developing a unified superset in quantifying ambiguities
TRANSCRIPT
Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2009
Developing a Unified Superset inQuantifying Ambiguities Among TropicalCyclone Best Track Data for the WesternNorth PacificMichael Robert Lowry
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
DEVELOPING A UNIFIED SUPERSET IN QUANTIFYING AMBIGUITIES AMONG
TROPICAL CYCLONE BEST TRACK DATA FOR THE WESTERN NORTH PACIFIC
By
MICHAEL ROBERT LOWRY
A Thesis submitted to the
Department of Meteorology
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Degree Awarded:
Spring Semester, 2009
Copyright © 2009
Michael Robert Lowry
All Rights Reserved
ii
The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Michael Robert Lowry defended on
November 26th, 2008.
___________________________________
James J. O’Brien
Professor Directing Thesis
___________________________________
Jon E. Ahlquist
Committee Member
___________________________________
Mark A. Bourassa
Committee Member
___________________________________
Robert E. Hart
Committee Member
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by the NOAA ARC. Sincere gratitude is extended to Dr. James
J. O’Brien for opportunities provided professionally by him and growth experienced personally
from him. The latitude he granted to me in my research shaped the topic of this paper. Further
credit and appreciation is extended to Melissa Griffin and to the late Gary Watry of COAPS/FSU
for their invaluable contributions to this collaborative effort. Additional thanks to Buck Sampson
of NRL Monterey, John Knaff of NOAA/NESDIS, Brad Harris from JTWC, Chris Landsea of
NOAA/NHC, Hirotaka Kamahori and Akihiro Kikuchi of JMA, W.H. Lui from HKO and Li
Qingqing from STI for providing insight into the various best track data sets. I also wish to
acknowledge the keen guidance and intellectual counsel provided by my committee members:
Dr. Mark Bourassa, Dr. Robert Hart, and Dr. Jon Ahlquist. I owe a debt of gratitude to Ben
Nelson, Matthew Green, and Craig Fugate for creating a place for me at FDEM from my years in
college through my studies in graduate school. I will never forget the friends made and once in a
lifetime experiences had during my time with the division. I direct a special thanks to Jessica
Fieux, Michelle Stewart, Rebecca Smith, and my colleagues at COAPS/FSU for their continual
encouragement, suggestions, and support. Above all, I thank my family for the wonderful life
given to me.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ......................................................................................................v
List of Figures.....................................................................................................vi
List of Abbreviations............................................................................................x
Abstract ..............................................................................................................xi
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1
2. DATA AND METHODOLOGY......................................................................5
Data..........................................................................................................5
Basin Area of Responsibility ....................................................................5
Wind Speed Averaging Standards.............................................................6
Developing a Unified Western North Pacific Superset ..............................6
3. RESEARCH AND RESULTS........................................................................14
Position Ambiguities ..............................................................................14
Intensity Differences...............................................................................18
The Role of Dvorak’s Intensity Estimation Technique ............................19
The Reliability of Landfall Data and Extratropical Cyclones...................23
4. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................43
APPENDIX A....................................................................................................46
APPENDIX B....................................................................................................50
REFERENCES ................................................................................................132
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH............................................................................137
v
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 AOR statistics from each of the four original WNP best track data sets
examined in this study. The percentage of points included in each center’s defined
AOR for the entire period of record is given in the final column. Because STI
provides no northern latitudinal or western longitudinal bounds on its data, AOR
statistics are supplemented by those when longitudes less than 100°E are
considered outside of its AOR......................................................................................... 9
3.1 The empirical relationship between current intensity (CI) number and
maximum sustained winds in knots. The Dvork, 1975, Dvorak, 1984, Koba, 1990,
and revised JMA CI/MSW relationships are shown....................................................... 30
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 A timeline of best track TC data implemented in this study ....................................... 4
2.1a TC area included in JTWC’s WNP AOR, indicated by shaded region.
Superimposed is JTWC’s original base of operations at Nimitz Hill, Guam. JTWC
moved to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on 1 January 1999 ......................................................... 9
2.1b TC area included in JMA’s AOR, indicated by shaded region. Superimposed
is JMA’s base of operations in Tokyo, Japan................................................................. 10
2.1c TC area included in STI’s AOR, indicated by shaded region. Superimposed
is STI’s location in Shanghai, China.............................................................................. 11
2.1d TC area included in HKO’s AOR, indicated by shaded region. Area enclosed
by solid lines is the AOR from 1961-1984. The AOR is expanded in 1985 to
include the area bounded by the dashed lines. Superimposed is HKO’s base of
operations in Hong Kong .............................................................................................. 12
2.2 Track for Storm 32 of 1989 from JTWC best track data, with intensity
indicated by shaded track. The system forms in the South China Sea and
continues into the Bay of Bengal, where it makes landfall along the east coast of
Andhra Pradesh, India, at Category 5 intensity. The full track appears in JTWC
WNP best track data, even though over two-thirds of the position estimates fall in
an area traditionally regarded as the North Indian Ocean (i.e., west of 100°E) ............... 13
3.1 Annual average absolute distance between position estimates in JTWC and
JMA best track data. Dashed line indicates raw annual averages and solid line
indicates smoothed averages after a 1-3-4-3-1 filter is applied. Overlaid are
significant developments in the TC observing system.................................................... 30
3.2 Annual mean number of WNP aircraft reconnaissance levied fixes and
investigations per TC, according to JTWC best track data. Red bars indicate
notable shifts in the annual mean: (1962-63) Advent of satellites allows
previously undetected open ocean TCs to be reconnoitered; (1972-73) SRP begins
using satellite to position TC fixes; (1987) Dedicated aircraft reconnaissance is
deactivated in the WNP................................................................................................. 31
3.3 Annually accumulated, unmodified PDI for the WNP from the unified WNP
Superset. Dashed lines indicate raw PDI and solid lines indicate smoothed PDI
after a 1-2-1 filter is applied. JTWC PDI is shown in red and JMA PDI in blue. R
for the entire period (1977-2006) is 0.83 ....................................................................... 31
vii
3.4 From Fig. 9 of Guard (1992), which shows the percent of warnings based
primarily on aircraft reconnaissance and satellite reconnaissance. Since some
estimates are based on terrestrial radar or extrapolation, the percent based on
satellite never reaches 100%.......................................................................................... 32
3.5 Annually accumulated, modified PDI for the WNP from the unified WNP
Superset. Dashed lines indicate raw PDI and solid lines indicate smoothed PDI
after a 1-2-1 filter is applied. JTWC PDI is shown in red and JMA PDI in blue.
MSW from JMA best track data for the period 1990-2006 are converted from the
1990 Koba et al. modified Dvorak table to the original 1984 Dvorak table for
MSW > 33 ms-1 according to equation (3.2). R for the entire period (1977-2006)
is 0.95 ........................................................................................................................... 32
3.6 Analysis diagram outlining the Dvorak intensity estimation technique
designed for use with visible satellite imagery from Dvorak, 1984 ................................ 33
3.7 Analysis diagram outlining the Dvorak intensity estimation technique
designed for use with enhanced infrared satellite imagery from Dvorak, 1984............... 34
3.8 Annual mean percent of points excluded from JTWC (red), JMA (blue), and
STI (green) Superset data from original best track data. Dashed lines indicate
unsmoothed data. Solid lines indicate smoothed data after a 1-2-1 filter is applied ........ 35
3.9 Regional Basic Synoptic Networks (RBSN) of global surface and upper air
stations from the World Weather Watch Programme of the World Meteorological
Organization. Station data are current as of 01 October 2008 (WMO, 2008).
Higher density coverage is found in mainland locations along the coast, with a
much sparser fixed surface network noted on islands and atolls dotting the ocean
basins............................................................................................................................ 35
3.10 Same as Fig 3.9 but cropped and enlarged to show networks across the WNP
basin ............................................................................................................................. 36
3.11 Spatial distribution of mean absolute distance between position estimates in
JTWC and JMA best track data from 1951 through 1969 from the WNP Superset.
Mean cell values are computed from all points contained within 2° x 2° cells and
binned within four classes set at approximately one and two standard deviations
from the sample mean ................................................................................................... 36
viii
3.12 JTWC (red) and JMA (blue) tracks for Storm 64 from the unified WNP
Superset (Storms 20 and 19 of 1953 from JTWC and JMA, respectively). Month
and day are labeled for 00Z estimates along with 1-minute average MSW in
parenthesis for JTWC data. Bullet points indicate 12-hour position estimates.
JTWC records three 6-hourly position estimates over Hainan, with one MSW
estimate as high as 110 kt. JMA track records no points over Hainan in its 6-
hourly best track data. Additionally, at 00Z on 2 November, position estimates
between the two agencies differ by nearly 250 km, such that at 00Z JTWC records
an 80 kt TC over the Gulf of Tonkin while JMA has a moderate TC inland over
Nghệ, a province along the north central Vietnam coast. Differences are also
found between landfall numbers in the Philippines. ....................................................... 37
3.13a Spatial distribution of mean absolute difference between intensity estimates
in JTWC and JMA best track data from 1977 through 1989 from the WNP
Superset. JMA MSW are converted to a 1-minute average using a 1.14 10-minute
to 1-minute conversion factor. Mean cell values are computed from all points
contained within 2° x 2° cells and binned within four classes set at approximately
one and two standard deviations from the sample mean................................................. 38
3.13b Spatial distribution of mean absolute difference between intensity estimates
in JTWC and JMA best track data from 1990 through 2006 from the WNP
Superset. JMA MSW are converted to a 1-minute average using a 1.14 10-minute
to 1-minute conversion factor. Mean cell values are computed from all points
contained within 2° x 2° cells and binned within four classes set at approximately
one and two standard deviations from the sample mean................................................. 39
3.14 Composite bar chart of annually accumulated unfiltered cubic MSW from
points over land in JTWC and JMA best track data from the WNP Superset.
JTWC aggregate is shown in red and JMA aggregate is shown in blue. Landfall
climatology includes only points captured over land in JTWC, JMA, and STI
Superset data. Annually accumulated cubic winds associated with points over
land from JTWC best track data exhibit an increasing trend significant at the 0.05
level. JMA data indicate a downward trend not significant at the 0.05 level................... 40
3.15 Spatial distribution of mean absolute distance between position estimates in
JTWC and JMA best track data from 1977 through 2006 from the WNP Superset.
Mean cell values are computed from all points contained within 2° x 2° cells and
binned within four classes set at approximately one and two standard deviations
from the sample mean ................................................................................................... 41
ix
3.16 Composite bar chart of annually accumulated unfiltered cubic MSW from
landfalling typhoons in JTWC and JMA best track data from the WNP Superset.
JTWC aggregate is shown in red and JMA aggregate is shown in blue.
Landfalling typhoon climatology includes only points captured over land of
typhoon intensity in JTWC, JMA, and STI Superset data. Annually accumulated
cubic winds associated with JTWC landfalling typhoons exhibit an upward trend
not significant at the 0.05 level. JMA data indicate a downward trend not
significant at the 0.05 level............................................................................................ 42
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACE Accumulated Cyclone Energy
AOR Area of Responsibility
APT Automated Picture Transmission
CMA China Meteorological Administration
DAPP Data Acquisition and Processing Program
DMSP Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
DOD Department of Defense
ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
GCM Global Climate Model
GMS Geostationary Meteorological Satellite
HKO Hong Kong Observatory
HURDAT Atlantic Basin Hurricane Database
JMA Japanese Meteorological Agency
JTWC Joint Typhoon Warning Center
MSLP Minimum Sea Level Pressure
MSW Maximum Sustained Winds
NOAA U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPMOCW Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center West
PDI Power Dissipation Index
PMW Passive Microwave
QuikSCAT NASA’s Quick Scatterometer
RA Regional Association
RSMC Regional Specialized Meteorological Center
SRP Selective Reconnaissance Program
STI Shanghai Typhoon Institute
TC Tropical Cyclone
TRMM Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission
TMI Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission Microwave Imager
WMO World Meteorological Organization
WNP Western North Pacific
WWW World Weather Watch
xi
ABSTRACT
In the western North Pacific basin, several agencies archive “best track” data of tropical
cyclones. The Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) in Hawaii is responsible for the issuance
of tropical cyclone warnings for United States Department of Defense interests and has a record
of tropical cyclones extending back to 1945. The Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) is the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) official Regional Specialized Meteorological Center
(RSMC) for the western North Pacific basin and has best track tropical cyclone data extending
back to 1951. The Shanghai Typhoon Institute (STI) of the Chinese Meteorological
Administration and the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) of the Government of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region also have 6-hourly tropical cyclone data records from 1949 and
1961, respectively.
Western North Pacific (WNP) data sets are investigated in order to quantify ambiguities
in position and intensity estimates among the forecast institutions through the development of a
unified Superset. Ambiguities among the two primary warning centers (JMA and JTWC) are
presented in the context of a changing observation network, observational tools, and analysis
techniques since the beginning of tropical cyclone records. Mean differences in position
estimates are found between the two centers on the order of 60 km prior to the introduction of
meteorological satellites in 1961 and near 50 km following the deactivation of aircraft
reconnaissance in 1987. Results show a step function change among intensity in JTWC and JMA
best track data from 1989 to 1990 due to varying applications of the Dvorak intensity estimation
technique. Parsing best track data into landfall subsets does not ameliorate interagency
differences in position or intensity estimates. Additionally, analyses from Superset data call into
question the veracity of JTWC best track data during the period from 1995-1999. The
applicability of adopting an individual data set in discerning long term climate trends is
examined in light of these differences. Past efforts to analyze, assemble, and maintain a
complete, reliable best track tropical cyclone data set for the WNP are discussed among topical
methods of incorporating the Superset within a basin-wide re-analysis.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The occurrence of five landfalling hurricanes in the Atlantic basin in 2004, 10 landfalling
tropical cyclones in Japan in 2004, the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record in 2005,
the incidence of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, and the formation of the most intense
hurricane on record in the Atlantic in 2005 have fueled a media frenzy surrounding the
influences of climate change upon global tropical cyclone (TC) activity. Empirical studies
(Trenberth, 2005; Emanuel, 2005) suggest an upward trend in TC accumulated energy and power
across the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean basins. Observations also indicate a sharp rise in the
number and percentage of intense TCs occurring globally since 1970 (Webster, 2005). More
recent papers (Klotzbach, 2006; Kamahori, 2006; Wu, 2006; Landsea, 2007) call into question
the veracity of historical TC best track data, citing inconsistencies within the TC observation
network and evolving analysis techniques for upward trends in intensity metrics. The present
state of modeling and theory remains irresolute to TC projections and is largely inconsistent with
empirical studies (Knutson and Tuleya, 2004; Vecchi and Soden, 2007). The observational data
has thus become a vital tool in discerning long-term variability of TCs, particularly within the
context of global climate change.
In the North Atlantic, historical TC best track data (HURDAT; Jarvinen et al., 1984;
Neumann et al., 1993) is available for the entire basin from the mid-19th Century through the
present. A rigorous re-analysis project to extend and correct HURDAT, led by the Hurricane
Research Division (HRD) of NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory
(AOML), began in the late 1990s and continues as of this writing (Landsea et al., 2004). All
recommended changes to the original HURDAT data set are submitted by the re-analysis team to
the National Hurricane Center’s (NHC) Best Track Change Committee for approval. Thus far the
Best Track Change Committee has approved over 5000 revisions to HURDAT from the years
1851 to 1910, resulting in arguably the most accurate historical TC data set in the world
(Landsea et al.). Systematic errors and biases remain in HURDAT, however, especially in those
years prior to the advent of satellites (Landsea, 2007). Reconciling missed or undersampled
storms may prove impossible in areas of sparse or absent in-situ data. Nevertheless, HURDAT is
2
useful for a wide variety of purposes, including climate studies, once its proper caveats are
considered.
In the western North Pacific (WNP), generally the most active TC basin in the world, no
such organizational review of best track TC data has yet occurred. Several circumstances account
for this absence.
Four major historical TC data sets cover the basin. The Joint Typhoon Warning Center
(JTWC), the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) agency responsible for the issuance of tropical
forecast warnings for the Pacific and Indian Oceans, houses an historical TC record dating back
to 1945. The Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC) Tokyo, one of six global
RSMCs created under the framework of the World Weather Watch (WWW) Program of the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), was established in July 1989 at the Headquarters of
the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) and provides TC advisories for the WNP. RSMC
Tokyo (hereinafter referred to as JMA) has best track TC data available for the basin from 1951
to the present. The Shanghai Typhoon Institute (STI) of the China Meteorological
Administration (CMA) and the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) of the Government of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region also host 6-hourly historical TC data for the WNP from
1949 and 1961, respectively (see Fig 1.1).
In November 2001 a workshop co-sponsored by the WMO and U.S. National Weather
Service gathered representatives from nine countries to discuss the feasibility and desirability of
developing a WNP unified best track data. Participants, including researchers and insurers,
concluded that great value and a significant need exist for such a data set. A resolution was
drafted supporting the development of a unified best track data set and was later accepted by the
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)/WMO
Typhoon Committee (R. Murnane, personal communication, 2007). The Committee formed a
working group to develop a plan for assembling and maintaining the data set, but the working
group was dissolved shortly after its inception, as member countries were unable to find
adequate resources to fund the ambitious project (R. Murnane, personal communication). The
result is the continued use of multiple data sets in the WNP for verification, climate variability,
and extreme event risk studies, with conclusions shown to vary based upon the chosen set of
observations (e.g., Wu, 2006).
3
The goal of this study is to develop a unified TC historical record from three WNP best
track archives. HKO best track data are omitted from the initial run of the Superset because its 6-
hourly record is at least ten years shorter than any other set examined. In contrast to an integrated
best track set, the unified Superset contains three subsets of position and intensity data. The
Superset is not a re-analysis, but rather a repository of multiple position and intensity estimates
for TC points recorded across existing data sets.
An examination of historical TC data is conducted utilizing the newly developed WNP
Superset for the years 1951-2006. Ambiguities in track and intensity among the various TC
archives are assessed in the context of changing observational networks and analysis techniques
over the past 56 years. JTWC and JMA best track data, arguably the two most widely used
historical WNP data sets, manifest mean differences in track estimates on the order of 60 km
prior to the introduction of meteorological satellites in 1961 and near 50 km following the
deactivation of aircraft reconnaissance in 1987. Careful consideration to the applied Dvorak
technique after 1987 at WNP TC institutions must be taken when analyzing long term trends in
TC intensity. Results show a step function change among intensity in JTWC and JMA best track
data between 1989 and 1990. Revisions to the 1984 Dvorak table at RSMC Tokyo in 1990 likely
account for these differences. Remaining differences in intensity are attributed to
inhomogeneities in wind averaging standards and varying operational procedures. A cursory look
at regime shifts at JTWC during the 1990s reveals possible data quality issues in its best track
record during the period. Finally, Superset data parsed to landfall subsets do not ameliorate
discrepancies among best track records across the WNP.
The ultimate objective of this research is to reassert the salient need for a re-analysis of
historical WNP TCs. When examined together, best track sets across the basin yield significant
ambiguities in intensity and track data that rise and fall over time. Wind-pressure relationships,
aircraft reconnaissance, satellite tools, and operational practices are only part of a stew of
inconsistencies that will remain in empirical studies until they are fully addressed through a
thorough basin-wide re-analysis.
4
Fig 1.1: A timeline of best track TC data implemented in this study.
5
CHAPTER 2
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
Data
Four independent and comprehensive WNP TC best track data sets (JTWC, JMA, STI,
and HKO) are incorporated into this study. “Best track” is the best assessment of TC path and
intensity after all available post-storm data are reviewed. These data include 6-hourly estimates
(0000, 0600, 1200, 1800 UTC) of TC location (latitude/longitude) and intensity, and may include
other information such as storm name, wind radii, and development stage.
Intensity estimates are reported in terms of minimum sea level pressure (MSLP),
maximum sustained winds (MSW), or both. JTWC, STI, and HKO archive MSW for their entire
respective periods of record. JMA has a limited record of MSW for TCs from 1977 onward. In
addition to MSW, JMA, STI, and HKO also keep estimates of MSLP for all recorded systems
over their entire respective periods of record. JTWC begins its record of MSLP in 2001.
Data vary temporally and spatially among best track sets. Temporal variations are
discussed in the previous section (Fig 1.1). Differences in domain and wind averaging standards
are highlighted below.
Basin Area of Responsibility
Each international TC center in the WNP defines a domain, or basin area of responsibility
(AOR), across which historical TC data are recorded. The AOR is especially important at
warning agencies where TC forecasts are routinely issued. The AOR at JTWC and its
predecessors has always included the WNP, which encompasses the area north of the equator,
from 100°E to 180° (Fig 2.1a). Best track data from JTWC includes several instances of TCs
occurring outside of its prescribed WNP AOR (Table 2.1). In these cases, a TC either crossed
from (into) the central or eastern North Pacific into (from) the WNP or from (into) the WNP into
(from) the Bay of Bengal or Arabian Sea. Basin AOR discrepancies within best track data should
be carefully considered, as intense TCs outside of the AOR may appear in best track data. For
example, multiple typhoons of category four strength or higher on the regional Saffir-Simpson
hurricane classification scale are found in the JTWC WNP best track set at least 10°
longitudinally outside of its defined AOR (see Fig 2.2).
6
Like JTWC, STI best track TC data for the WNP cover a broad AOR north of the
equator, from 180° westward, with no defined western boundary (Fig 2.1c). A comparison of the
complete best track set, however, manifests nearly half as many points west of 100°E in STI data
than in JTWC best track basin data (Table 2.1). According to Table 2.1, of all four WNP best
track data sets examined, STI maintains the highest total percentage of data points within its
prescribed AOR, covering approximately 99.8% of all best track data. This percentage is
essentially unaltered when the longitudinal domain is reduced to match the AOR covered by
JTWC (i.e., excluding the area west of 100°E).
The JMA restricts its best track data to the region from the equator to 60°N, with a
longitudinal domain from 180° to 100°E (Fig 2.1b). HKO similarly defines a more restricted
AOR for the WNP. Its original AOR, from 100°E to 160°E and north of the equator to 45°N,
expands in 1985 to include the remaining portion of the WNP from 160°E to 180° (Fig 2.1d).
While HKO best track set has the lowest total percent of data points within its defined AORs,
comprising approximately 96.8% of all data, less than a tenth of those points found outside of the
AORs occur east of 180° or west of 100°E (Table 2.1). The remaining points outside of the
AORs fall poleward of 60°N, or east of 160°E prior to 1985.
Wind Speed Averaging Standards
WMO guidelines hold that all participating countries in Regional Associations (RA)
outside of RA IV (North America, Central America and the Caribbean) must average mean
surface wind over a 10-minute period. JMA, as an RSMC, and HKO, as a WMO designated TC
warning center, both adhere to this standard. JTWC, neither an official member nor participant of
the WMO, utilizes a 1-minute “sustained” wind in reporting TC intensity per the U.S. National
Hurricane Operations Plan. STI, not directly affiliated with the WMO, employs the CMA local
standard 2-minute averaging period for recording TC intensity. More specific issues related to
wind speed averaging standards are discussed in Section 3.
Developing a Unified Western North Pacific Superset
All four data sets are run through an initial quality control, consisting of conversion from
the original source format to a homogenous format, with a series of automated quality control
tests utilized to remove duplicate position/intensity data. As an example, beginning in 2004
7
JTWC includes, in addition to 34kt wind radii, 50kt, 64kt, and 100kt wind radii in its best track
files. These data are recorded as separate entries, with duplicate times, positions, and intensities.
The initial quality control removes from original JTWC best track data nearly 2000 of these
duplicates.
In order to quantify absolute differences in position and intensity estimates among the
four data sets, only 6-hourly points found in all best track sets need be included for this study. In
short, a 6-hourly point from one data set that has no match in one of the other three data sets does
not allow for direct interagency comparisons. Such discrepancies may stem from temporal
variations, AOR differences, forecaster discretion, evolving practices, conflicting observational
networks, or simply incomplete data. Employing this method systematically reduces original best
track data. This is especially apparent as new data sets are introduced, since the probability of
encountering an unsuccessful match in at least one other set is augmented with each inclusion.
Considerable data are lost when best track sets with relatively small AORs on fine time
scales are included. HKO houses a much shorter data record than the other three data sets
examined. Additionally, tangible differences remain between the area covered by HKO’s AOR
and those monitored by other WNP TC centers. For these reasons and for sake of brevity, HKO
best track data are omitted from the unified Superset. A perfunctory set is compiled to include all
four best track records; however, this is constructed only as a supplement to the Superset. Unlike
the Superset, these data are neither corrected nor robust.
A quick sweep through the remaining three best track sets (JTWC, JMA, and STI)
yielded a 3.2° latitude/longitude approximation for the maximum absolute difference between
corresponding position estimates. JTWC position estimates are objectively matched by date and
time to position estimates in JMA and STI data sets. If a match has a position difference greater
than 3.2° latitude or longitude, and less than 7° latitude/longitude, the match is flagged for
manual inspection. Multiple matches from individual data sets are also flagged for manual
inspection. All matches are binned to form a unified WNP Superset. Points for which no matches
are found or for which only one match is found are excluded.
Each storm match is assigned a total storm number for the Superset. The entire Superset
is further investigated to ensure no breaks within individual storm tracks. Those tracks with gaps
greater than 6 hours are manually reviewed for completion. In some cases, a system will
dissipate and re-form in one data set, while maintaining its circulation in another. In these
8
instances, the break is permitted, but a flag value is assigned to the 6-hourly storm entries
following the break. Total storm number remains unchanged before and after the break, with the
flag value indicating a potential discrepancy.
Difficulty in determining a purely objective method of matching points across all data
sets resulted in a laborious manual review. Close to 100 reviews, with upward of 800 manual
edits, were made to the Superset after all objective methods were exhausted. Given that the
Superset contains nearly 40,000 matches from 1951 through 2006, the objective technique
proved quite rigorous in its inception. All manual edits were logged and are supplied in
Appendix B.
The final unified WNP Superset includes position and intensity estimates at 6-hourly
(0000, 0600, 1200, 1800 UTC) steps from each of the three WNP best track sets included
(JTWC, JMA, and STI). Subsidiary information which vary according to data set, such as storm
name and wind radii, are not included in the Superset. JMA and STI best track data include a
column for development stage. This indicator is incorporated into the Superset for purposes of
interagency intensity comparisons across multiple wind averaging standards. MSW and MSLP
are included for each set for the periods over which those data are available. A complete
description and data format is provided with the Superset.
9
Table 2.1: AOR statistics from each of the four original WNP best track data sets examined in this study. The
percentage of points included in each center’s defined AOR for the entire period of record is given in the final
column. Because STI provides no northern latitudinal or western longitudinal bounds on its data, AOR
statistics are supplemented by those when longitudes less than 100°E are considered outside of its AOR.
Best Track
Data Set Total Points
Points within
AOR
Points
outside AOR
Points West
of 100°E
Points East of
180°
Ratio
(Points within AOR/Total Points) %
JTWC 51845 51343 502 173 329 99.03%
JMA 54777 53539 362 58 275 97.74%
STI 56474 56396* 78
** 24 78 99.86%
***
HKO 32487 31466 1021 79 13 96.86%
* 56372 when longitudes less than 100°E are considered outside the AOR
**102 when longitudes less than 100°E are considered outside the AOR
***99.82% when longitudes less than 100°E are considered outside the AOR
Fig 2.1a: TC area included in JTWC’s WNP AOR, indicated by shaded region. Superimposed is JTWC’s
original base of operations at Nimitz Hill, Guam. JTWC moved to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on 1 January 1999.
10
Fig 2.1b: TC area included in JMA’s AOR, indicated by shaded region. Superimposed is JMA’s base of
operations in Tokyo, Japan.
11
Fig 2.1c: TC area included in STI’s AOR, indicated by shaded region. Superimposed is STI’s location in
Shanghai, China.
12
Fig 2.1d: TC area included in HKO’s AOR, indicated by shaded region. Area enclosed by solid lines is the
AOR from 1961-1984. The AOR is expanded in 1985 to include the area bounded by the dashed lines.
Superimposed is HKO’s base of operations in Hong Kong.
13
Fig 2.2: Track for Storm 32 of 1989 from JTWC best track data, with intensity indicated by shaded track.
The system forms in the South China Sea and continues into the Bay of Bengal, where it makes landfall along
the east coast of Andhra Pradesh, India, at Category 5 intensity. The full track appears in JTWC WNP best
track data, even though over two-thirds of the position estimates fall in an area traditionally regarded as the
North Indian Ocean (i.e., west of 100°E).
14
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH AND RESULTS
This section is broken up into several parts. First, a direct comparison of position
estimates from JTWC and JMA best track data of the WNP Superset are presented. Ambiguities
are ascertained and discussed as a diagnostic framework for latent issues within WNP best track
data. Next, an analysis of intensity data from the Superset is conducted. The gravity of assorted
wind speed averaging periods across the basin is reviewed, while a statistical examination of
intensity is administered in order to survey how temporal variations in distribution affect
intensity data. A chronology of the Dvorak technique at JTWC and JMA is summarized and
credible evidence of Dvorak’s role in purported TC intensity trends is highlighted. Finally, an ad
hoc filter is applied to landfalling typhoons in the Superset in the hopes of identifying a less
ambiguous historical record.
