Cat 5 Major Hurricane Patricia

[Animal]

I should have simply stated that it was no longer unprecedented.

My mistake....but saying that the system did not weaken a bit prior to LF is every bit as incorrect.

 

 

Pure and utter folly that you guys geek out over if it stronger or weak.

Storm was strong. wait 2 days prior to calling a bust.

This is Mexico  for weenie's stake.

 

Matt

[Roger Smith]

The critique of my post actually makes no sense to me either, so I guess we're even there.

 

I don't think the area got off lightly and didn't say that. I certainly don't think that after reviewing the data and Josh's accounts.

 

I don't consider the concrete structures you can see in pictures along the coast to be flimsy structures at all, they look very difficult to damage almost like bunkers, when compared to North American houses with wooden roofs. I was just commenting that maybe those sturdy buildings in Cayeres were a match for what must have been very strong winds at landfall. But I don't know what happened and hope for the best although obviously there's some potential for a casualty toll there.

 

Also, it is worth noting that I actually did something to try to alert the right people with the right information before landfall and it's possible that this worked out too. The person I alerted acknowledged getting the information but I have not heard if they were successful in relaying it to nearby stakeholders such as police, resort owners or anyone else they considered competent. But what I told them was exactly what happened, the cat-5 hurricane hit the coast at Cayeres.

 

(added later)

 

I have just learned through facebook that Punta Perula made it through with considerable damage but no reported loss of life. And I found pictures on the L.A. Times website of severe damage in Chamela which is between Punta Perula and Cayeres. By severe damage, I mean a ramshackle home was essentially reduced to a pile of rubble. However, it's quite possible that many of the people in less sturdy homes were in local shelters (a news report that I found states that a large proportion of the population of Jalisco state were in shelters) or maybe they have survival skills that aren't part of our culture, perhaps they do what some people in the Philippines did and ride out the worst of the winds in places such as sheltered pools. Despite what was said earlier, I would be of the opinion that damage to makeshift homes and businesses might be more transient than what we have sometimes witnessed.

[Fergal]

It's very interesting reading Josh's reports from the area. I just can't imagine having the balls to do that! What I find more amazing, however, is how poorly its ferocity was forecast. It seems like a textbook hurricane and yet early forecasts from the NHC underestimated its intensity by some 65 knots, or two Saffir-Simpson categories. This is not having a go at the NHC but purely driving home meteorology is still an inexact science.

I wrote this analysis of it

https://irishweatheronline.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/an-analysis-of-record-hurricane-patricia/

[OSUmetstud]

I still doubt it retained cat 5 intensity.

[ncforecaster89]

I still doubt it retained cat 5 intensity.

  

I can't help but objectively agree with you, although it's not a popular position to take in this thread.  To me, the data strongly suggests it weakened below category five intensity at landfall.  

 

For instance, the last RECON vortex message was taken 2.75 hours prior to landfall.  The minimum central pressure had risen an astonishing 31 mb (879 to 910 mb) in roughly a three hour period.  The HH aircraft also noted that the eyewall was deteriorating, as well.  Moreover, the satellite presentation continued to degrade substantially, thereafter, with the eye becoming less discernible with each image and the cloud tops in the eyewall warming significantly.  If one were to simply extrapolate the filling rate for the 3 hour period preceding the last RECON measurement to the 3 hour period up to landfall...that would constitute a pressure of 940 mb.  

 

That said, I'm certainly not implying that the pressure had continued to fill at that rate during the three hour period prior to landfall, but it gives one a better understanding as to why it's far more likely that Patricia did not maintain category-five strength when it reached the coast.  Furthermore, Josh stated that he measured a lowest barometric pressure of 937 mb at his intercept location...which appears to have been roughly 2 nm from the eye.  Under no reasonable scenario was there a 17 mb difference in pressure between that distance.  With the rapid weakening and the onset of an ERC, the pressure-gradient no doubt relaxed by the time it made landfall...so it wouldn't be a legitimate argument for one to suggest that there might've been this insane pressure-gradient to explain the large pressure disparity between the two aforementioned localities.  

 

For those who might reference the observation made roughly 10 nm NW of the eye near landfall of category five wind speeds, it's highly likely that was more representative of a malfunctioning anemometer (one only has to objectively review the data in its entirety) for there's virtually no chance there were category-five winds in that quadrant of the storm nor had RECON found any there.  This doesn't even take into consideration the improper elevation of the anemometer...which was well above the standard 10 m (I believe it was near 90 m, but I may be mistaken on the precise elevation).

