Cat 5 Major Hurricane Patricia

[Roger Smith]

You can view the area at landfall before the hurricane (see above, Costa Careyes damage photo) at

 

www.careyes.com

 

and you'll see that it is or was a very upscale resort. They even have a polo field.

[winterymix]

Patricia had a pinhole eye 6 miles across at landfall and radius of central winds was the better part of 15 miles.

 

 

Unless all of the information cited below is tossed due to quality control issues, Cat 5 at landfall is a done deal.

 

Given the pressure at landfall, the wind history and the impossibility of having instrumentation in cross section at the surface, the NHC isn't going to toss "Cat 5 at landfall" very easily.  There isn't an abundance of proof that the storm wasn't Cat. 5 at LF, even if only for portion of an hour.

 

[winterymix]

Here is Cat 5 destruction:

 

 

 

 

Chamela, Mexico.

 

 

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/english/2015/10/25/chamela-village-hurricane-patricia-swept-away

[Ginx snewx]

Here is Cat 5 destruction:

 

chamela.jpg

Poorly constructed buildings do not do well in Cat 3 winds, not a good example, this is Cat 5 stuff from Andrew

[Ginx snewx]

Patricia had a pinhole eye 6 miles across at landfall and radius of central winds was the better part of 15 miles.

 

patricia-recco-landfall.png

 

Unless all of the information cited below is tossed due to quality control issues, Cat 5 at landfall is a done deal.

 

Given the pressure at landfall, the wind history and the impossibility of having instrumentation in cross section at the surface, the NHC isn't going to toss "Cat 5 at landfall" very easily.  There isn't an abundance of proof that the storm wasn't Cat. 5 at LF, even if only for portion of an hour.

 

slp.jpg

http://amazon.nws.noaa.gov/nexhads2/jsp/interactiveDisplays/createChart.jsp?nesdis_id=16A106E4&nwsli=CCXJ1&pe_code=UP

[winterymix]

Poorly constructed buildings do not do well in Cat 3 winds, not a good example, this is Cat 5 stuff from Andrew

 

 

If you read the story from El Universal,

it becomes obvious that the same area was hit by Jova and the damage

was far greater this time.  Loss of roof supports upping the category.   For Patricia to maintain Cat 5 at LF,

the damage only has to occur in a couple of spots since the core with pinhole.  Grading the category based on

destruction will be akin to post-tornado analysis since the radius of Cat 5 winds was 15 miles at most.  This was a 6 mile eye at LF.

 

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/english/2015/10/25/chamela-village-hurricane-patricia-swept-away

[Ginx snewx]

If you read the story from El Universal,

it becomes obvious that the same area was hit by Jova and the damage

was far greater this time.  Loss of roof supports upping the category.   For Patricia to maintain Cat 5 at LF,

the damage only has to occur in a couple of spots since the core with pinhole.

 

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/english/2015/10/25/chamela-village-hurricane-patricia-swept-away

I wouldn't look at 1 picture and describe it as Cat 5 damage Rich without seeing the entire structure, its possible for poorly constructed buildings to fail at cat 3. I just am not sure your example confirms Cat 5 conditions, although fierce its hard to tell without professional assessment. Could be but 1 picture in this case does not tell 1000 words. Eventually we will hear the final determination, until then I withhold judgement. At this time I certainly do not think that wind data is unblemished .

[Ginx snewx]

There is too always the issue of LF hurricanes spinning off brief Tornadoes, lots to consider when assessing category.

[ncforecaster89]

Here is Cat 5 destruction:

chamela.jpg

Chamela, Mexico.

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/english/2015/10/25/chamela-village-hurricane-patricia-swept-away

That is most definitely not category-five damage! I've seen firsthand damage similar to that during category-two damage surveys. That's category-three damage, at most.

You have to examine the building materials strewn about (thin plywood, sheet metal and the like), and note the lack of significant tree damage in the foreground.

[vortex95]

Anything from Sinaloa south in the Western coast it's actually a far cry from arid, actually very close to the Yucatan.