Position Ambiguities
Absolute differences in position estimates between fixes in JTWC best track data and
JMA best track data are computed utilizing the newly developed WNP Superset. The great circle
distance between two points to a first approximation is computed using the spherical Law of
Cosines:
d = acos(cos(φjtwc)*cos(φjma)*cos(λjma-λjtwc)+sin(φjtwc)*sin(φjma))*r, (3.1)
where d is the great circle distance, r is the earth’s radius, and λ and φ are longitude and latitude
in radians, respectively. While (3.1) is subject to small errors due to its spherical assumption
(i.e., neglecting ellipsoidal components), the formula provides computationally fast and accurate
estimates. Small distances (< approximately 1/60 of a degree, or a minute of arc) are not handled
well when using the Law of Cosines, but because best track position fixes are in 1/10 of a degree,
the use of this formula is appropriate.
The great circle distance is computed between the two data sets for each match, or point,
in the Superset. These distances are summed annually and the mean is calculated from each sum.
The average annual distances between position estimates at JTWC and JMA are plotted in Figure
3.1. To eliminate interannual variability, a 1-3-4-3-1 smoother is applied to the time series.
15
The average position ambiguities among the two agencies fluctuate between 50 km and
70 km in the late 1950s. In 1960 TIROS I, the first satellite solely dedicated to satellite
meteorology, was launched. By as early as 1962, JTWC began using satellite data to plan early
aircraft reconnaissance into suspect areas (ATCR, 1962). The introduction of Automated Picture
Transmission (APT) with TIROS VIII in December of 1963 allowed for the immediate broadcast
of satellite images to anyone on earth with proper receiving equipment. JTWC installed its first
APT system in 1964 (ATCR, 1964). The sharp decline in position ambiguities between JTWC
and JMA in the mid 1960s is a corollary of this much improved observation network. Not only
were the two centers seeing TCs for the first time, but the expanded coverage also had an
adjuvant type effect of reducing position ambiguities by increasing the relative number of
reconnaissance fixes and investigations per TC (Fig. 3.2).
The United States Air Force worked in tangent with the U.S. Navy during the early days
of aerial TC reconnaissance to provide dedicated weather reconnaissance for the WNP.
Typically the Air Force covered daytime investigations while the Navy covered nighttime
investigations (Guard et al., 1992). During the 1971 season, the Air Force squadron accounted
for roughly 60% of the fixes made, while the Navy provided the remaining 40% (ATCR, 1971).
In November of 1971, the Navy deactivated its weather reconnaissance mission in the WNP
(ATCR). In order to find additional data that might reconcile the loss of Navy reconnaissance,
the DoD made available to JTWC its Data Acquisition and Processing Program (DAPP) weather
satellite imagery in 1971 (Guard). Data from this program underwent an evaluation period to
determine whether or not it was a suitable alternative to aerial reconnaissance (Guard). The
Selective Reconnaissance Program (SRP) was initiated from this test bed, and by 1972 JTWC
began using satellite and radar to selectively position TC fixes (ATCR, 1972). By the end of
1973, DAPP was renamed the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). This marked a
new era, as the reliance on aircraft to position TCs steadily declined (Fig. 3.2). By 1974, over
40% of warnings in the WNP were based primarily on satellite data (Guard).
The time series of JTWC/JMA position ambiguities follows these developments
remarkably well. JMA had access to most of U.S. aerial reconnaissance data utilized by JTWC
(A. Kikuchi, personal communication, 2008). Not surprisingly, average position estimate
differences between the two agencies jump from 32 km in 1971 to nearly 50 km the following
year. As previously mentioned, WNP aircraft reconnaissance was cut substantially after 1971,
16
the final year of Navy weather reconnaissance. As SRP gradually reduced the number of
reconnaissance missions during the mid 1970s, average position ambiguities steadily rise.
In July of 1977 the first Japanese Geostationary Meteorological Satellite (GMS-1) for the
Pacific basin was launched and, a few months later, made operational by the JMA. While JTWC
DMSP sites initially lacked the equipment required to process or display GMS data, by 1979 the
center was receiving both GMS and U.S. Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
(GOES) data (ATCR, 1979; Guard et al., 1992). The addition of quasi-continuous satellite
coverage undoubtedly aided in reducing ambiguities in position estimates between warning
centers. Average distances between JTWC and JMA best track position estimates fall from
around 50 km in 1977 to 40 km in 1978. This is consistent with the earlier findings of Bell
(1979), which quantified best track uncertainties among warning centers from 1977-1978
(ATCR). By 1979 the ambiguities drop to levels seen only prior to the deactivation of Navy
aircraft reconnaissance. The addition of GMS-2 in 1981 and GMS-3 in 1984 by JMA, coupled
with next generation GOES data beginning in 1981, results in even better agreement among
position estimates at JTWC and JMA during the early 1980s.
A significant disruption to the TC observing network occurred in the WNP when U.S.
DoD dedicated aircraft reconnaissance was deactivated in August 1987. Previous studies have
examined the impact of this event upon position and intensity estimates as well as track and
intensity forecast errors (Martin and Gray, 1993; Mayfield et al., 1988; Sheets, 1989; Gray et al.,
1991). The most comprehensive investigation detailing position estimate differences in the WNP
was that of Martin and Gray (1993). The study examined TC position differences between
concurrent aircraft measurements and satellite estimates from 1979-1986. The authors found
mean position differences of 44 km between the two groups, with a 10% chance of encountering
differences greater than 93 km.
These findings are consistent with position differences ascertained between JTWC and
JMA from 1988-1998 in the ten years immediately following the loss of WNP aircraft
reconnaissance. Average position differences between the two centers during this period are 50
km, with the largest 10% of the differences being greater than 107 km. The larger differences of
the current study compared with the findings of Martin and Gray are not unexpected, as most
satellite estimates during the active reconnaissance period covered in the former study are not
independent of aircraft observations. Analysts making satellite position estimates often had
17
access to fix data from reconnaissance planes, which may have biased estimates to aircraft
observations (Martin and Gray, 1993). Removing these aircraft data from satellite estimates
would act to augment position estimate differences noted in the Martin study.
Martin and Gray also addressed differences in satellite position estimates between
independent, U.S. operational satellite analysis sites. This comparative analysis is perhaps most
analogous to the present study. JTWC and JMA position estimates prior to 1988 were based both
upon in situ and derived (i.e., satellite) data. Once aircraft reconnaissance ended, position fixes
became largely and often entirely tilted toward satellite analyses. Therefore, differences in
position estimates between warning centers post aircraft reconnaissance can be principally
attributed to varying satellite analyses. Martin and Gray found average position differences
between concurrent satellite estimates of 56 km, with an upper decile of the differences greater
than 110 km. These values agree remarkably well with the aforementioned position differences
between JTWC and JMA for the period 1988-1998. The satellite to satellite comparison in
Martin’s 1993 study proves to be an excellent predictor of inter-agency position ambiguities in
the absence of aircraft reconnaissance.
By the late 1990s, observations from passive microwave sensors aboard the Tropical
Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Microwave Imager (TMI) greatly improved forecasters’
ability to remotely discern TC center positions. Passive microwave (PMW) frequencies are
insensitive to cirrus canopies, which often obscure low level cloud features and precipitation-free
TC circulation centers in visible and infrared images (Lee et al., 2002). PMW sensors are
especially valuable in locating the center position of weak tropical systems once strong winds
shear apart upper-level convection. The warmer low-level clouds are often absorbed by
background sea surface temperature in nighttime infrared imagery.
The TRMM satellite was launched in 1998, with TMI data made available operationally
beginning in late 1999 (Lee et al., 1999; Hawkins, et al., 2001). Additionally, data from the
Seawinds scatterometer aboard NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) launched in 1999
was made available by 2000. QuikSCAT provides TC surface winds, which are useful in locating
TC center positions, particularly with developing systems where a low pressure center forms
within a light wind, precipitation-free region (Edson, 2004). These advances spur a marked drop
in position ambiguities between JTWC and JMA from 1999 to 2000, with mean differences
falling to the lowest levels since the deactivation of aircraft reconnaissance in 1987.
18
Intensity Differences
A lack of homogeneity in wind speed averaging standards compounds existing issues of
interagency TC intensity comparisons (see Section 2). Seeking to conflate averaging periods
through derived wind conversion factors results in some uncertainty, particularly when
elucidating the mean wind versus the gust wind (Fujita, 1971; Simiu and Scanlon, 1978; Harper
et al., 2008; Krayer and Marshall, 1982). Moreover, the technical aspect of converting between
averaging periods is complicated by a raft of variant operational procedures, including the
absolute accuracy of maximum surface wind estimates from aircraft reconnaissance, ocean
buoys, land stations, and other in-situ observations. Nevertheless, seeking to address differences
in best track intensity between TC archives is fundamental to any discussion of observed long
term changes in WNP TCs. The Superset provides a lens through which to view passive issues in
the historical TC intensity record.
Previous studies of TC intensity have employed various integrals in defining storm
power, including Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) and a TC Power Dissipation Index (PDI)
(Bell et al., 2000; Bister and Emanuel, 1998; Emanuel, 2005). The current study examines
intensity differences through PDI, defined as the sum of the maximum one-minute sustained
wind speed cubed, at six-hour intervals, for all periods when a tropical cyclone is of at least
tropical storm strength (i.e., MSW ≥ 17 ms-1
). Recent publications cite PDI in deconvolving long
term trends in TC intensity (Emanuel, 2005; Sriver and Huber, 2006; Kossin et al., 2007). By
considering the cube of the wind speed, PDI accentuates potential errors, notably in higher wind
speeds. Interagency intensity discrepancies are thereby emphasized through the ambit of PDI.
A contemporaneous comparison of annually accumulated PDI is conducted between
JTWC and JMA Superset MSW intensity data from 1977 through 2006. JMA MSW is first
converted from a 10-minute average to a 1-minute average using the de facto conversion factor
of 1.14 (Simiu and Scanlon, 1978). PDI for each data set is subsequently accumulated over each
year. A von Hann 1-2-1 smoother is applied to the time series of each set presented in Figure 3.3.
Annually accumulated PDI is a product of TC intensity, duration, and frequency
(Emanuel, 2007). Since duration and frequency remain constant among data sets within the WNP
unified Superset, interagency variations in annually accumulated PDI are a result only of
discrepancies in TC intensity estimates and from those sensitivities associated with wind speed
19
time averaging conversions. Applying the Mann-Kendall trend test to the 30-year raw time series
of JTWC annually accumulated PDI from the Superset shows an upward trend significant at the
0.05 level (Appendix A). Applying the same test to similar data from the JMA, however, results
in no significant trend. The implications of this analysis are especially disconcerting under the
purview of the Superset, whereby variant conclusions in 30-year trend analyses are solely an
outgrowth of differences in interagency intensity estimates.
The Role of Dvorak’s Intensity Estimation Technique
The evolution during the 1970s and 1980s of pattern recognition intensity estimates via
the Dvorak (1972, 1973, 1975, 1982, 1984) technique has proven essential to TC forecasters of
the satellite reconnaissance era. The percentage of warnings based on satellite data steadily rose
during this period across the WNP, as dedicated aircraft reconnaissance gradually diminished
(Fig. 3.4). The Dvorak technique has become the primary method of ascertaining TC intensity
across the region following the deactivation of aircraft reconnaissance in 1987 (Guard, 2004).
The original current intensity (CI) number to MSW index was developed by Dvorak from
empirical data across the WNP basin (Dvorak, 1973). Despite the complex nature of tropical
cyclones, the Dvorak technique is a rather perspicuous rubric of pattern recognition, whereby
combined kinematic (vorticity and vertical wind shear) and thermodynamic (convection and core
temperature) properties produce cloud patterns that relate to TC intensity (Velden et al., 2006).
The strength and distribution of the cyclonic winds, distorted by shear, are noted in these cloud
patterns. The degree of circular wind distortion is related back to MSW by means of Dvorak.
Furthermore, convective vigor in and around the eyewall in more intense TCs, derived remotely
from cloud temperature, is presently the dominant mechanism in assigning MSW estimates for
organized TCs (Velden et al.).
The process of evaluating TC intensity from satellite data is a relatively straightforward
procedure. A TC analyst first assigns a tropical (“T”) number (Tnum) based upon climatological
pattern recognition (Figures 3.6 and 3.7). This Tnum is converted into a CI number based upon
developmental stage. Finally a table is used to relate CI to MSW. MSLP estimates are derived
from MSW estimates through wind-pressure relationships (WPRs).
The 1-minute MSW averaging period assigned to the Dvorak table and implemented by
Regional Association (RA) IV (North and Central America) and JTWC is never explicitly
20
addressed by the technique’s architect (Velden et al., 2006). This tenuous relationship has since
been adopted and modified by other RAs to fit regional wind averaging standards. Australia’s
Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres apply a 0.871 1-minute to 10-minute conversion factor to all
MSW in their CI/MSW tables (Holland, 1993). HKO likewise multiples all 1-minute MSW by a
factor of 0.9 to convert to 10-minute winds (Wu, 2006). Meanwhile, the JMA, also exercising a
10-minute wind speed averaging standard, has solicited various conversion factors and
conversion equations since the late 1970s to adapt 1-minute MSW to a 10-minute averaging
period. These conversion techniques are nonuniform with respect to their application in Dvorak’s
CI/MSW table. Prior to 1990, JMA equated 1-minute winds to 10-minute winds from Dvorak,
1975 and Dvorak, 1984 for MSW less than or equal to 65 knots (33 ms-1
). For winds greater than
65 knots (33 ms-1
), the agency implemented the following conversion equation:
31.6 1.495
)(MSW MSW 1min
10min += , (3.2)
where MSW10min are 10-minute MSW and MSW1min are 1-minute MSW in knots (Japanese
Meteorological Agency, 1990; A. Kikuchi, personal communication, 2007).
By the mid-1970s, tangent with the decline of U.S. aircraft reconnaissance (Fig. 3.4), the
influence of the Dvorak, 1975 and later Dvorak, 1984 satellite interpretation models in intensity
estimation grew at JTWC. Several WPRs have been used by JTWC and incorporated within the
center’s Dvorak CI table over the years (ATCR, 1959-2004). The Dvorak, 1975 WPR was
ultimately replaced by Atkinson and Holliday (1977; hereinafter, AH77) at JTWC. The original
Dvorak CI/MSW relationship at JTWC, however, remains unaltered.
Correlations between PDI data from JTWC and JMA unfiltered Superset data are
examined for the period 1977-1989. A strong relationship is anticipated, as a significant
contribution to PDI variance is explained by storm duration and frequency (Maue and Hart,
2007); the Superset effectively eliminates variability from these components. The two time series
correlate at r > 0.95 for the period, even with variations in wind reporting practices. Aircraft
reconnaissance continued through most of the period, and data from these missions were shared
by JTWC and JMA (A. Kikuchi, personal communication, 2007). Additionally, both agencies
employed the Dvorak, 1975 and Dvorak, 1984 CI/MSW table, albeit modified at JMA to
21
accommodate a 10-minute averaging standard. This coordination complements the strong
correlation.
It should be emphasized that data quality issues related to reconnaissance estimation of
MSW from observed MSLP using AH77 are well documented in the literature (Knaff and Zehr,
2007). The purported underestimation from 1974-1987 of MSW in more intense TCs from
reconnaissance appears to be an artifact in both best track sets. The semblance is attributed to
interagency coordination of reconnaissance fix data (A. Kikuchi, personal communication,
2007).
The analysis is extended to include the entire period of MSW data (1977-2006). Although
the correlation of PDI from JTWC and JMA Superset data remains significant, the relationship
drops from r > 0.95 to r = 0.83. Bifurcation to the original analysis provides even further insight.
Examined individually, the periods 1977-1989 and 1990-2006 yield r > 0.95, which suggest a
critical shift within one or both of the best track archives.
JMA modified its CI/MSW relationship in 1990 based upon results from Koba et al.
(1990). The Dvorak, 1975, Dvorak, 1984, Koba, 1990, and revised JMA Dvorak CI/MSW tables
are summarized in Table 3.1. In order to investigate the effect of this change upon interagency
PDI correlation from the Superset, all MSW data from JMA Superset data post 1990 are
converted to their corresponding CI from the revised JMA CI/MSW table. These data are then
assigned a MSW from the original Dvorak, 1984 table from the CI. MSW are converted to a 10-
minute averaging period for MSW > 65 knots (33 ms-1
) per equation (3.2). The procedure
essentially debiases JMA intensity data post 1990.
A revised contemporaneous PDI comparison from debiased JMA Superset data and
JTWC Superset data from 1977-2006 is presented in Figure 3.5. This plot is shown as an
analogue to Figure 3.3. Similarly JMA MSW is converted from a 10-minute average to a
consistent 1-minute average and yearly accumulated PDI is smoothed to dampen interannual
variability. For the entire period (1977-2006) the corrected analysis substantially improves the
correlation between the two data sets. For the entire period (1977-2006) the two time series in
Figure 3.5 correlate at r = 0.95. This is contrasted to r = 0.83 for the uncorrected time series in
Figure 3.3. The strong correlation resulting from the debiasing algorithm follows that noted in
the Superset data for the period prior to integration of the Koba, 1990 study at JMA. The
22
debiasing technique also yields an upward trend in both the JTWC and JMA time series,
significant at the 0.05 level (Appendix A).
The debiasing algorithm did not rectify a notable difference in PDI between JTWC and
JMA Superset data around 1996. Unfiltered JTWC data in 1996 from Figure 3.5 tended toward a
higher PDI than JMA data by approximately one standard deviation from the 30-year sample
mean. In fact, time dependent differences in annually accumulated PDI for the years 1995-1997
are at least twice as large as in any other three year period examined. This aberration is also
found in Kossin, et al. (2007), in which PDI from a homogeneous intensity data set is compared
to PDI from JTWC original best track data.
The suspect period is considered through a cross check within the Superset of original
best track omissions. Time integrals of the annual number of points from each original best track
data set are computed along with their corresponding totals from the WNP unified Superset. The
annual mean percentage of points excluded from the Superset from original best track data from
the three archives set forth in this paper is reflected as a time series in Figure 3.8. These time
series exhibit storm intensity, location, and sample dependencies, with weaker, higher latitude
tropical storms during more active years tending toward greater a priori ambiguities among the
warning agencies. This observation is supported by JTWC: “The larger number of poorly
defined, or ‘low end’ systems contributed to some large initial position errors…” (ATCR, 1995).
The time series also show some influence from evolving detection and intensity estimate
procedures and technologies, as evident during the early 1970s when DMSP helped to refine
equivocal fixes.
A point is excluded from inclusion in the final WNP Superset if a match per criteria
defined in Section 2 is not made to a point in both of the other sets examined. It is impossible to
determine why specific points are excluded without inspecting each point and the role the above
mentioned dependencies may have played in interagency interpretations. Some systematic
elimination can be attributed to variation in basin AOR, although this parameter accounts for
only a fraction of those points excluded from the Superset. Nevertheless, Figure 3.8 provides an
important piece to the best track puzzle.
The percent of points excluded from JTWC and JMA Superset data remains generally
stable from the start of the record through the early 1980s, with some interdecadal variability
likely attributed to observational changes. The deactivation of dedicated aircraft reconnaissance
23
across the basin by the mid 1980s undoubtedly contributes to the rise in the JTWC time series
beginning during this era. Satellite estimates produce greater uncertainty compared with
empirical aircraft data shared across warning centers. It is also inferred from this analysis that
forecasters at JTWC during the late 1980s and early 1990s generally followed less restrictive
satellite interpretation guidelines than forecasters at JMA for early and late stages of TC
development. Even today satellite classification of certain systems, particularly “midget,” or very
small, TCs is non-standard among the warning agencies (Lander, 2008). The most recent
example of this is two “midget” TCs classified by JMA in 2007 but not warned on by JTWC nor
included in its best track data.
While Figure 3.8 highlights differences in the absence of aircraft reconnaissance, citing
classification procedures as the catalyst behind the sharp incline and subsequent peak in JTWC
data during the 1990s remains dubious. By 1996, the mean percentage of entries excluded from
JTWC original best track data via the WNP Superset climbs to 55%, or nearly 3σ above the 30-
year sample mean. U.S. legislation from the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) forced
JTWC to disestablish Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center West/Joint Typhoon
Warning Center (NPMOCW/JTWC), Guam and transition operations to NPMOCW/JTWC,
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The transition period lasted until 1 January, 1999. During the transition,
JTWC conducted split operations as all tropical cyclone forecasting support equipment was
transferred to Hawaii (ATCR, 1998). The agency also experienced 90 percent personnel turnover
by the end of the transition (ATCR, 1998). These developments offer added insight into the
anomalously high percentages noted during this period.
The Reliability of Landfall Data and Extratropical Cyclones
In an effort to better understand changes in TCs against the backdrop of global climate
change and under the restrictions of inherently flawed best track data, research has turned to
global climate models (GCMs) to simulate the response of TCs in future environments (Knutson
and Tuleya, 2004). However, the horizontal resolution of the current family of GCMs and higher
resolution regional models to which downscaling techniques are applied is too low to reproduce
inner core processes which lead to intense TCs (Emanuel, 2006). Most recently, Emanuel (2008)
introduced a new downscaling approach in which nascent synthetic TC seedlings are produced
from GCM statistics, with 200-year projections drawn from seven GCMs run in support of the
24
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). While
Emanuel’s approach circumvents limitations associated with conventional techniques, his results
rest upon the credence of model simulations.
These theoretical simulations are not universally accepted by the general public, which
tend toward empirical evidence over numerical predictions. Consequently, despite well
documented issues across all global basin best track data, researchers continue to sift through and
compartmentalize observational data in order to find new truths and defang past assertions. Many
methods examine only portions of the data deemed reliable (Emanuel, 2005; Webster et al.,
2005; Klotzbach, 2006), others cite intensity proxies (Webster et al., 2005; Elsner et al., 2008) or
regression models (Kossin et al., 2007; Elsner et al., 2008), and some apply bias removal
schemes and quantifiable uncertainties to existing data (Emanuel, 2005; Landsea, 2007).
In the tropical Atlantic, landfall statistics have been presented against total storm
statistics in a search for symmetry (Landsea, 2005; Landsea, 2007). The predominant assumption
made with landfalling TCs is that detection and accuracy of near surface intensity estimates
increase along populated coastlines (see Figures 3.9 and 3.10). Since any trend from global
climate change should be more apparent over greater time scales, parsing entire best track data
by landfall also allows examination of a longer, “reliable” period of record. The WNP
experiences on average the formation of two to three times as many TCs than does the Atlantic
basin (Landsea, 2000). Implicit in this is a greater number of landfalling TCs within the
historical record. Therefore, it is unsurprising that TC/global climate change research across the
WNP has expanded into landfall subsets (Chan, 2008).
Multiple data sets offer a unique angle through which to test the validity of claims of
more reliable data near landfall. Reliable data include fewer inconsistencies and smaller
ambiguities. Reliable data also connote greater accuracy; accuracy, however, requires some
measure of ground truth, a parameter unavailable to every estimate. If the higher density network
of in situ observations over land increases a forecaster’s ability to estimate TC position and
intensity, it should be reflected in smaller ambiguities among independent estimates. The
Superset allows us to examine this issue through spatial distribution.
Figure 3.11 plots the spatial distribution of mean absolute distance between position
estimates in JTWC and JMA best track data from 1951 through 1969 from the WNP Superset.
Again the focus remains on the two most widely used data sets; STI data is generally of degraded
25
quality and consistency than the other data employed in this study. The years prior to 1970 are
chosen, since 1970 is widely regarded in the literature as the cut-off between reliable and
questionable data due to little or no satellite reconnaissance in the early period (Webster et al.,
2005; Landsea, 2007). Position errors ultimately affect landfall statistics, particularly among
low-end systems grazing the coastline. Position ambiguities among the warning agencies provide
some measure of the potential for error with such fixes.
Mean cell values are computed from all points contained within 2° x 2° cells and binned
within four classes set at approximately one and two standard deviations from the sample mean.
Figure 3.11 finds the smallest ambiguities over the deep tropics between roughly 10°N and
30°N. This is attributed to the presence of deeper, more frequent TCs at these latitudes. The mid-
latitudes exhibit sporadic distribution, with generally higher mean ambiguities, especially near
northern Japan, the Kuril Islands, and the Kamchatka Peninsula. This is expected with weaker,
transitioning TCs at higher latitudes where fewer land and ship observations exist. Moreover,
reconnaissance during the early to mid 1960s was routinely tasked for well developed TCs,
further impairing forecast estimates for weak or transitioning storms.
Position ambiguities actually tend toward mid range to high range values along coastal
regions and over locations inland. It is difficult to determine which terrestrial data were shared or
made available to each agency, but the symbiosis of land masses and higher ambiguities is
unlikely fortuitous. As a TC moves inland, it loses its energy source from the air-sea layer,
subsidence within the eye abates, and the structure decays, rendering storm center position
estimates problematic. Multiple observations from land stations or radar can also augment
uncertainty in synoptic positioning if the observations conflict. It is reiterated that minor
deviations in position estimates or tangential storm angles along coastlines may bring about
major changes to landfall subsets. Figure 3.12 illustrates one such discrepancy. The cyclone
passes over Hainan as a powerful typhoon in JTWC best track data, with its final position
estimate as an 80 kt typhoon over the Gulf of Tonkin. The corresponding estimate in JMA best
track data has the cyclone inland over Vietnam, over 700km west of the position fix in JTWC
data. Such discrepancies, particularly among more intense TCs, can greatly influence landfall
climatologies.
Position ambiguities underscore one obstacle with compartmentalizing TC data by
landfall. In the above section, temporal plots illustrate inconsistencies in reporting practices and
26
procedures between the TC warning agencies. A spatial analysis of intensity ambiguities is
desired in order to resolve the impact of land on interagency intensity estimates. If position
estimates suffer from ambiguities related to a lack of data or conflict therein, then uncertainties
in intensity estimates will also dilate across data sparse regions. The undersampled open ocean
areas prior to the satellite era and removed from major maritime routes make these data suspect.
While previous studies have reviewed sampling frequency associated with TC landfalls
(Landsea, 2007; Chang and Guo, 2007), none have sought to quantify errors or uncertainties
between cyclones over land and those over ocean.
Results shown in this paper are used to split the intensity spatial analysis among two
periods. A step function change in JTWC and JMA interagency intensity ambiguities occurs in
1990, with smaller overall ambiguities existing prior to 1990 when both agencies referenced
Dvorak, 1984 for satellite estimates. Differences in wind speed averages among the warning
centers are handled with an across-the-board 1.14 10-minute to 1-minute conversion factor.
Applying one such general conversion may seem imprudent in light of issues discussed above.
However, the spatial intensity analyses serve as a general layout of categorized ambiguities
rather than an exacting measure of uncertainty. The idea is to highlight those regions which may
account for the variability found in Figure 3.3, and to determine if land affects ambiguities
among intensity estimates, regardless of scale.
Mean MSW differences between JTWC and JMA data from the WNP Superset computed
within 2° x 2° cells for the period 1977 through 1989 are presented in Figure 3.13a. Cells
centered over land masses do not in general exhibit lower mean differences than those cells
centered over the open ocean. In fact, some of the largest differences occur near Tokyo and over
parts of northern Japan. This may result from a higher frequency of extratropical cyclones
passing near Japan. The prevalence of extratropical cyclones in best track data is discussed
further below.
The spatial plot otherwise reveals a similar pattern to that shown in the distance
composite, with smaller ambiguities in the deep tropics becoming larger across the mid-latitudes,
presumably an artifact of thermal asymmetries associated with weaker, transitioning systems.
Additionally, the continued presence of aircraft reconnaissance through the majority of this
period keeps ambiguities down over much of the open ocean. Decaying TCs inland from the
coast account for higher ambiguities across eastern Asia.
27
The absolute intensity differences of the latter period (1990 through 2006) compared with
the former period (1977 through 1989) manifest a higher mean and larger spread, as evident in
Figure 3.13b. Differences in the spatial distribution between the two periods are largely confined
to the deep tropics. In both analyses the mid-latitudes (poleward of 30°N) exhibit higher mean
differences; however, areas of the deep tropics in the latter period, especially open ocean regions,
are binned in a higher classification than the same cells in the former period. As previously
discussed the Dvorak scheme utilized at JMA and JTWC after 1990 differ only for intense TCs,
which generally form in the deep tropics. The absence of aircraft reconnaissance in the latter
period combined with variant Dvorak CI/MSW tables result in smaller mean ambiguities and a
lower spread in the intensity differences for estimates over land masses compared with estimates
over the open ocean.
If the various WNP TC warning agencies bias estimates to surface observations for storm
positions at landfall, the results should ameliorate the impact of nonstandard Dvorak schemes.
Spatial analyses of position ambiguities and intensity differences between JTWC and JMA
Superset data, however, offer little indication of growing congruence for points centered over or
near land. A composite bar chart of unfiltered cubic MSW from 1977 through 2006 for only
those points determined to be over land or within 50 km thereof based upon 5-minute elevation
data is presented in Figure 3.14. JMA wind data are converted from a 10-minute average to a 1-
minute average using a blanket 1.14 conversion factor. Only points found over land or within a
50 km land buffer in all JTWC, JMA, and STI Superset data are included in the subset. Figure
3.15 includes several instances of mean position estimate differences exceeding 50 km near the
coast, differences which can greatly affect landfall climatologies. Parallel data ensure deviations
are a consequence solely of intensity differences rather than differences in landfall frequency.
The method also employs the least ambiguous point data over land stemming from well defined
tropical systems.
With only one exception, annually accumulated cubic winds from JMA for points over
land tend toward higher aggregates than JTWC data for all years examined prior to the
deactivation of aircraft reconnaissance in 1987. From 1987 through 2006 the tendency reverses,
with JTWC aggregate data tending toward higher values than JMA data for all but two
consecutive years in the early 1990s. The largest absolute difference between consecutive years
in the two primary landfall subsets occurs between 1995 and 1996, a result consistent with earlier
28
findings from all WNP Superset data. Data from Figure 3.14 correlate at r = 0.74 for the entire
period (1977-2006), compared to r = 0.83 from Figure 3.3 for all WNP Superset data. Like the
time series in Figure 3.3, trend analyses of data in Figure 3.14 yield an upward trend significant
at the 0.05 level in JTWC aggregate data but a downward trend not significant at the 0.05 level in
JMA data. Bifurcation of the entire period to the 1990 Dvorak step change results in r = 0.75 for
the period prior to 1990 and r = 0.85 for the latter period (1990-2006).
