Lane was a large hurricane whose track included a loop, which is quite rare
in the eastern Pacific. It passed directly over Socorro Island and
dissipated unusually far to the north at 32°N.
a. Synoptic history
A tropical wave moved westward off the African coast on 20 August. This
system caused little in the way of significant weather while crossing the
Atlantic and Caribbean, finally moving across Central America and into the
Pacific on 29 August. The first signs of an organized circulation appeared
south of the Gulf of Tehuantepec on 1 September when the initial Dvorak
satellite intensity estimate was made. Further increases in organization
were slow, with steady development beginning on 4 September. The system
became a tropical depression about 140 n mi south-southwest of Manzanillo,
Mexico near 0000 UTC 5 September (Figure 1
and Table 1). The depression
moved westward and became Tropical Storm Lane later that day.
Up to this time, Lane had evolved as an average-sized tropical cyclone.
However, over the next three days Lane either evolved into a much large
cyclone (as indicated in the best track) or merged with a developing
monsoon-type circulation. There were three notable results in either case:
1) The cyclonic envelope became quite large; 2) The center made a loop that
lasted from 6-8 September; and 3) After reaching a 50 kt intensity on the
6th, the storm temporarily weakened. Once the loop was finished,
Lane strengthened to a hurricane and moved generally northwestward, passing
over Socorro Island on the 9th. A 50-60 n mi wide eye was seen
and a peak intensity of 85 kt was estimated on the 10th. This
coincided with a turn to the west-northwest, with that motion continuing
into the 11th. This took the cyclone over cooler water, and Lane
weakened to a tropical storm late on the 11th.
A large deep layer trough located off the U. S. west coast allowed the storm
to turn northwestward on 12 September and northward the next day. Lane moved
over 20°C water on the 13th, which caused it to weaken
to a depression. The cyclone dissipated about 250 n mi west of San
Diego, California on the 14th.
b. Meteorological statistics
Table 1
shows the best track positions and intensities for Lane, with the
track plotted in Figure 1.
Figure 2 and Figure 3
depict the curves of minimum
central sea-level pressure and maximum sustained one-minute average
"surface" (10 m above ground level) winds, respectively, as a function of
time. These figures also contain the data on which the curves are based:
satellite-based Dvorak technique intensity estimates from the Tropical
Analysis and Forecast Branch (TAFB), the Satellite Analysis Branch (SAB) of
the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS),
and the Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA), and surface observations from
Socorro Island.
The eye of Lane passed directly over Socorro Island. While the maximum
observed winds are not available, the island reported a minimum pressure of
973.7 mb at 1500 UTC 9 September. Although Lane otherwise remained well
offshore, rainbands and gusty winds affected portions of the Mexican
mainland and Baja California. San Jose del Cabo, Mexico, reported sustained
winds of 30 kt with gusts to 40 kt at 1850 UTC 9 September, and Manzanillo
reported 28 kt sustained winds at 2145 UTC 8 September.
Several ships encountered the northeastern semicircle of Lane.
Table 2
shows selected ship reports of tropical storm-force winds.
c. Damage and casualty statistics
Although Lane's large circulation affected the Mexican mainland and Baja
California, no reports of damage or casualties have been received at the
National Hurricane Center.
d. Forecast and warning critique
Table 3
shows the average track forecast errors during Lane, including the
official forecast error, the 10-year average forecast error, and the track
guidance errors. The official forecast errors were significantly worse than
the 10-year average at all times, but were better than the
Climatology-Persistence (CLIPER) forecasts and, thus, had skill. Several of
the numerical forecast models outperformed the official forecasts, with the
best forecasts coming from the global AVN and UKMET models, and the GFDL
model. All three of these had average 72 h forecast errors of less than 150
n mi. The largest errors, with four consecutive forecast errors of 400 n mi
or more, occurred on the first four forecasts where the loop was not
anticipated. The AVN, UKM, and GFDL all showed either a loop or an erratic
motion that was more accurate than the officially-forecast westward track.
