jpeters3

Directly from the AMS glossary: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutgloss.shtml Landfall: The intersection of the surface center of a tropical cyclone with a coastline. Because the strongest winds in a tropical cyclone are not located precisely at the center, it is possible for a cyclone's strongest winds to be experienced over land even if landfall does not occur. Similarly, it is possible for a tropical cyclone to make landfall and have its strongest winds remain over the water. Compare direct hit, indirect hit, and strike.

To be fair, few of us really expected this level of intensity today...

This makes me think we are starting to see the effects of increasing southerly shear, which is arguably visibly evident in the visible loop to the south of the storm. Shear will make the inner eyewall lopsided and can "supercharge" the eyewall convection on the downshear flank a bit.

Yeah, i think the recon will shed some light on this feature. it's also possible that the moat is a relic of the land interaction, as an earlier poster suggested.

I noticed this too. I think it's subsidence occurring radially inward from the strengthening outer band on the south side. Perhaps the beginnings of the formation of concentric eyewalls.

I doubt this will have much of an effect on things. The really shallow high Td layer near the surface would "mix out" anyway as air parcels ascend through the boundary layer into updrafts. What really matters is the average PBL moisture.

A lot to erode in that sounding. Particularly, -170 J/kg of MLCIN is pretty prohibitive. This is quite a bit higher that CAM progs at the same time. I suspect we might have trouble getting CI anywhere away from the front/triple point.

FWIW, a TC expert whom I trust told me that the available information *does* suggest cat 5 intensity, and that an upgrade in post-storm analysis is likely. So you were correct, and I was wrong. Just thought I owed it to you to share that information.

You're right. Saying "there is no evidence" was incorrect. There is *scant* evidence.

That's quite the argument you put forward to support a tongue and cheek line. For the record, I want it to have been cat 5. Just tryin' to keep it real.

And an upgrade in best track isn't going to happen without clear evidence.

Could it have been cat 5? Yes. But is there obvious evidence pointing to cat 5 intensity? No. Ad-hoc arguments about pressure falls don't constitute obvious evidence.

This is not enough evidence to warrant a cat 5 upgrade, and not enough to say "we all know it was cat 5." We don't, and the objective evidence suggests to the contrary. What would be enough evidence? ADT number near or above 140 kt + flight-level winds high enough + SFMR >> 140 kt. We didn't get that. No cat 5. Sorry. You can wishcast all you want, but that doesn't change things. Obviously NHC experts agree.

All you did was repost a twitter post where someone is also hand waving. Eyeballing the wind-pressure relationship in this plot (which shows substantial scatter for a given pressure), an argument could be made for anywhere between 130-130 kt.

You are objectively out to lunch. SFMR has a known high bias and readings were inconsistent with flight level winds. Dropsonde probably hit a gust/meso-vortex. There is no double wind max. Intensity is not based on single measurements - it's based on multiple measurements telling the same story. And Pressure vs wind is not linear. Also, winds are up from the higher pressure yesterday. Sorry. It's just silly when you all think you are smarter than the NHC forecasters. Why would the arbitrarily low-ball the intensity?