The landfall subsets from the two primary warning agencies exhibit less agreement for
the entire period than intensity estimates from all WNP Superset data. In contrast to results from
all points in the WNP Superset, Figure 3.14 manifests a higher correlation in the post 1990
period than among over land points prior to 1990 when the two periods are examined
independently. Assuming JTWC and JMA apply the Dvorak intensity estimate technique
consistently throughout each period, with a step function change occurring at JMA in 1990, the
central change to the observation network between the two periods is the deactivation of
dedicated aircraft reconnaissance in 1987. The higher correlation in the period following aircraft
reconnaissance confirms less scatter within Dvorak, not necessarily greater reliance on surface
observations. A lower correlation for the entire period in the landfall subset compared to that for
all Superset data is indicative of surface observations which impugn independent estimates rather
than corroborate them.
As a final assessment of the veracity of intensity estimates from points over land, the
landfall subset is parsed to include only those points over land of typhoon intensity in all JTWC,
JMA, and STI Superset data. A composite bar chart of unfiltered cubic MSW from 1977 through
2006 from JTWC and JMA data is presented in Figure 3.16. As with Figure 3.13, JMA wind data
are converted from a 10-minute average to a 1-minute average using a 1.14 conversion factor.
Data for the entire period correlate at r = 0.81, similar to that found across all WNP Superset data
and higher than the coefficient computed from all points over land. Examination of the periods
prior to and subsequent to the 1990 modification of Dvorak at JMA yields correlations of r =
0.83 and r = 0.89, respectively.
Applying the Mann-Kendall trend test to the 30-year unfiltered data in Figure 3.16
produces an upward trend in JTWC aggregate data for points over land of typhoon intensity, but
a downward trend in JMA aggregate data. These trends follow trends computed from all WNP
Superset data and from the landfall subset; however, the trends in annually accumulated cubic
29
winds for points of typhoon intensity over land are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level in
either JTWC or JMA data. While compartmentalizing points over land of typhoon intensity does
not exonerate the influence of Dvorak on intensity estimates across the basin, it does appear to
dampen its effect. The progression from a significant upward trend in JTWC intensity data from
all points in the WNP Superset to no significant trend in JTWC aggregate data from only points
over land of typhoon intensity suggests that the detection of any trend may be an artifact of
satellite derived intensity techniques.
Best track data from each of the WNP warning agencies examined in this study contain
an indicator for the level of TC development. This is an important entry, for example, in
deciphering when a TC reaches typhoon status between data sets of irregular wind speed
averages. JMA records a grade column in its data to indicate development stage. Prior to 1977,
only one of two grade indicators is associated with each entry – either for the tropical depression
stage or for TCs of at least tropical storm intensity. JMA does not distinguish between the
tropical storm and typhoon stage until 1977 forward. The addition of tropical storm, severe
tropical storm, typhoon, and extra-tropical cyclone indicators to entries in JMA best track data
beginning in 1977 is utilized to sift out points over land of typhoon intensity for the above
analysis.
JTWC does not include a column for level of development in its best track data until
2000. Prior to 2000 it is impossible to determine whether an entry records estimates for a
tropical, subtropical, or extra-tropical cyclone. The extra-tropical stage of a cyclone’s lifecycle is
significant, as extra-tropical cyclones are generally devoid of tropical characteristics and
excluded from TC climatologies. JTWC and JMA Superset data are compared from 1977 to
1999 in order to uncover instances of extra-tropical entries from JMA that are included in but not
labeled as extra-tropical in JTWC best track data. Nearly 1000 points marked as extra-tropical in
JMA best track data are matched to JTWC best track data over the 23-year period. Because
inclusion of extra-tropical cyclones can substantially alter intensity trends and similar analyses,
proper disclaimers must be cited in the absence of complete metadata.
30
Table 3.1: The empirical relationship between current intensity (CI) number and maximum sustained winds
in knots. The Dvork, 1975, Dvorak, 1984, Koba, 1990, and revised JMA CI/MSW relationships are shown.
Maximum Sustained Winds (kt) CI #
Dvorak, 1975 (1-min) Dvorak, 1984 (1-min) Koba, 1990 (10-min) JMA (10-min)
1.0 25 25 22 25
1.5 25 25 29 25
2.0 30 30 36 30
2.5 35 35 43 35
3.0 45 45 50 45
3.5 55 55 57 55
4.0 65 65 64 65
4.5 77 77 71 70
5.0 90 90 78 77
5.5 102 102 85 85
6.0 115 115 93 93
6.5 127 127 100 100
7.0 140 140 107 107
7.5 155 155 115 115
8.0 170 170 120 122
Fig 3.1: Annual average absolute distance between position estimates in JTWC and JMA best track data.
Dashed line indicates raw annual averages and solid line indicates smoothed averages after a 1-3-4-3-1 filter is
applied. Overlaid are significant developments in the TC observing system.
31
Fig 3.2: Annual mean number of WNP aircraft reconnaissance levied fixes and investigations per TC,
according to JTWC best track data. Red bars indicate notable shifts in the annual mean: (1962-63) Advent of
satellites allows previously undetected open ocean TCs to be reconnoitered; (1972-73) SRP begins using
satellite to position TC fixes; (1987) Dedicated aircraft reconnaissance is deactivated in the WNP.
Fig 3.3: Annually accumulated, unmodified PDI for the WNP from the unified WNP Superset. Dashed lines
indicate raw PDI and solid lines indicate smoothed PDI after a 1-2-1 filter is applied. JTWC PDI is shown in
red and JMA PDI in blue. R for the entire period (1977-2006) is 0.83.
32
Fig 3.4: From Fig. 9 of Guard (1992), which shows the percent of warnings based primarily on aircraft
reconnaissance and satellite reconnaissance. Since some estimates are based on terrestrial radar or
extrapolation, the percent based on satellite never reaches 100%.
Fig 3.5: Annually accumulated, modified PDI for the WNP from the unified WNP Superset. Dashed lines
indicate raw PDI and solid lines indicate smoothed PDI after a 1-2-1 filter is applied. JTWC PDI is shown in
red and JMA PDI in blue. MSW from JMA best track data for the period 1990-2006 are converted from the
1990 Koba et al. modified Dvorak table to the original 1984 Dvorak table for MSW > 33 ms-1
according to
equation (3.2). R for the entire period (1977-2006) is 0.95.
33
Fig 3.6: Analysis diagram outlining the Dvorak intensity estimation technique designed for use with visible
satellite imagery from Dvorak, 1984.
34
Fig 3.7: Analysis diagram outlining the Dvorak intensity estimation technique designed for use with enhanced
infrared satellite imagery from Dvorak, 1984.
35
Fig 3.8: Annual mean percent of points excluded from JTWC (red), JMA (blue), and STI (green) Superset
data from original best track data. Dashed lines indicate unsmoothed data. Solid lines indicate smoothed data
after a 1-2-1 filter is applied.
Fig 3.9: Regional Basic Synoptic Networks (RBSN) of global surface and upper air stations from the World
Weather Watch Programme of the World Meteorological Organization. Station data are current as of 01
October 2008 (WMO, 2008). Higher density coverage is found in mainland locations along the coast, with a
much sparser fixed surface network noted on islands and atolls dotting the ocean basins.
36
Fig 3.10: Same as Fig 3.9 but cropped and enlarged to show networks across the WNP basin.
Fig 3.11: Spatial distribution of mean absolute distance between position estimates in JTWC and JMA best
track data from 1951 through 1969 from the WNP Superset. Mean cell values are computed from all points
contained within 2° x 2° cells and binned within four classes set at approximately one and two standard
deviations from the sample mean.
37
Fig 3.12: JTWC (red) and JMA (blue) tracks for Storm 64 from the unified WNP Superset (Storms 20 and 19
of 1953 from JTWC and JMA, respectively). Month and day are labeled for 00Z estimates along with 1-
minute average MSW in parenthesis for JTWC data. Bullet points indicate 12-hour position estimates. JTWC
records three 6-hourly position estimates over Hainan, with one MSW estimate as high as 110 kt. JMA track
records no points over Hainan in its 6-hourly best track data. Additionally, at 00Z on 2 November, position
estimates between the two agencies differ by nearly 250 km, such that at 00Z JTWC records an 80 kt TC over
the Gulf of Tonkin while JMA has a moderate TC inland over Nghệ, a province along the north central
Vietnam coast. Differences are also found between landfall numbers in the Philippines.
38
Fig 3.13a: Spatial distribution of mean absolute difference between intensity estimates in JTWC and JMA
best track data from 1977 through 1989 from the WNP Superset. JMA MSW are converted to a 1-minute
average using a 1.14 10-minute to 1-minute conversion factor. Mean cell values are computed from all points
contained within 2° x 2° cells and binned within four classes set at approximately one and two standard
deviations from the sample mean.
39
Fig 3.13b: Spatial distribution of mean absolute difference between intensity estimates in JTWC and JMA
best track data from 1990 through 2006 from the WNP Superset. JMA MSW are converted to a 1-minute
average using a 1.14 10-minute to 1-minute conversion factor. Mean cell values are computed from all points
contained within 2° x 2° cells and binned within four classes set at approximately one and two standard
deviations from the sample mean.
40
Fig 3.14: Composite bar chart of annually accumulated unfiltered cubic MSW from points over land in
JTWC and JMA best track data from the WNP Superset. JTWC aggregate is shown in red and JMA
aggregate is shown in blue. Landfall climatology includes only points captured over land in JTWC, JMA, and
STI Superset data. Annually accumulated cubic winds associated with points over land from JTWC best
track data exhibit an increasing trend significant at the 0.05 level. JMA data indicate a downward trend not
significant at the 0.05 level.
41
Fig 3.15: Spatial distribution of mean absolute distance between position estimates in JTWC and JMA best
track data from 1977 through 2006 from the WNP Superset. Mean cell values are computed from all points
contained within 2° x 2° cells and binned within four classes set at approximately one and two standard
deviations from the sample mean.
42
Fig 3.16: Composite bar chart of annually accumulated unfiltered cubic MSW from landfalling typhoons in
JTWC and JMA best track data from the WNP Superset. JTWC aggregate is shown in red and JMA
aggregate is shown in blue. Landfalling typhoon climatology includes only points captured over land of
typhoon intensity in JTWC, JMA, and STI Superset data. Annually accumulated cubic winds associated with
JTWC landfalling typhoons exhibit an upward trend not significant at the 0.05 level. JMA data indicate a
downward trend not significant at the 0.05 level.
43
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
A combined WNP Superset is developed from existing best track data across multiple TC
agencies. Data from three of four comprehensive best track records are compared over 56 years,
and concurrent, quasi-independent TC estimates matched amongst JTWC, JMA, and STI best
track archives are merged into a unified best track Superset. WNP Superset data include
concurrent position and intensity estimates from all three WNP best track data sets. Differences
between data at the two primary warning agencies are quantified and presented as ambiguities.
Position and intensity ambiguities are utilized as a tool for elucidating unresolved issues in
historical TC data across the basin.
Position ambiguities between JTWC and JMA Superset data closely follow changes in
the WNP TC observation network. Ambiguities on the order of 50 km to 70 km fall sharply upon
the introduction of the first meteorological satellites in the early 1960s. Ambiguities between the
two agencies continue to decline until the deactivation of Navy aircraft reconnaissance in 1971.
With the launch of GMS satellite in 1977, satellite reconnaissance advanced from sporadic
transmission to continuous surveillance. The presence of aircraft reconnaissance paired with
emerging satellite technology perpetuates the steady decline in mean ambiguities among the two
forecast agencies through the mid-1980s. Ambiguities jump by 25% in the years immediately
following decommission of dedicated aircraft reconnaissance in 1987. Mean ambiguities remain
steady near pre-satellite levels in the post reconnaissance era until microwave imagers and
satellite derived ocean wind data became available by the turn of the century, after which time
position estimates between JTWC and JMA begin to coalesce.
Non standard wind speed averaging periods across the WNP complicate direct
comparisons among TC best track intensity data. Intensity differences from JTWC and JMA
Superset data are examined through PDI, a metric sensitive to small variations in intensity
estimates, particularly among intense TCs. Results show a fraction between the warning agencies
after 1990 once JMA revised its Dvorak CI/MSW relationship based upon an earlier study by
Koba et al. (1990). The step function change at JMA affects intensity trends in the absence of
aircraft reconnaissance. Without validation of the two Dvorak schemes applied across the basin
since 1990, however, it is inconclusive which relationship exhibits greater accuracy. Recent
44
work by Knaff and Zehr (2007) find a more valid WPR within Koba et al. (1990) compared to
the AH77 WPR incorporated within JTWC Dvorak tables. WPRs do not affect MSW estimates
from Dvorak, as the derived empirical relationship relates CI to MSW rather than MSLP.
Reconnaissance data in the early period may bias MSW estimates too high in cases where
aircraft measured pressure is converted to MSW via WPRs (Knaff and Zehr).
JMA Superset MSW data from 1990 forward are paired with their corresponding CI
values from the revised JMA Dvorak table. CI values are subsequently matched to MSW
estimates from Dvorak, 1984. The debiasing algorithm corrects an apparent discontinuity around
1990, with 30-year post adjustment upward trends significant at the 0.05 level detected in both
sets. A notable discrepancy between PDI analyses remains in the mid-1990s. The study attributes
these differences to data issues related to equipment transfers and personnel turnover at JTWC
during its phased relocation from Guam to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, from 1995-1999. The percent
of points excluded from JTWC Superset data from original best track data exceeds 50% during
this period. The difference is also noted in contemporaneous PDI comparisons between the
global homogeneous UW/NCDC tropical cyclone intensity record and the full JTWC best track
archive (Kossin et al., 2007). The findings call into question the quality of JTWC best track data
during the 1990s. Users should exercise extreme caution when establishing climatologies or
using such uncorrected records to assess risk. Until deficiencies are properly addressed, metadata
contained within the present study and other similar work will be the only form of quality control
behind historical WNP TC records.
Parsing Superset data into points over land estimated as such in all sets or
compartmentalizing landfall subsets into landfalls of typhoon intensity does not increase
agreement in position or intensity estimates between JTWC and JMA archives. Lower mean
ambiguities are concentrated in the tropical belt –between roughly 10°N and 30°N – rather than
along the coast or over land. Better defined, more intense TCs form in the deep tropics compared
with regions in higher latitudes. Mean ambiguities poleward of 30°N are subject to the greatest
scatter due to increased frequency of weakening, transitioning, and extra-tropical TCs.
Decommission of aircraft reconnaissance in the late 1980s created a significant void in available
surface data. Forecasters likely looked to land observations to confirm derived estimates in the
absence of aircraft reconnaissance. This is supported by lower mean intensity ambiguities over
land in the post reconnaissance period.
45
Exploring available resources to incorporate other germane data into the WNP Superset
would aid in future studies. Infusing aircraft reconnaissance data into the Superset for example
may shed new light on interagency differences. A comparison method of analysis similar to that
developed by Martin and Gray (1993) would allow researchers to quantify how forecaster
estimates and ambiguities among warning agencies change with and without available center fix
data from reconnaissance missions. Additionally, matching nearby global marine surface
observations from the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) to
existing entries from the three WNP best track sets included in the first iteration of the unified
Superset may assist in resolving the largest discrepancies noted between best track archives.
Pending permission from the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
including HKO best track data from 1961 forward would provide additional information and,
since both HKO and JMA record 10 minute average MSW, may permit direct comparisons of
wind intensity data. Because the AOR at HKO (Fig 2.1d) is 25% to 44% smaller than the
smallest domain of the other three WNP sets examined, it is more advantageous to add the data
as supplementary information rather than excluding thousands of points from the other data sets
solely due to AOR differences.
Ultimately publicly available data from all sources related to position and intensity
interpretation for TCs in the WNP, including post event analyses like the homogeneous
UW/NCDC tropical cyclone intensity record, can be compiled into a Superset database.
Documentation replete with metadata is the primary focus of any future extension to the
Superset. Without the data behind the data deep deficiencies will remain in best track records,
deficiencies clouded by illusions of scrupulous consideration absent of new analyses. This
research and the unified WNP Superset outlined herein may give impetus to WMO Members and
scientific organizations across the region to fortify a plan to adequately address these issues
either through complete metadata or by means of a rigorous and systematic organizational
review of all best track archives.
46
APPENDIX A
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
To evaluate trends in intensity among best track data, the Mann-Kendall statistical trend
test is performed on WNP Superset data. The Mann-Kendall test is a non-parametric (i.e.,
distribution independent) test which compares relative magnitudes of data rather than actual
values (Gilbert, 1987). No prior assumptions are made regarding the particular distribution of the
sample data.
In this study, unsmoothed annually accumulated PDI is the metric. The null hypothesis,
H0, is that the data are randomly ordered in time and exhibit no trend, with the alternative
hypothesis, H1, being that the data follow some monotonic trend at a determined level of
significance. The Mann-Kendall test is consistent with previous TC trend detection studies
(Webster et al., 2005; Kossin et al., 2007). The analysis procedure for calculating the Mann-
Kendall test statistic and associated probability is described below.
Mann-Kendall Test Statistic
Under H0, let x1, x2, xj, …xn denote a series of n data points, with xj as the jth datum in the
series. The Mann-Kendall test statistic, S, is calculated as
)(sgn1
1 1
kj
n
k
n
kj
xxS −=∑ ∑−
= +=
where
0,1
0,0
0,1
)sgn(
<−−
=−
>−+
=−
kj
kj
kj
kj
xx
xx
xx
xx
The initial value of S is assumed to be zero, implying no trend. The sample data are listed as an
ordered time series, with positive values and negative values computed between each data point
and its preceding values across a triangular table. The Table illustrates this method from the first
10 years of the 30-year annually accumulated PDI of the JTWC Superset examined in this study.
The test statistic S is derived from the sum of the totals computed along the bottommost row. A
large positive or negative value of S indicates the presence of an increasing or decreasing trend,
47
respectively. In order to statistically quantify whether S is significantly different from zero,
probability is determined.
Standard Normal Variate and Probability
The test statistic, S, is found by Kendall (1975) to be asymptotically normally distributed.
For n < 10, the theoretical distribution of S derived by both Mann (1945) and Kendall (1975) can
be compared to the absolute value of S (Gilbert, 1987). However, for n ≥ 10, as is the case in the
current study, a normal approximation test is used. Tied groups (i.e., two datum of equal value)
in time series with a sample size near 10 may invalidate the normal approximation, but since the
30-year PDI data have neither tied groups nor small n, the normal approximation holds.
The variance of the test statistic is described by
18/)52)(1()52)(1()(1
+−−+−= ∑=
p
j
jjj tttnnnSVar
where n is the number of data points, p is the number of tied groups, and tj is the number of
datum in the jth
tied group. According to Kendall (1975), a normal approximation can be used
once the standard normal variate, or normalized test statistic, Z is determined by
<+
=
>−
=
0,)]([
1
0,0
0,)]([
1
Z
2/1
2/1
SifSVar
S
Sif
SifSVar
S
Therefore, from the Table, S = 13, Var(S) = 269, and Z = 0.7 for the 10-year sample data.
Once the normalized test statistic Z is known, the standard normal distribution probability
density function, which has probability density
2
2
2
1)(
Z
eZf−
=
π
is employed to calculate probability. This probability is then compared to a level of significance
to resolve the null hypothesis. The significance level chosen for this study is 0.05, or
alternatively the 0.95 confidence level. This requirement of 0.95 confidence for statistical
significance of a trend is consistent with the literature.
48
For the sample data in the Table, a p-value of 0.23, or 0.77 confidence level, is computed.
Although S is positive, indicating the presence of an upward trend, the probability calculated is
less than the chosen confidence level, so H0 is accepted for the 10-year sample.
49
Table: 10-year sample JTWC PDI data from the WNP Superset, with positive and negative values listed for
each year. The Mann-Kendall test statistic S is computed from the summation of all total values.
Year 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
PDI (m/s)3 18047116 25702890 34954720 26866012 25597972 40829528 28658616 32833536 24417980 38046284
1977 18047116 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1978 25702890 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1
1979 34954720 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1
1980 26866012 -1 1 1 1 -1 1
1981 25597972 1 1 1 -1 1
1982 40829528 -1 -1 -1 -1
1983 28658616 1 -1 1
1984 32833536 -1 1
1985 24417980 1
1986 38046284
Total 1 2 1 -2 5 2 3 -6 7
50
APPENDIX B
MANUAL TRACK CHANGES TO THE WNP SUPERSET
1. Storm 5 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 12Z on 7/2/51.
Storm 5 of the full track set matches storms 5,6,7 of 1951 from the JTWC, JMA, and STI
sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for storm 5 at 6Z and 18Z on
7/2/51. The 12Z point was not originally included in the full track set because the position
match falls outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. In order not to have breaks within the storm
track, this missing point is manually ingested back into all final uniform tracks. A flag value
of 1 is listed in each final uniform set for this point since at least two of the three position
matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer.
2. Storm 24 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 8/7/52 at both 0Z and 6Z. The
duplicate match is found in Storm 10 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers
for the same catalog number (Storm 10 of 1952 – Jeanne). The track with serial number
195210s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 195210. However, the two
tracks overlap at times 0Z and 6Z on 8/7/52 (i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude
and longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at each
time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance for each time is correct, so the
addendum position and intensity values (195210s) are retained. The positions at 0Z and 6Z
on 8/7/52 from serial number 195210 are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
3. Storm 27 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 9/1/52 at both 6Z and 12Z. The
duplicate match is found in Storm 16 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers
for the same catalog number (Storm 16 of 1952 – Mary). The track with serial number
195216s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 195216. However, the two
51
tracks overlap at times 6Z and 12Z on 9/1/52 (i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude
and longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at each
time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance for each time is correct, so the original
position and intensity values (195216) are retained, as they are more in line with the
surrounding position values and closer to the JMA position values than the addendum
values. The positions at 6Z and 12Z on 9/1/52 from serial number 195216s are completely
removed from all final uniform tracks.
4. Storm 41 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 11/27/52 at both 6Z and 12Z. The
duplicate match is found in Storm 31 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers
for the same catalog number (Storm 31 of 1952 – Della). The track with serial number
195231s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 195231. However, the two
tracks overlap at times 6Z and 12Z on 11/27/52 (i.e., two instances at each time). The
latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at
each time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance for each time is correct, so the
addendum position and intensity values (195231s) are retained, as they are more in line with
the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the
original values. The positions at 6Z and 12Z on 11/27/52 from serial number 195231 are
completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
5. Storm 64 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 18Z on 11/1/53
and at 0Z on 11/2/53. Storm 64 of the full track set matches storms 20,19,26 of 1953 from
the JTWC, JMA, and STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for
storm 64 at 12Z on 11/1/53. The 18Z point on 11/1/53 and 0Z point on 11/2/53 were not
originally included in the full track set because the position matches between at least two of
52
the three sets fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. In order to avoid breaks within the
storm track, these missing points are manually ingested back into all final uniform tracks. A
flag value of 1 is listed in each final uniform set for these points since at least two of the
three position matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer.
6. Storm 66 of the full track set is missing position estimates at 6Z on 11/28/53. Storms
22,21,29 from the JTWC, JMA, and STI sets, respectively, match to yield storm 66 of the
full track set. Storm 29 from the STI set falls out of the prescribed 3.2° buffer at 6Z on
11/28/53 when compared to the JTWC set (storm 22 of 1953). Therefore, while this point in
the STI set matches position estimates from storms 22 and 21 of 1953 in the JTWC and
JMA sets, respectively, it was not originally included in the full track set. The missing point
is manually added back into each final uniform set.
7. Storm 72 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 8/19/54 at both 0Z and 6Z. The
duplicate match is found in Storm 10 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers
for the same catalog number (Storm 10 of 1954 – Grace). The track with serial number
195410s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 195410. However, the two
tracks overlap at times 0Z and 6Z on 8/19/54 (i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude
and longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at each
time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance for each time is correct, so the original
position and intensity values (195410) are retained, as they are more in line with the
surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the
addendum values. The positions at 0Z and 6Z on 8/19/54 from serial number 195410s are
completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
53
8. Storm 96 of the full track set changed from 9,9,10 (JTWC, JMA, STI) to match the correct
storms 9,10,11.
9. Storm 99 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 8/24/55 at 0Z, 6Z, and 12Z. The
duplicate match is found in Storm 19 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers
for the same catalog number (Storm 19 of 1955 – Iris). The track with serial number
195519s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 195519. However, the two
tracks overlap at times 0Z, 6Z, and 12Z on 8/24/55 (i.e., two instances at each time). The
latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at
each time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance for each time is correct, so the
addendum position and intensity values (195519s) are retained, as they are closer to the
JMA and JTWC position values than the original values. The values at 0Z, 6Z, and 12Z on
8/24/55 from serial number 195519 are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
10. Storm 102 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 12Z on 10/1/55.
Storm 102 of the full track set matches storms 15,22,27 of 1955 from the JTWC, JMA, and
STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for storm 102 at 6Z and
18Z on 10/1/55. The 12Z point was not originally included in the full track set because the
position match falls outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. In order not to have breaks within
the storm track, this missing point is manually ingested back into all final uniform tracks. A
flag value of 1 is listed in each final uniform set for this point since at least two of the three
position matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer.
11. Storm 125 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 0Z on 9/25/56.
Storm 125 of the full track set matches storms 16,16,29 of 1956 from the JTWC, JMA, and
STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for storm 125 at 18Z on
54
9/24/56. The 0Z point on 9/25/56 was not originally included in the full track set because the
position match between at least two of the three sets falls outside of the prescribed 3.2°
buffer. In order to avoid breaks within the storm track, this missing point is manually
ingested back into all final uniform tracks. A flag value of 1 is listed in each final uniform
set for this point since at least two of the three position matches fall outside of the prescribed
3.2° buffer.
12. Storm 125 of the full track set reads 16,16,29 (JTWC, JMA, STI) then switches to 16,17,29.
The remove line program removes the 16,17,29 match since storm 125 is matched first to
storms 16,16,29. Storm 16 in the JMA ends on 9/25/56 at 0Z. The same storm appears to
reform as Storm 17 on 9/26/56 at 0Z. So data from 9/25/56 at 6Z to 9/26/56 at 18Z is
missing. It’s apparent from the JTWC and STI sets (whose tracks do not end or change) that
Storm 17 in the JMA is just a continuation of Storm 16. The 16,17,29 match originally taken
out of the full track set by the remove line program is added back to all final uniform tracks
(5 lines – 9/26/56 at 0Z through 9/27/56 at 0Z). Since the JMA data set records this system
as two separate storms and the JTWC and STI data sets keep it as one continuous storm, a
flag value of 2 is listed in each final uniform set for the 16,17,29 match of storm 125. This
flag value also indicates a break within storm 125 of the full track set between 0Z on 9/25/56
and 0Z on 9/26/59.
13. Storm 129 of the full track set reads 21,21,34 (JTWC, JMA, STI). This is an incorrect
match. It should read 21,22,35.
14. Storm 130 of the full track set reads 22,21,24 (JTWC, JMA, STI). This storm was removed
from the final track, since the incorrect Storm 129 read 21,21,34 (JTWC,JMA,STI). The 21
55
and 34 storms from the JMA and STI, respectively, were the same as the incorrect JMA and
STI for Storm 129. These six lines were added back to all three data sets.
15. Storm 143 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 6Z, 12Z, and
18Z on 9/19/57. Storm 143 of the full track set matches storms 12,13,18 of 1957 from the
JTWC, JMA, and STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for
storm 143 at 0Z on 9/19/57 and 0Z on 9/20/57. The 6Z, 12Z, and 18Z points were not
originally included in the full track set because the position matches fall outside of the
prescribed 3.2° buffer. In order not to have breaks within the storm track, the missing points
are manually ingested back into all final uniform tracks. A flag value of 1 is listed in each
final uniform set for these points since at least two of the three position matches fall outside
of the prescribed 3.2° buffer.
16. Storm 168 of the full track set (“June”) only has matches for 0Z and 6Z on 9/20/58. The
track of the storm in all three sets (16,23,26 of 1958 from the JTWC, JMA and STI,
respectively) extends beyond 6Z on 9/20/58; however, the match between at least two of the
sets falls outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer through 18Z on 9/21/58 (end point of the STI
track for “June”). While track differences are large at times (e.g.,12° latitude difference at
18Z on 9/21/58 between the JMA and STI sets), it is clearly the same cyclone in all sets.
Because the system is classified as a strong tropical storm in all three data sets (65kt msw in
the JTWC and 985mb mslp in the STI) during the period after 6Z on 9/20/58, the matches
thereafter that fall outside of the 3.2° buffer (from 12Z on 9/20/58 through 18Z on 9/21/58)
are included in the final, unified Superset.
