Cat 5 Major Hurricane Patricia

[Ground Scouring]

Based on my post here, I'd like to point out that many U.S. Category 4/5 hits may well have been much weaker than even indicated in reanalysis. I'd specifically highlight 1900/1915 Galveston, 1916 Texas, Hazel 1954, Audrey 1957, Carla 1961, and Camille 1969, for which there is abundant photographic evidence from the landfall area (meaning areas that would have been impacted by the estimated maximum winds) failing to show wind-caused damage even proximate to that implied by the official landfall designation. I'd propose downgrading at least a few, if not all, of these. Thoughts and comments in the other thread (or here!) are welcome.

[DTWXRISK]

 
 if we follow your  reasoning    a  TC  that NHC says is a cat 5  hits a remote area ( jungle for example)   since   few  buildings  would be damaged or  destroyed   then according to you ...    it  wasnt a  cat 5

 

show me some relevant Cat 5 damage,thanks

[thewxmann]

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

 

135 kt.

 

But without compelling recon evidence for anything weaker than a Cat 5, I think NHC will keep 140 kt for benefit of the doubt. The Cuixmala obs seems shady and I wouldn't count on those being used. Damage would definitely support at least a Cat 4 so I don't see it as a deal-breaker for a Cat 5 designation.

[DTWXRISK]

Because  those others were saying it  was a  cat 3 or 4    BEFORE  Patricia  made  landfall 

I guess there is some sort  prize   for being the 1st person  to say something  outrageous ...

 

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!

[ncforecaster89]

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?

So FAR there have been ZERO officially substantiated reports of category FIVE winds...much less ANY that supposedly CLEARLY show it was A category-five hurricane at landfall.

The truth is there's no objective way to determine which, if ANY, of those WIND obs taken at THE biological station are legit.

[ncforecaster89]

Because those others were saying it was a cat 3 or 4 BEFORE Patricia made landfall

I guess there is some sort prize for being the 1st person to say something outrageous ...

IF so, it appears you've ALREADY beat others to IT.

[Ginx snewx]

if we follow your reasoning a TC that NHC says is a cat 5 hits a remote area ( jungle for example) since few buildings would be damaged or destroyed then according to you ... it wasnt a cat 5

if I follow your reasoning an initial declaration by NHC is gospel and we should never question it. I will wait until confirmed. I am sure NHC will wait until final analysis to confirm also.

[Ginx snewx]

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

of course not but it does make it suspect,your post treated it as validated

[ncforecaster89]

Because those others were saying it was a cat 3 or 4 BEFORE Patricia made landfall

I guess there is some sort prize for being the 1st person to say something outrageous ...

Seriously though, all joking aside, one could legitimately argue that Patricia might've weakened below category-five even before landfall. Actually, that is what I'm suggesting since it couldn't have come ashore at high-end category-four intensity without weakening before then.

[DTWXRISK]

    so what do you do if the cat 5  hits in a  remote area with  few     buildings and/or   weakly constructed buildings?

   You seem to have no answer  because I keep raising this  and you keep ignoring it 

I am NOT  saying you are wrong

I am asking   that if you based  your assessment  solely or mostly   on cat 5  like  building damage / destruction
what do you about  remote areas?

I dont think I am being unreasonable here  
 

if I follow your reasoning an initial declaration by NHC is gospel and we should never question it. I will wait until confirmed. I am sure NHC will wait until final analysis to confirm also.

[Ginx snewx]

so what do you do if the cat 5 hits in a remote area with few buildings and/or weakly constructed buildings?

You seem to have no answer because I keep raising this and you keep ignoring it

I am NOT saying you are wrong

I am asking that if you based your assessment solely or mostly on cat 5 like building damage / destruction

what do you about remote areas?

I dont think I am being unreasonable here

let me copy what was posted in the Josh thread because its spot on, this is what you would look for in Cat 5 vegetative damage.

"

The tree damage was immensely more severe in those cases, with shredding/snapping of mature, hard pines and coconut palms, among other species. Species that defoliate easily, especially in the seasonally dry (sub-)tropical forests of Mexico, the Caribbean, and South Florida, were completely stripped of leaves in several of the cases that I noted. (For good U.S. examples, see North Captiva Island and the Deering Estate after Charley and Andrew, respectively; Google or read up on the "Seaward Explorer" for the latter.) In the '35 hurricane, I've even seen photos in publications showing debarking of entire mangrove forests at Cape Sable and within the inner core on the Keys--something that I've yet to see in any other tropical cyclone."

