k*** Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I don't know if SATCON will update with a reading prior to landfall, but the ADT was at 7.0. Josh, was this the strongest non-West Pac landfall since Andrew? I can't think of any stronger. http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic2/real-time/adt/11P-list.txt Once I get done with class we can talk whether this was a 5...the more I think about it, the more convinced I am. As for the landfall question, there have been some non-WPAC biggies...what about cyclone giri last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 What about Monica when she crossed the coast? Good catch. Monica was stronger as well. Monica was a Cat 5 on our scale, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Once I get done with class we can talk whether this was a 5...the more I think about it, the more convinced I am. I look forward to the discussion. I went majorly OCD and posted every IR and sh*tloads of radar grabs in this thread-- so the raw materials are all right here for us to analyze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Dean 2007 hit MX with an intensity of 150 kt-- so it was stronger even than Andrew. And Felix 2007's landfall intensity in NI was 140 kt. No gray donut on either. This landfall was more impressive than both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 No gray donut on either. This landfall was more impressive than both. I think you're overstating it a bit, perhaps. Blending the BoM and JTWC values yields a landfall intensity-- 130 kt-- that I am comfortable with. Dean and Felix had hard recon data to support their respective intensity estimates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Dean 2007 hit MX with an intensity of 150 kt-- so it was stronger even than Andrew. And Felix 2007's landfall intensity in NI was 140 kt. Ugh. I should know better than that. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I look forward to the discussion. I went majorly OCD and posted every IR and sh*tloads of radar grabs in this thread-- so the raw materials are all right here for us to analyze. exhibit one is that WV imagery showing a dried out and totally symmetric eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Normandy Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I think you're overstating it a bit, perhaps. Blending the BoM and JTWC values yields a landfall intensity-- 130 kt-- that I am comfortable with. Dean and Felix had hard recon data to support their respective intensity estimates. Townsville got up to 53 kts sustained (and if thats 10-min than they prolly experienced the equivalent of a hurricane im guessing?). They were pretty far south of the center and Innisfail has extremely high gusts despite just missing the N eyewall (on the weaker side). If comparing to Dean (and the obs you experienced in Chetumal in a similar situation as Innisfail, although they may have gotten a bit closer to the core), I think Kush has an argument for a 5. The winds in the southern eyewall were surely insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Townsville got up to 53 kts sustained (and if thats 10-min than they prolly experienced the equivalent of a hurricane im guessing?). They were pretty far south of the center and Innisfail has extremely high gusts despite just missing the N eyewall (on the weaker side). If comparing to Dean (and the obs you experienced in Chetumal in a similar situation as Innisfail, although they may have gotten a bit closer to the core), I think Kush has an argument for a 5. The winds in the southern eyewall were surely insane. Size and strength are two totally different topics. In fact, if you take two cyclones with the same central pressure, I will expect the one with the narrower radius of hurricane winds to be the stronger of the two. Katrina 2005 had an enormous windfield-- with hurricane winds extending all the way across MS to AL-- but it was a very flat windfield. Yeah, it was amazing that AL had hurricane winds, but near the center, winds didn't get that much above 100 kt. So, Yasi's windfield was impressively large, but that in itself doesn't tell me anything Re: the windspeed in the core. I'd like to see what we find in the daylight-- damages to structures and trees near and just to the left of the landfall point-- before having any real opinion about it. P.S. Yes, I would say that Townsville had hurricane conditions by our 1-min standard-- and, yes, that is pretty amazing, given how far down the coast they were from the crossing point. P.P.S. Your analogy of Innisfail/Yasi = Chetumal/Dean seems reasonable to me. I can buy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Yasi's been downgraded to a Cat 3 (on their scale), with heavy winds still pounding the coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battlebrick Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Good catch. Monica was stronger as well. Monica was a Cat 5 on our scale, too. Monica is still the best looking TC I have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Monica is still the best looking TC I have ever seen. Yeah, it was a beautiful cyclone. Personally, I like the more "bandy" type cyclones better-- rather than this sort of fat, compact ball-- but, hey, Monica was still a beaut. k*** (another poster here) has a huge Monica fetish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Trucking inland, but still a strong cyclone-- and still rough conditions on the coast: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Monica's problem is that it made landfall in Nowheresville, NT... quite a contrast from the somewhat populated region that Yasi just landed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Downgraded to Cat 2 (on their scale), with max gusts no higher than ~85 kt now. The cyclone's well inland and starting to break up a bit: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwi-chick Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Hey Josh. Can you explain to me please the difference in scale from a Hurricane to a Cyclone. If Yasi was a Cat 5 on the Aussie scale upon landfall, what would have been the scale as a Hurricane? And why is there a difference? Thanks for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battlebrick Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Hey Josh. Can you explain to me please the difference in scale from a Hurricane to a Cyclone. If Yasi was a Cat 5 on the Aussie scale upon landfall, what would have been the scale as a Hurricane? And why is there a difference? Thanks