17. Storm 175 of the full track set reads 23,29,34 (JTWC, JMA, STI). Storms 29 and 34 from
the JMA and STI, respectively, are already matched to storm 21 of 1958 from the JTWC
56
(storm 173 of the full track set). Storm 23 of 1958 from the JTWC appears to be a duplicate,
correction, or addendum to storm 21 of the same year. The original match is retained (storm
173) and storm 175 of the full track set is completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
18. Storm 176 of the full track set reads 24,23,26 (JTWC, JMA, STI). Storms 23 and 26 from
the JMA and STI, respectively, are already matched to storm 16 of 1958 from the JTWC
(storm 168 of the full track set). Storm 24 of 1958 from the JTWC may be a duplicate or
addendum to storm 16 of the same year. JTWC storm notes from 1958 comment storm 24 is
a central North Pacific cyclone. For these reasons, storm 176 of the full track set is
completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
19. Storm 185 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 8/31/59 at 12Z. The duplicate
match is found in Storm 14 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers for the
same catalog number (Storm 14 of 1959 – Joan). The track with serial number 195914s
appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 195914. However, the two tracks
overlap at 12Z on 8/31/59 (i.e., two instances). The latitude and longitude values as well as
the intensity values are similar for both instances, but differ slightly. It is unknown which
instance is correct, so the original position and intensity values (195914) are retained, as
they are more in line with the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA position
values than the addendum values. The positions at 12Z on 8/31/59 from serial number
195914s are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
20. Storm 208 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 8/8/60 at 6Z. The duplicate match is
found in Storm 13 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers for the same
catalog number (Storm 13 of 1960 – Trix). The track with serial number 196013s appears to
be an addendum to the track of serial number 196013. However, the two tracks overlap at
57
6Z on 8/8/60 (i.e., two instances). The latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity
values are similar for both instances, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance is
correct, so the original position and intensity values (196013) are retained, as they are more
in line with the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position
values than the addendum values. The values at 6Z on 8/8/60 from serial number 196013s
are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
21. Storm 232 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 5/26/61 at 18Z and 5/27/61 at 0Z.
The duplicate match is found in Storm 5 of the STI set, which has two different serial
numbers for the same catalog number (Storm 5 of 1961 – Betty). The track with serial
number 196105s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 196105. However,
the two tracks overlap at times 18Z on 5/26/61 and 0Z on 5/27/61 (i.e., two instances at each
time). The latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both
instances at each time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance for each time is
correct, so the original position and intensity values (196105) are retained, as they are more
in line with the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position
values than the addendum values. The values at 18Z on 5/26/61 and 0Z on 5/27/61 from
serial number 196105s are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
22. Storm 234 of the full track set begins with 8,6,11 (JTWC, JMA, STI). This is an incorrect
match. Storm 6 and 11 from the JMA and STI, respectively, are not found in the JTWC data
set. Storm 8 of the JTWC from 1961 correctly matches storms 7 and 12 of the JMA and STI.
Lines from Storm 234 with match 8,7,12 were originally removed. Since they are correct,
the 20 lines are added back to the final tracks of each of the three sets. The 8,6,11 match
originally included is removed from the final sets.
58
23. Storm 234 of the full track set has duplicate matches at 12Z and 18Z on 6/30/61 and at 0Z
on 7/1/61. The duplicate matches are found in Storm 12 of the STI set, which has two
different serial numbers for the same catalog number (Storm 12 of 1961 – Doris). The track
with serial number 196112s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number
196112. However, the two tracks overlap at 12Z and 18Z on 6/30/61 and at 0Z on 7/1/61
(i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity
values are similar for both instances at each time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which
instance is correct, so the original position and intensity values (196112) are retained, as
they are more in line with the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC
position values than the addendum values. The values at 12Z and 18Z on 6/30/61 and at 0Z
on 7/1/61 from serial number 196112s are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
24. Storm 302 of the full track set reads 59,27,33 (JTWC, JMA, STI). Storms 27 and 33 of 1962
from the JMA and STI sets, respectively, are also assigned to storm 289 of the full track set
(storm 26 of 1962 from the JTWC set). Storm 302 of the full track set is retained; however,
since the JTWC data set records this system as two separate storms and the JMA and STI
sets keep it as one continuous storm, a flag value of 2 is listed in each final uniform set for
the 59,27,33 match of storm 302.
25. Storm 309 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 7/18/63 at 18Z. The duplicate
match is found in Storm 8 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers for the
same catalog number (Storm 8 of 1963 – Wendy). The track with serial number 196308s
appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 196308. However, the two tracks
overlap at 18Z on 7/18/63 (i.e., two instances). The latitude and longitude values as well as
the intensity values are similar for both instances, but differ slightly. It is unknown which
59
instance is correct, so the original position and intensity values (196308) are retained, as
they are more in line with the surrounding position values and closer to the JTWC position
values than the addendum values. The values at 18Z on 7/18/63 from serial number 196308s
are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
26. Storm 327 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 18Z on 12/27/63
through 12Z on 12/28/63. Storm 327 of the full track set matches storms 25,24,33 of 1963
from the JTWC, JMA, and STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are
included for storm 327 at 12Z on 12/27/63 and at 18Z on 12/28/63. The 18Z point on
12/27/63 and 0Z, 6Z, and 12Z points on 12/28/63 were not originally included in the full
track set because the position matches between the JTWC and JMA sets and STI and JMA
sets fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. In order to avoid breaks within the storm track,
these missing points are manually ingested back into all final uniform tracks. A flag value of
1 is listed in each final uniform set for these points since at least two of the three position
matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. A comparison of position estimates in all
three sets suggests that the JMA longitude position estimates from the original JMA data set
for this period (18Z on 12/27/63 through 12Z on 12/28/63) may be in error.
27. Storm 373 of the full track set reads 54,27,33 (JTWC, JMA, STI). This is an incorrect
match. Storms 27 and 33 from the JMA and STI sets, respectively, are correctly matched to
storm 362 of the full track set (storm 32 of 1964 from the JTWC set). Storm 54 of 1964
from the JTWC set does not have a match in either the JMA or STI data sets. As such, storm
373 is completely removed from all final uniform tracks (1 line).
28. Storm 388 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 7/26/65 at both 0Z and 6Z. The
duplicate match is found in Storm 21 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers
60
for the same catalog number (Storm 21 of 1965 – Harriet). The track with serial number
196521s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 196521. However, the two
tracks overlap at times 0Z and 6Z on 7/26/65 (i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude
and longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at each
time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance for each time is correct, so the original
position and intensity values (196521) are retained, as they are more in line with the
surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the
addendum values. The values at 0Z and 6Z on 7/26/65 from serial number 196521s are
completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
29. Storm 408 of the full track set is completely removed from all final tracks. Storm 408 reads
34,32,40 (JTWC, JMA, STI). Storm 407 of the full track set reads 33,32,40 (JTWC, JMA,
STI). Because the JMA and JTWC storm numbers are the same for Storms 407 and 408, all
storms in storm 408 are removed by the remove line program. Storms 33 and 34 from the
JTWC appear to be the same storm, with Storm 34 being a continuation of Storm 33. Both
storms, however, have points for 11/19/65 at 12Z (11/19/65 being the last point for Storm 33
and the first point for Storm 34). However, it is left as two storms and the 27 removed lines
from Storm 408 are added back to all the final tracks.
30. Storms 409-411 of the full track set missing
31. Storm 412 completely removed from full track set; Storms 20 and 28 from 1965 from the
JMA and STI data sets, respectively, had already been used for Storm 395 of the full track
set.
32. Storms 413-415 of the full track set missing
61
33. Storm 416 of the full track set begins with 1,1,1 (JTWC, JMA, STI). This is an incorrect
match. Storm 1 of the STI is not found in the JTWC or JMA data sets. As a result lines from
Storm 416 with match 1,1,2 (JTWC, JMA, STI), the correct match, were originally
removed. Since they are correct, the 35 lines are added back to the final tracks of each of the
three sets. The 1,1,1 matches (two lines) originally included are removed from the final sets.
34. Storm 446 completely removed from full track set (4 lines); Storms 12 and 15 from 1966
from the JMA and STI data sets, respectively, had already been used for Storm 426 of the
full track set. Storm 51 from 1966 in the JTWC data set appears to be a continuation (and
addendum) of Storm 11 from 1966. Storm 11 from the JTWC end on 8/16/66 at 6Z. Storm
51 from the JTWC picks up at 8/17/66 at 12Z.
35. Storm 447 of the full track set missing
36. Storm 449 completely removed from full track set (4 lines); Storms 22 and 26 from 1966
from the JMA and STI data sets, respectively, had already been used for Storm 435 of the
full track set. Storm 54 from 1966 in the JTWC data set does not appear in the JMA or STI
sets.
37. Storm 450 of the full track set missing
38. Storm 451 of the full track set missing
39. Storm 463 of the full track set reads 9,9,13 (JTWC, JMA, STI). This is an incorrect match. It
should read 9,10,14. All 9,9,13 lines are removed (10 lines) and the 9,10,14 lines taken out
by the remove line program are added back in (31 lines).
40. Storm 473 has two points for the same date/time from 8/29/67 at 18Z to 8/30/67 at 12Z
(supposed to be 4 points, but 8 points in the final track files, as each point is listed twice).
This is happening because the STI set has two instances of “Nora”, Storm 31 of 1967. The
62
first “Nora” track is taken, since this is the longer and seemingly correct track. The second
“Nora” track only has the 4 points toward the end (8/29/67 at 18Z to 8/30/67 at 12Z). 4
instances of repeat lines are removed from each final set.
41. Storm 487 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 11/18/67 at both 12Z and 18Z. The
duplicate match is found in Storm 51 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers
for the same catalog number (Storm 51 of 1967 – Gilda). The track with serial number
196751s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 196751. However, the two
tracks overlap at times 12Z and 18Z on 11/18/67 (i.e., two instances at each time). The
latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at
each time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance for each time is correct, so the
original position and intensity values (196751) are retained, as they are more in line with the
surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the
addendum values. The values at 12Z and 18Z on 11/18/67 from serial number 196751s are
completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
42. Storm 490 completely removed from the full track set (five lines); Storms 10 and 14 from
1967 from the JMA and STI data sets, respectively, had already been used for Storm 463 of
the full track set. The first four or five lines of Storm 9 of the JTWC of 1967 look
problematic. They seem to align more closely to storm 9 and 13 of the JMA and STI,
respectively. However, from about 7/22/67 at 12Z onward, it’s obvious that Storm 9 of the
JTWC of 1967 is the same as storms 10 and 14 from the JMA and STI, respectively. Storm
51 of the JTWC of 1967 should probably be the beginning point of Storm 9 of 1967. Since
this is uncertain, Storm 51 of the JTWC, which corresponds to Storm 490 from the full track
set, is completely removed.
63
43. Storm 491 completely removed from the full track set (2 lines); Storm 11 from 1967 from
the JMA set was already used for Storm 464 of the full track set. While Storm 15 from the
STI matches Storm 52 from the JTWC from 1967, there is no match from the JMA set.
44. Storm 500 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 7/25/68 at both 12Z and 18Z. The
duplicate match is found in Storm 9 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers
for the same catalog number (Storm 9 of 1968 – Nadine). The track with serial number
196809s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 196809. However, the two
tracks overlap at times 12Z and 18Z on 7/25/68 (i.e., two instances at each time). The
latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at
each time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance for each time is correct, so the
original position and intensity values (196809s) are retained, as they are more in line with
the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the
addendum values. The positions at 12Z and 18Z on 7/25/68 from serial number 196809s are
completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
45. Storm 507 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 9/6/68 at 0Z, 6Z, and 12Z. The
duplicate matches are found in Storm 21 of the STI set, which has two different serial
numbers for the same catalog number (Storm 21 of 1968 – Wendy). The track with serial
number 196821s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 196821. However,
the two tracks overlap at 0Z, 6Z, and 12Z on 9/6/68 (i.e., two instances). The latitude and
longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances, but differ
slightly. It is unknown which instance is correct, so the original position and intensity values
(196821) are retained, as they are more in line with the surrounding position values and
closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the addendum values. The values at 0Z,
64
6Z, and 12Z on 9/6/68 from serial number 196821s are completely removed from all final
uniform tracks.
46. Storm 607 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 10/10/71 at 12Z and 18Z and for 0Z
on 10/11/71. The duplicate matches are found in Storm 40 of the STI set, which has two
different serial numbers for the same catalog number (Storm 40 of 1971 – Faye). The track
with serial number 197140s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number
197140. However, the two tracks overlap at 12Z and 18Z on 10/10/71 and at 0Z on 10/11/71
(i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity
values are similar for both instances at each time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which
instance is correct, so the original position and intensity values (197140) are retained for
12Z and 18Z on 10/10/71 and the addendum position and intensity values are retained for 0Z
on 10/11/71. These values are more in line with the surrounding position values and closer
to the JMA position values. The values at 12Z and 18Z on 10/10/71 from serial number
197140s and the values at 0Z on 10/11/71 from serial number 197140 are completely
removed from all final uniform tracks.
47. Storm 608 completely removed by the remove line program, as no instance of Storm 32
from 1971 is found in the JMA or STI sets. Storms 32 and 40 from the JMA and STI sets,
respectively, were already used for Storm 607 of the full track set.
48. Storm 625 of the full track set changed from 12,11,15 (JTWC, JMA, STI) to 12,12,16. The
remove line program kept an incorrect line and removed the correct line. The one incorrect
line was removed and the 21 correct lines are added back to each final set.
49. Storm 657 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 8/20/73 at 0Z through 8/21/73 at
18Z. The duplicate matches are found in Storm 12 of the STI set, which has two different
65
serial numbers for the same catalog number (Storm 12 of 1973 – Joan). The track with serial
number 197312s appears to be an addendum to the track with serial number 197312.
However, the two tracks overlap at 0Z, 6Z, 12Z, and 18Z on 8/20/73 and at 0Z, 6Z, 12Z, and
18Z on 8/21/73 (i.e., two instances at each time). It is unknown which instance is correct, so
the original position and intensity values (197312) are retained, as they are more in line with
the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the
addendum values. The values at 0Z, 6Z, 12Z, and 18Z on 8/20/73 and at 0Z, 6Z, 12Z, and
18Z on 8/21/73 from serial number 197312s are completely removed from all final uniform
tracks.
50. Storm 683 of the full track set should begin on 8/11/74 at 0Z; all data sets have that
date/time. However, it begins on 8/12/74 at 0Z. Added points from 8/11/74 at 0Z to 8/11/74
at 18Z to all final sets. The STI set has three separate tracks for Storm 18 of 1974 (“Mary”).
As a result points 8/20/74 at 0Z, 8/20/74 at 6Z, and 8/20/74 at 12Z appear twice in the final
set while points 8/21/74 at 18Z and 8/22/74 at 0Z appear three times in the final set. The first
track of “Mary” is used until it ends on 8/21/74 at 0Z. The third instance of track “Mary”
(Storm 18 of 1974 from STI) is used from point 8/21/74 at 6Z onward. The second instance
of track “Mary” (5 lines) is discarded from the STI set.
51. Storm 687 completely removed from the full track set (4 lines); Storm 17 and 24 from the
JMA and STI, respectively, belong with Storm 20 of 1974 from the JTWC (Storm 688 of the
full track set). A matching storm from the JMA set cannot be found for Storm 19 of 1974
from the JTWC set. Storm 25 from the STI appears to match Storm 19 of 1974 from the
JTWC set.
66
52. Storm 688 of the full track set changed from 20,16,23 (JTWC, JMA, STI) to 20,17,24.
Storms 17 and 24 of 1974 from the JMA and STI, respectively, were incorrectly matched
with Storm 687. The remove line program saw these two storms already matching with
Storm 687 of the full track set, so incorrectly kept Storms 16 and 23 from the JMA and STI
as the correct matches to Storm 20 from the JTWC. All three sets (20,17,24) also included
the point 8/30/74 at 18Z, but for some reason this was not included in the int or check files.
This point was manually added to each final set.
53. Storm 711 of the full track set changed from 8,4,9 (JTWC, JMA, STI) to 8,6,12. Storms 4
and 9 of 1975 from the JMA and STI sets, respectively, had already been matched with
Storm 6 of 1975 from the JTWC (Storm 709 of the full track set). All three sets (8,6,12) also
included the point 8/17/75 at 0Z, but for some reason this was not included in the int or
check files. This point was manually added to each final set.
54. Storm 721 completely removed from the full track set (1 line); Storms 16 and 25 of 1975
from the JMA and STI sets, respectively, match with Storm 19 of 1975 from the JTWC.
Storm 18 of 1975 from the JTWC appears to be the beginnings of Storm 19. However,
Storm 18 (Storm 721 from the full track set) is thrown out since there are no complete
matches from the JMA and STI sets.
55. Storm 723 of the full track set is missing points at 12Z and 18Z on 10/27/75. Storms
20,17,26 from the JTWC, JMA, and STI sets, respectively, match to yield storm 723 of the
full track set. However, at 12Z on 10/27/75 the longitude of storm 26 in the STI set falls
outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer when compared to the JMA set. Storm 26 of the STI set
also falls outside of the prescribed buffer on 10/27/75 at 18Z when compared to both the
JTWC and JMA sets (storms 20 and 17 of 1975). Therefore, while these points in the STI set
67
match position estimates from storms 20 and 17 of 1975 in the JTWC and JMA sets,
respectively, they were not originally included in the full track set. The two missing points
are manually added back into each final uniform set, making storm 723 of the full track set
continuous (i.e., no breaks within the storm track).
56. Storm 727 completely removed from the full track set (3 lines); Storm 24 of 1975 from the
JTWC is not found in either the JMA or STI sets. The program incorrectly matches Storms
21 and 30 from the JMA and STI sets, respectively, to Storm 24 of the JTWC set. They
should be correctly paired with Storm 25 of 1975 from the JTWC (see below).
57. Storm 728 from the full track set is added back to the final tracks. The remove line program
incorrectly removed these 17 lines because Storms 21 and 30 from the JMA and STI sets,
respectively, had already been matched (incorrectly) to Storm 727.
58. Storm 746 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 9/13/76 at 0Z and 6Z. The duplicate
matches are found in Storm 22 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers for the
same catalog number (Storm 22 of 1976 – Georgia). The track with serial number 197622s
appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 197622. However, the two tracks
overlap at 0Z and 6Z on 9/13/76 (i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude and longitude
values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at each time, but differ
slightly. It is unknown which instance is correct, so the addendum position and intensity
values (197622s) are retained, as they are more in line with the surrounding position values
and closer to the JMA position values than the original values. The values at 0Z and 6Z on
9/13/76 from serial number 197622 are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
59. Storm 762 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 8/20/77 at 12Z through 8/22/77 at
12Z. The duplicate matches are found in Storm 12 of the STI set, which has two different
68
serial numbers for the same catalog number (Storm 12 of 1977 – Amy). The tracks with
serial numbers 197712s, 197712s-1, and 197712s-2 appear to be addendums to the track of
serial number 197712. However, the two tracks overlap between 12Z on 8/20/77 and 12Z on
8/22/77 (i.e., two instances at each time). In fact, multiple duplicates are included (i.e., three
instances at one time) at 6Z on 8/22/77. The latitude and longitude values as well as the
intensity values are similar for all instances at each time, but differ slightly. It is unknown
which instance is correct for each time, so the original position and intensity values
(197712) are retained, as they are more in line with the surrounding position values and
closer to the JMA position values than the addendum values. The values at 12Z and 18Z on
8/20/77, at 0Z, 6Z, 12Z, and 18Z on 8/21/77, and at 0Z, 6Z, and 12Z on 8/22/77 from serial
numbers 197712s, 197712s-1, and 197712s-2 are completely removed from all final uniform
tracks.
60. Storm 794 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 12Z on 9/22/78.
Storm 794 of the full track set matches storms 20,20,26 of 1978 from the JTWC, JMA, and
STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for storm 794 at 6Z and
18Z on 9/22/78. The 12Z point was not originally included in the full track set because the
position match falls outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. In order not to have breaks within
the storm track, this missing point is manually ingested back into all final uniform tracks. A
flag value of 1 is listed in each final uniform set for this point since at least two of the three
position matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer.
61. Storm 807 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 18Z on 1/9/79
and at 6Z on 1/10/79. Storm 807 of the full track set matches storms 1,1,1 of 1979 from the
JTWC, JMA, and STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for
69
storm 807 at 12Z on 1/9/79 and 0Z on 1/10/79; position and intensity estimates are also
included at 12Z on 1/10/79. The 18Z and 6Z points were not originally included in the full
track set because the position matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. In order not
to have breaks within the storm track, these missing points are manually ingested back into
all final uniform tracks. A flag value of 1 is listed in each final uniform set for these points
since at least two of the three position matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer.
62. Storm 824 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 18Z on 9/17/79.
Storm 824 of the full track set matches storms 18,15,24 of 1979 from the JTWC, JMA, and
STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for storm 824 at 12Z on
9/17/79 and at 0Z on 9/10/79. The 18Z point was not originally included in the full track set
because the position match falls outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. In order not to have
breaks within the storm track, this missing point is manually ingested back into all final
uniform tracks. A flag value of 1 is listed in each final uniform set for this point since at
least two of the three position matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer.
63. Storm 830 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 11/7/79 at 0Z and 6Z. The duplicate
matches are found in Storm 31 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers for the
same catalog number (Storm 31 of 1979 – Vera). The track with serial number 197931s
appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 197931. However, the two tracks
overlap at 0Z and 6Z on 11/7/79 (i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude and longitude
values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at each time, but differ
slightly. It is unknown which instance is correct, so the original position and intensity values
(197931) are retained, as they are more in line with the surrounding position values and
70
closer to the JMA position values than the addendum values. The values at 0Z and 6Z on
11/7/79 from serial number 197931s are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
64. Storm 850 of the full track set reads 16,13,19 (JTWC, JMA, STI). Storm 851 of the full
track set reads 17,13,21 (JTWC, JMA, STI). Both sets are correct matches; however, JMA
keeps the system as one storm. The JTWC and STI record two separate storms for the one
storm in the JMA set. The system is kept as two separate storms in the unified set, since
position estimates are missing from 9/5/80 at 12Z through 9/5/80 at 18Z from the JTWC set.
Storm 19 and Storm 21 of 1981 in the original STI set could be combined into one system,
but it is unclear if the two storms are from the same parent circulation, as indicated by the
JMA data. Since the JTWC and STI data sets record this system as two separate storms and
the JMA data set keeps it as one continuous storm, a flag value of 2 is listed in each final
unified set for the 17,13,21 match of storm 851.
65. Storm 864 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 18Z on 4/19/81.
Storm 864 of the full track set matches storms 2,2,2 of 1981 from the JTWC, JMA, and STI
sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for storm 864 at 12Z on
4/19/81 and at 0Z on 4/20/81. The 18Z point was not originally included in the full track set
because the position match falls outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. In order not to have
breaks within the storm track, this missing point is manually ingested back into all final
uniform tracks. A flag value of 1 is listed in each final uniform set for this point since at
least two of the three position matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer.
66. Storm 873 of the full track set reads 11,11,12 (JTWC, JMA, STI). It is uncertain whether or
not storm 12 of the STI set is the correct match to storms 11 and 11 of 1981 from the JTWC
and JMA sets. Storm 12 of the STI set is correctly matched to storm 874 of the full track set
71
(storms 12 and 12 from the JTWC and JMA sets). It is possible that storms 11 and 11 of
1981 from the JTWC and JMA sets are the incipient disturbance of storm 874 of the full
track set. If this is true, the beginning of storm 12 from the STI set may be the correct match
for storms 11 and 11 from the JTWC and JMA sets. Due to these uncertainties, storm 873 is
retained in the full track set; however, a flag value of 2 is listed in each final uniform set for
the 11,11,12 match of storm 873, since storm 12 of the STI set is already correctly matched
to storm 874.
67. Storm 873 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 0Z on 8/2/81.
Storm 873 of the full track set matches storms 11,11,12 of 1981 from the JTWC, JMA, and
STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for storm 873 at 18Z on
8/1/81. The 0Z point was not originally included in the full track set because the position
match between the JMA and STI sets falls outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. This
missing point should be included since it is found in all three data sets. The point is
manually ingested back into all final uniform tracks; however, a flag value of 1, indicating
track ambiguities greater than 3.2°, is not listed in each final uniform set since a flag value
of 2 is already assigned to this point (see discussion for track change #65).
68. Storm 890 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 12/20/81 at 6Z. The duplicate
match is found in Storm 32 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers for the
same catalog number (Storm 32 of 1981 – Kit). The track with serial number 198132s
appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 198132. However, the two tracks
overlap at 6Z on 12/20/81 (i.e., two instances). The latitude and longitude values as well as
the intensity values are similar for both instances, but differ slightly. It is unknown which
instance is correct, so the addendum position and intensity values (198132s) are retained, as
72
they are more in line with the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC
position values than the original values. The values at 6Z on 12/20/81 from serial number
198132 are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
69. Storm 899 completely removed from the full track set (1 line); Storm 8 of 1982 from the
JTWC set looks to be a continuation of Storm 6 of 1982 from the JTWC. It is not certain if
this is the case, however. The STI set has a system (Storm 8, “Val”) that matches with the
JTWC Storm 8 of 1982. Storm 6 of 1982 from the STI (“Tess”) matches Storm 6 of 1982
from the JTWC. The JMA appears to have combined “Tess” and “Val” into one system in
their best track set (Storm 6 of 1982). Since the points after 7/2/82 at 0Z are called into
question, the JMA track is cut at that point. Storm 8 of 1982 from the JTWC and “Val”
(Storm 8) of 1982 from the STI are thrown out.
70. Storm 901 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 7/29/82 at 0Z, 6Z, and 12Z. The
duplicate match is found in Storm 10 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers
for the same catalog number (Storm 10 of 1982 – Andy). The track with serial number
198210s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 198210. However, the two
tracks overlap at 0Z, 6Z, and 12Z on 7/29/82 (i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude
and longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at each
time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance is correct for each time, so the original
position and intensity values (198210) are retained, as they are more in line with the
surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the
addendum values. The values at 0Z, 6Z, and 12Z on 7/29/82 from serial number 198210s are
completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
73
71. Storm 941 from the full track set changed from 22,21,23 (JTWC, JMA, STI) to 22,21,24.
Storm 24 of 1983 from the STI appears to be a continuation of Storm 23. Four points are
missing between Storm 23 and 24 of 1983 in the STI, however. While Storm 23 from the
STI matches with Storms 22 and 21 of 1983 from the JTWC and JMA, respectively, it is
very weak during this period. Storm 24 of 1983 from the STI, on the other hand, becomes a
tropical storm (“Ruth”). In order not to inflate storm numbers, only one of the STI tracks
was chosen (the latter track, Storm 24). Storm 23 from the STI and the corresponding points
from the JTWC and JMA sets were disregarded.
72. Storm 946 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 7/3/84 at 6Z. The duplicate match is
found in Storm 3 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers for the same catalog
number (Storm 3 of 1984 – Alex). The track with serial number 198403s appears to be an
addendum to the track of serial number 198403. However, the two tracks overlap at 6Z on
7/3/84 (i.e., two instances). The latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity values
are similar for both instances, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance is correct, so
the original position and intensity values (198403) are retained, as they are more in line with
the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the
addendum values. The values at 6Z on 7/3/84 from serial number 198403s are completely
removed from all final uniform tracks.
73. Storm 954 of the full track set reads 11,10,11 (JTWC, JMA, STI). This is an incorrect
match. It should read 11,10,13. While storm 11 of 1984 from the STI may be the beginnings
of storm 954 of the full track set, it is uncertain, especially since the two storms (11 and 13
from the STI) overlap from 12Z on 8/15/84 through 0Z on 8/17/84. As a result, all 11,10,11
74
lines are removed (3 lines) and the 11,10,13 lines taken out by the remove line program are
added back in (27 lines).
74. Storm 987 from the full track set changed from 14,12,18 (JTWC, JMA, STI) to 14,14,20.
Storms 12 and 18 from the JMA and STI, respectively, had already been matched with
Storm 985. Storms 14 and 20 of 1985 from the JMA and STI are the correct matches for
Storm 14 of 1985 from the JTWC.
75. Storm 1009 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 8/1/86 at 6Z. The duplicate match
is found in Storm 13 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers for the same
catalog number (Storm 13 of 1986 – Sarah). The track with serial number 198613s appears
to be an addendum to the track of serial number 198613. However, the two tracks overlap at
6Z on 8/1/86 (i.e., two instances). The latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity
values are similar for both instances, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance is
correct, so the original position and intensity values (198613) are retained, as they are more
in line with the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position
values than the addendum values. The values at 6Z on 8/1/86 from serial number 198613s
are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
76. Storm 1051 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 18Z on
11/20/87. Storm 1051 of the full track set matches storms 23,22,25 of 1987 from the JTWC,
JMA, and STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for storm
1051 at 12Z on 11/20/87 and at 0Z on 11/21/87. The 18Z point was not originally included
in the full track set because the position match falls outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. In
order not to have breaks within the storm track, this missing point is manually ingested back
75
into all final uniform tracks. A flag value of 1 is listed in each final uniform set for this point
since at least two of the three position matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer.
77. Storm 1091 completely removed from the full track set (5 lines); Storm 12 of 1989 from the
JTWC set cannot be accurately matched with any storm from the JMA set. Storm 15 of 1989
from the STI, however, does appear to be the same system as Storm 12 from the JTWC. The
matching system for Storm 1091 from the JMA set (Storm 12) matches with Storm 13 of
1989 from the JTWC, not Storm 12.
78. Storm 1092 is added back to the final sets. The remove line program incorrectly removed
this system from the final sets, since Storms 12 and 14 of 1989 from the JMA and STI sets,
respectively, had already been matched (incorrectly) with Storm 1091.