It is notable that later official forecasts were better, with two 72-h
forecasts having errors as low as 18 and 24 n mi.
The average official intensity forecast errors were 6, 11, 14, 14, and 14 kt
at 12, 24, 36, 48 and 72 h respectively. These errors are below the 10-year
averages of 7, 12, 16, 19, and 21 kt. These errors are also mostly below
that of the SHIPS model, which had errors of 7.9, 11.7, 15.0, 15.4, and 12.0
kt at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 h respectively. Some early official forecast
intensities were too high, as Lane weakened during its loop instead of a
forecast strengthening. Some later forecasts underestimated the amount of
intensification as Lane became a hurricane.
Watches and warnings were not issued for Lane.
Table 1.
Best track, Hurricane Lane, 5-14 September 2000.
Date/Time
(UTC) | Position |
Pressure
(mb) |
Wind Speed
(kt) | Stage |
| Lat. (°N) | Lon. (°W) |
| 05/ 0000 | 15.4 | 102.2 | 1007 | 25 | tropical depression |
| 05 / 0600 | 15.7 | 103.6 | 1007 | 30 | " |
| 05 / 1200 | 15.9 | 105.1 | 1004 | 35 | tropical storm |
| 05 / 1800 | 16.0 | 106.3 | 1002 | 40 | " |
| 06 / 0000 | 15.8 | 107.1 | 1000 | 45 | " |
| 06 / 0600 | 15.4 | 107.9 | 1000 | 45 | " |
| 06 / 1200 | 14.8 | 108.3 | 997 | 50 | " |
| 06 / 1800 | 14.3 | 108.5 | 998 | 50 | " |
| 07 / 0000 | 13.8 | 108.3 | 1000 | 45 | " |
| 07 / 0600 | 13.5 | 108.0 | 1000 | 40 | " |
| 07 / 1200 | 13.9 | 107.8 | 1000 | 40 | " |
| 07 / 1800 | 14.5 | 107.7 | 999 | 45 | " |
| 08 / 0000 | 15.1 | 108.0 | 998 | 45 | " |
| 08 / 0600 | 15.5 | 108.3 | 994 | 50 | " |
| 08 / 1200 | 15.9 | 108.6 | 991 | 55 | " |
| 08 / 1800 | 16.4 | 108.9 | 987 | 60 | " |
| 09 / 0000 | 17.1 | 109.4 | 983 | 65 | hurricane |
| 09 / 0600 | 17.9 | 110.0 | 978 | 70 | " |
| 09 / 1200 | 18.6 | 110.6 | 974 | 75 | " |
| 09 / 1800 | 19.5 | 111.4 | 970 | 80 | " |
| 10 / 0000 | 20.2 | 112.5 | 968 | 85 | " |
| 10 / 0600 | 20.5 | 113.5 | 967 | 85 | " |
| 10 / 1200 | 20.9 | 114.4 | 968 | 85 | " |
| 10 / 1800 | 21.3 | 115.1 | 969 | 85 | " |
| 11 / 0000 | 21.7 | 115.8 | 971 | 80 | " |
| 11 / 0600 | 22.2 | 116.9 | 975 | 75 | " |
| 11 / 1200 | 22.6 | 117.9 | 983 | 65 | " |
| 11 / 1800 | 23.0 | 119.0 | 987 | 60 | tropical storm |
| 12 / 0000 | 23.5 | 120.0 | 991 | 55 | " |
| 12 / 0600 | 24.2 | 120.9 | 994 | 50 | " |
| 12 / 1200 | 25.0 | 121.7 | 996 | 45 | " |
| 12 / 1800 | 25.8 | 122.4 | 998 | 45 | " |
| 13 / 0000 | 26.7 | 123.0 | 1000 | 40 | " |
| 13 / 0600 | 27.8 | 123.1 | 1002 | 35 | " |
| 13 / 1200 | 29.1 | 122.9 | 1004 | 30 | tropical depression |
| 13 / 1800 | 30.7 | 122.8 | 1005 | 25 | " |
| 14 / 0000 | 32.2 | 122.2 | 1006 | 25 | " |
| 14 / 0600 | | dissipated |
| |
| 10 / 0600 | 20.5 | 113.5 | 967 | 85 | minimum pressure |
Table 2.