 

In short, I would respectfully and objectively argue that the minimum central pressure at landfall was likely closer to 930 mb...rather than 920 mb...and the MSW had decreased below category-five intensity.  Naturally, I'd like to believe it was a category five hurricane at landfall for posterity purposes as well as for Josh, but I just can't objectively examine the data and come to that conclusion.  Regardless, it was still undeniably a powerful and historic landfall, nonetheless!

[ncforecaster89]

Far more importantly, it's very encouraging to hear that there has so far been no loss of life attributed to the storm and the damage has (so far) not been too severe...all things considered.  That said, I'm still apprehensive for it's possible that the worst hit area may not have been thoroughly examined, as of yet.

[salbers]

Such a terrifying job until you hit the eye and than it becomes the most amazing job on the planet.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/pilot-flew-plane-hurricane-patricia-intense-turbulence-encountered/story?id=34700887

 

Good story, except they mention 200mph wind gusts when it should read sustained.

[rgwp96]

I should have simply stated that it was no longer unprecedented.

My mistake....but saying that the system did not weaken a bit prior to LF is every bit as incorrect.

the sat lite imagery at landfall looked nothing like it did when it was a cat 5.  and so far the lack of damage proves it to

[rgwp96]

I still doubt it retained cat 5 intensity.

there is no way it was still a cat 5

[Fergal]

That automatic station is...or was...at 295 ft (95 m), so its 161-kt sustained wind report would read a few % above the standard 10 m in this scenario. The NHC said it made landfall as 145 knots, which, as you say, is probably a bit generous. But in any case, it was a remarkable storm during its short lifetime.

 

I can't help but objectively agree with you, although it's not a popular position to take in this thread.  To me, the data strongly suggests it weakened below category five intensity at landfall.  

 

For instance, the last RECON vortex message was taken 2.75 hours prior to landfall.  The minimum central pressure had risen an astonishing 31 mb (879 to 910 mb) in roughly a three hour period.  The HH aircraft also noted that the eyewall was deteriorating, as well.  Moreover, the satellite presentation continued to degrade substantially, thereafter, with the eye becoming less discernible with each image and the cloud tops in the eyewall warming significantly.  If one were to simply extrapolate the filling rate for the 3 hour period preceding the last RECON measurement to the 3 hour period up to landfall...that would constitute a pressure of 940 mb.  

 

That said, I'm certainly not implying that the pressure had continued to fill at that rate during the three hour period prior to landfall, but it gives one a better understanding as to why it's far more likely that Patricia did not maintain category-five strength when it reached the coast.  Furthermore, Josh stated that he measured a lowest barometric pressure of 937 mb at his intercept location...which appears to have been roughly 2 nm from the eye.  Under no reasonable scenario was there a 17 mb difference in pressure between that distance.  With the rapid weakening and the onset of an ERC, the pressure-gradient no doubt relaxed by the time it made landfall...so it wouldn't be a legitimate argument for one to suggest that there might've been this insane pressure-gradient to explain the large pressure disparity between the two aforementioned localities.  

 

For those who might reference the observation made roughly 10 nm NW of the eye near landfall of category five wind speeds, it's highly likely that was more representative of a malfunctioning anemometer (one only has to objectively review the data in its entirety) for there's virtually no chance there were category-five winds in that quadrant of the storm nor had RECON found any there.  This doesn't even take into consideration the improper elevation of the anemometer...which was well above the standard 10 m (I believe it was near 90 m, but I may be mistaken on the precise elevation).

 

In short, I would respectfully and objectively argue that the minimum central pressure at landfall was likely closer to 930 mb...rather than 920 mb...and the MSW had decreased below category-five intensity.  Naturally, I'd like to believe it was a category five hurricane at landfall for posterity purposes as well as for Josh, but I just can't objectively examine the data and come to that conclusion.  Regardless, it was still undeniably a powerful and historic landfall, nonetheless!

[wxmx]

If the aforementioned station observations are confirmed, and the instrument is found to be reliable, that means Patricia was at least 140kts at landfall, right at the coast, using 15% reduction. End of story.