79. Storm 1100 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 9/11/89 at 12Z and 18Z and
9/12/89 at 0Z. The duplicate match is found in Storm 26 of the STI set, which has two
different serial numbers for the same catalog number (Storm 26 of 1989 – Sarah). The track
with serial number 198926s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number
198926. However, the two tracks overlap at 12Z and 18Z on 9/11/89 and at 0Z on 9/12/89
(i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude and longitude values as well as the intensity
values are similar for both instances at each time, but differ slightly. It is unknown which
instance is correct for each time, so the original position and intensity values (198926) are
retained for 12Z and 18Z on 9/11/89 and the addendum position and intensity values
(198926s) are retained for 0Z on 9/12/89, as these values are most in line with the
surrounding position values and closest to the JMA and JTWC position values. The values at
12Z and 18Z on 9/11/89 and 0Z on 9/12/89 from serial numbers 198926s and 198926,
respectively, are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
76
80. Storm 1118 completely removed from the full track set (6 lines); Storm 4 of 1990 from the
JTWC cannot be accurately matched with any storm from the JMA set. Storm 7 of 1990
from the STI may match Storm 4 from the JTWC, but it is difficult to say with certainty.
81. Storm 1119 is added back to the final sets. The remove line program incorrectly removed
this system from the final sets, since Storms 4 and 6 of 1990 from the JMA and STI sets,
respectively, had already been assigned (incorrectly) to Storm 1118 (removed).
82. Storm 1131 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 9/7/90 at 12Z and 18Z. The
duplicate match is found in Storm 24 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers
for the same catalog number (Storm 24 of 1990 – Dot). The track with serial number
199024s appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 199024. However, the two
tracks overlap at 12Z and 18Z on 9/7/90 (i.e., two instances at each time). The latitude and
longitude values as well as the intensity values are similar for both instances at each time,
but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance is correct, so the original position and
intensity values (199024) are retained, as they are more in line with the surrounding position
values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the addendum values. The
values at 12Z and 18Z on 9/7/90 from serial number 199024s are completely removed from
all final uniform tracks.
83. Storm 1158 completely removed from the full track set (11 lines). Storm 13 of 1991 from
the JTWC set cannot be accurately matched with any storm from the JMA or STI sets.
Storm 10 of 1991 from the JMA is the same system as storm 12 from the STI; however,
these storms match storm 11 from the JTWC, not storm 13 from the JTWC, as the match for
storm 1158 yields. Storm 1156 is the correct match for storms 10 and 12 of 1991 from the
JMA and STI sets.
77
84. Storm 1192 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 8/31/92 at 18Z. The duplicate
match is found in Storm 17 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers for the
same catalog number (Storm 17 of 1992 – Polly). The track with serial number 199217s
appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 199217. However, the two tracks
overlap at 18Z on 8/31/92 (i.e., two instances). The latitude and longitude values as well as
the intensity values are similar for both instances, but differ slightly. It is unknown which
instance is correct, so the original position and intensity values (199217) are retained, as
they are more in line with the surrounding position values and closer to the JMA and JTWC
position values than the addendum values. The values at 18Z on 8/31/92 from serial number
199217s are completely removed from all final uniform tracks.
85. Storm 1257 from the full track set changed from 12,7,8 (JTWC, JMA, STI) to 12,8,10;
Storms 7 and 8 of 1994 from the JMA and STI sets, respectively, had already been assigned
to Storm 1255.
86. Storm 1290 completely removed from the full track set (6 lines); Storm 6 of 1995 from the
JTWC cannot be matched with any storm from the JMA or STI sets. The program
incorrectly assigns Storms 4 and 4 of 1995 from the JMA and STI sets, respectively, to
Storm 6 from the JTWC.
87. Storm 1291 from the full track set added back to the final sets. It was incorrectly discarded
by the remove line program, since Storms 4 and 4 of 1995 from the JMA and STI sets,
respectively, were already assigned to Storm 1290. This earlier match was incorrect (see
above).
88. Storm 1339 completely removed from the full track set (1 line); Storm 21 of 1996 from the
JTWC cannot be matched with any storm from the JMA or STI sets.
78
89. Storm 1355 is problematic. While Storm 37 of 1996 from the JTWC agrees well with Storm
29 of 1996 from the STI (“Ernie”) it does not agree completely with Storm 25 of 1996 from
the JMA (also “Ernie”). Instead, Storm 39 of 1996 from the JTWC agrees with the points
from 11/06/96 at 12Z to 11/10/96 at 0Z of Storm 25 in the JMA set. Thereafter, Storm 37 of
the JTWC matches with the points in Storm 25 of the JMA set. Because of this discrepancy
in the earlier points, only points from 11/10/96 at 0Z to 11/16/96 at 0Z are included in Storm
1355 (definite matches from all three data sets). Storm 39 of 1996 from the JTWC may or
may not be part of Storm 25 from the JMA. As a result, Storm 39 from the JTWC is not
considered.
90. Storm 1375 of the full track set has duplicate matches for 8/20/97 at 0Z. The duplicate
match is found in Storm 14 of the STI set, which has two different serial numbers for the
same catalog number (Storm 14 of 1997 – Winnie). The track with serial number 199714s
appears to be an addendum to the track of serial number 199714. However, the two tracks
overlap at 0Z on 8/20/97 (i.e., two instances). The latitude and longitude values are similar
for both instances, but differ slightly. It is unknown which instance is correct, so the original
position values (199714) are retained, as they are more in line with the surrounding position
values and closer to the JMA and JTWC position values than the addendum values. The
values at 0Z on 8/20/97 from serial number 199714s are completely removed from all final
uniform tracks.
91. Storm 1393 completely removed from the full track set (4 lines); Storm 1 of 1998 from the
JTWC is found in the STI set (Storm 2 of 1998) but not in the JMA set.
79
92. Storm 1394 from the full track set added back to the final sets. This Storm was discarded by
the remove line program because Storms 1 and 1 of 1998 from the JMA and STI sets,
respectively, had already been assigned (incorrectly) to Storm 1 from the JTWC set.
93. Storm 1440 of the full track set is missing position and intensity estimates at 12Z on
9/12/99. Storm 1440 of the full track set matches storms 21,15,18 of 1999 from the JTWC,
JMA, and STI sets, respectively. Position and intensity estimates are included for storm
1440 at 6Z and 18Z on 9/12/99. The 12Z point was not originally included in the full track
set because the position match falls outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer. In order not to
have breaks within the storm track, this missing point is manually ingested back into all final
uniform tracks. A flag value of 1 is listed in each final uniform set for this point since at
least two of the three position matches fall outside of the prescribed 3.2° buffer.
94. Storm 1552 of the full track set has a duplicate match for 4/12/03 at 6Z. The duplicate match
is found in Storm 2 of the JTWC set, which includes two entries for the same date and time.
The position and intensity information are the same for both entries; however, the wind radii
data (wind intensity and radius code) are different. The first entry includes 34kt wind radii
while the second entry includes 50kt wind radii. Because the Superset does not include wind
radii data, only one instance of Storm 2 at 6Z on 4/12/1997 is retained. The duplicate entry
is removed from all final uniform tracks.
JTWC began including 35kt wind radii information within its best track data beginning in
2001. By 2004 34kt, 50kt, 64kt, and 100kt wind radii data were included within individual storm
files in the best track data. Instead of incorporating all wind radii information in one entry for
each date and time within an individual storm file, duplicate entries with the same date, time,
80
position, and intensity information are included, but with different wind radii data (wind
intensity and radius code) for all available wind radii. For example, Super Typhoon Sudal in
2004 (Storm 3 of 2004 in the JTWC set) has four entries at 0Z on 4/8/2004 – the first entry
containing wind radii data for 34kt wind radii, the second entry for 50kt wind radii, the third
entry for 64kt wind radii, and the fourth entry for 100kt wind radii. The table below contains all
duplicate entries from 2004, originally included because of multiple wind radii data, which are
removed from the final Superset:
Change
Number
JTWC
Storm
Number
JMA
Storm
Number
STI
Storm
Number
Year Month Day Hour
Superset
Storm
Number
95 3 1 3 2004 4 5 6 1580
96 3 1 3 2004 4 5 12 1580
97 3 1 3 2004 4 5 18 1580
98 3 1 3 2004 4 6 0 1580
99 3 1 3 2004 4 6 6 1580
100 3 1 3 2004 4 6 6 1580
101 3 1 3 2004 4 6 12 1580
102 3 1 3 2004 4 6 12 1580
103 3 1 3 2004 4 6 18 1580
104 3 1 3 2004 4 6 18 1580
105 3 1 3 2004 4 7 0 1580
106 3 1 3 2004 4 7 0 1580
107 3 1 3 2004 4 7 6 1580
108 3 1 3 2004 4 7 6 1580
109 3 1 3 2004 4 7 12 1580
110 3 1 3 2004 4 7 12 1580
111 3 1 3 2004 4 7 18 1580
112 3 1 3 2004 4 7 18 1580
113 3 1 3 2004 4 8 0 1580
114 3 1 3 2004 4 8 0 1580
115 3 1 3 2004 4 8 0 1580
116 3 1 3 2004 4 8 6 1580
117 3 1 3 2004 4 8 6 1580
81
118 3 1 3 2004 4 8 12 1580
119 3 1 3 2004 4 8 12 1580
120 3 1 3 2004 4 8 12 1580
121 3 1 3 2004 4 8 18 1580
122 3 1 3 2004 4 8 18 1580
123 3 1 3 2004 4 9 0 1580
124 3 1 3 2004 4 9 0 1580
125 3 1 3 2004 4 9 0 1580
126 3 1 3 2004 4 9 6 1580
127 3 1 3 2004 4 9 6 1580
128 3 1 3 2004 4 9 6 1580
129 3 1 3 2004 4 9 12 1580
130 3 1 3 2004 4 9 12 1580
131 3 1 3 2004 4 9 12 1580
132 3 1 3 2004 4 9 18 1580
133 3 1 3 2004 4 9 18 1580
134 3 1 3 2004 4 10 0 1580
135 3 1 3 2004 4 10 0 1580
136 3 1 3 2004 4 10 6 1580
137 3 1 3 2004 4 10 6 1580
138 3 1 3 2004 4 10 12 1580
139 3 1 3 2004 4 10 12 1580
140 3 1 3 2004 4 10 18 1580
141 3 1 3 2004 4 10 18 1580
142 3 1 3 2004 4 10 18 1580
143 3 1 3 2004 4 11 0 1580
144 3 1 3 2004 4 11 0 1580
145 3 1 3 2004 4 11 0 1580
146 3 1 3 2004 4 11 6 1580
147 3 1 3 2004 4 11 6 1580
148 3 1 3 2004 4 11 6 1580
149 3 1 3 2004 4 11 12 1580
150 3 1 3 2004 4 11 12 1580
151 3 1 3 2004 4 11 12 1580
152 3 1 3 2004 4 11 18 1580
153 3 1 3 2004 4 11 18 1580
154 3 1 3 2004 4 12 0 1580
155 3 1 3 2004 4 12 0 1580
156 3 1 3 2004 4 12 0 1580
82
157 3 1 3 2004 4 12 6 1580
158 3 1 3 2004 4 12 6 1580
159 3 1 3 2004 4 12 6 1580
160 3 1 3 2004 4 12 12 1580
161 3 1 3 2004 4 12 12 1580
162 3 1 3 2004 4 12 12 1580
163 3 1 3 2004 4 12 18 1580
164 3 1 3 2004 4 12 18 1580
165 3 1 3 2004 4 13 0 1580
166 3 1 3 2004 4 13 0 1580
167 3 1 3 2004 4 13 0 1580
168 3 1 3 2004 4 13 6 1580
169 3 1 3 2004 4 13 6 1580
170 3 1 3 2004 4 13 12 1580
171 3 1 3 2004 4 13 12 1580
172 3 1 3 2004 4 13 12 1580
173 3 1 3 2004 4 13 18 1580
174 3 1 3 2004 4 13 18 1580
175 3 1 3 2004 4 13 18 1580
176 3 1 3 2004 4 14 0 1580
177 3 1 3 2004 4 14 0 1580
178 3 1 3 2004 4 14 0 1580
179 3 1 3 2004 4 14 6 1580
180 3 1 3 2004 4 14 6 1580
181 3 1 3 2004 4 14 6 1580
182 3 1 3 2004 4 14 12 1580
183 3 1 3 2004 4 14 12 1580
184 3 1 3 2004 4 14 18 1580
185 3 1 3 2004 4 14 18 1580
186 3 1 3 2004 4 15 0 1580
187 3 1 3 2004 4 15 0 1580
188 3 1 3 2004 4 15 6 1580
189 3 1 3 2004 4 15 12 1580
190 4 2 4 2004 5 14 6 1581
191 4 2 4 2004 5 14 12 1581
192 4 2 4 2004 5 14 18 1581
193 4 2 4 2004 5 15 0 1581
194 4 2 4 2004 5 15 6 1581
195 4 2 4 2004 5 15 12 1581
83
196 4 2 4 2004 5 15 18 1581
197 4 2 4 2004 5 16 0 1581
198 4 2 4 2004 5 16 0 1581
199 4 2 4 2004 5 16 6 1581
200 4 2 4 2004 5 16 6 1581
201 4 2 4 2004 5 16 12 1581
202 4 2 4 2004 5 16 12 1581
203 4 2 4 2004 5 16 18 1581
204 4 2 4 2004 5 17 0 1581
205 4 2 4 2004 5 17 6 1581
206 4 2 4 2004 5 17 6 1581
207 4 2 4 2004 5 17 12 1581
208 4 2 4 2004 5 17 12 1581
209 4 2 4 2004 5 17 18 1581
210 4 2 4 2004 5 17 18 1581
211 4 2 4 2004 5 18 0 1581
212 4 2 4 2004 5 18 0 1581
213 4 2 4 2004 5 18 6 1581
214 4 2 4 2004 5 18 6 1581
215 4 2 4 2004 5 18 12 1581
216 4 2 4 2004 5 18 12 1581
217 4 2 4 2004 5 18 18 1581
218 4 2 4 2004 5 19 0 1581
219 4 2 4 2004 5 19 0 1581
220 4 2 4 2004 5 19 6 1581
221 4 2 4 2004 5 19 12 1581
222 4 2 4 2004 5 19 18 1581
223 4 2 4 2004 5 20 0 1581
224 4 2 4 2004 5 20 6 1581
225 4 2 4 2004 5 20 12 1581
226 4 2 4 2004 5 20 18 1581
227 4 2 4 2004 5 21 0 1581
228 6 3 6 2004 5 17 18 1583
229 6 3 6 2004 5 18 0 1583
230 6 3 6 2004 5 18 6 1583
231 6 3 6 2004 5 18 12 1583
232 6 3 6 2004 5 18 18 1583
233 6 3 6 2004 5 19 0 1583
234 6 3 6 2004 5 19 6 1583
84
235 6 3 6 2004 5 19 12 1583
236 6 3 6 2004 5 19 18 1583
237 6 3 6 2004 5 20 0 1583
238 6 3 6 2004 5 20 6 1583
239 6 3 6 2004 5 20 12 1583
240 7 4 7 2004 6 7 6 1584
241 7 4 7 2004 6 7 12 1584
242 7 4 7 2004 6 7 18 1584
243 7 4 7 2004 6 8 0 1584
244 7 4 7 2004 6 8 6 1584
245 7 4 7 2004 6 8 6 1584
246 7 4 7 2004 6 8 12 1584
247 7 4 7 2004 6 8 12 1584
248 7 4 7 2004 6 8 18 1584
249 7 4 7 2004 6 8 18 1584
250 7 4 7 2004 6 9 0 1584
251 7 4 7 2004 6 9 0 1584
252 7 4 7 2004 6 9 6 1584
253 7 4 7 2004 6 9 6 1584
254 7 4 7 2004 6 9 12 1584
255 7 4 7 2004 6 9 12 1584
256 7 4 7 2004 6 9 18 1584
257 7 4 7 2004 6 9 18 1584
258 7 4 7 2004 6 10 0 1584
259 7 4 7 2004 6 10 0 1584
260 7 4 7 2004 6 10 6 1584
261 7 4 7 2004 6 10 6 1584
262 7 4 7 2004 6 10 12 1584
263 7 4 7 2004 6 10 18 1584
264 7 4 7 2004 6 11 0 1584
265 8 5 8 2004 6 11 12 1585
266 8 5 8 2004 6 11 18 1585
267 8 5 8 2004 6 12 0 1585
268 8 5 8 2004 6 12 0 1585
269 8 5 8 2004 6 12 6 1585
270 8 5 8 2004 6 12 6 1585
271 8 5 8 2004 6 12 12 1585
272 8 5 8 2004 6 12 12 1585
273 8 5 8 2004 6 12 18 1585
85
274 9 6 9 2004 6 14 6 1586
275 9 6 9 2004 6 14 12 1586
276 9 6 9 2004 6 14 18 1586
277 9 6 9 2004 6 14 18 1586
278 9 6 9 2004 6 15 0 1586
279 9 6 9 2004 6 15 0 1586
280 9 6 9 2004 6 15 6 1586
281 9 6 9 2004 6 15 6 1586
282 9 6 9 2004 6 15 12 1586
283 9 6 9 2004 6 15 12 1586
284 9 6 9 2004 6 15 18 1586
285 9 6 9 2004 6 15 18 1586
286 9 6 9 2004 6 16 0 1586
287 9 6 9 2004 6 16 0 1586
288 9 6 9 2004 6 16 6 1586
289 9 6 9 2004 6 16 6 1586
290 9 6 9 2004 6 16 12 1586
291 9 6 9 2004 6 16 12 1586
292 9 6 9 2004 6 16 18 1586
293 9 6 9 2004 6 16 18 1586
294 9 6 9 2004 6 17 0 1586
295 9 6 9 2004 6 17 0 1586
296 9 6 9 2004 6 17 6 1586
297 9 6 9 2004 6 17 6 1586
298 9 6 9 2004 6 17 12 1586
299 9 6 9 2004 6 17 12 1586
300 9 6 9 2004 6 17 18 1586
301 9 6 9 2004 6 17 18 1586
302 9 6 9 2004 6 18 0 1586
303 9 6 9 2004 6 18 0 1586
304 9 6 9 2004 6 18 6 1586
305 9 6 9 2004 6 18 6 1586
306 9 6 9 2004 6 18 12 1586
307 9 6 9 2004 6 18 12 1586
308 9 6 9 2004 6 18 18 1586
309 9 6 9 2004 6 18 18 1586
310 9 6 9 2004 6 19 0 1586
311 9 6 9 2004 6 19 0 1586
312 9 6 9 2004 6 19 6 1586
86
313 9 6 9 2004 6 19 6 1586
314 9 6 9 2004 6 19 12 1586
315 9 6 9 2004 6 19 12 1586
316 9 6 9 2004 6 19 18 1586
317 9 6 9 2004 6 19 18 1586
318 9 6 9 2004 6 20 0 1586
319 9 6 9 2004 6 20 0 1586
320 9 6 9 2004 6 20 6 1586
321 9 6 9 2004 6 20 6 1586
322 9 6 9 2004 6 20 12 1586
323 9 6 9 2004 6 20 12 1586
324 9 6 9 2004 6 20 18 1586
325 9 6 9 2004 6 21 0 1586
326 9 6 9 2004 6 21 6 1586
327 10 7 10 2004 6 24 18 1587
328 10 7 10 2004 6 25 0 1587
329 10 7 10 2004 6 25 6 1587
330 10 7 10 2004 6 25 12 1587
331 10 7 10 2004 6 26 18 1587
332 10 7 10 2004 6 27 0 1587
333 10 7 10 2004 6 27 6 1587
334 10 7 10 2004 6 27 6 1587
335 10 7 10 2004 6 27 12 1587
336 10 7 10 2004 6 27 12 1587
337 10 7 10 2004 6 27 18 1587
338 10 7 10 2004 6 27 18 1587
339 10 7 10 2004 6 28 0 1587
340 10 7 10 2004 6 28 0 1587
341 10 7 10 2004 6 28 6 1587
342 10 7 10 2004 6 28 6 1587
343 10 7 10 2004 6 28 12 1587
344 10 7 10 2004 6 28 12 1587
345 10 7 10 2004 6 28 18 1587
346 10 7 10 2004 6 28 18 1587
347 10 7 10 2004 6 29 0 1587
348 10 7 10 2004 6 29 0 1587
349 10 7 10 2004 6 29 6 1587
350 10 7 10 2004 6 29 6 1587
351 10 7 10 2004 6 29 12 1587
87
352 10 7 10 2004 6 29 12 1587
353 10 7 10 2004 6 29 18 1587
354 10 7 10 2004 6 29 18 1587
355 10 7 10 2004 6 30 0 1587
356 10 7 10 2004 6 30 0 1587
357 10 7 10 2004 6 30 6 1587
358 10 7 10 2004 6 30 6 1587
359 10 7 10 2004 6 30 12 1587
360 10 7 10 2004 6 30 12 1587
361 10 7 10 2004 6 30 18 1587
362 10 7 10 2004 6 30 18 1587
363 10 7 10 2004 7 1 0 1587
364 10 7 10 2004 7 1 0 1587
365 10 7 10 2004 7 1 6 1587
366 10 7 10 2004 7 1 6 1587
367 10 7 10 2004 7 1 12 1587
368 10 7 10 2004 7 1 12 1587
369 10 7 10 2004 7 1 18 1587
370 11 8 11 2004 6 27 0 1588
371 11 8 11 2004 6 27 6 1588
372 11 8 11 2004 6 27 12 1588
373 11 8 11 2004 6 27 18 1588
374 11 8 11 2004 6 28 0 1588
375 11 8 11 2004 6 28 6 1588
376 11 8 11 2004 6 28 6 1588
377 11 8 11 2004 6 28 12 1588
378 11 8 11 2004 6 28 12 1588
379 11 8 11 2004 6 28 18 1588
380 11 8 11 2004 6 28 18 1588
381 11 8 11 2004 6 29 0 1588
382 11 8 11 2004 6 29 0 1588
383 11 8 11 2004 6 29 6 1588
384 11 8 11 2004 6 29 6 1588
385 11 8 11 2004 6 29 12 1588
386 11 8 11 2004 6 29 12 1588
387 11 8 11 2004 6 29 18 1588
388 11 8 11 2004 6 29 18 1588
389 11 8 11 2004 6 30 0 1588
390 11 8 11 2004 6 30 0 1588
88
391 11 8 11 2004 6 30 6 1588
392 11 8 11 2004 6 30 6 1588
393 11 8 11 2004 6 30 12 1588
394 11 8 11 2004 6 30 12 1588
395 11 8 11 2004 6 30 18 1588
396 11 8 11 2004 6 30 18 1588
397 11 8 11 2004 7 1 0 1588
398 11 8 11 2004 7 1 6 1588
399 13 10 13 2004 7 26 0 1590
400 13 10 13 2004 7 26 6 1590
401 13 10 13 2004 7 26 6 1590
402 13 10 13 2004 7 26 12 1590
403 13 10 13 2004 7 26 12 1590
404 13 10 13 2004 7 26 18 1590
405 13 10 13 2004 7 26 18 1590
406 13 10 13 2004 7 27 0 1590
407 13 10 13 2004 7 27 0 1590
408 13 10 13 2004 7 27 6 1590
409 13 10 13 2004 7 27 6 1590
410 13 10 13 2004 7 27 12 1590
411 13 10 13 2004 7 27 12 1590
412 13 10 13 2004 7 27 18 1590
413 13 10 13 2004 7 27 18 1590
414 13 10 13 2004 7 28 0 1590
415 13 10 13 2004 7 28 0 1590
416 13 10 13 2004 7 28 6 1590
417 13 10 13 2004 7 28 6 1590
418 13 10 13 2004 7 28 12 1590
419 13 10 13 2004 7 28 12 1590
420 13 10 13 2004 7 28 18 1590
421 13 10 13 2004 7 28 18 1590
422 13 10 13 2004 7 29 0 1590
423 13 10 13 2004 7 29 0 1590
424 13 10 13 2004 7 29 6 1590
425 13 10 13 2004 7 29 6 1590
426 13 10 13 2004 7 29 12 1590
427 13 10 13 2004 7 29 18 1590
428 13 10 13 2004 7 30 0 1590
429 13 10 13 2004 7 30 6 1590
89
430 13 10 13 2004 7 30 12 1590
431 13 10 13 2004 7 30 18 1590
432 13 10 13 2004 7 31 0 1590
433 13 10 13 2004 7 31 6 1590
434 14 12 16 2004 8 5 6 1591
435 14 12 16 2004 8 5 12 1591
436 14 12 16 2004 8 5 12 1591
437 14 12 16 2004 8 5 18 1591
438 14 12 16 2004 8 5 18 1591
439 14 12 16 2004 8 6 0 1591
440 14 12 16 2004 8 6 0 1591
441 14 12 16 2004 8 6 6 1591
442 14 12 16 2004 8 6 6 1591
443 14 12 16 2004 8 6 12 1591
444 14 12 16 2004 8 6 12 1591
445 14 12 16 2004 8 6 18 1591
446 14 12 16 2004 8 7 0 1591
447 14 12 16 2004 8 7 6 1591
448 16 13 17 2004 8 9 18 1593
449 16 13 17 2004 8 10 0 1593
450 16 13 17 2004 8 10 6 1593
451 16 13 17 2004 8 10 12 1593
452 16 13 17 2004 8 10 18 1593
453 16 13 17 2004 8 10 18 1593
454 16 13 17 2004 8 11 0 1593
455 16 13 17 2004 8 11 0 1593
456 16 13 17 2004 8 11 6 1593
457 16 13 17 2004 8 11 6 1593
458 16 13 17 2004 8 11 12 1593
459 16 13 17 2004 8 11 12 1593
460 16 13 17 2004 8 11 18 1593
461 16 13 17 2004 8 11 18 1593
462 16 13 17 2004 8 12 0 1593
463 16 13 17 2004 8 12 0 1593
464 16 13 17 2004 8 12 6 1593
465 16 13 17 2004 8 12 6 1593
466 16 13 17 2004 8 12 12 1593
467 16 13 17 2004 8 12 12 1593
468 16 13 17 2004 8 12 18 1593
90
469 16 13 17 2004 8 13 0 1593
470 18 15 19 2004 8 17 12 1595
471 18 15 19 2004 8 17 18 1595
472 18 15 19 2004 8 18 0 1595
473 18 15 19 2004 8 18 0 1595
474 18 15 19 2004 8 18 6 1595
475 18 15 19 2004 8 18 6 1595
476 18 15 19 2004 8 18 12 1595
477 18 15 19 2004 8 18 12 1595
478 18 15 19 2004 8 18 18 1595