 

I was referring to how the Yucatan (and Florida) is mostly flat and low elevation, and that makes a big

difference for climate (less source dry air from the land) and no rough terrain to really disrupt/destroy a

hurricane's ciruculation.  In the case of Andrew, it was noted the eye temp was 1-2 C warmer on IR sat an

hour after landfall over South Florida. Last recon while it was just offshore found 932 mb, and NHC estimated

that landfal was ~926 mb.  However, afterwards, they found barometers people had in the eye with readings

of 922 mb.

[Fergal]

I think the SST anomaly was the extra shot in the arm that gave it that intensification for a brief period before interaction with the increasing shear to its north and then initial interaction with the complex terrain. Without that 31 °C water we would be looking at maybe 20 knots less but then maybe a different or non-existent eyewall replacement cycle. It's also interesting how the northerly wind outbreak over Mexico a few days earlier added some vorticity to the mix and help spin it up.

 

All ifs, buts and maybes, but with the El Niño as it is maybe we will have another chance or two at more similar storms before the end of the year. 

 

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

[ncforecaster89]

Patricia had a pinhole eye 6 miles across at landfall and radius of central winds was the better part of 15 miles.

patricia-recco-landfall.png

Unless all of the information cited below is tossed due to quality control issues, Cat 5 at landfall is a done deal.

Given the pressure at landfall, the wind history and the impossibility of having instrumentation in cross section at the surface, the NHC isn't going to toss "Cat 5 at landfall" very easily. There isn't an abundance of proof that the storm wasn't Cat. 5 at LF, even if only for portion of an hour.

slp.jpg

I agree that it's unlikely the NHC is going to over-turn their ruling on the field (to use a football analogy)...even though the data doesn't support the retention of category-five intensity, IMHO. That said, the "pressure at landfall" was a subjective estimate and is unlikely to remain that low following post-storm analysis.

[ncforecaster89]

If you read the story from El Universal,

it becomes obvious that the same area was hit by Jova and the damage

was far greater this time. Loss of roof supports upping the category. For Patricia to maintain Cat 5 at LF,

the damage only has to occur in a couple of spots since the core with pinhole. Grading the category based on

destruction will be akin to post-tornado analysis since the radius of Cat 5 winds was 15 miles at most. This was a 6 mile eye at LF.

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/english/2015/10/25/chamela-village-hurricane-patricia-swept-away

I'm not sure you meant to use a minimal category-two hurricane (Jova) landfall to suggest that Patricia should be retained as a category-five hurricane based on eyewitness damage comparisons.

[Scott747]

Tough crowd.

 

If going by the initial imagery then plenty here would have said Dean wasn't a 5 at landfall in Mahahual.

[ncforecaster89]

Hopefully these few pics will help explain why we definitely have seen no damage photos yet that remotely suggests category-five intensity.

Hurricane Janet (Swam Island 150 kt. Category-five):

Hurricane Andrew (S Fl. with category-four intensity winds at these locations):

Hurricane Hugo (San Juan, PR with category-three intensity winds):

[ncforecaster89]

Tough crowd.

If going by the initial imagery then plenty here would have said Dean wasn't a 5 at landfall in Mahahual.

Hi Scott! That is only one small part (the obvious degradation of the satellite presentation of Patricia in the last 5.5 hours preceding landfall) of many other reasons (as mentioned throughout this thread) why I personally don't believe Patricia retained category-five intensity at landfall.

That aside, hurricane Dean's satellite presentation at landfall is far superior to that of Patricia. This goes back to the huge factor that one was rapidly weakening while the other was intensifying.

Note: These comparable satellite images are each taken roughly 45 minutes after landfall.

[ncforecaster89]

Here's another one of Patricia exactly one full hour prior to landfall. If one had no idea of it's presumed intensity at the time the image was taken, who would've thought it was a category-five?