[ncforecaster89]

135 kt.

 

But without compelling recon evidence for anything weaker than a Cat 5, I think NHC will keep 140 kt for benefit of the doubt. The Cuixmala obs seems shady and I wouldn't count on those being used. Damage would definitely support at least a Cat 4 so I don't see it as a deal-breaker for a Cat 5 designation.

 

As I've stated earlier, I too don't anticipate that the NHC will downgrade Patricia from their initial call of a category-five landfall designation, even though I strongly feel that the data doesn't support more than a high-end category four intensity.  They are pretty reluctant to make significant changes to their operational assessments without indisputable evidence clearly suggesting otherwise (Katrina, notwithstanding).  One could argue that it being an EPAC hurricane may not carry as much weight as a possible downgrade of a "major" U.S. landfalling hurricane...but that's just conjecture.  

[Ginx snewx]

As I've stated earlier, I too don't anticipate that the NHC will downgrade Patricia from their initial call of a category-five landfall designation, even though I strongly feel that the data doesn't support more than a high-end category four intensity. They are pretty reluctant to make significant changes to their operational assessments without indisputable evidence clearly suggesting otherwise (Katrina, notwithstanding). One could argue that it being an EPAC hurricane may not carry as much weight as a possible downgrade of a "major" U.S. landfalling hurricane...but that's just conjecture.

we can always wait for the Landsea reassessment in 10 years lol

[ncforecaster89]

    so what do you do if the cat 5  hits in a  remote area with  few     buildings and/or   weakly constructed buildings?

   You seem to have no answer  because I keep raising this  and you keep ignoring it 

I am NOT  saying you are wrong

I am asking   that if you based  your assessment  solely or mostly   on cat 5  like  building damage / destruction

what do you about  remote areas?

I dont think I am being unreasonable here  

 

 

DT, I've personally made numerous posts stating pretty clearly why I believe the data doesn't support the current category-five landfalling intensity.  And, I didn't reference any damage photos until another member posted a photo that was not remotely close to being evidence of category-five wind damage (in fact, one could make a valid argument for category-two wind damage based solely on that one pic, for the area where that photo was taken).

 

Aside from that one spurious (arguably malfunctioning) weather station, what other wind reports have you seen that "clearly" support category-five intensity?

[ncforecaster89]

we can always wait for the Landsea reassessment in 10 years lol

 

Lol, good one, Ginxy!

[Hoosier]

Serious question here for those who follow tropical stuff on a more regular basis... how much does observed damage (building, vegetation, etc) at/near the coast factor in to the determination of landfall intensity?

The thing I thought of during this debate was the EF scale and the issues with rating tornado intensity since it's dependent on there being damage to observe. I honestly don't know much about the process that the tropical experts go through.

[ncforecaster89]

Based on my post here, I'd like to point out that many U.S. Category 4/5 hits may well have been much weaker than even indicated in reanalysis. I'd specifically highlight 1900/1915 Galveston, 1916 Texas, Hazel 1954, Audrey 1957, Carla 1961, and Camille 1969, for which there is abundant photographic evidence from the landfall area (meaning areas that would have been impacted by the estimated maximum winds) failing to show wind-caused damage even proximate to that implied by the official landfall designation. I'd propose downgrading at least a few, if not all, of these. Thoughts and comments in the other thread (or here!) are welcome.

 

GS, I'd be glad to share my opinions on the subject at some point in the future as time permits.  Please feel free to remind in a couple of weeks.  Thanks!

[thewxmann]

As I've stated earlier, I too don't anticipate that the NHC will downgrade Patricia from their initial call of a category-five landfall designation, even though I strongly feel that the data doesn't support more than a high-end category four intensity.  They are pretty reluctant to make significant changes to their operational assessments without indisputable evidence clearly suggesting otherwise (Katrina, notwithstanding).  One could argue that it being an EPAC hurricane may not carry as much weight as a possible downgrade of a "major" U.S. landfalling hurricane...but that's just conjecture.  

 

Right. Similar to football - the ruling on the field stands unless there is irrefutable evidence for the contrary.

 

 For Katrina, pretty sure we had multiple SFMR measurements that showed the standard .9 reduction didn't apply, and that Katrina had indeed weakened quite a bit from its peak.