479 18 15 19 2004 8 18 18 1595
480 18 15 19 2004 8 19 0 1595
481 18 15 19 2004 8 19 6 1595
482 18 15 19 2004 8 19 18 1595
483 19 16 21 2004 8 20 0 1596
484 19 16 21 2004 8 20 6 1596
485 19 16 21 2004 8 20 12 1596
486 19 16 21 2004 8 20 18 1596
487 19 16 21 2004 8 21 0 1596
488 19 16 21 2004 8 21 0 1596
489 19 16 21 2004 8 21 6 1596
490 19 16 21 2004 8 21 6 1596
491 19 16 21 2004 8 21 12 1596
492 19 16 21 2004 8 21 12 1596
493 19 16 21 2004 8 21 18 1596
494 19 16 21 2004 8 21 18 1596
495 19 16 21 2004 8 22 0 1596
496 19 16 21 2004 8 22 0 1596
497 19 16 21 2004 8 22 6 1596
498 19 16 21 2004 8 22 6 1596
499 19 16 21 2004 8 22 12 1596
500 19 16 21 2004 8 22 12 1596
501 19 16 21 2004 8 22 18 1596
502 19 16 21 2004 8 22 18 1596
503 19 16 21 2004 8 23 0 1596
504 19 16 21 2004 8 23 0 1596
505 19 16 21 2004 8 23 6 1596
506 19 16 21 2004 8 23 6 1596
507 19 16 21 2004 8 23 12 1596
91
508 19 16 21 2004 8 23 12 1596
509 19 16 21 2004 8 23 18 1596
510 19 16 21 2004 8 23 18 1596
511 19 16 21 2004 8 24 0 1596
512 19 16 21 2004 8 24 0 1596
513 19 16 21 2004 8 24 6 1596
514 19 16 21 2004 8 24 6 1596
515 19 16 21 2004 8 24 12 1596
516 19 16 21 2004 8 24 12 1596
517 19 16 21 2004 8 24 18 1596
518 19 16 21 2004 8 24 18 1596
519 19 16 21 2004 8 25 0 1596
520 19 16 21 2004 8 25 0 1596
521 19 16 21 2004 8 25 6 1596
522 19 16 21 2004 8 25 6 1596
523 19 16 21 2004 8 25 12 1596
524 19 16 21 2004 8 25 12 1596
525 19 16 21 2004 8 25 18 1596
526 19 16 21 2004 8 25 18 1596
527 19 16 21 2004 8 26 0 1596
528 19 16 21 2004 8 26 0 1596
529 19 16 21 2004 8 26 6 1596
530 19 16 21 2004 8 26 6 1596
531 19 16 21 2004 8 26 12 1596
532 19 16 21 2004 8 26 12 1596
533 19 16 21 2004 8 26 18 1596
534 19 16 21 2004 8 26 18 1596
535 19 16 21 2004 8 27 0 1596
536 19 16 21 2004 8 27 0 1596
537 19 16 21 2004 8 27 6 1596
538 19 16 21 2004 8 27 6 1596
539 19 16 21 2004 8 27 12 1596
540 19 16 21 2004 8 27 12 1596
541 19 16 21 2004 8 27 18 1596
542 19 16 21 2004 8 27 18 1596
543 19 16 21 2004 8 28 0 1596
544 19 16 21 2004 8 28 0 1596
545 19 16 21 2004 8 28 6 1596
546 19 16 21 2004 8 28 6 1596
92
547 19 16 21 2004 8 28 12 1596
548 19 16 21 2004 8 28 12 1596
549 19 16 21 2004 8 28 18 1596
550 19 16 21 2004 8 28 18 1596
551 19 16 21 2004 8 29 0 1596
552 19 16 21 2004 8 29 0 1596
553 19 16 21 2004 8 29 6 1596
554 19 16 21 2004 8 29 6 1596
555 19 16 21 2004 8 29 12 1596
556 19 16 21 2004 8 29 12 1596
557 19 16 21 2004 8 29 18 1596
558 19 16 21 2004 8 29 18 1596
559 19 16 21 2004 8 30 0 1596
560 19 16 21 2004 8 30 0 1596
561 19 16 21 2004 8 30 6 1596
562 19 16 21 2004 8 30 6 1596
563 19 16 21 2004 8 30 12 1596
564 19 16 21 2004 8 30 12 1596
565 19 16 21 2004 8 30 18 1596
566 19 16 21 2004 8 31 0 1596
567 19 16 21 2004 8 31 6 1596
568 20 17 20 2004 8 20 18 1597
569 20 17 20 2004 8 21 0 1597
570 20 17 20 2004 8 21 6 1597
571 20 17 20 2004 8 21 12 1597
572 20 17 20 2004 8 21 18 1597
573 20 17 20 2004 8 22 0 1597
574 20 17 20 2004 8 22 6 1597
575 20 17 20 2004 8 22 12 1597
576 20 17 20 2004 8 22 18 1597
577 20 17 20 2004 8 23 0 1597
578 20 17 20 2004 8 23 6 1597
579 20 17 20 2004 8 23 12 1597
580 20 17 20 2004 8 23 18 1597
581 20 17 20 2004 8 23 18 1597
582 20 17 20 2004 8 24 0 1597
583 20 17 20 2004 8 24 0 1597
584 20 17 20 2004 8 24 6 1597
585 20 17 20 2004 8 24 6 1597
93
586 20 17 20 2004 8 24 12 1597
587 20 17 20 2004 8 24 12 1597
588 20 17 20 2004 8 24 18 1597
589 20 17 20 2004 8 24 18 1597
590 20 17 20 2004 8 25 0 1597
591 20 17 20 2004 8 25 0 1597
592 20 17 20 2004 8 25 6 1597
593 20 17 20 2004 8 25 6 1597
594 20 17 20 2004 8 25 12 1597
595 20 17 20 2004 8 25 12 1597
596 20 17 20 2004 8 25 18 1597
597 20 17 20 2004 8 25 18 1597
598 20 17 20 2004 8 26 0 1597
599 22 18 23 2004 8 28 6 1599
600 22 18 23 2004 8 28 12 1599
601 22 18 23 2004 8 28 18 1599
602 22 18 23 2004 8 29 0 1599
603 22 18 23 2004 8 29 6 1599
604 22 18 23 2004 8 29 12 1599
605 22 18 23 2004 8 29 18 1599
606 22 18 23 2004 8 29 18 1599
607 22 18 23 2004 8 30 0 1599
608 22 18 23 2004 8 30 0 1599
609 22 18 23 2004 8 30 6 1599
610 22 18 23 2004 8 30 6 1599
611 22 18 23 2004 8 30 12 1599
612 22 18 23 2004 8 30 12 1599
613 22 18 23 2004 8 30 18 1599
614 22 18 23 2004 8 30 18 1599
615 22 18 23 2004 8 31 0 1599
616 22 18 23 2004 8 31 0 1599
617 22 18 23 2004 8 31 6 1599
618 22 18 23 2004 8 31 6 1599
619 22 18 23 2004 8 31 12 1599
620 22 18 23 2004 8 31 12 1599
621 22 18 23 2004 8 31 18 1599
622 22 18 23 2004 8 31 18 1599
623 22 18 23 2004 9 1 0 1599
624 22 18 23 2004 9 1 0 1599
94
625 22 18 23 2004 9 1 6 1599
626 22 18 23 2004 9 1 6 1599
627 22 18 23 2004 9 1 12 1599
628 22 18 23 2004 9 1 12 1599
629 22 18 23 2004 9 1 18 1599
630 22 18 23 2004 9 1 18 1599
631 22 18 23 2004 9 2 0 1599
632 22 18 23 2004 9 2 0 1599
633 22 18 23 2004 9 2 6 1599
634 22 18 23 2004 9 2 6 1599
635 22 18 23 2004 9 2 12 1599
636 22 18 23 2004 9 2 12 1599
637 22 18 23 2004 9 2 18 1599
638 22 18 23 2004 9 2 18 1599
639 22 18 23 2004 9 3 0 1599
640 22 18 23 2004 9 3 0 1599
641 22 18 23 2004 9 3 6 1599
642 22 18 23 2004 9 3 6 1599
643 22 18 23 2004 9 3 12 1599
644 22 18 23 2004 9 3 12 1599
645 22 18 23 2004 9 3 18 1599
646 22 18 23 2004 9 3 18 1599
647 22 18 23 2004 9 4 0 1599
648 22 18 23 2004 9 4 0 1599
649 22 18 23 2004 9 4 6 1599
650 22 18 23 2004 9 4 6 1599
651 22 18 23 2004 9 4 12 1599
652 22 18 23 2004 9 4 12 1599
653 22 18 23 2004 9 4 18 1599
654 22 18 23 2004 9 4 18 1599
655 22 18 23 2004 9 5 0 1599
656 22 18 23 2004 9 5 0 1599
657 22 18 23 2004 9 5 6 1599
658 22 18 23 2004 9 5 6 1599
659 22 18 23 2004 9 5 12 1599
660 22 18 23 2004 9 5 12 1599
661 22 18 23 2004 9 5 18 1599
662 22 18 23 2004 9 5 18 1599
663 22 18 23 2004 9 6 0 1599
95
664 22 18 23 2004 9 6 0 1599
665 22 18 23 2004 9 6 6 1599
666 22 18 23 2004 9 6 6 1599
667 22 18 23 2004 9 6 12 1599
668 22 18 23 2004 9 6 12 1599
669 22 18 23 2004 9 6 18 1599
670 22 18 23 2004 9 6 18 1599
671 22 18 23 2004 9 7 0 1599
672 22 18 23 2004 9 7 0 1599
673 22 18 23 2004 9 7 6 1599
674 22 18 23 2004 9 7 6 1599
675 22 18 23 2004 9 7 12 1599
676 22 18 23 2004 9 7 12 1599
677 23 19 24 2004 9 5 6 1600
678 23 19 24 2004 9 5 12 1600
679 23 19 24 2004 9 5 18 1600
680 23 19 24 2004 9 6 0 1600
681 23 19 24 2004 9 6 6 1600
682 23 19 24 2004 9 6 12 1600
683 25 21 26 2004 9 21 18 1602
684 25 21 26 2004 9 22 0 1602
685 25 21 26 2004 9 22 6 1602
686 25 21 26 2004 9 22 12 1602
687 25 21 26 2004 9 22 18 1602
688 25 21 26 2004 9 22 18 1602
689 25 21 26 2004 9 23 0 1602
690 25 21 26 2004 9 23 0 1602
691 25 21 26 2004 9 23 6 1602
692 25 21 26 2004 9 23 6 1602
693 25 21 26 2004 9 23 12 1602
694 25 21 26 2004 9 23 12 1602
695 25 21 26 2004 9 23 18 1602
696 25 21 26 2004 9 23 18 1602
697 25 21 26 2004 9 24 0 1602
698 25 21 26 2004 9 24 0 1602
699 25 21 26 2004 9 24 6 1602
700 25 21 26 2004 9 24 6 1602
701 25 21 26 2004 9 24 12 1602
702 25 21 26 2004 9 24 12 1602
96
703 25 21 26 2004 9 24 18 1602
704 25 21 26 2004 9 24 18 1602
705 25 21 26 2004 9 25 0 1602
706 25 21 26 2004 9 25 0 1602
707 25 21 26 2004 9 25 6 1602
708 25 21 26 2004 9 25 6 1602
709 25 21 26 2004 9 25 12 1602
710 25 21 26 2004 9 25 12 1602
711 25 21 26 2004 9 25 18 1602
712 25 21 26 2004 9 25 18 1602
713 25 21 26 2004 9 26 0 1602
714 25 21 26 2004 9 26 0 1602
715 25 21 26 2004 9 26 6 1602
716 25 21 26 2004 9 26 6 1602
717 25 21 26 2004 9 26 12 1602
718 25 21 26 2004 9 26 12 1602
719 25 21 26 2004 9 26 18 1602
720 25 21 26 2004 9 26 18 1602
721 25 21 26 2004 9 27 0 1602
722 25 21 26 2004 9 27 0 1602
723 25 21 26 2004 9 27 6 1602
724 25 21 26 2004 9 27 6 1602
725 25 21 26 2004 9 27 12 1602
726 25 21 26 2004 9 27 12 1602
727 25 21 26 2004 9 27 18 1602
728 25 21 26 2004 9 27 18 1602
729 25 21 26 2004 9 28 0 1602
730 25 21 26 2004 9 28 0 1602
731 25 21 26 2004 9 28 6 1602
732 25 21 26 2004 9 28 6 1602
733 25 21 26 2004 9 28 12 1602
734 25 21 26 2004 9 28 12 1602
735 25 21 26 2004 9 28 18 1602
736 25 21 26 2004 9 28 18 1602
737 25 21 26 2004 9 29 0 1602
738 25 21 26 2004 9 29 0 1602
739 25 21 26 2004 9 29 6 1602
740 25 21 26 2004 9 29 12 1602
741 26 22 27 2004 10 6 0 1603
97
742 26 22 27 2004 10 6 6 1603
743 26 22 27 2004 10 6 12 1603
744 26 22 27 2004 10 6 12 1603
745 26 22 27 2004 10 6 18 1603
746 26 22 27 2004 10 6 18 1603
747 26 22 27 2004 10 7 0 1603
748 26 22 27 2004 10 7 0 1603
749 26 22 27 2004 10 7 6 1603
750 26 22 27 2004 10 7 6 1603
751 26 22 27 2004 10 7 12 1603
752 26 22 27 2004 10 7 12 1603
753 26 22 27 2004 10 7 18 1603
754 26 22 27 2004 10 7 18 1603
755 26 22 27 2004 10 8 0 1603
756 26 22 27 2004 10 8 0 1603
757 26 22 27 2004 10 8 6 1603
758 26 22 27 2004 10 8 6 1603
759 26 22 27 2004 10 8 12 1603
760 26 22 27 2004 10 8 12 1603
761 26 22 27 2004 10 8 18 1603
762 26 22 27 2004 10 8 18 1603
763 26 22 27 2004 10 9 0 1603
764 26 22 27 2004 10 9 0 1603
765 26 22 27 2004 10 9 6 1603
766 26 22 27 2004 10 9 6 1603
767 26 22 27 2004 10 9 12 1603
768 26 22 27 2004 10 9 12 1603
769 26 22 27 2004 10 9 18 1603
770 27 23 28 2004 10 13 12 1604
771 27 23 28 2004 10 13 18 1604
772 27 23 28 2004 10 13 18 1604
773 27 23 28 2004 10 14 0 1604
774 27 23 28 2004 10 14 0 1604
775 27 23 28 2004 10 14 6 1604
776 27 23 28 2004 10 14 6 1604
777 27 23 28 2004 10 14 12 1604
778 27 23 28 2004 10 14 12 1604
779 27 23 28 2004 10 14 18 1604
780 27 23 28 2004 10 14 18 1604
98
781 27 23 28 2004 10 15 0 1604
782 27 23 28 2004 10 15 0 1604
783 27 23 28 2004 10 15 6 1604
784 27 23 28 2004 10 15 6 1604
785 27 23 28 2004 10 15 12 1604
786 27 23 28 2004 10 15 12 1604
787 27 23 28 2004 10 15 18 1604
788 27 23 28 2004 10 15 18 1604
789 27 23 28 2004 10 16 0 1604
790 27 23 28 2004 10 16 0 1604
791 27 23 28 2004 10 16 6 1604
792 27 23 28 2004 10 16 6 1604
793 27 23 28 2004 10 16 12 1604
794 27 23 28 2004 10 16 12 1604
795 27 23 28 2004 10 16 18 1604
796 27 23 28 2004 10 16 18 1604
797 27 23 28 2004 10 17 0 1604
798 27 23 28 2004 10 17 0 1604
799 27 23 28 2004 10 17 6 1604
800 27 23 28 2004 10 17 6 1604
801 27 23 28 2004 10 17 12 1604
802 27 23 28 2004 10 17 12 1604
803 27 23 28 2004 10 17 18 1604
804 27 23 28 2004 10 17 18 1604
805 27 23 28 2004 10 18 0 1604
806 27 23 28 2004 10 18 0 1604
807 27 23 28 2004 10 18 6 1604
808 27 23 28 2004 10 18 6 1604
809 27 23 28 2004 10 18 12 1604
810 27 23 28 2004 10 18 12 1604
811 27 23 28 2004 10 18 18 1604
812 27 23 28 2004 10 18 18 1604
813 27 23 28 2004 10 19 0 1604
814 27 23 28 2004 10 19 0 1604
815 27 23 28 2004 10 19 6 1604
816 27 23 28 2004 10 19 6 1604
817 27 23 28 2004 10 19 12 1604
818 27 23 28 2004 10 19 12 1604
819 27 23 28 2004 10 19 18 1604
99
820 27 23 28 2004 10 19 18 1604
821 27 23 28 2004 10 20 0 1604
822 27 23 28 2004 10 20 6 1604
823 28 24 29 2004 10 17 0 1605
824 28 24 29 2004 10 17 6 1605
825 28 24 29 2004 10 17 12 1605
826 28 24 29 2004 10 17 18 1605
827 28 24 29 2004 10 18 0 1605
828 28 24 29 2004 10 18 0 1605
829 28 24 29 2004 10 18 6 1605
830 28 24 29 2004 10 18 6 1605
831 28 24 29 2004 10 18 12 1605
832 28 24 29 2004 10 18 12 1605
833 28 24 29 2004 10 18 18 1605
834 28 24 29 2004 10 18 18 1605
835 28 24 29 2004 10 19 0 1605
836 28 24 29 2004 10 19 0 1605
837 28 24 29 2004 10 19 6 1605
838 28 24 29 2004 10 19 6 1605
839 28 24 29 2004 10 19 12 1605
840 28 24 29 2004 10 19 12 1605
841 28 24 29 2004 10 19 18 1605
842 28 24 29 2004 10 19 18 1605
843 28 24 29 2004 10 20 0 1605
844 28 24 29 2004 10 20 0 1605
845 28 24 29 2004 10 20 6 1605
846 28 24 29 2004 10 20 6 1605
847 28 24 29 2004 10 20 12 1605
848 28 24 29 2004 10 20 12 1605
849 28 24 29 2004 10 20 18 1605
850 28 24 29 2004 10 20 18 1605
851 28 24 29 2004 10 21 0 1605
852 28 24 29 2004 10 21 0 1605
853 28 24 29 2004 10 21 6 1605
854 28 24 29 2004 10 21 6 1605
855 28 24 29 2004 10 21 12 1605
856 28 24 29 2004 10 21 12 1605
857 28 24 29 2004 10 21 18 1605
858 28 24 29 2004 10 21 18 1605
100
859 28 24 29 2004 10 22 0 1605
860 28 24 29 2004 10 22 0 1605
861 28 24 29 2004 10 22 6 1605
862 28 24 29 2004 10 22 6 1605
863 28 24 29 2004 10 22 12 1605
864 28 24 29 2004 10 22 12 1605
865 28 24 29 2004 10 22 18 1605
866 28 24 29 2004 10 22 18 1605
867 28 24 29 2004 10 23 0 1605
868 28 24 29 2004 10 23 0 1605
869 28 24 29 2004 10 23 6 1605
870 28 24 29 2004 10 23 6 1605
871 28 24 29 2004 10 23 12 1605
872 28 24 29 2004 10 23 12 1605
873 28 24 29 2004 10 23 18 1605
874 28 24 29 2004 10 23 18 1605
875 28 24 29 2004 10 24 0 1605
876 28 24 29 2004 10 24 0 1605
877 28 24 29 2004 10 24 6 1605
878 28 24 29 2004 10 24 6 1605
879 28 24 29 2004 10 24 12 1605
880 28 24 29 2004 10 24 12 1605
881 28 24 29 2004 10 24 18 1605
882 28 24 29 2004 10 24 18 1605
883 28 24 29 2004 10 25 0 1605
884 28 24 29 2004 10 25 0 1605
885 28 24 29 2004 10 25 6 1605
886 28 24 29 2004 10 25 6 1605
887 28 24 29 2004 10 25 12 1605
888 28 24 29 2004 10 25 18 1605
889 28 24 29 2004 10 26 0 1605
890 29 25 30 2004 11 16 12 1606
891 29 25 30 2004 11 16 18 1606
892 29 25 30 2004 11 17 0 1606
893 29 25 30 2004 11 17 6 1606
894 29 25 30 2004 11 17 6 1606
895 29 25 30 2004 11 17 12 1606
896 29 25 30 2004 11 17 12 1606
897 29 25 30 2004 11 17 18 1606
101
898 29 25 30 2004 11 17 18 1606
899 29 25 30 2004 11 18 0 1606
900 29 25 30 2004 11 18 0 1606
901 29 25 30 2004 11 18 6 1606
902 29 25 30 2004 11 18 6 1606
903 29 25 30 2004 11 18 12 1606
904 29 25 30 2004 11 18 12 1606
905 29 25 30 2004 11 18 18 1606
906 29 25 30 2004 11 18 18 1606
907 29 25 30 2004 11 19 0 1606
908 29 25 30 2004 11 19 0 1606
909 29 25 30 2004 11 19 6 1606
910 29 25 30 2004 11 19 6 1606
911 29 25 30 2004 11 19 12 1606
912 29 25 30 2004 11 19 12 1606
913 29 25 30 2004 11 19 18 1606
914 29 25 30 2004 11 19 18 1606
915 29 25 30 2004 11 20 0 1606
916 29 25 30 2004 11 20 0 1606
917 29 25 30 2004 11 20 6 1606
918 29 25 30 2004 11 20 12 1606
919 29 25 30 2004 11 20 18 1606
920 29 25 30 2004 11 21 0 1606
921 29 25 30 2004 11 21 6 1606
922 29 25 30 2004 11 21 6 1606
923 29 25 30 2004 11 21 12 1606
924 29 25 30 2004 11 21 12 1606
925 29 25 30 2004 11 21 18 1606
926 29 25 30 2004 11 21 18 1606
927 29 25 30 2004 11 22 0 1606
928 29 25 30 2004 11 22 0 1606
929 29 25 30 2004 11 22 6 1606
930 29 25 30 2004 11 22 6 1606
931 29 25 30 2004 11 22 12 1606
932 29 25 30 2004 11 22 12 1606
933 29 25 30 2004 11 22 18 1606
934 29 25 30 2004 11 22 18 1606
935 29 25 30 2004 11 23 0 1606
936 29 25 30 2004 11 23 6 1606
102
937 29 25 30 2004 11 23 12 1606
938 29 25 30 2004 11 23 18 1606
939 29 25 30 2004 11 24 0 1606
940 29 25 30 2004 11 24 6 1606
941 30 27 32 2004 11 29 6 1607
942 30 27 32 2004 11 29 12 1607
943 30 27 32 2004 11 29 18 1607
944 30 27 32 2004 11 29 18 1607
945 30 27 32 2004 11 30 0 1607
946 30 27 32 2004 11 30 0 1607
947 30 27 32 2004 11 30 6 1607
948 30 27 32 2004 11 30 6 1607
949 30 27 32 2004 11 30 12 1607
950 30 27 32 2004 11 30 12 1607
951 30 27 32 2004 11 30 18 1607
952 30 27 32 2004 11 30 18 1607
953 30 27 32 2004 12 1 0 1607
954 30 27 32 2004 12 1 0 1607
955 30 27 32 2004 12 1 6 1607
956 30 27 32 2004 12 1 6 1607
957 30 27 32 2004 12 1 12 1607
958 30 27 32 2004 12 1 12 1607
959 30 27 32 2004 12 1 18 1607
960 30 27 32 2004 12 1 18 1607
961 30 27 32 2004 12 2 0 1607
962 30 27 32 2004 12 2 0 1607
963 30 27 32 2004 12 2 6 1607
964 30 27 32 2004 12 2 6 1607
965 30 27 32 2004 12 2 12 1607
966 30 27 32 2004 12 2 12 1607
967 30 27 32 2004 12 2 18 1607
968 30 27 32 2004 12 2 18 1607
969 30 27 32 2004 12 3 0 1607
970 30 27 32 2004 12 3 0 1607
971 30 27 32 2004 12 3 6 1607
972 30 27 32 2004 12 3 6 1607
973 30 27 32 2004 12 3 12 1607
974 30 27 32 2004 12 3 18 1607
975 32 29 34 2004 12 20 0 1609
103
976 32 29 34 2004 12 20 6 1609
977 32 29 34 2004 12 20 12 1609
978 32 29 34 2004 12 20 18 1609
979 1 1 1 2005 1 17 6 1610
980 1 1 1 2005 1 17 12 1610
981 1 1 1 2005 1 17 18 1610
982 1 1 1 2005 1 18 0 1610
983 1 1 1 2005 1 18 6 1610
984 1 1 1 2005 1 18 12 1610
985 2 2 2 2005 3 15 6 1611
986 2 2 2 2005 3 15 12 1611
987 2 2 2 2005 3 15 18 1611
988 2 2 2 2005 3 15 18 1611
989 2 2 2 2005 3 16 0 1611
990 2 2 2 2005 3 16 0 1611
991 2 2 2 2005 3 16 6 1611
992 2 2 2 2005 3 16 12 1611
993 2 2 2 2005 3 16 18 1611
994 2 2 2 2005 3 17 0 1611
995 3 3 3 2005 4 23 12 1612
996 3 3 3 2005 4 23 18 1612
997 3 3 3 2005 4 23 18 1612
998 3 3 3 2005 4 24 0 1612
999 3 3 3 2005 4 24 0 1612
1000 3 3 3 2005 4 24 6 1612
1001 3 3 3 2005 4 24 6 1612
1002 3 3 3 2005 4 24 12 1612
1003 3 3 3 2005 4 24 12 1612
1004 3 3 3 2005 4 24 18 1612
1005 3 3 3 2005 4 24 18 1612
1006 3 3 3 2005 4 25 0 1612
1007 3 3 3 2005 4 25 0 1612
1008 3 3 3 2005 4 25 6 1612
1009 3 3 3 2005 4 25 6 1612
1010 3 3 3 2005 4 25 12 1612
1011 3 3 3 2005 4 25 12 1612
1012 3 3 3 2005 4 25 18 1612
1013 3 3 3 2005 4 25 18 1612
1014 3 3 3 2005 4 26 0 1612
104
1015 3 3 3 2005 4 26 0 1612
1016 3 3 3 2005 4 26 6 1612
1017 3 3 3 2005 4 26 6 1612
1018 3 3 3 2005 4 26 12 1612
1019 3 3 3 2005 4 26 12 1612
1020 3 3 3 2005 4 26 18 1612
1021 3 3 3 2005 4 27 0 1612
1022 4 4 4 2005 6 1 6 1613
1023 4 4 4 2005 6 1 12 1613
1024 4 4 4 2005 6 1 12 1613
1025 4 4 4 2005 6 1 18 1613
1026 4 4 4 2005 6 1 18 1613
1027 4 4 4 2005 6 2 0 1613
1028 4 4 4 2005 6 2 0 1613
1029 4 4 4 2005 6 2 6 1613
1030 4 4 4 2005 6 2 6 1613
1031 4 4 4 2005 6 2 12 1613
1032 4 4 4 2005 6 2 12 1613
1033 4 4 4 2005 6 2 18 1613
1034 4 4 4 2005 6 2 18 1613
1035 4 4 4 2005 6 3 0 1613
1036 4 4 4 2005 6 3 0 1613
1037 4 4 4 2005 6 3 6 1613
1038 4 4 4 2005 6 3 6 1613
1039 4 4 4 2005 6 3 12 1613
1040 4 4 4 2005 6 3 12 1613
1041 4 4 4 2005 6 3 18 1613
1042 4 4 4 2005 6 3 18 1613
1043 4 4 4 2005 6 4 0 1613
1044 4 4 4 2005 6 4 0 1613
1045 4 4 4 2005 6 4 6 1613
1046 4 4 4 2005 6 4 6 1613
1047 4 4 4 2005 6 4 12 1613
1048 4 4 4 2005 6 4 12 1613
1049 4 4 4 2005 6 4 18 1613
1050 4 4 4 2005 6 4 18 1613
1051 4 4 4 2005 6 5 0 1613
1052 4 4 4 2005 6 5 0 1613
1053 4 4 4 2005 6 5 6 1613
105
1054 4 4 4 2005 6 5 6 1613
1055 4 4 4 2005 6 5 12 1613
1056 4 4 4 2005 6 5 12 1613
1057 4 4 4 2005 6 5 18 1613
1058 4 4 4 2005 6 5 18 1613
1059 4 4 4 2005 6 6 0 1613
1060 4 4 4 2005 6 6 0 1613
1061 4 4 4 2005 6 6 6 1613
1062 4 4 4 2005 6 6 6 1613
1063 4 4 4 2005 6 6 12 1613
1064 4 4 4 2005 6 6 12 1613
1065 4 4 4 2005 6 6 18 1613
1066 4 4 4 2005 6 6 18 1613
1067 4 4 4 2005 6 7 0 1613
1068 4 4 4 2005 6 7 0 1613
1069 4 4 4 2005 6 7 6 1613
1070 4 4 4 2005 6 7 6 1613
1071 4 4 4 2005 6 7 12 1613
1072 4 4 4 2005 6 7 12 1613
1073 4 4 4 2005 6 7 18 1613
1074 4 4 4 2005 6 7 18 1613
1075 4 4 4 2005 6 8 0 1613
1076 4 4 4 2005 6 8 0 1613
1077 4 4 4 2005 6 8 6 1613
1078 4 4 4 2005 6 8 6 1613
1079 4 4 4 2005 6 8 12 1613
1080 4 4 4 2005 6 8 18 1613
1081 4 4 4 2005 6 9 0 1613
1082 4 4 4 2005 6 9 6 1613
1083 5 5 5 2005 7 13 12 1614
1084 5 5 5 2005 7 13 18 1614
1085 5 5 5 2005 7 13 18 1614
1086 5 5 5 2005 7 14 0 1614
1087 5 5 5 2005 7 14 0 1614
1088 5 5 5 2005 7 14 6 1614
1089 5 5 5 2005 7 14 6 1614
1090 5 5 5 2005 7 14 12 1614
1091 5 5 5 2005 7 14 12 1614
1092 5 5 5 2005 7 14 18 1614
106
1093 5 5 5 2005 7 14 18 1614
1094 5 5 5 2005 7 15 0 1614
1095 5 5 5 2005 7 15 0 1614
1096 5 5 5 2005 7 15 6 1614
1097 5 5 5 2005 7 15 6 1614
1098 5 5 5 2005 7 15 12 1614
1099 5 5 5 2005 7 15 12 1614
1100 5 5 5 2005 7 15 18 1614
1101 5 5 5 2005 7 15 18 1614
1102 5 5 5 2005 7 16 0 1614
1103 5 5 5 2005 7 16 0 1614
1104 5 5 5 2005 7 16 6 1614
1105 5 5 5 2005 7 16 6 1614
1106 5 5 5 2005 7 16 12 1614
1107 5 5 5 2005 7 16 12 1614
1108 5 5 5 2005 7 16 18 1614
1109 5 5 5 2005 7 16 18 1614
1110 5 5 5 2005 7 17 0 1614
1111 5 5 5 2005 7 17 0 1614
1112 5 5 5 2005 7 17 6 1614
1113 5 5 5 2005 7 17 6 1614
1114 5 5 5 2005 7 17 12 1614
1115 5 5 5 2005 7 17 12 1614
1116 5 5 5 2005 7 17 18 1614
1117 5 5 5 2005 7 17 18 1614
1118 5 5 5 2005 7 18 0 1614
1119 5 5 5 2005 7 18 0 1614
1120 5 5 5 2005 7 18 6 1614
1121 5 5 5 2005 7 18 6 1614
1122 5 5 5 2005 7 18 12 1614
1123 5 5 5 2005 7 18 12 1614
1124 5 5 5 2005 7 18 18 1614
1125 5 5 5 2005 7 19 0 1614
1126 5 5 5 2005 7 19 6 1614
1127 7 7 7 2005 7 23 18 1616
1128 7 7 7 2005 7 24 0 1616
1129 7 7 7 2005 7 24 6 1616
1130 7 7 7 2005 7 24 12 1616
1131 7 7 7 2005 7 24 18 1616
107
1132 7 7 7 2005 7 25 0 1616
1133 9 9 9 2005 8 1 18 1618
1134 9 9 9 2005 8 2 0 1618
1135 9 9 9 2005 8 2 6 1618
1136 9 9 9 2005 8 2 12 1618
1137 9 9 9 2005 8 2 12 1618
1138 9 9 9 2005 8 2 18 1618
1139 9 9 9 2005 8 2 18 1618
1140 9 9 9 2005 8 3 0 1618
1141 9 9 9 2005 8 3 0 1618
1142 9 9 9 2005 8 3 6 1618
1143 9 9 9 2005 8 3 6 1618
1144 9 9 9 2005 8 3 12 1618
1145 9 9 9 2005 8 3 12 1618
1146 9 9 9 2005 8 3 18 1618
1147 9 9 9 2005 8 3 18 1618