[DTWXRISK]

wow  this is  some  BAD  reasoning    since patricia did not  hit  the  same  densly  popualated areas

 

Hopefully these few pics will help explain why we definitely have seen no damage photos yet that remotely suggests category-five intensity.

Hurricane Janet (Swam Island 150 kt. Category-five):

Hurricane Andrew (S Fl. with category-four intensity winds at these locations):

Hurricane Hugo (San Juan, PR with category-three intensity winds):

[thewxmann]

My personal feelings about the strength of Patricia at LF aside, keep in mind that the mountainous terrain of MX means the frictional reduction of winds is greater than usual. If there were Cat 5 winds, they were probably only felt on the coast. Most of the towns which were affected (aside from Perula, but it was in the left quad) are a bit inland.

[DTWXRISK]

 WHY  in the world,  would one  ONLY   by satellite pictures  since  there were actual wind reports   that clearly show it  was 5  Cat  ;at the time of landfall? 

 

Tough crowd.

 

If going by the initial imagery then plenty here would have said Dean wasn't a 5 at landfall in Mahahual.

[DTWXRISK]

100% irrelevant since  the  cat 5  winds  were ina small areas of 20 miles in diameter 

 

these are from Fb,the motel Josh was in, doesn't look Cat 5 ish

[Ginx snewx]

WHY in the world, would one ONLY by satellite pictures since there were actual wind reports that clearly show it was 5 Cat ;at the time of landfall?

maybe because there was only one station report and its highly suspect http://amazon.nws.noaa.gov/nexhads2/jsp/interactiveDisplays/createChart.jsp?nesdis_id=16A106E4&nwsli=CCXJ1&pe_code=UP

[Ground Scouring]

My personal feelings about the strength of Patricia at LF aside, ...

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what your personal feelings are about the strength of Patricia at landfall.

[DTWXRISK]

 thats 156 mph  thats not cat 4

 

Standard sea level reduction gives 136 kt. (19 percent at 300 ft).

[Ginx snewx]

100% irrelevant since the cat 5 winds were ina small areas of 20 miles in diameter

show me some relevant Cat 5 damage,thanks

[ncforecaster89]

wow this is some BAD reasoning since patricia did not hit the same densly popualated areas

I'm well aware of that distinction, but is simply an example of damage from various categories of MHs to compare to a similar example posted for Patricia. The images posted for both Hugo and Janet aren't taken at a densely populated area...only the one for Andrew.

Not sure if you've done any damage surveys as a meteorologist, but if you have...there's no way you can suggest we've seen any category-four (much less category-five) type damage photos, as of yet. That said, I strongly believe the data supports a high-end category-four intensity at landfall.

[Ginx snewx]

Taking a wxstation as gospel that showed 162.3 mph sustained for 19 minutes and gusts to 1100 mph as verification is pretty shaky. I will wait

[DTWXRISK]

 NO   its obvious that  the winds there did not last  162 kts did NOT last a full hour ?  so what?  

that has NOTHING  to do with the issue  of whether the  winds  did or  did not reach that high at some  place  
 even if it was   for 5 minutes

 

Do you think that the entire hour plus that station recorded Cat 5 winds is accurate? With the forward speed and size that seems highly unreliable. Josh estimated a 20 minute period of  high intensity, damage pictures do not represent winds of that magnitude. plus the 162.3 sustained for 19 mins is a huge red flag I am suspect.

[DTWXRISK]

 sorry  this is just I dont get your    reasoning    

the 1100 mph is obvious malfunction but it doesnt    mean all of the data  there is   bad
 

Taking a wxstation as gospel that showed 162.3 mph sustained for 19 minutes and gusts to 1100 mph as verification is pretty shaky. I will wait

[ncforecaster89]

thats 156 mph thats not cat 4

 

Actually, IT is. But, WHY bother with such details when you've consistently posted The central pressure was 910 mb, at LANDFALL, while in the process OF berating others. Just saying!

 

EDIT: I was alluding to your continued declaration that Patricia made landfall with a 910 mb central pressure instead of the 920 mb clearly shown in the "landfall advisory."