for your time. If Yasi was on the Saffir-Simpson scale (the american scale), then it would of been a high end CAT 4 (155 mph). The Australian scale's CAT 5 is 107 kts and above, which is about 125 mph. And for the reason for the differences, the only thing I can think of is the 10 min averages that most agencies use vs. the 1 min average which we use here in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Hey Josh. Can you explain to me please the difference in scale from a Hurricane to a Cyclone. If Yasi was a Cat 5 on the Aussie scale upon landfall, what would have been the scale as a Hurricane? And why is there a difference? Thanks for your time. Hey, no problem. First off-- and I think you know this-- a hurricane and a severe tropical cyclone are basically the same thing-- the different terminology is just a regional thing. Re: intensity scales... In the USA we have our intensity scale, and the Aussies have theirs. That's just how it is-- every country does things their own way, and these things are not standardized throughout the world. Both scales go from 1-5, but the USA scale starts higher: a weak Cat 1 on our scale is a strong Cat 2 on the Aussie scale. On the USA scale, Yasi was a Cat 4 at landfall. Does that help? P.S. Here's a handy chart for comparing the two scales: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 If Yasi was on the Saffir-Simpson scale (the american scale), then it would of been a high end CAT 4 (155 mph). The Australian scale's CAT 5 is 107 kts and above, which is about 125 mph. That actually depends. According to the JTWC, Yasi was a high-end Cat 4; but according to the BoM, it was more of a midrange Cat 4 on our scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronxx Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Geoff Mackley posted the following on his website today. He was at Mission Beach, NE of Tully on the coast. He has a history of exaggerating the winds he sees; but this time he might not have to. He once claimed to have measured 144 mph winds with a handheld in a hurricane that had no higher than 90 mph gusts; and got that 144 from an erroneous early report of 144 that was on the radio from another of those faulty AFB anemometers. I would guess that the 290 k (?) he is noting below came from the advisory or a news report about what the highest gusts were estimated to be just before landfall. But as I noted, if he went through the eye of this one, he won't have to exaggerate. He should have damage shots soon, I would guess to estimate what he went through in the pitch of night. We weathered the chaos at the Elandra Resort in Mission Beach with about 20 people, they have barricaded themselves in the kitchen, we are having 290k winds thru the foyer and restaurant and we are cut off by fallen trees.Our car window has been broken by a flying door The eye passed directly over us Myself and Bradley Ambrose are safe, the people at the hotel are safe, we have no idea of how others have fared, people were texting others at the hotel with messages like " our house is coming apart, this is serious, Mackley's website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott747 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Geoff Mackley posted the following on his website today. He was at Mission Beach, NE of Tully on the coast. He has a history of exaggerating the winds he sees; but this time he might not have to. He once claimed to have measured 144 mph winds with a handheld in a hurricane that had no higher than 90 mph gusts; and got that 144 from an erroneous early report of 144 that was on the radio from another of those faulty AFB anemometers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Geoff Mackley posted the following on his website today. He was at Mission Beach, NE of Tully on the coast. He has a history of exaggerating the winds he sees; but this time he might not have to. He once claimed to have measured 144 mph winds with a handheld in a hurricane that had no higher than 90 mph gusts; and got that 144 from an erroneous early report of 144 that was on the radio from another of those faulty AFB anemometers. I would guess that the 290 k (?) he is noting below came from the advisory or a news report about what the highest gusts were estimated to be just before landfall. But as I noted, if he went through the eye of this one, he won't have to exaggerate. He should have damage shots soon, I would guess to estimate what he went through in the pitch of night. We weathered the chaos at the Elandra Resort in Mission Beach with about 20 people, they have barricaded themselves in the kitchen, we are having 290k winds thru the foyer and restaurant and we are cut off by fallen trees.Our car window has been broken by a flying door The eye passed directly over us Myself and Bradley Ambrose are safe, the people at the hotel are safe, we have no idea of how others have fared, people were texting others at the hotel with messages like " our house is coming apart, this is serious, Mackley's website Wow. I have to hand it to him, he hit the bull's eye-- he really went for it and got in that core. Didn't hold back-- just went for it. I'm impressed. He also chased Kenna 2002 in MX's Pacific coast-- another difficult, dangerous chase subject. I didn't know he was prone to exaggerate wind speeds-- however, I assume he was referring to the BoM value given in advices at the time of landfall. That must be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 That is kind of funny-- but, dude, you have to admit-- he really scored on this one! He got right at the landfall point of a solid Cat 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott747 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 That is kind of funny-- but, dude, you have to admit-- he really scored on this one! He got right at the landfall point of a solid Cat 4. Oh no doubt this is a major score. Know a bit about Mackley (He has some amazing vids) and just surprised about the mention of such a inflated observation. No idea on the backstory. I could only imagine trying to get a reading such as that with a handheld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronxx Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Oh no doubt this is a major score. Know a bit about Mackley (He has some amazing vids) and just surprised about the mention of such a inflated observation. No idea on the backstory. I could only imagine trying to get a reading such as that with a handheld. During Georges in Biloxi, the radio stations were reporting that 144 was