[Amped]

If the aforementioned station observations are confirmed, and the instrument is found to be reliable, that means Patricia was at least 140kts at landfall, right at the coast, using 15% reduction. End of story.

If it's not, we may never know if the winds were 136kt or 138kt. I try to tell myself hurricane catagories are just  numbers somebody made up anyway.

[ncforecaster89]

If the aforementioned station observations are confirmed, and the instrument is found to be reliable, that means Patricia was at least 140kts at landfall, right at the coast, using 15% reduction. End of story.

 

      

 

I too want to believe that it retained Category-five intensity at landfall for the reasons I mentioned in the preceding post.  That said, I'm not sure how one could actually determine that the aforementioned station observation was accurate.  There are too many oddities in the record...such as a 100 mph (85 kt.) differential between the sustained wind and gust for one ob alone...to realistically assume it was reliable.  In the NW quadrant, no less, outside of the RMW.

[ncforecaster89]

If it's not, we may never know if the winds were 136kt or 138kt. I try to tell myself hurricane catagories are just  numbers somebody made up anyway.

 

I agree!  Although it has historical importance for the record, it wouldn't alter the reality that it was an incredibly powerful and truly historic hurricane at landfall.  As I've reiterated numerous times already, being inside the RMW of a category-four hurricane isn't going to be much different than being in the same for a 140 kt. category five.  They are both extreme!

[ncforecaster89]

I think I may need to reemphasize that I am genuinely hoping my personal examination of the data suggesting a high-end category four landfall is incorrect.  Josh is a friend of mine as well and I want him to get the distinction of having intercepted the inner-core of another category-five hurricane (Typhoon Haiyan being the other).  Moreover, I would also like to see Patricia go down in the record books as arguably the most intense hurricane landfall for Mexico in recorded history (which it may still be even as a possible 130-135 kt. category-four).

 

From an emotional perspective, I try to rationalize a category-five landfall, but my objective analysis of the data argues against it for the reasons I've already noted.  Ultimately, the decision will be made by the NHC and it's still possible they'll keep it as a category-five landfall.    

[ncforecaster89]

If the aforementioned station observations are confirmed, and the instrument is found to be reliable, that means Patricia was at least 140kts at landfall, right at the coast, using 15% reduction. End of story.

 

I would add that Josh's barometric pressure obs were/are a huge addition to the record!  You guys did an excellent job of helping him get into his intercept location, as well.

[Ginx snewx]

I too want to believe that it retained Category-five intensity at landfall for the reasons I mentioned in the preceding post. That said, I'm not sure how one could actually determine that the aforementioned station observation was accurate. There are too many oddities in the record...such as a 100 mph (85 kt.) differential between the sustained wind and gust for one ob alone...to realistically assume it was reliable. In the NW quadrant, no less, outside of the RMW.

I would be astounded if that's a good reading.

[salbers]

Wouldn't this be reasonable with the turbulence associated with the frictional dissipation in rougher terrain?

[wxmx]

Josh's pressure observation could easily support a central pressure in the 920s. They were about 3-4 nm to the east of the center, meaning the central pressure at the time could be 6-8 mb lower. Plus, EZ is a bit inland, which means that at the coast the pressure could easily be 1-3 mb lower.

[OSUmetstud]

Josh's pressure observation could easily support a central pressure in the 920s. They were about 3-4 nm to the east of the center, meaning the central pressure at the time could be 6-8 mb lower. Plus, EZ is a bit inland, which means that at the coast the pressure could easily be 1-3 mb lower.

Definitely but we've seen Katrina come in weakening to a strong cat 3 with a 921mb pressure.

[ncforecaster89]

Josh's pressure observation could easily support a central pressure in the 920s. They were about 3-4 nm to the east of the center, meaning the central pressure at the time could be 6-8 mb lower. Plus, EZ is a bit inland, which means that at the coast the pressure could easily be 1-3 mb lower.

 

I agree that every nm makes a difference in this case, but I thought he stated he was 2 nm E of the landfall point.  I was reading his discussion on twitter with Dr. Postel about the likely minimum pressure at landfall, and we all seem to agree it was somewhere around 930 mb.  That said, it's possible it may have been as low as the high 920's, but unlikely no lower than that.  Of course, you can still have a small, compact eye that can support a 140 kt intensity...but unlikely in a rapidly weakening phase.  Either way, it will be an interesting call for the NHC.  Hoping they see it as you do! 

