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW VOLUME 126 Eastern North Paci®c Hurricane Season of 1996 MAX MAYFIELD AND EDWARD N. RAPPAPORT National Hurricane Center,* NWS, NOAA, Miami, Florida (Manuscript received 8 November 1997, in ®nal form 2 March 1998) ABSTRACT The National Hurricane Center (a component of the Tropical Prediction Center) tracked nine tropical storms, ®ve of which became hurricanes, during the 1996 eastern North Paci®c hurricane season. Five tropical storms or hurricanes made landfall in Mexico. An overview of the 1996 hurricane season is presented. 1. Introduction 2. Best tracks For the era of routine meteorological satellite cov- The NHC tropical cyclone ``best-track'' database con- erage that began in 1966, the average numbers of trop- sists of a center position and two measures of intensity ical storms and hurricanes per year in the eastern North (the maximum 1-min sustained surface wind speed and Paci®c (from 1408W eastward and from the equator the minimum sea level pressure).1 The parameters are northward) are 16 and 9, respectively. In 1996, the estimated at 6-h intervals. They are based on a poststorm National Hurricane Center (NHC, a component of the analysis of data conducted by the NHC. The primary Tropical Prediction Center) identi®ed nine tropical sources for the analysis are the National Oceanic and storms, of which ®ve became hurricanes. For the 1966± Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Tropical Analysis 95 period, only 1969, 1970, and 1977 had fewer hur- and Forecast Branch (TAFB), the NOAA Synoptic ricanes (four), and only 1977 had fewer tropical storms Analysis Branch (SAB), and the Air Force Global (eight). Not only were fewer eastern North Paci®c trop- Weather Center (AFGWC). These centers provided to ical storms and hurricanes than average tracked in the NHC real-time estimates of position and intensity 1996, there were, uncharacteristically, fewer than ob- by applying the Dvorak (1984) tropical cyclone analysis served in the Atlantic basin. Also, the tracks of most technique to imagery from the Geostationary Opera- of the cyclones, as in 1995, were short and clustered tional Environmental Satellites (GOES-8 and GOES-9) near the southwest coast of Mexico. Five tropical cy- and polar-orbiting satellites. A limited number of ob- clones, Hurricanes Alma, Boris, Fausto, and Hernan, servations from ships and land stations supplemented and Tropical Storm Cristina, made landfall on the coast these data. Radar re¯ectivity images provided to the of Mexico. Two hurricanes, Douglas and Fausto, NHC by the Servicio Meteorologico Nacional de Mex- reached category 3 or higher status on the Saf®r-Simp- ico proved to be another useful source of data. These son Hurricane Scale (SSHS) (Simpson 1974) with es- radar images were received in near real time and were timated 1-min sustained winds of at least 50 m s21 .A extremely useful in tracking storms near the coast. summary of 1996 tropical storm and hurricane statis- Because best-track intensity values are mainly ob- tics is shown in Table 1. tained from satellite analysis, there is greater uncertainty Section 2 brie¯y describes the database available to in estimating maximum wind speeds and minimum cen- the NHC. Section 3 evaluates 1996 NHC forecast qual- tral pressures for tropical cyclones in the eastern North ity. Section 4 describes the season's cyclones and section Paci®c than in, say, the Atlantic basin. In the latter basin, 5 recaps the highlights. measurements from aerial reconnaissance and more abundant surface reports are often available. Figure 1 shows the 1996 tropical storm and hurricane tracks and indicates where these systems were located * The National Hurricane Center is a component of the Tropical Prediction Center. 1 Track and ``®x'' data are contained in the Annual Hurricane Dis- Corresponding author address: Mr. Max May®eld, NHC, NWS, kette Data Tabulation, available from the National Climatic Data Cen- NOAA, Tropical Prediction Center, 11691 SW, 17th St., Miami, FL ter, Federal Building, Asheville, NC 28801. Additional observations 33165-2149. are contained in NHC Preliminary Reports found on the NHC Internet E-mail: may®[email protected] home page at address http://www.nhc.noaa.gov. Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/01/21 09:04 AM UTC DECEMBER 1998 MAYFIELD AND RAPPAPORT 3069 TABLE 1. Eastern North Paci®c hurricane season statistics for 1996. Maximum Minimum 1-min wind sea level pressure Number Name Classa Datesb (m s21) (mb) 1 Unnamed T 13±16 May 23 1000 2 Alma H 20±27 Jun 46 969 3 Boris H 27 Jun±1 Jul 41 979 4 Cristina T 1±3 Jul 31 991 5 Douglas H 29 Jul±6 Aug 59 946 6 Elida T 30 Aug±6 Sep 28 994 7 Fausto H 10±14 Sep 54 955 8 Genevieve T 27 Sep±9 Oct 23 999 9 Hernan H 30 Sep±4 Oct 39 980 a T: tropical storm, wind speed 17±32 m s21. H: hurricane, wind speed 33 m s21 or higher. b Dates begin at 0000 UTC and include tropical depression stage. at tropical depression, tropical storm, and hurricane in- tropical wave analyzed to have crossed Central America tensity. and northern South America on 8 May. The associated thunderstorm activity was limited and sporadic until ear- 3. NHC forecast accuracy ly on the 13th when it expanded and became more per- The NHC began operational forecasting of eastern sistent. A band of deep convection developed on the North Paci®c tropical cyclones in 1988. Every 6 h the northwest side of the system that morning. Based on NHC issues its ``of®cial'' tropical cyclone track and satellite analyses, it is estimated that the system became intensity forecasts for periods extending to 72 h. The a tropical depression at 0600 UTC on 13 May. The forecasts are evaluated using the track and intensity (5- cyclone moved toward the west-northwest at about 5 m kt resolution) dataset derived from NHC's poststorm s21 during its 3-day existence and did not affect land. analysis of all available information. There is uncertainty about the maximum intensity A track error is de®ned as the great-circle distance reached by this tropical cyclone. Operational estimates between a forecast position and a best-track position of of 15 m s21 were based on application of the Dvorak the tropical cyclone center. Table 2 shows that the 1996 technique. Those analyses of satellite pictures showed average of®cial track errors were a little larger than the little variation, ranging from 15 m s21 by the AFGWC 1990±95 averages at 12 and 24 h, presumably because and the TAFB, to 18 m s21 by the SAB. These maxima 1996 storms followed relatively erratic tracks rather than generally occurred on the early hours of 14 May, when the more usual heading toward the west-northwest at a small core of deep convection developed in an en- near 5 m s21 noted in other years. This is consistent vironment with a southerly component of vertical wind with the observation that the CLImatology and PERsis- shear. Subsequently, the U.S. Coast Guard relayed re- tence Model (CLIPER) had large departures for these ports to the NHC from the vessel Solar Wind suggesting forecast periods as well. The relatively few 48- and 72-h that the cyclone had maximum winds of tropical storm of®cial forecasts had errors that were, on average, small- strength on the 14th. er than in 1990±95. Analysis of satellite pictures early on the 14th sug- There are two intensity errors. One error is the dif- gests that the Solar Wind was located in the general ference between the forecast maximum 1-min wind vicinity of an isolated thunderstorm cluster seen just speed and the best-track wind speed. A positive error north of the circulation center. The Solar Wind observed means that the forecast wind speed is higher than ob- a wind speed of 18±22 m s21 for an unspeci®ed period served and a negative error means that the forecast is near 0400 UTC on the 14th, and the anemometer showed lower than observed. The second intensity error is the its maximum capability, 31 m s21, for an unknown du- absolute value of the error without regard to its sign. ration near 0600 UTC. The 0400 UTC report from that The sign of the error might be considered as a bias, ship also included an observation of 1.2±1.8-m seas, whereas the absolute value represents the magnitude of which would be generally consistent with either local- its error. Table 3 shows that both the mean and the mean ized, transitory winds of the magnitude reported or low- absolute average intensity forecast errors were close to er wind speeds than noted. The maximum 1-min wind the 1990±95 averages. speed for this storm is now estimated to have been 23 ms21 at 0600 UTC on the 14th. 4. Tropical storms and hurricanes of 1996 Communications with the Solar Wind were lost after a. Unnamed tropical storm (formerly Tropical 0600 UTC on the 14th. The Coast Guard began, but Depression One-E), 13±16 May later suspended, a search for the vessel and its two-man The tropical storm formed about 1400 km to the south crew. The fate of the crew remains unknown. of the southern tip of Baja, California, likely from a Deep convection near the circulation center became Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/01/21 09:04 AM UTC 3070 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW VOLUME 126 . 1. Eastern North Paci®c tropical storm and hurricane tracks for 1996. IG F Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/01/21 09:04 AM UTC DECEMBER 1998 MAYFIELD AND RAPPAPORT 3071 TABLE 2.