[DTWXRISK]

 NC    yes  YOU did but  
Ginx    has Not    He seem to be  a  intellectual  empty  suit   as he has  still has NOT answered my  question

4 times  now  I  have  asked him SPECIFICALLY    about    cat   5   canes in  remote  areas   where  cat 5  building damage  would of course be   Minimal   and in  every case this  guy  has ignored the  question 


 

DT, I've personally made numerous posts stating pretty clearly why I believe the data doesn't support the current category-five landfalling intensity.  And, I didn't reference any damage photos until another member posted a photo that was not remotely close to being evidence of category-five wind damage (in fact, one could make a valid argument for category-two wind damage based solely on that one pic, for the area where that photo was taken).

 

Aside from that one spurious (arguably malfunctioning) weather station, what other wind reports have you seen that "clearly" support category-five intensity?

[ncforecaster89]

Serious question here for those who follow tropical stuff on a more regular basis... how much does observed damage (building, vegetation, etc) at/near the coast factor in to the determination of landfall intensity?

The thing I thought of during this debate was the EF scale and the issues with rating tornado intensity since it's dependent on there being damage to observe. I honestly don't know much about the process that the tropical experts go through.

 

Please keep in mind it has been quite some time since I interned at the NHC as a student (last one in 1994).  Back then, they'd send surveillance teams to review the damage to assist in those assessments, but never in the place of actual in-situ obs.  

 

That said, I am not sure if they still continue that practice or possibly rely on those performed by the local NWS CWAs.  In this case, I doubt they will/would go to Mexico to use their funding for such firsthand damage analysis.  But, I could be wrong.

[ncforecaster89]

 NC    yes  YOU did but  

Ginx    has Not    He seem to be  a  intellectual  empty  suit   as he has  still has NOT answered my  question

4 times  now  I  have  asked him SPECIFICALLY    about    cat   5   canes in  remote  areas   where  cat 5  building damage  would of course be   Minimal   and in  every case this  guy  has ignored the  question 

 

 

 

DT, In all fairness to Ginxy, I believe he was alluding to the fact we've yet to see any visual evidence of category-five type damage.  This has relevancy in the absence of any wind observations clearly showing category-five intensity.  It's important to keep in mind that he is completely disregarding the wind obs we both feel are suspect taken at the biological weather station.

 

On a different note, i personally don't see the need, nor the point, in belittling people and calling them names.  How does that exhibit ones supposed intelligence and add to the scientific debate? 

[Ginx snewx]

DT, In all fairness to Ginxy, I believe he was alluding to the fact we've yet to see any visual evidence of category-five type damage. This has relevancy in the absence of any wind observations clearly showing category-five intensity. It's important to keep in mind that he is completely disregarding the wind obs we both feel are suspect taken at the biological weather station.

On a different note, i personally don't see the need, nor the point, in belittling people and calling them names. How does that exhibit ones supposed intelligence and add to the scientific debate?

thanks I tried to refrain but enough is enough. I thought I answered intelligently to the question. I am in agreement with your assessment. It is on the books as a 5 and will probably stay that way but I remain skeptical.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Why do they not use drones?

[WxDanny]

Didn't get a chance to read through the entire thread so I apologize if this was referenced or brought up. I was watching this weather station live as landfall was occurring. It survived the direct impact of Patricia, recording a sustained wind of 185 mph, and a gust of 210 MPH.

http://mesowest.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/meso_base_dyn.cgi?stn=CCXJ1&unit=0&timetype=LOCAL

I didn't get a chance to screenshot it, but for a two hour span it was consistently recording sustained over 160 MPH. Will have to see if I can get the archives.

[bdgwx]

Here is the data dump for that station between 15:00 and 00:00. I'm not stupid enough to make conclusion about something I'm not qualified to, but there are some obviously suspicious readings in this. Why is the 211 gust matched up with 89 sustained? Why is that the peak gust is temporally displaced from the peak sustained by 40 minutes? After filtering out the entries that are not on 10 minute intervals why did the wind direction not change after 18:40?
 