[Hoosier]

Katrina was a bigger storm though in terms of size, right?

[Roger Smith]

For some sort of final determination of landfall intensity, we still have not heard any specific report from Cayeres where this probably took place. The degree of damage there and eyewitness reports may help.

 

As to the reliability of the inland station at the biological reserve, that too can be cross-checked against damage sustained to the buildings there (as shown on google earth). But the main problem that I could see with the readings would have been matching up gust times with sustained wind reports. The wind directions were consistent with that location being on the western edge of the eyewall with some indications of a brief weakening. I recall seeing an observation from the last plane into the eye, saying that there was a break in the eyewall on the east side, perhaps the wind max was temporarily displaced to the west in relative terms just around landfall. That plus the elevated exposure and possible outflow issues from even higher terrain to the north might make the wind speeds reported more credible. The fact that the instrument survived these winds would be an issue to investigate also. The reported pressures were credible. IIRC, the minimum sea level reading was 27.95 and station 27.6" That latter reading equates to about 935 mbs, the sea level about 945 mbs. This would suggest Josh was slightly closer to the centre.

 

From what I recall of the satellite imagery blown up to highest magnification, the core appeared to be oscillating under the apparent pressure of the rapidly increasing friction with uneven terrain, lots of vortex possibilities in that eyewall structure and the complexity of being forced upslope, which is why I quoted both pressures, not really sure if a conventional adjustment to SLP is a meaningful exercise for the first few minutes of elevating landfall conditions? Maybe the whole structure is being forced up for a few minutes before the disintegration process really sets in.

[ncforecaster89]

Wouldn't this be reasonable with the turbulence associated with the frictional dissipation in rougher terrain?

 

There is little doubt that there was likely a higher wind gust to sustained wind ratio for the reasons you noted, but no way a differential that extreme could be accurate.  

[Srain]

Definitely but we've seen Katrina come in weakening to a strong cat 3 with a 921mb pressure.

Big difference between Katrina analogy which was a large cyclone ~vs~ Patricia which was very compact. Smaller tightly wrapped tropical cyclones with a very smaller inner core typically remain very strong for a longer period of time. And lol at all this hoopla over whether it was a CAT 5 or not. Arguing semantic less than 3 days after landfall is pointless.

[Roger Smith]

 NC, about the landfall "point" as per the NHC, don't they just give a location to the nearest tenth of a degree and then a location from the map? There would be a 10-mile uncertainty associated if we choose 105.0 W and not 105.1 or 104.9. I think Josh was two miles east of 105.0 W, and that means he could have been anywhere between 7 miles east to 3 miles west of the actual landfall, then factor in that the storm might have tracked slightly east of due north but probably not enough to adjust that range of uncertainty.

[Hoosier]

I agree that every nm makes a difference in this case, but I thought he stated he was 2 nm E of the landfall point. I was reading his discussion on twitter with Dr. Postel about the likely minimum pressure at landfall, and we all seem to agree it was somewhere around 930 mb. That said, it's possible it may have been as low as the high 920's, but unlikely no lower than that. Of course, you can still have a small, compact eye that can support a 140 kt intensity...but unlikely in a rapidly weakening phase. Either way, it will be an interesting call for the NHC. Hoping they see it as you do!

Is it possible that normal logic doesn't apply in this case? Yes, there were internal structural changes and there was a major increase in pressure prior to landfall but one has to wonder how much the winds were able to "catch up" and decrease. This thing had a huge buffer to weaken and still have category 5 winds so it will be interesting to see what happens. Think there's good arguments on both sides.

[OSUmetstud]

Katrina was a bigger storm though in terms of size, right?

Much bigger.

It just seems tough to me to see a real detrioration of the eyewall and a flattening of the pressure gradient via recon and still be able to maintain cat 5 intensity at lf.

[Juliancolton]

One thing's for certain... regardless of what the NHC decides in post-season, nobody will be happy.

[OSUmetstud]

Big difference between Katrina analogy which was a large cyclone ~vs~ Patricia which was very compact. Smaller tightly wrapped tropical cyclones with a very smaller inner core typically remain very strong for a longer period of time. And lol at all this hoopla over whether it was a CAT 5 or not. Arguing semantic less than 3 days after landfall is pointless.

Hoopla? Whatever. We're having a discussion.