Selected ship observations of tropical storm or greater winds associated
with Hurricane Lane, 5-14 September 2000.
Ship
(Name or ID) |
Date/Time
(UTC) |
Lat. (°N) |
Lon. (°W) |
Wind
dir/speed
(deg/kt) |
Pressure
(mb) |
| ELXZ7 | 06/1500 | 13.8 | 109.4 | 310/34 | 1005.5 |
| 1st Lt Baldomero Lopez | 08/1800 | 20.1 | 107.1 | 130/38 | 1006.0 |
| St. Lucia | 09/0600 | 20.0 | 107.2 | 130/42 | 1006.0 |
| Sealand Voyager | 09/1500 | 21.0 | 108.1 | 130/38 | 1003.9 |
| Choyang Zenith | 09/1500 | 22.6 | 110.5 | 080/43 | 1005.5 |
| Ursula Rickmers | 10/0900 | 23.2 | 112.0 | 100/37 | 1003.5 |
Table 3.
Table 3. Preliminary track forecast evaluation for Hurricane Lane -
heterogeneous sample. Errors in nautical miles for tropical storm and
hurricane stages with number of forecasts in parentheses. Numbers in bold
represent forecast which were better than the official forecast.
| Forecast Technique |
Period (hours) |
| 12 | 24 | 36 | 48 | 72 |
| CLIP | 44 (30) | 101 (28) | 159 (26) | 211 (24) | 307 (20) |
| GFDI | 43 (30) | 74 (28) | 99 (26) | 117 (24) | 160 (20) |
| GFDL* | 48 (30) | 73 (28) | 89 (26) | 104 (24) | 145 (30) |
| AVNI | 29 (27) | 45 (25) | 67 (23) | 94 (21) | 145 (17) |
| AVNO* | 49 (28) | 46 (26) | 61 (24) | 84 (22) | 140 (18) |
| BAMD | 44 (30) | 93 (28) | 142 (26) | 188 (24) | 287 (20) |
| BAMM | 43 (30) | 80 (28) | 120 (26) | 160 (24) | 234 (20) |
| BAMS | 46 (30) | 89 (28) | 134 (26) | 176 (24) | 255 (20) |
| UKMI | 40 (25) | 74 (23) | 104 (21) | 130 (19) | 150 (15) |
| UKM* | 38 (13) | 64 (12) | 96 (11) | 120 (10) | 133 (8) |
| P91E | 42 (30) | 88 (28) | 137 (26) | 183 (24) | 305 (20) |
| P9UK | 42 (14) | 96 (13) | 144 (12) | 187 (11) | 294 (9) |
| LBAR | 40 (30) | 92 (28) | 149 (26) | 204 (24) | 303 (20) |
| |
| NHC Official | 42 (30) | 84 (28) | 128 (26) | 177 (24) | 277 (20) |
| NHC Official 10-Year Average (1990-1999) | 37 (2494) | 69 (2245) | 101 (1993) | 132 (1760) | 189 (1353) |
* Output from these models was unavailable at time of forecast issuance.
Figure 1.
Best track of Hurricane Lane, 5-14 September 2000.
Figure 2.
Best track minimum central pressure curve for Hurricane Lane, 5-14 September
2000.
Figure 3.
Best track maximum sustained 1-min. wind speed curve for Hurricane Lane,
5-14 September 2000.
![[NCEP Logo]](graphics/ncep.gif)
![[2000 Eastern Pacific Hurricane Season]](graphics/smalllogo.gif){kind=small}