ID = CCXJ1              TMP    RH  WIND   GUST   DRCT  QFLG     PRES   P10I  DP
10-23-2015 15:00 CDT    73.4   98   10.3   42.8  035            29.04  0.09  72.8
10-23-2015 15:10 CDT    73.2   98   12.6   35.5  023            29.03  0.06  72.6
10-23-2015 15:20 CDT    73.2   98   13.0   43.1  023            29.01  0.03  72.6
10-23-2015 15:30 CDT    73.0   98   13.9   40.2  031            28.99  0.07  72.4
10-23-2015 15:40 CDT    73.0   99   10.6   42.2  042            28.98  0.07  72.7
10-23-2015 15:50 CDT    72.9   99   12.9   38.8  037            28.96  0.15  72.6
10-23-2015 16:00 CDT    72.7   99   14.8   53.1  042            28.93  0.17  72.4
10-23-2015 16:10 CDT    72.7   99   14.3   43.5  047            28.91  0.12  72.4
10-23-2015 16:20 CDT    72.7   99   15.8   50.6  045            28.90  0.17  72.4
10-23-2015 16:30 CDT    72.7   99   18.5   60.5  057            28.88  0.13  72.4
10-23-2015 16:40 CDT    72.9   99   21.0   65.8  058            28.85  0.33  72.6
10-23-2015 16:50 CDT    73.0   99   17.9   47.6  053            28.83  0.14  72.7
10-23-2015 17:00 CDT    72.9   98   21.3   68.9  036            28.80  0.19  72.3
10-23-2015 17:10 CDT    72.7   98   24.2   86.4  041            28.74  0.06  72.1
10-23-2015 17:20 CDT    72.7   99   34.6   91.9  037            28.68  0.07  72.4
10-23-2015 17:28 CDT                                            
10-23-2015 17:30 CDT    72.9   98   42.4  103.1  031            28.62  0.11  72.3
10-23-2015 17:37 CDT                                            
10-23-2015 17:40 CDT    73.2   98   46.4  129.2  033            28.55  0.05  72.6
10-23-2015 17:45 CDT                                            
10-23-2015 17:50 CDT    73.4   97   49.0  138.6  028   Suspect  28.45  0.06  72.5
10-23-2015 18:00 CDT    73.6   96   66.2  160.9  022   Suspect  28.33  0.05  72.4
10-23-2015 18:10 CDT    73.8   94   89.0  210.9  020   Suspect  28.14  0.04  71.9
10-23-2015 18:19 CDT                66.2         075   Suspect      
10-23-2015 18:20 CDT    73.4   93  104.2         010   Suspect  27.94  0.09  71.2
10-23-2015 18:25 CDT                66.2         075   Suspect      
10-23-2015 18:30 CDT    72.9   94  148.5         360   Suspect  27.78  0.13  71.0
10-23-2015 18:40 CDT    72.5   95  133.4         338   Suspect  27.68  0.04  71.0
10-23-2015 18:50 CDT    71.6   95  185.0         321   Suspect  27.72  0.06  70.1
10-23-2015 19:00 CDT    72.1   97                      Suspect  27.86  0.22  71.2
10-23-2015 19:04 CDT                                   Suspect      
10-23-2015 19:10 CDT    72.7   99                      Suspect  28.19  0.20  72.4
10-23-2015 19:19 CDT                                   Suspect      
10-23-2015 19:20 CDT    73.6  100                      Suspect  28.38  0.14  73.6
10-23-2015 19:28 CDT                                   Suspect      
10-23-2015 19:30 CDT    74.1  100  162.3         330   Suspect  28.54  0.13  74.1
10-23-2015 19:38 CDT               162.3               Suspect      
10-23-2015 19:40 CDT    74.3  100   81.2         333   Suspect  28.66  0.05  74.3
10-23-2015 19:50 CDT    74.7  100   65.7  143.7  337   Suspect  28.75  0.06  74.7
10-23-2015 19:51 CDT               162.3               Suspect      
10-23-2015 19:57 CDT               162.3               Suspect      
10-23-2015 20:00 CDT    74.5  100   76.4  148.7  347   Suspect  28.82  0.04  74.5
10-23-2015 20:10 CDT    74.5  100   69.2  143.3  347   Suspect  28.89  0.02  74.5
10-23-2015 20:16 CDT                76.4         131   Suspect         
10-23-2015 20:20 CDT    74.7  100   56.5  121.9  346   Suspect  28.95  0.01  74.7
10-23-2015 20:25 CDT                76.4         131   Suspect         
10-23-2015 20:30 CDT    74.8  100   45.4  103.5  336   Suspect  28.99  0.02  74.8
10-23-2015 20:31 CDT                76.4         131   Suspect         
10-23-2015 20:40 CDT    75.2  100   46.1   96.0  334   Suspect  29.03  0.03  75.2
10-23-2015 20:45 CDT                45.4         112   Suspect         
10-23-2015 20:50 CDT    75.6  100   44.0   86.2  334   Suspect  29.07  0.02  75.6
10-23-2015 20:59 CDT                45.4         112   Suspect         
10-23-2015 21:00 CDT    75.6  100   39.2   79.5  334   Suspect  29.09  0.02  75.6
10-23-2015 21:05 CDT                39.2         074   Suspect         
10-23-2015 21:10 CDT    75.6  100   34.0   84.6  337   Suspect  29.12  0.01  75.6
10-23-2015 21:20 CDT    75.7  100   35.8   76.3  342   Suspect  29.14  0.01  75.7
10-23-2015 21:30 CDT    75.9  100   33.6   75.2  339   Suspect  29.16  0.01  75.9
10-23-2015 21:39 CDT                                   Suspect         
10-23-2015 21:40 CDT    76.1  100   34.0   72.1  346   Suspect  29.18  0.00  76.1
10-23-2015 21:50 CDT    76.3  100   33.4   65.4  338   Suspect  29.19  0.02  76.3
10-23-2015 21:51 CDT                                   Suspect         
10-23-2015 22:00 CDT    76.6  100   31.9   64.3  341   Suspect  29.21  0.00  76.6
10-23-2015 22:10 CDT    76.6  100   27.8   65.4  330   Suspect  29.22  0.01  76.6
10-23-2015 22:20 CDT    77.0  100   30.6   67.0  335   Suspect  29.23  0.00  77.0
10-23-2015 22:30 CDT    77.4  100   25.7   54.2  338   Suspect  29.24  0.00  77.4
10-23-2015 22:40 CDT    77.7  100   28.1   59.6  343   Suspect  29.25  0.00  77.7
10-23-2015 22:50 CDT    77.9  100   31.2   61.6  350   Suspect  29.26  0.00  77.9
10-23-2015 23:00 CDT    78.4  100   28.3   52.7  345   Suspect  29.27  0.00  78.4
10-23-2015 23:10 CDT    79.0   98   28.2   62.2  345   Suspect  29.27  0.00  78.4
10-23-2015 23:20 CDT    78.8   95   25.4   50.6  342   Suspect  29.28  0.00  77.2
10-23-2015 23:30 CDT    78.8   93   18.6   44.6  342   Suspect  29.28  0.00  76.6
10-23-2015 23:40 CDT    79.0   90   19.6   42.2  336   Suspect  29.29  0.00  75.8
10-23-2015 23:50 CDT    79.3   88   27.2   50.2  351   Suspect  29.30  0.00  75.5
10-24-2015 00:00 CDT    79.3   88   20.6   43.1  343   Suspect  29.31  0.00  75.5