1148 9 9 9 2005 8 4 0 1618
1149 9 9 9 2005 8 4 0 1618
1150 9 9 9 2005 8 4 6 1618
1151 9 9 9 2005 8 4 6 1618
1152 9 9 9 2005 8 4 12 1618
1153 9 9 9 2005 8 4 12 1618
1154 9 9 9 2005 8 4 18 1618
1155 9 9 9 2005 8 4 18 1618
1156 9 9 9 2005 8 5 0 1618
1157 9 9 9 2005 8 5 0 1618
1158 9 9 9 2005 8 5 6 1618
1159 9 9 9 2005 8 5 6 1618
1160 9 9 9 2005 8 5 12 1618
1161 9 9 9 2005 8 5 12 1618
1162 9 9 9 2005 8 5 18 1618
1163 9 9 9 2005 8 6 0 1618
1164 9 9 9 2005 8 6 6 1618
1165 10 10 10 2005 8 12 12 1619
1166 10 10 10 2005 8 12 18 1619
1167 10 10 10 2005 8 13 0 1619
1168 11 11 11 2005 8 20 12 1620
1169 11 11 11 2005 8 20 18 1620
1170 11 11 11 2005 8 21 0 1620
108
1171 11 11 11 2005 8 21 0 1620
1172 11 11 11 2005 8 21 6 1620
1173 11 11 11 2005 8 21 6 1620
1174 11 11 11 2005 8 21 12 1620
1175 11 11 11 2005 8 21 12 1620
1176 11 11 11 2005 8 21 18 1620
1177 11 11 11 2005 8 21 18 1620
1178 11 11 11 2005 8 22 0 1620
1179 11 11 11 2005 8 22 0 1620
1180 11 11 11 2005 8 22 6 1620
1181 11 11 11 2005 8 22 6 1620
1182 11 11 11 2005 8 22 12 1620
1183 11 11 11 2005 8 22 12 1620
1184 11 11 11 2005 8 22 18 1620
1185 11 11 11 2005 8 22 18 1620
1186 11 11 11 2005 8 23 0 1620
1187 11 11 11 2005 8 23 0 1620
1188 11 11 11 2005 8 23 6 1620
1189 11 11 11 2005 8 23 6 1620
1190 11 11 11 2005 8 23 12 1620
1191 11 11 11 2005 8 23 12 1620
1192 11 11 11 2005 8 23 18 1620
1193 11 11 11 2005 8 23 18 1620
1194 11 11 11 2005 8 24 0 1620
1195 11 11 11 2005 8 24 0 1620
1196 11 11 11 2005 8 24 6 1620
1197 11 11 11 2005 8 24 6 1620
1198 11 11 11 2005 8 24 12 1620
1199 11 11 11 2005 8 24 12 1620
1200 11 11 11 2005 8 24 18 1620
1201 11 11 11 2005 8 24 18 1620
1202 11 11 11 2005 8 25 0 1620
1203 11 11 11 2005 8 25 0 1620
1204 11 11 11 2005 8 25 6 1620
1205 11 11 11 2005 8 25 6 1620
1206 11 11 11 2005 8 25 12 1620
1207 11 11 11 2005 8 25 12 1620
1208 11 11 11 2005 8 25 18 1620
1209 11 11 11 2005 8 25 18 1620
109
1210 11 11 11 2005 8 26 0 1620
1211 11 11 11 2005 8 26 0 1620
1212 11 11 11 2005 8 26 6 1620
1213 11 11 11 2005 8 26 12 1620
1214 11 11 11 2005 8 27 0 1620
1215 12 12 12 2005 8 22 0 1621
1216 12 12 12 2005 8 22 6 1621
1217 12 12 12 2005 8 22 12 1621
1218 12 12 12 2005 8 23 6 1621
1219 12 12 12 2005 8 23 12 1621
1220 12 12 12 2005 8 23 18 1621
1221 12 12 12 2005 8 24 0 1621
1222 12 12 12 2005 8 24 6 1621
1223 12 12 12 2005 8 24 12 1621
1224 13 13 13 2005 8 27 18 1622
1225 13 13 13 2005 8 28 0 1622
1226 13 13 13 2005 8 28 6 1622
1227 13 13 13 2005 8 28 12 1622
1228 13 13 13 2005 8 28 12 1622
1229 13 13 13 2005 8 28 18 1622
1230 13 13 13 2005 8 28 18 1622
1231 13 13 13 2005 8 29 0 1622
1232 13 13 13 2005 8 29 0 1622
1233 13 13 13 2005 8 29 6 1622
1234 13 13 13 2005 8 29 6 1622
1235 13 13 13 2005 8 29 12 1622
1236 13 13 13 2005 8 29 12 1622
1237 13 13 13 2005 8 29 18 1622
1238 13 13 13 2005 8 29 18 1622
1239 13 13 13 2005 8 30 0 1622
1240 13 13 13 2005 8 30 0 1622
1241 13 13 13 2005 8 30 6 1622
1242 13 13 13 2005 8 30 6 1622
1243 13 13 13 2005 8 30 12 1622
1244 13 13 13 2005 8 30 12 1622
1245 13 13 13 2005 8 30 18 1622
1246 13 13 13 2005 8 30 18 1622
1247 13 13 13 2005 8 31 0 1622
1248 13 13 13 2005 8 31 0 1622
110
1249 13 13 13 2005 8 31 6 1622
1250 13 13 13 2005 8 31 6 1622
1251 13 13 13 2005 8 31 12 1622
1252 13 13 13 2005 8 31 12 1622
1253 13 13 13 2005 8 31 18 1622
1254 13 13 13 2005 8 31 18 1622
1255 13 13 13 2005 9 1 0 1622
1256 13 13 13 2005 9 1 0 1622
1257 13 13 13 2005 9 1 6 1622
1258 14 14 14 2005 8 30 6 1623
1259 14 14 14 2005 8 30 12 1623
1260 14 14 14 2005 8 30 18 1623
1261 14 14 14 2005 8 30 18 1623
1262 14 14 14 2005 8 31 0 1623
1263 14 14 14 2005 8 31 0 1623
1264 14 14 14 2005 8 31 6 1623
1265 14 14 14 2005 8 31 6 1623
1266 14 14 14 2005 8 31 12 1623
1267 14 14 14 2005 8 31 12 1623
1268 14 14 14 2005 8 31 18 1623
1269 14 14 14 2005 8 31 18 1623
1270 14 14 14 2005 9 1 0 1623
1271 14 14 14 2005 9 1 0 1623
1272 14 14 14 2005 9 1 6 1623
1273 14 14 14 2005 9 1 6 1623
1274 14 14 14 2005 9 1 12 1623
1275 14 14 14 2005 9 1 12 1623
1276 14 14 14 2005 9 1 18 1623
1277 14 14 14 2005 9 1 18 1623
1278 14 14 14 2005 9 2 0 1623
1279 14 14 14 2005 9 2 0 1623
1280 14 14 14 2005 9 2 6 1623
1281 14 14 14 2005 9 2 6 1623
1282 14 14 14 2005 9 2 12 1623
1283 14 14 14 2005 9 2 12 1623
1284 14 14 14 2005 9 2 18 1623
1285 14 14 14 2005 9 2 18 1623
1286 14 14 14 2005 9 3 0 1623
1287 14 14 14 2005 9 3 0 1623
111
1288 14 14 14 2005 9 3 6 1623
1289 14 14 14 2005 9 3 6 1623
1290 14 14 14 2005 9 3 12 1623
1291 14 14 14 2005 9 3 12 1623
1292 14 14 14 2005 9 3 18 1623
1293 14 14 14 2005 9 3 18 1623
1294 14 14 14 2005 9 4 0 1623
1295 14 14 14 2005 9 4 0 1623
1296 14 14 14 2005 9 4 6 1623
1297 14 14 14 2005 9 4 6 1623
1298 14 14 14 2005 9 4 12 1623
1299 14 14 14 2005 9 4 12 1623
1300 14 14 14 2005 9 4 18 1623
1301 14 14 14 2005 9 4 18 1623
1302 14 14 14 2005 9 5 0 1623
1303 14 14 14 2005 9 5 0 1623
1304 14 14 14 2005 9 5 6 1623
1305 14 14 14 2005 9 5 6 1623
1306 14 14 14 2005 9 5 12 1623
1307 14 14 14 2005 9 5 12 1623
1308 14 14 14 2005 9 5 18 1623
1309 14 14 14 2005 9 5 18 1623
1310 14 14 14 2005 9 6 0 1623
1311 14 14 14 2005 9 6 0 1623
1312 14 14 14 2005 9 6 6 1623
1313 14 14 14 2005 9 6 6 1623
1314 14 14 14 2005 9 6 12 1623
1315 14 14 14 2005 9 6 12 1623
1316 15 15 15 2005 9 6 18 1624
1317 15 15 15 2005 9 7 6 1624
1318 15 15 15 2005 9 7 12 1624
1319 15 15 15 2005 9 8 0 1624
1320 15 15 15 2005 9 8 6 1624
1321 15 15 15 2005 9 8 12 1624
1322 15 15 15 2005 9 8 18 1624
1323 15 15 15 2005 9 9 0 1624
1324 15 15 15 2005 9 9 6 1624
1325 15 15 15 2005 9 9 6 1624
1326 15 15 15 2005 9 9 12 1624
112
1327 15 15 15 2005 9 9 12 1624
1328 15 15 15 2005 9 9 18 1624
1329 15 15 15 2005 9 9 18 1624
1330 15 15 15 2005 9 10 0 1624
1331 15 15 15 2005 9 10 0 1624
1332 15 15 15 2005 9 10 6 1624
1333 15 15 15 2005 9 10 6 1624
1334 15 15 15 2005 9 10 12 1624
1335 15 15 15 2005 9 10 12 1624
1336 15 15 15 2005 9 10 18 1624
1337 15 15 15 2005 9 10 18 1624
1338 15 15 15 2005 9 11 0 1624
1339 15 15 15 2005 9 11 0 1624
1340 15 15 15 2005 9 11 6 1624
1341 15 15 15 2005 9 11 6 1624
1342 15 15 15 2005 9 11 12 1624
1343 15 15 15 2005 9 11 12 1624
1344 15 15 15 2005 9 11 18 1624
1345 17 18 18 2005 9 22 6 1626
1346 17 18 18 2005 9 23 0 1626
1347 17 18 18 2005 9 23 6 1626
1348 17 18 18 2005 9 24 12 1626
1349 17 18 18 2005 9 24 18 1626
1350 17 18 18 2005 9 25 0 1626
1351 17 18 18 2005 9 25 0 1626
1352 17 18 18 2005 9 25 6 1626
1353 17 18 18 2005 9 25 6 1626
1354 17 18 18 2005 9 25 12 1626
1355 17 18 18 2005 9 25 12 1626
1356 17 18 18 2005 9 25 18 1626
1357 17 18 18 2005 9 25 18 1626
1358 17 18 18 2005 9 26 0 1626
1359 17 18 18 2005 9 26 0 1626
1360 17 18 18 2005 9 26 6 1626
1361 17 18 18 2005 9 26 12 1626
1362 17 18 18 2005 9 26 18 1626
1363 17 18 18 2005 9 27 0 1626
1364 18 17 17 2005 9 21 12 1627
1365 18 17 17 2005 9 21 18 1627
113
1366 18 17 17 2005 9 22 0 1627
1367 18 17 17 2005 9 22 0 1627
1368 18 17 17 2005 9 22 6 1627
1369 18 17 17 2005 9 22 6 1627
1370 18 17 17 2005 9 22 12 1627
1371 18 17 17 2005 9 22 12 1627
1372 18 17 17 2005 9 22 18 1627
1373 18 17 17 2005 9 22 18 1627
1374 18 17 17 2005 9 23 0 1627
1375 18 17 17 2005 9 23 0 1627
1376 18 17 17 2005 9 23 6 1627
1377 18 17 17 2005 9 23 6 1627
1378 18 17 17 2005 9 23 12 1627
1379 18 17 17 2005 9 23 12 1627
1380 18 17 17 2005 9 23 18 1627
1381 18 17 17 2005 9 23 18 1627
1382 18 17 17 2005 9 24 0 1627
1383 18 17 17 2005 9 24 0 1627
1384 18 17 17 2005 9 24 6 1627
1385 18 17 17 2005 9 24 6 1627
1386 18 17 17 2005 9 24 12 1627
1387 18 17 17 2005 9 24 12 1627
1388 18 17 17 2005 9 24 18 1627
1389 18 17 17 2005 9 24 18 1627
1390 18 17 17 2005 9 25 0 1627
1391 18 17 17 2005 9 25 0 1627
1392 18 17 17 2005 9 25 6 1627
1393 18 17 17 2005 9 25 6 1627
1394 18 17 17 2005 9 25 12 1627
1395 19 19 19 2005 9 26 18 1628
1396 19 19 19 2005 9 27 0 1628
1397 19 19 19 2005 9 27 0 1628
1398 19 19 19 2005 9 27 6 1628
1399 19 19 19 2005 9 27 6 1628
1400 19 19 19 2005 9 27 12 1628
1401 19 19 19 2005 9 27 12 1628
1402 19 19 19 2005 9 27 18 1628
1403 19 19 19 2005 9 27 18 1628
1404 19 19 19 2005 9 28 0 1628
114
1405 19 19 19 2005 9 28 0 1628
1406 19 19 19 2005 9 28 6 1628
1407 19 19 19 2005 9 28 6 1628
1408 19 19 19 2005 9 28 12 1628
1409 19 19 19 2005 9 28 12 1628
1410 19 19 19 2005 9 28 18 1628
1411 19 19 19 2005 9 28 18 1628
1412 19 19 19 2005 9 29 0 1628
1413 19 19 19 2005 9 29 0 1628
1414 19 19 19 2005 9 29 6 1628
1415 19 19 19 2005 9 29 6 1628
1416 19 19 19 2005 9 29 12 1628
1417 19 19 19 2005 9 29 12 1628
1418 19 19 19 2005 9 29 18 1628
1419 19 19 19 2005 9 29 18 1628
1420 19 19 19 2005 9 30 0 1628
1421 19 19 19 2005 9 30 0 1628
1422 19 19 19 2005 9 30 6 1628
1423 19 19 19 2005 9 30 6 1628
1424 19 19 19 2005 9 30 12 1628
1425 19 19 19 2005 9 30 12 1628
1426 19 19 19 2005 9 30 18 1628
1427 19 19 19 2005 9 30 18 1628
1428 19 19 19 2005 10 1 0 1628
1429 19 19 19 2005 10 1 0 1628
1430 19 19 19 2005 10 1 6 1628
1431 19 19 19 2005 10 1 6 1628
1432 19 19 19 2005 10 1 12 1628
1433 19 19 19 2005 10 1 12 1628
1434 19 19 19 2005 10 1 18 1628
1435 19 19 19 2005 10 1 18 1628
1436 19 19 19 2005 10 2 0 1628
1437 19 19 19 2005 10 2 0 1628
1438 19 19 19 2005 10 2 6 1628
1439 19 19 19 2005 10 2 6 1628
1440 19 19 19 2005 10 2 12 1628
1441 19 19 19 2005 10 2 12 1628
1442 19 19 19 2005 10 2 18 1628
1443 21 20 20 2005 10 11 6 1630
115
1444 21 20 20 2005 10 11 12 1630
1445 21 20 20 2005 10 11 12 1630
1446 21 20 20 2005 10 11 18 1630
1447 21 20 20 2005 10 11 18 1630
1448 21 20 20 2005 10 12 0 1630
1449 21 20 20 2005 10 12 0 1630
1450 21 20 20 2005 10 12 6 1630
1451 21 20 20 2005 10 12 6 1630
1452 21 20 20 2005 10 12 12 1630
1453 21 20 20 2005 10 12 12 1630
1454 21 20 20 2005 10 12 18 1630
1455 21 20 20 2005 10 12 18 1630
1456 21 20 20 2005 10 13 0 1630
1457 21 20 20 2005 10 13 0 1630
1458 21 20 20 2005 10 13 6 1630
1459 21 20 20 2005 10 13 6 1630
1460 21 20 20 2005 10 13 12 1630
1461 21 20 20 2005 10 13 12 1630
1462 21 20 20 2005 10 13 18 1630
1463 21 20 20 2005 10 13 18 1630
1464 21 20 20 2005 10 14 0 1630
1465 21 20 20 2005 10 14 0 1630
1466 21 20 20 2005 10 14 6 1630
1467 21 20 20 2005 10 14 6 1630
1468 21 20 20 2005 10 14 12 1630
1469 21 20 20 2005 10 14 12 1630
1470 21 20 20 2005 10 14 18 1630
1471 21 20 20 2005 10 14 18 1630
1472 21 20 20 2005 10 15 0 1630
1473 21 20 20 2005 10 15 0 1630
1474 21 20 20 2005 10 15 6 1630
1475 21 20 20 2005 10 15 6 1630
1476 21 20 20 2005 10 15 12 1630
1477 21 20 20 2005 10 15 12 1630
1478 21 20 20 2005 10 15 18 1630
1479 21 20 20 2005 10 15 18 1630
1480 21 20 20 2005 10 16 0 1630
1481 21 20 20 2005 10 16 0 1630
1482 21 20 20 2005 10 16 6 1630
116
1483 21 20 20 2005 10 16 6 1630
1484 21 20 20 2005 10 16 12 1630
1485 21 20 20 2005 10 16 12 1630
1486 21 20 20 2005 10 16 18 1630
1487 21 20 20 2005 10 16 18 1630
1488 21 20 20 2005 10 17 0 1630
1489 21 20 20 2005 10 17 0 1630
1490 21 20 20 2005 10 17 6 1630
1491 21 20 20 2005 10 17 6 1630
1492 21 20 20 2005 10 17 12 1630
1493 21 20 20 2005 10 17 12 1630
1494 21 20 20 2005 10 17 18 1630
1495 21 20 20 2005 10 17 18 1630
1496 21 20 20 2005 10 18 0 1630
1497 21 20 20 2005 10 18 0 1630
1498 21 20 20 2005 10 18 6 1630
1499 21 20 20 2005 10 18 6 1630
1500 21 20 20 2005 10 18 12 1630
1501 21 20 20 2005 10 18 12 1630
1502 21 20 20 2005 10 18 18 1630
1503 22 21 21 2005 10 29 18 1631
1504 22 21 21 2005 10 30 0 1631
1505 22 21 21 2005 10 30 6 1631
1506 22 21 21 2005 10 30 6 1631
1507 22 21 21 2005 10 30 12 1631
1508 22 21 21 2005 10 30 12 1631
1509 22 21 21 2005 10 30 18 1631
1510 22 21 21 2005 10 30 18 1631
1511 22 21 21 2005 10 31 0 1631
1512 22 21 21 2005 10 31 0 1631
1513 22 21 21 2005 10 31 6 1631
1514 22 21 21 2005 10 31 6 1631
1515 22 21 21 2005 10 31 12 1631
1516 22 21 21 2005 10 31 12 1631
1517 22 21 21 2005 10 31 18 1631
1518 22 21 21 2005 10 31 18 1631
1519 22 21 21 2005 11 1 0 1631
1520 22 21 21 2005 11 1 0 1631
1521 22 21 21 2005 11 1 6 1631
117
1522 22 21 21 2005 11 1 12 1631
1523 22 21 21 2005 11 1 18 1631
1524 22 21 21 2005 11 2 0 1631
1525 24 23 23 2005 11 16 6 1633
1526 24 23 23 2005 11 16 12 1633
1527 24 23 23 2005 11 16 18 1633
1528 24 23 23 2005 11 17 0 1633
1529 24 23 23 2005 11 17 6 1633
1530 24 23 23 2005 11 17 6 1633
1531 24 23 23 2005 11 17 12 1633
1532 24 23 23 2005 11 17 12 1633
1533 24 23 23 2005 11 17 18 1633
1534 24 23 23 2005 11 17 18 1633
1535 24 23 23 2005 11 18 0 1633
1536 24 23 23 2005 11 18 6 1633
1537 24 23 23 2005 11 18 12 1633
1538 24 23 23 2005 11 18 18 1633
1539 24 23 23 2005 11 19 0 1633
1540 24 23 23 2005 11 19 6 1633
1541 2 1 1 2006 5 10 0 1636
1542 2 1 1 2006 5 10 6 1636
1543 2 1 1 2006 5 10 12 1636
1544 2 1 1 2006 5 10 18 1636
1545 2 1 1 2006 5 10 18 1636
1546 2 1 1 2006 5 11 0 1636
1547 2 1 1 2006 5 11 0 1636
1548 2 1 1 2006 5 11 6 1636
1549 2 1 1 2006 5 11 6 1636
1550 2 1 1 2006 5 11 12 1636
1551 2 1 1 2006 5 11 12 1636
1552 2 1 1 2006 5 11 18 1636
1553 2 1 1 2006 5 12 0 1636
1554 2 1 1 2006 5 12 6 1636
1555 2 1 1 2006 5 12 6 1636
1556 2 1 1 2006 5 12 12 1636
1557 2 1 1 2006 5 12 12 1636
1558 2 1 1 2006 5 12 18 1636
1559 2 1 1 2006 5 12 18 1636
1560 2 1 1 2006 5 13 0 1636
118
1561 2 1 1 2006 5 13 0 1636
1562 2 1 1 2006 5 13 6 1636
1563 2 1 1 2006 5 13 6 1636
1564 2 1 1 2006 5 13 12 1636
1565 2 1 1 2006 5 13 12 1636
1566 2 1 1 2006 5 13 18 1636
1567 2 1 1 2006 5 13 18 1636
1568 2 1 1 2006 5 14 0 1636
1569 2 1 1 2006 5 14 0 1636
1570 2 1 1 2006 5 14 6 1636
1571 2 1 1 2006 5 14 6 1636
1572 2 1 1 2006 5 14 12 1636
1573 2 1 1 2006 5 14 12 1636
1574 2 1 1 2006 5 14 18 1636
1575 2 1 1 2006 5 14 18 1636
1576 2 1 1 2006 5 15 0 1636
1577 2 1 1 2006 5 15 0 1636
1578 2 1 1 2006 5 15 6 1636
1579 2 1 1 2006 5 15 6 1636
1580 2 1 1 2006 5 15 12 1636
1581 2 1 1 2006 5 15 12 1636
1582 2 1 1 2006 5 15 18 1636
1583 2 1 1 2006 5 15 18 1636
1584 2 1 1 2006 5 16 0 1636
1585 2 1 1 2006 5 16 0 1636
1586 2 1 1 2006 5 16 6 1636
1587 2 1 1 2006 5 16 6 1636
1588 2 1 1 2006 5 16 12 1636
1589 2 1 1 2006 5 16 12 1636
1590 2 1 1 2006 5 16 18 1636
1591 2 1 1 2006 5 16 18 1636
1592 2 1 1 2006 5 17 0 1636
1593 2 1 1 2006 5 17 0 1636
1594 2 1 1 2006 5 17 6 1636
1595 2 1 1 2006 5 17 6 1636
1596 2 1 1 2006 5 17 12 1636
1597 2 1 1 2006 5 17 12 1636
1598 2 1 1 2006 5 17 18 1636
1599 2 1 1 2006 5 17 18 1636
119
1600 4 3 3 2006 7 1 12 1638
1601 4 3 3 2006 7 1 18 1638
1602 4 3 3 2006 7 2 0 1638
1603 4 3 3 2006 7 2 6 1638
1604 4 3 3 2006 7 2 12 1638
1605 4 3 3 2006 7 2 18 1638
1606 4 3 3 2006 7 3 0 1638
1607 4 3 3 2006 7 3 6 1638
1608 4 3 3 2006 7 3 6 1638
1609 4 3 3 2006 7 3 12 1638
1610 4 3 3 2006 7 3 12 1638
1611 4 3 3 2006 7 3 18 1638
1612 4 3 3 2006 7 3 18 1638
1613 4 3 3 2006 7 4 0 1638
1614 4 3 3 2006 7 4 0 1638
1615 4 3 3 2006 7 4 6 1638
1616 4 3 3 2006 7 4 6 1638
1617 4 3 3 2006 7 4 12 1638
1618 4 3 3 2006 7 4 12 1638
1619 4 3 3 2006 7 4 18 1638
1620 4 3 3 2006 7 4 18 1638
1621 4 3 3 2006 7 5 0 1638
1622 4 3 3 2006 7 5 0 1638
1623 4 3 3 2006 7 5 6 1638
1624 4 3 3 2006 7 5 6 1638
1625 4 3 3 2006 7 5 12 1638
1626 4 3 3 2006 7 5 12 1638
1627 4 3 3 2006 7 5 18 1638
1628 4 3 3 2006 7 5 18 1638
1629 4 3 3 2006 7 6 0 1638
1630 4 3 3 2006 7 6 0 1638
1631 4 3 3 2006 7 6 6 1638
1632 4 3 3 2006 7 6 6 1638
1633 4 3 3 2006 7 6 12 1638
1634 4 3 3 2006 7 6 12 1638
1635 4 3 3 2006 7 6 18 1638
1636 4 3 3 2006 7 6 18 1638
1637 4 3 3 2006 7 7 0 1638
1638 4 3 3 2006 7 7 0 1638
120
1639 4 3 3 2006 7 7 6 1638
1640 4 3 3 2006 7 7 6 1638
1641 4 3 3 2006 7 7 12 1638
1642 4 3 3 2006 7 7 12 1638
1643 4 3 3 2006 7 7 18 1638
1644 4 3 3 2006 7 7 18 1638
1645 4 3 3 2006 7 8 0 1638
1646 4 3 3 2006 7 8 0 1638
1647 4 3 3 2006 7 8 6 1638
1648 4 3 3 2006 7 8 6 1638
1649 4 3 3 2006 7 8 12 1638
1650 4 3 3 2006 7 8 12 1638
1651 4 3 3 2006 7 8 18 1638
1652 4 3 3 2006 7 8 18 1638
1653 4 3 3 2006 7 9 0 1638
1654 4 3 3 2006 7 9 0 1638
1655 4 3 3 2006 7 9 6 1638
1656 4 3 3 2006 7 9 12 1638
1657 6 5 5 2006 7 20 0 1640
1658 6 5 5 2006 7 20 6 1640
1659 6 5 5 2006 7 20 12 1640
1660 6 5 5 2006 7 20 18 1640
1661 6 5 5 2006 7 20 18 1640
1662 6 5 5 2006 7 21 0 1640
1663 6 5 5 2006 7 21 0 1640
1664 6 5 5 2006 7 21 6 1640
1665 6 5 5 2006 7 21 6 1640
1666 6 5 5 2006 7 21 12 1640
1667 6 5 5 2006 7 21 12 1640
1668 6 5 5 2006 7 21 18 1640
1669 6 5 5 2006 7 21 18 1640
1670 6 5 5 2006 7 22 0 1640
1671 6 5 5 2006 7 22 0 1640
1672 6 5 5 2006 7 22 6 1640
1673 6 5 5 2006 7 22 6 1640
1674 6 5 5 2006 7 22 12 1640
1675 6 5 5 2006 7 22 12 1640
1676 6 5 5 2006 7 22 18 1640
1677 6 5 5 2006 7 22 18 1640
121
1678 6 5 5 2006 7 23 0 1640
1679 6 5 5 2006 7 23 0 1640
1680 6 5 5 2006 7 23 6 1640
1681 6 5 5 2006 7 23 6 1640
1682 6 5 5 2006 7 23 12 1640
1683 6 5 5 2006 7 23 12 1640
1684 6 5 5 2006 7 23 18 1640
1685 6 5 5 2006 7 24 0 1640
1686 6 5 5 2006 7 24 6 1640
1687 6 5 5 2006 7 24 12 1640
1688 6 5 5 2006 7 24 18 1640
1689 6 5 5 2006 7 25 0 1640
1690 6 5 5 2006 7 25 6 1640
1691 7 6 6 2006 8 1 18 1641
1692 7 6 6 2006 8 2 0 1641
1693 7 6 6 2006 8 2 6 1641
1694 7 6 6 2006 8 2 12 1641
1695 7 6 6 2006 8 2 18 1641
1696 7 6 6 2006 8 3 0 1641
1697 7 6 6 2006 8 3 0 1641
1698 7 6 6 2006 8 3 6 1641
1699 7 6 6 2006 8 3 6 1641
1700 7 6 6 2006 8 3 12 1641
1701 8 8 8 2006 8 6 6 1642
1702 8 8 8 2006 8 6 12 1642
1703 8 8 8 2006 8 6 18 1642
1704 8 8 8 2006 8 7 0 1642
1705 8 8 8 2006 8 7 0 1642
1706 8 8 8 2006 8 7 6 1642
1707 8 8 8 2006 8 7 6 1642
1708 8 8 8 2006 8 7 12 1642
1709 8 8 8 2006 8 7 12 1642
1710 8 8 8 2006 8 7 18 1642
1711 8 8 8 2006 8 7 18 1642
1712 8 8 8 2006 8 8 0 1642
1713 8 8 8 2006 8 8 0 1642
1714 8 8 8 2006 8 8 6 1642
1715 8 8 8 2006 8 8 6 1642
1716 8 8 8 2006 8 8 12 1642
122
1717 8 8 8 2006 8 8 12 1642
1718 8 8 8 2006 8 8 18 1642
1719 8 8 8 2006 8 8 18 1642
1720 8 8 8 2006 8 9 0 1642
1721 8 8 8 2006 8 9 0 1642
1722 8 8 8 2006 8 9 6 1642
1723 8 8 8 2006 8 9 6 1642
1724 8 8 8 2006 8 9 12 1642
1725 8 8 8 2006 8 9 12 1642
1726 8 8 8 2006 8 9 18 1642
1727 8 8 8 2006 8 9 18 1642
1728 8 8 8 2006 8 10 0 1642
1729 8 8 8 2006 8 10 0 1642
1730 8 8 8 2006 8 10 6 1642
1731 8 8 8 2006 8 10 6 1642
1732 8 8 8 2006 8 10 12 1642
1733 8 8 8 2006 8 10 12 1642
1734 8 8 8 2006 8 10 18 1642
1735 8 8 8 2006 8 10 18 1642
1736 8 8 8 2006 8 11 0 1642
1737 8 8 8 2006 8 11 6 1642
1738 9 7 7 2006 8 6 6 1643
1739 9 7 7 2006 8 6 12 1643
1740 9 7 7 2006 8 6 18 1643
1741 9 7 7 2006 8 7 0 1643
1742 9 7 7 2006 8 7 6 1643
1743 9 7 7 2006 8 7 12 1643
1744 9 7 7 2006 8 7 18 1643
1745 9 7 7 2006 8 8 0 1643
1746 11 10 10 2006 8 17 18 1645
1747 14 13 13 2006 9 10 18 1648
1748 14 13 13 2006 9 11 0 1648
1749 14 13 13 2006 9 11 6 1648
1750 14 13 13 2006 9 11 12 1648
1751 14 13 13 2006 9 11 12 1648
1752 14 13 13 2006 9 11 18 1648
1753 14 13 13 2006 9 11 18 1648
1754 14 13 13 2006 9 12 0 1648
1755 14 13 13 2006 9 12 0 1648
123
1756 14 13 13 2006 9 12 6 1648
1757 14 13 13 2006 9 12 6 1648
1758 14 13 13 2006 9 12 12 1648
1759 14 13 13 2006 9 12 12 1648
1760 14 13 13 2006 9 12 18 1648
1761 14 13 13 2006 9 12 18 1648
1762 14 13 13 2006 9 13 0 1648
1763 14 13 13 2006 9 13 0 1648
1764 14 13 13 2006 9 13 6 1648
1765 14 13 13 2006 9 13 6 1648
1766 14 13 13 2006 9 13 12 1648
1767 14 13 13 2006 9 13 12 1648
1768 14 13 13 2006 9 13 18 1648
1769 14 13 13 2006 9 13 18 1648
1770 14 13 13 2006 9 14 0 1648
1771 14 13 13 2006 9 14 0 1648
1772 14 13 13 2006 9 14 6 1648
1773 14 13 13 2006 9 14 6 1648
1774 14 13 13 2006 9 14 12 1648
1775 14 13 13 2006 9 14 12 1648
1776 14 13 13 2006 9 14 18 1648
1777 14 13 13 2006 9 14 18 1648
1778 14 13 13 2006 9 15 0 1648
1779 14 13 13 2006 9 15 0 1648
1780 14 13 13 2006 9 15 6 1648
1781 14 13 13 2006 9 15 6 1648
1782 14 13 13 2006 9 15 12 1648
1783 14 13 13 2006 9 15 12 1648
1784 14 13 13 2006 9 15 18 1648
1785 14 13 13 2006 9 15 18 1648
1786 14 13 13 2006 9 16 0 1648
1787 14 13 13 2006 9 16 0 1648
1788 14 13 13 2006 9 16 6 1648
1789 14 13 13 2006 9 16 6 1648
1790 14 13 13 2006 9 16 12 1648
1791 14 13 13 2006 9 16 12 1648
1792 14 13 13 2006 9 16 18 1648
1793 14 13 13 2006 9 16 18 1648
1794 14 13 13 2006 9 17 0 1648
124
1795 14 13 13 2006 9 17 0 1648
1796 14 13 13 2006 9 17 6 1648
1797 14 13 13 2006 9 17 6 1648
1798 14 13 13 2006 9 17 12 1648
1799 16 14 14 2006 9 18 0 1650
1800 16 14 14 2006 9 18 6 1650
1801 16 14 14 2006 9 18 12 1650
1802 16 14 14 2006 9 18 18 1650
1803 16 14 14 2006 9 19 0 1650
1804 16 14 14 2006 9 19 0 1650
1805 16 14 14 2006 9 19 6 1650
1806 16 14 14 2006 9 19 6 1650
1807 16 14 14 2006 9 19 12 1650
1808 16 14 14 2006 9 19 12 1650
1809 16 14 14 2006 9 19 18 1650
1810 16 14 14 2006 9 19 18 1650