measured at the AFB. Clearly that did not happen; and in post analysis, that anemometer was declared absolutely faulty. The actual highest gusts in that area were 85-90 mph. He also claims to have watched a tornado develop not 150 ft. from his location in the wallcloud; but had no video, of course. But, on his website, Mackley stated that he had measured 144 mph winds. Besides being an adventurist,Mackley is a publicist. So, he aims his website posts at the general public, who only hear what the general media is putting out. He knows that and has played the "low information reader" (like low information voters who are led to simple conclusions about certain politicians) to conclude certain things that he "really" only implied. If you have followed his site over the years you would have seen that he has claimed to have intercepted at least 3 category 5 typhoons. And each time that was "kinda" true. On one occasion he intercepted a Category 5, but forgot to mention that he was stationed 100+ miles from where the eye came ashore. On two others he posted that he intercepted Cat 5 typhoons; and he did on both occasions. But, what he forgot to mention those times is that those were Cat 5 Typhoons AT SEA, and had weakened to Cat. 3 and 2 by the time they made landfall. -------------------- As noted in my original post, though, he won't have to play word games this time to convince his readers that he accomplished more than he actually did. He would be wisest just to post the damage shots and say nothing this time. He does have a very good camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 During Georges in Biloxi, the radio stations were reporting that 144 was measured at the AFB. Clearly that did not happen; and in post analysis, that anemometer was declared absolutely faulty. The actual highest gusts in that area were 85-90 mph. He also claims to have watched a tornado develop not 150 ft. from his location in the wallcloud; but had no video, of course. But, on his website, Mackley stated that he had measured 144 mph winds. Besides being an adventurist,Mackley is a publicist. So, he aims his website posts at the general public, who only hear what the general media is putting out. He knows that and has played the "low information reader" (like low information voters who are led to simple conclusions about certain politicians) to conclude certain things that he "really" only implied. If you have followed his site over the years you would have seen that he has claimed to have intercepted at least 3 category 5 typhoons. And each time that was "kinda" true. On one occasion he intercepted a Category 5, but forgot to mention that he was stationed 100+ miles from where the eye came ashore. On two others he posted that he intercepted Cat 5 typhoons; and he did on both occasions. But, what he forgot to mention those times is that those were Cat 5 Typhoons AT SEA, and had weakened to Cat. 3 and 2 by the time they made landfall. -------------------- As noted in my original post, though, he won't have to play word games this time to convince his readers that he accomplished more than he actually did. He would be wisest just to post the damage shots and say nothing this time. He does have a very good camera. Wow-- interesting. I just kind if do my own thing and don't pay attention to other chasers that much, and I had no idea he's such a colorful figure. Re: wind speeds... I'm the opposite and I tend to estimate really conservatively-- to my detriment, I think, since I know other chasers often overestimate (not intentionally, but because they just don't know). I'm an advertising dude, but my weather-nerd side wins out when I'm talking about cyclones and I like to get all accurate and precise-- even when publicizing my own expeditions. Anyhoo, he scored in this one. Too bad it was at night, in a fairly rural area-- there will be very little (if any) footage that really captures what happened in those towns-- just damage shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witness Protection Program Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Hey, no problem. First off-- and I think you know this-- a hurricane and a severe tropical cyclone are basically the same thing-- the different terminology is just a regional thing. Re: intensity scales... In the USA we have our intensity scale, and the Aussies have theirs. That's just how it is-- every country does things their own way, and these things are not standardized throughout the world. Both scales go from 1-5, but the USA scale starts higher: a weak Cat 1 on our scale is a strong Cat 2 on the Aussie scale. On the USA scale, Yasi was a Cat 4 at landfall. Does that help? P.S. Here's a handy chart for comparing the two scales: Nautical knots or Don knots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwi-chick Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Wow-- interesting. I just kind if do my own thing and don't pay attention to other chasers that much, and I had no idea he's such a colorful figure. Re: wind speeds... I'm the opposite and I tend to estimate really conservatively-- to my detriment, I think, since I know other chasers often overestimate (not intentionally, but because they just don't know). I'm an advertising dude, but my weather-nerd side wins out when I'm talking about cyclones and I like to get all accurate and precise-- even when publicizing my own expeditions. Anyhoo, he scored in this one. Too bad it was at night, in a fairly rural area-- there will be very little (if any) footage that really captures what happened in those towns-- just damage shots. Thanks very much for that info guys. Much appreciated...:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypatia Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Found some damage pics from Mission Beach here http://www.news.com....e-1225998711771. Lots of defoliated trees and some structural damage evident. And in Tully: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 Thanks for posting those pics, hypatia. Here are more photos, from the Brisbane Times: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/photogallery/environment/weather/yasi-hits-north-queensland/20110202-1acrd.html There seems to have been real structural damage in Mission Beach, Tully, and Cardwell-- all quite close to the center. Locations further away look to have gotten off a bit easier. It's still a Cat-1 cyclone (as weak TS on our scale)-- trekking across the tropical interior, still producing gusts up to ~50 kt: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.