[OSUmetstud]

Didn't get a chance to read through the entire thread so I apologize if this was referenced or brought up. I was watching this weather station live as landfall was occurring. It survived the direct impact of Patricia, recording a sustained wind of 185 mph, and a gust of 210 MPH.

http://mesowest.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/meso_base_dyn.cgi?stn=CCXJ1&unit=0&timetype=LOCAL

I didn't get a chance to screenshot it, but for a two hour span it was consistently recording sustained over 160 MPH. Will have to see if I can get the archives.

Does anyone really believe that? 2 hours of recording sustained winds of 160 mph plus? I don't believe that nonsense for a second.

[Superstorm93]

 

[ncforecaster89]

Been posting in that discussion on twitter and I'll relay the same point. I've personally observed similar damage in post-storm damage surveys following even minimal category-three winds.

I've looked closely at this pic and still can't see any tree debarking... not that it alone would support a supposed category-five intensity.

One has to remember that there are far too many variables involved to make a direct 1 to 1 correlation between damage and wind intensity. For instance, tree debarking and significant tree damage can, and does, occur as a result of weakened and diseased trees which many seem to not understand when analyzing various damage photos.

In short, that particular photo of damage can just as easily have been caused by winds of category-three intensity. ...not that I'm saying the winds were that low!

[ncforecaster89]

Does anyone really believe that? 2 hours of recording sustained winds of 160 mph plus? I don't believe that nonsense for a second.

Me either! Unfortunately, people will choose to believe virtually anything that supports the narrative they're trying to project.

[ncforecaster89]

Here is the data dump for that station between 15:00 and 00:00. I'm not stupid enough to make conclusion about something I'm not qualified to, but there are some obviously suspicious readings in this. Why is the 211 gust matched up with 89 sustained? Why is that the peak gust is temporally displaced from the peak sustained by 40 minutes? After filtering out the entries that are not on 10 minute intervals why did the wind direction not change after 18:40?

All excellent points! I'd also like to know how the NHC will/would possibly be able to determine that any of the wind observations might be accurate even if they were to discount the obvious issues you noted?

How do you do such quality control after the fact when no one was there to visually monitor it in real time?

The answers to those two questions are you cannot. No one objectively examining that record could indisputably argue in support of its credibility.