1811 16 14 14 2006 9 20 0 1650
1812 16 14 14 2006 9 20 0 1650
1813 16 14 14 2006 9 20 6 1650
1814 16 14 14 2006 9 20 6 1650
1815 16 14 14 2006 9 20 12 1650
1816 16 14 14 2006 9 20 12 1650
1817 16 14 14 2006 9 20 18 1650
1818 16 14 14 2006 9 20 18 1650
1819 16 14 14 2006 9 21 0 1650
1820 16 14 14 2006 9 21 0 1650
1821 16 14 14 2006 9 21 6 1650
1822 16 14 14 2006 9 21 6 1650
1823 16 14 14 2006 9 21 12 1650
1824 16 14 14 2006 9 21 12 1650
1825 16 14 14 2006 9 21 18 1650
1826 16 14 14 2006 9 21 18 1650
1827 16 14 14 2006 9 22 0 1650
1828 16 14 14 2006 9 22 0 1650
1829 16 14 14 2006 9 22 6 1650
1830 16 14 14 2006 9 22 6 1650
1831 16 14 14 2006 9 22 12 1650
1832 16 14 14 2006 9 22 12 1650
1833 16 14 14 2006 9 22 18 1650
125
1834 16 14 14 2006 9 22 18 1650
1835 16 14 14 2006 9 23 0 1650
1836 16 14 14 2006 9 23 0 1650
1837 16 14 14 2006 9 23 6 1650
1838 16 14 14 2006 9 23 6 1650
1839 16 14 14 2006 9 23 12 1650
1840 16 14 14 2006 9 23 12 1650
1841 16 14 14 2006 9 23 18 1650
1842 16 14 14 2006 9 23 18 1650
1843 16 14 14 2006 9 24 0 1650
1844 16 14 14 2006 9 24 0 1650
1845 16 14 14 2006 9 24 6 1650
1846 16 14 14 2006 9 24 6 1650
1847 16 14 14 2006 9 24 12 1650
1848 16 14 14 2006 9 24 12 1650
1849 16 14 14 2006 9 24 18 1650
1850 16 14 14 2006 9 25 0 1650
1851 18 15 16 2006 9 26 12 1652
1852 18 15 16 2006 9 26 18 1652
1853 18 15 16 2006 9 27 0 1652
1854 18 15 16 2006 9 27 0 1652
1855 18 15 16 2006 9 27 6 1652
1856 18 15 16 2006 9 27 6 1652
1857 18 15 16 2006 9 27 12 1652
1858 18 15 16 2006 9 27 12 1652
1859 18 15 16 2006 9 27 18 1652
1860 18 15 16 2006 9 27 18 1652
1861 18 15 16 2006 9 28 0 1652
1862 18 15 16 2006 9 28 0 1652
1863 18 15 16 2006 9 28 6 1652
1864 18 15 16 2006 9 28 6 1652
1865 18 15 16 2006 9 28 12 1652
1866 18 15 16 2006 9 28 12 1652
1867 18 15 16 2006 9 28 18 1652
1868 18 15 16 2006 9 28 18 1652
1869 18 15 16 2006 9 29 0 1652
1870 18 15 16 2006 9 29 0 1652
1871 18 15 16 2006 9 29 6 1652
1872 18 15 16 2006 9 29 6 1652
126
1873 18 15 16 2006 9 29 12 1652
1874 18 15 16 2006 9 29 12 1652
1875 18 15 16 2006 9 29 18 1652
1876 18 15 16 2006 9 29 18 1652
1877 18 15 16 2006 9 30 0 1652
1878 18 15 16 2006 9 30 0 1652
1879 18 15 16 2006 9 30 6 1652
1880 18 15 16 2006 9 30 6 1652
1881 18 15 16 2006 9 30 12 1652
1882 18 15 16 2006 9 30 12 1652
1883 18 15 16 2006 9 30 18 1652
1884 18 15 16 2006 9 30 18 1652
1885 18 15 16 2006 10 1 0 1652
1886 18 15 16 2006 10 1 0 1652
1887 18 15 16 2006 10 1 6 1652
1888 18 15 16 2006 10 1 6 1652
1889 18 15 16 2006 10 1 12 1652
1890 21 18 19 2006 10 10 12 1655
1891 21 18 19 2006 10 10 18 1655
1892 21 18 19 2006 10 11 0 1655
1893 21 18 19 2006 10 11 6 1655
1894 21 18 19 2006 10 11 12 1655
1895 21 18 19 2006 10 11 18 1655
1896 21 18 19 2006 10 12 0 1655
1897 21 18 19 2006 10 12 6 1655
1898 21 18 19 2006 10 12 12 1655
1899 21 18 19 2006 10 12 18 1655
1900 21 18 19 2006 10 12 18 1655
1901 21 18 19 2006 10 13 0 1655
1902 21 18 19 2006 10 13 0 1655
1903 21 18 19 2006 10 13 6 1655
1904 21 18 19 2006 10 13 6 1655
1905 21 18 19 2006 10 13 12 1655
1906 21 18 19 2006 10 13 12 1655
1907 21 18 19 2006 10 13 18 1655
1908 21 18 19 2006 10 13 18 1655
1909 21 18 19 2006 10 14 0 1655
1910 21 18 19 2006 10 14 0 1655
1911 21 18 19 2006 10 14 6 1655
127
1912 21 18 19 2006 10 14 6 1655
1913 21 18 19 2006 10 14 12 1655
1914 21 18 19 2006 10 14 12 1655
1915 21 18 19 2006 10 14 18 1655
1916 21 18 19 2006 10 14 18 1655
1917 21 18 19 2006 10 15 0 1655
1918 21 18 19 2006 10 15 0 1655
1919 21 18 19 2006 10 15 6 1655
1920 21 18 19 2006 10 15 12 1655
1921 22 19 20 2006 10 27 18 1656
1922 22 19 20 2006 10 28 0 1656
1923 22 19 20 2006 10 28 6 1656
1924 22 19 20 2006 10 28 6 1656
1925 22 19 20 2006 10 28 12 1656
1926 22 19 20 2006 10 28 12 1656
1927 22 19 20 2006 10 28 18 1656
1928 22 19 20 2006 10 28 18 1656
1929 22 19 20 2006 10 29 0 1656
1930 22 19 20 2006 10 29 0 1656
1931 22 19 20 2006 10 29 6 1656
1932 22 19 20 2006 10 29 6 1656
1933 22 19 20 2006 10 29 12 1656
1934 22 19 20 2006 10 29 12 1656
1935 22 19 20 2006 10 29 18 1656
1936 22 19 20 2006 10 29 18 1656
1937 22 19 20 2006 10 30 0 1656
1938 22 19 20 2006 10 30 0 1656
1939 22 19 20 2006 10 30 6 1656
1940 22 19 20 2006 10 30 6 1656
1941 22 19 20 2006 10 30 12 1656
1942 22 19 20 2006 10 30 12 1656
1943 22 19 20 2006 10 30 18 1656
1944 22 19 20 2006 10 30 18 1656
1945 22 19 20 2006 10 31 0 1656
1946 22 19 20 2006 10 31 0 1656
1947 22 19 20 2006 10 31 6 1656
1948 22 19 20 2006 10 31 6 1656
1949 22 19 20 2006 10 31 12 1656
1950 22 19 20 2006 10 31 12 1656
128
1951 22 19 20 2006 10 31 18 1656
1952 22 19 20 2006 10 31 18 1656
1953 22 19 20 2006 11 1 0 1656
1954 22 19 20 2006 11 1 0 1656
1955 22 19 20 2006 11 1 6 1656
1956 22 19 20 2006 11 1 6 1656
1957 22 19 20 2006 11 1 12 1656
1958 22 19 20 2006 11 1 12 1656
1959 22 19 20 2006 11 1 18 1656
1960 22 19 20 2006 11 1 18 1656
1961 22 19 20 2006 11 2 0 1656
1962 22 19 20 2006 11 2 0 1656
1963 22 19 20 2006 11 2 6 1656
1964 22 19 20 2006 11 2 6 1656
1965 22 19 20 2006 11 2 12 1656
1966 22 19 20 2006 11 2 18 1656
1967 22 19 20 2006 11 3 0 1656
1968 23 20 21 2006 11 10 0 1657
1969 23 20 21 2006 11 10 6 1657
1970 23 20 21 2006 11 10 6 1657
1971 23 20 21 2006 11 10 12 1657
1972 23 20 21 2006 11 10 12 1657
1973 23 20 21 2006 11 10 18 1657
1974 23 20 21 2006 11 10 18 1657
1975 23 20 21 2006 11 11 0 1657
1976 23 20 21 2006 11 11 0 1657
1977 23 20 21 2006 11 11 6 1657
1978 23 20 21 2006 11 11 6 1657
1979 23 20 21 2006 11 11 12 1657
1980 23 20 21 2006 11 11 12 1657
1981 23 20 21 2006 11 11 18 1657
1982 23 20 21 2006 11 11 18 1657
1983 23 20 21 2006 11 12 0 1657
1984 23 20 21 2006 11 12 0 1657
1985 23 20 21 2006 11 12 6 1657
1986 23 20 21 2006 11 12 6 1657
1987 23 20 21 2006 11 12 12 1657
1988 23 20 21 2006 11 12 18 1657
1989 23 20 21 2006 11 13 0 1657
129
1990 23 20 21 2006 11 13 6 1657
1991 23 20 21 2006 11 13 12 1657
1992 24 21 22 2006 11 27 18 1658
1993 24 21 22 2006 11 28 0 1658
1994 24 21 22 2006 11 28 6 1658
1995 24 21 22 2006 11 28 12 1658
1996 24 21 22 2006 11 28 18 1658
1997 24 21 22 2006 11 28 18 1658
1998 24 21 22 2006 11 29 0 1658
1999 24 21 22 2006 11 29 0 1658
2000 24 21 22 2006 11 29 6 1658
2001 24 21 22 2006 11 29 6 1658
2002 24 21 22 2006 11 29 12 1658
2003 24 21 22 2006 11 29 12 1658
2004 24 21 22 2006 11 29 18 1658
2005 24 21 22 2006 11 29 18 1658
2006 24 21 22 2006 11 30 0 1658
2007 24 21 22 2006 11 30 0 1658
2008 24 21 22 2006 11 30 6 1658
2009 24 21 22 2006 11 30 6 1658
2010 24 21 22 2006 11 30 12 1658
2011 24 21 22 2006 11 30 12 1658
2012 24 21 22 2006 11 30 18 1658
2013 24 21 22 2006 11 30 18 1658
2014 24 21 22 2006 12 1 0 1658
2015 24 21 22 2006 12 1 0 1658
2016 24 21 22 2006 12 1 6 1658
2017 24 21 22 2006 12 1 6 1658
2018 24 21 22 2006 12 1 12 1658
2019 24 21 22 2006 12 1 12 1658
2020 24 21 22 2006 12 1 18 1658
2021 24 21 22 2006 12 1 18 1658
2022 24 21 22 2006 12 2 0 1658
2023 24 21 22 2006 12 2 0 1658
2024 24 21 22 2006 12 2 6 1658
2025 24 21 22 2006 12 2 6 1658
2026 24 21 22 2006 12 2 12 1658
2027 24 21 22 2006 12 2 12 1658
2028 24 21 22 2006 12 2 18 1658
130
2029 24 21 22 2006 12 2 18 1658
2030 24 21 22 2006 12 3 0 1658
2031 24 21 22 2006 12 3 0 1658
2032 24 21 22 2006 12 3 6 1658
2033 24 21 22 2006 12 3 6 1658
2034 24 21 22 2006 12 3 12 1658
2035 24 21 22 2006 12 3 12 1658
2036 24 21 22 2006 12 3 18 1658
2037 24 21 22 2006 12 3 18 1658
2038 24 21 22 2006 12 4 0 1658
2039 24 21 22 2006 12 4 0 1658
2040 24 21 22 2006 12 4 12 1658
2041 24 21 22 2006 12 4 18 1658
2042 24 21 22 2006 12 5 0 1658
2043 25 22 23 2006 12 8 18 1659
2044 25 22 23 2006 12 9 0 1659
2045 25 22 23 2006 12 9 6 1659
2046 25 22 23 2006 12 9 12 1659
2047 25 22 23 2006 12 9 18 1659
2048 25 22 23 2006 12 9 18 1659
2049 25 22 23 2006 12 10 0 1659
2050 25 22 23 2006 12 10 0 1659
2051 25 22 23 2006 12 10 6 1659
2052 25 22 23 2006 12 10 6 1659
2053 25 22 23 2006 12 10 12 1659
2054 25 22 23 2006 12 10 12 1659
2055 25 22 23 2006 12 10 18 1659
2056 25 22 23 2006 12 10 18 1659
2057 25 22 23 2006 12 11 0 1659
2058 25 22 23 2006 12 11 0 1659
2059 25 22 23 2006 12 11 6 1659
2060 25 22 23 2006 12 11 6 1659
2061 25 22 23 2006 12 11 12 1659
2062 25 22 23 2006 12 11 12 1659
2063 25 22 23 2006 12 11 18 1659
2064 25 22 23 2006 12 11 18 1659
2065 25 22 23 2006 12 12 0 1659
2066 25 22 23 2006 12 12 0 1659
2067 25 22 23 2006 12 12 6 1659
131
2068 25 22 23 2006 12 12 6 1659
2069 25 22 23 2006 12 12 12 1659
2070 25 22 23 2006 12 12 12 1659
2071 25 22 23 2006 12 12 18 1659
2072 25 22 23 2006 12 12 18 1659
2073 25 22 23 2006 12 13 0 1659
2074 25 22 23 2006 12 13 0 1659
2075 25 22 23 2006 12 13 6 1659
2076 25 22 23 2006 12 13 6 1659
2077 25 22 23 2006 12 13 12 1659
2078 25 22 23 2006 12 13 12 1659
2079 25 22 23 2006 12 13 18 1659
132
REFERENCES
Annual Tropical Cyclone Reports (ATCR), 1959-2004, Joint Typhoon Warning Center.
Atkinson, G. D. and C. R. Holliday, 1977: Tropical cyclone minimum sea level
pressure/maximum sustained wind relationship for the western North Pacific. Mon. Wea.
Rev., 105, 421-427.
Bell, G. D. and Coauthors, 2000: Climate Assessment for 1999. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 81,
1149-1165.
Bell, G. J., 1979: Operational forecasting of tropical cyclones: Past, present, and future. Aust.
Met. Mag., 27, 249-258.
Bister, M., and K. A. Emanuel, 1998: Dissipative heating and hurricane intensity. Meteor. Atm.
Phys., 52, 233-240.
Chan, J. C., 2008: Interannual and Interdecadal Variations of Tropical Cyclone Landfall in East
Asia. Eos Trans. AGU, 89(23), West. Pac. Geophy. Meet. Suppl., Abstract U33A-01.
Chang, E. K. M., and Y. Guo, 2007: Is the number of North Atlantic tropical cyclones
significantly underestimated prior to the availability of satellite observations? Geophys.
Res. Lett., 34, L14801, doi:10.1029/2007GL030169.
Dvorak, V. F., 1972: A technique for the analysis and forecasting of tropical cyclone intensities
from satellite pictures. NOAA Tech. Memo. NESS 36, 15 pp.
——, V. F., 1973: A technique for the analysis and forecasting of tropical cyclone intensities
from satellite pictures. NOAA Tech. Memo. NESS 45, 19 pp.
——, V. F., 1975: Tropical cyclone intensity analysis and forecasting from satellite imagery.
Mon. Wea. Rev., 103, 420–430.
——, V. F., 1982: Tropical cyclone intensity analysis and forecasting from satellite visible or
enhanced infrared imagery. NOAA National Environmental Satellite Service,
Applications Laboratory Training Notes, 42 pp.
——, V. F., 1984: Tropical cyclone intensity analysis using satellite data. NOAA Tech. Rep. 11,
45 pp.
Edson, R. T., 2004: Tropical cyclone analysis techniques from QuikSCAT NRCS, wind and
ambiguity data and microwave imagery. 26th Conf. on Hurricanes and Tropical
Meteorology, Miami, FL, Amer. Meteor. Soc.
Elsner, J. B., J. P. Kossin, and T. H. Jagger, 2008: The increasing intensity of the strongest
tropical cyclones, Nature, 455, 92-95.
133
Emanuel, K. A., 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years.
Nature, 436, 686-688.
——, K. A., 2006: Climate and tropical cyclone activity: A new model downscaling approach.
J. Climate, 19, 4797-4802.
——, K. A., 2007: Environmental factors affecting tropical cyclone power dissipation. J.
Climate, 20, 5497-5509.
——, K. A., R. Sundararajan, and J. Williams, 2008: Hurricanes and global warming: Results
from downscaling IPCC AR4 simulations. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc, 89, 347-367.
Fujita, T. T., 1971: Proposed Characterization of Tornadoes and Hurricanes by Area and
Intensity. SMRP Research Paper No. 91, Department of the Geophy. Sci., The University
of Chicago, 42 pp.
Gilbert, R. O., 1987: Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Wiley and
Sons, 336 pp.
Gray, W. M., C. Neumann and T. L. Tsui, 1991: Assessment of the role of aircraft
reconnaissance on tropical cyclone analysis and forecasting. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 72,
1867-1883.
Guard, C. P., L. E. Carr, F. H. Wells, R. A. Jeffries, N. D. Gural, and D. K. Edson, 1992: Joint
Typhoon Warning Center and the challenges of multi-basin tropical cyclone forecasting.
Wea. Forecasting, 7, 328-352.
——, C. P., 2004: The longevity of the Dvorak TC. intensity technique in the Pacific and Indian
Ocean regions. Preprints, 26th
Conf. on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, Miami,
FL, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 210-211.
Hawkins, J. D., T. F. Lee, J. Turk, C. Sampson, J. Kent, and K. Richardson. 2001. Real-time
Internet distribution of satellite products for tropical cyclone reconnaissance. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 82, 567-578.
Harper, B. A., J. Kepert and J. Ginger, 2008: Wind speed time averaging conversions for tropical
cyclone conditions. 28th Conf. on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, Orlando, FL,
Amer. Meteor. Soc.
Holland, G. J., 1993: "Ready Reckoner" - Chapter 9, Global Guide to Tropical Cyclone
Forecasting, WMO/TC-No. 560, Report No. TCP-31, World Meteorological
Organization, Geneva.
——, G. J., 1997: The maximum Potential Intensity of Tropical Cyclones., J. Atmos. Sci., 54,
2519-2541.
134
Japanese Meteorological Agency, 1990: Guidelines for Forecast Operations – Typhoon forecast.
Forecast Department, 150pp. (in Japanese)
Jarvinen, B. R., C. J. Neumann, M. A. S. Davis, 1984: "A tropical cyclone data tape for the
North Atlantic basin, 1886-1983: Contents, limitations, and uses", NOAA Technical
Memorandum NWS NHC 22.
Kamahori, H., Yamazaki, N., Mannoji, N., and K.Takahashi, 2006: Variability in Intense
Tropical Cyclone Days in the Western North Pacific. SOLA 2, 104-107.
Kendall, M. G., 1975: Rank Correlation Methods. 4th ed. Charles Griffin and Company, 282 pp.
Klotzbach, P. J., 2006: Trends in global tropical cyclone activity over the past twenty years
(1986–2005). Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L10805, doi:1029/2006GL025881.
Knaff, J. A. and R. M. Zehr, 2007: Reexamination of tropical cyclone pressure wind
relationships. Wea. Forecasting, 22:1, 71-88.
Knutson, T. K., and R. E. Tuleya, 2004: Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane
intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective
parameterization. J. Climate, 17(18), 3477-3495.
Koba, H., T. Hagiwara, S. Asano, and S. Akashi, 1990: Relationships between CI number from
Dvorak’s technique and minimum sea level pressure of maximum wind speed of tropical
cyclone (in Japanese). J. Meteor. Res., 42, 59-67.
Kossin, J. P., K. R. Knapp, D. J. Vimont, R. J. Murnane, and B. A. Harper, 2007: A globally
consistent reanalysis of hurricane variability and trends. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L04815,
doi:10.1029/2006GL028836.
Krayer, W. R. and R. D. Marshall, 1992: Gust factors applied to hurricane winds. Bull. Amer.
Met. Soc., 73, 613-617.
Lander, M., 2008: A comparison of typhoon best-track data in the western North Pacific:
irreconcilable differences. Extended Abstracts, 28th
Conf. on Hurricanes and Tropical
Meteorology, Orlando, FL, Amer. Meteor. Soc.
Landsea, C. W., 2000: "Climate variability of tropical cyclones: Past, Present and Future" Storms
edited by R. A. Pielke, Sr. and R. A. Pielke, Jr, Routledge, New York, p.220-241
——, C. W., C. Anderson, N. Charles, G. Clark, J. Dunion, J. Fernandez-Partagas, P.
Hungerford, C. Neumann, and M. Zimmer, 2004: The Atlantic hurricane database re-
analysis project: Documentation for the 1851-1910 alterations and additions to the
HURDAT database. Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present and Future, R. J. Murname
and K.-B. Liu, Eds., Columbia University Press, 177-221.
135
——, C. W., 2005: Hurricanes and global warming. Nature, 438, E11-13,
doi:10.1038/nature04477.
——, C. W., 2007: Counting Atlantic Tropical Cyclones back to 1900. EOS, 88, 197 & 2002.
Lee, T. F., J. D. Hawkins, F. J. Turk, K. Richardson, C. Sampson, and J. Kent, 1999: Tropical
cyclone images now can be viewed “live” on the Web. EOS, 80, 612–614.
——, T. F., F. J. Turk, J. Hawkins, and K. Richardson, 2002: Interpretation of TRMM TMI
Images of Tropical Cyclones. Earth Interactions, 6, 1-17.
Mann, H. B., 1945: Non-parametric tests against trend. Econometrica, 13, 245–259.
Martin, J. D. and W. M. Gray, 1993: Tropical cyclone observation and forecasting with and
without aircraft reconnaissance. Wea. Forecasting, 8, 519–532.
Mayfield, M. C. McAdie, and A. Pike, 1988: A preliminary evaluation of the dispersion of
tropical cyclone position and intensity estimates determined from satellite imagery.
NOAA NHC research paper, 16 pp.
Maue, R. and R. Hart, 2007: Comment on: “Low frequency variability in globally integrated
tropical cyclone power dissipation.” Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L11703,
doi:1029/2006GL028283.
Neumann, C. J., B. R. Jarvinen, C. J. McAdie, and J. D. Elms, 1993: Tropical cyclones of the
North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1992. NOAA NESDIS, Historical Climatology Series 6-2,
193 pp. (NHC homepage for most recent track information: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov)
Sheets, R. C., 1989: Impacts of aircraft reconnaissance “fixes” on tropical cyclone track
predictions. Minutes, 43rd
Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference, 10 – 13 January
1989, Homestead AFB, (office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services
and Supporting Research).
Simiu, E. and R. H. Scanlon, 1978: Wind Effects on Structures. Wiley-Interscience, 458 pp.
Sriver, R. and M. Huber, 2006: Low frequency variability in globally integrated tropical cyclone
power dissipation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L11705, doi: 10.1029/2006GL026167
Trenberth, K. E., 2005: Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming. Science, 308, 1753-
1754.
Vecchi, G. A. and B. J. Soden, 2007. Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections
of global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L08702, doi:10.1029/2006GL028905.
136
Velden, C., B. Harper, F. Wells, J. L. Beven, R. Zehr, T. Olander, M. Mayfield, C. P. Guard, M.
Lander, R. Edson, L. Avila, A. Burton, M. Turk, A. Kikuchi, A. Christian, P. Caroff, and
P. McCrone, 2006: The Dvorak Tropical Cyclone Intensity Estimation Technique: A
Satellite-Based Method that Has Endured for over 30 Years. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc, 87,
1195–1210.
Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry, and H. R. Chang, 2005: Changes in tropical cyclone
number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science, 309, 1844-1846.
Wu, M-. C., K-. H. Yeung, and W-. L. Chang, 2006: Trends in Western North Pacific Tropical
Cyclone Intensity. EOS, 87, 537-538.
137
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Michael Robert Lowry was born and raised in Destrehan, Louisiana, a small town west of
New Orleans along the banks of the Mississippi River. As a young boy, weather events were the
highlights of his years, from the 1989 December snow to the mass evacuation ahead of Hurricane
Andrew in 1992. His father a lab technician and his mother a school teacher, science and
education were instilled in him from a very young age. Upon graduation from Destrehan High
School as class salutatorian in 2001, Michael attended the Florida State University in
Tallahassee, Florida, from 2001 to 2005. There he graduated summa cum laude with honors,
obtaining a Bachelor of Science degree in meteorology, with minors in mathematics and physics,
in April 2005. As an undergraduate he was given the opportunity to intern under the State
Meteorologist of Florida at the Florida Division of Emergency Management, where he worked
part time from June of 2004 through his time in graduate school. Michael began his graduate
studies in meteorology in 2005 at the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies
(COAPS) at the Florida State University under former State Climatologist of Florida and Robert
O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography Dr. James J. O’Brien.
Michael was offered a full-time position as a meteorologist with Northrop Grumman Corporation
two years into his Masters of Science degree. He relocated to Alexandria, Virginia, in March of
2008, to begin his career while finishing his MS thesis remotely.