Cat 5 Major Hurricane Patricia

[ncforecaster89]

One key point that appears to also be overlooked, by some, is that there's not going to be a discernable difference in trying to differentiate between prospective damage for a 130 kt. category-four hurricane and one of 140 kt. category-five intensity.

[bdgwx]

I realize tropical cyclones may not have the same corner flow dynamics as a tornado, but a sustained 185 mph wind is still phenomenal. What kind of damage did this research facility experience?

 

Does anyone have the satellite images for 23:15, 23:45, 00:15, and 00:45?

 

The pressure readings look pretty good. Pressure quickly dropped to the lowest point of 27.68 (937 mb) at 23:40Z and then quickly rose. This at least matches up with the wind speed increase, but why did we get that 162.3 reading at 28.54 (966 mb)?

 

The more I look at this data dump the more skeptical I become. Again, I'm no expert, but I find it unlikely that NOAA will certify the 211 gust and 185 sustained readings. I could be wrong though.

[Buckeye05]

 

Lol the problem here is that this guy is looking for violent tornadic damage signatures in a photo of tropical cyclone damage. Two completely different animals. You aren't going to to get legit scouring and debarking from a hurricane, and I can't find any reliable evidence of anything like that ever occurring in any tropical cyclone in history. These days, every photo that shows some brown spots on the ground is "scouring" and every tree that has lost some foliage is "debarked". Just a combination of bad photo analysis and the twitter poster trying to see what he wants to see.

[Mallow]

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

 

Sounds familiar.

[ncforecaster89]

Sounds familiar.

You're right, Mallow. I guess this does apply to everyone to some degree.

[Fergal]

More images of Chemala damage here

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/galleries/photographers/mario_vazquez

[DTWXRISK]

 JOSH  says  it was  cat  5  - wonder  what the deniers will say now?

https://www.facebook.com/iCyclone/photos/a.403096644596.183425.52553204596/10153433315334597/?type=3

 

On a meteorological note: The pressure gradient in the core of this cyclone was frightening. The pressure recovered explosively-- 31 mb in 26 minutes (6:24 - 6:50 pm) (!!) and an incredible 15 mb in just 9 minutes (6:34 - 6:43 pm) while the winds ripped apart the hotel. It was an incredible, frightening experience (and honor) to punch the core of this Cat-5 hurricane-- the strongest known landfall ever in the Eastern Pacific. My video footage is messy, shaky, and wild, but I believe it captures the terror of the experience and I hope to post it soon.

[tamarack]

Lol the problem here is that this guy is looking for violent tornadic damage signatures in a photo of tropical cyclone damage. Two completely different animals. You aren't going to to get legit scouring and debarking from a hurricane, and I can't find any reliable evidence of anything like that ever occurring in any tropical cyclone in history. These days, every photo that shows some brown spots on the ground is "scouring" and every tree that has lost some foliage is "debarked". Just a combination of bad photo analysis and the twitter poster trying to see what he wants to see.

 

How about 1935 (as posted above.)  Of course, there was reported to be some sandblast effects from that one as well.

 

Several months after Camille, the Journal of Forestry had an article describing the resultant tree damage.  It included a map with concentric parabolas, the outer denoting severe damage and the inner, total forest destruction.  That inner parabola was 20-25 miles wide at the coast and extended about 80 miles inland.  I can't recall seeing any debarking, but the article had pics of acres with 100% of the trees broken/blown down and many so piled up so that any salvage attempt would cost more than the wood was worth.

 

As for that Alex Lamers Patricia pic, I'm surprised that some of that none-too-rugged-looking housing remained relatively intact.

[Snow_Miser]

Josh didn't seem impressed.

Based off of his Facebook posts, I would disagree with this.

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

JOSH says it was cat 5 - wonder what the deniers will say now?

https://www.facebook.com/iCyclone/photos/a.403096644596.183425.52553204596/10153433315334597/?type=3

On a meteorological note: The pressure gradient in the core of this cyclone was frightening. The pressure recovered explosively-- 31 mb in 26 minutes (6:24 - 6:50 pm) (!!) and an incredible 15 mb in just 9 minutes (6:34 - 6:43 pm) while the winds ripped apart the hotel. It was an incredible, frightening experience (and honor) to punch the core of this Cat-5 hurricane-- the strongest known landfall ever in the Eastern Pacific. My video footage is messy, shaky, and wild, but I believe it captures the terror of the experience and I hope to post it soon.

He's the one that's been through multiple majors so I trust his judgment. The pressure fall and rise is incredible and I would like to know how it compares to the other legit cat 5 typhoons he's been in

[Rick G]

I am a person who observes, I guess it goes with my career path. The one thing that no one has mentioned is that there are always anomalies.  We could go down a street after Andrew hit and see a tree totally debarked, just a few feet away we could see a tree with some damage but basically intact. Sustained winds doesn't mean every single place was hit by the same winds. Was it a Cat 5 at land fall? as my kids always say, "I don't know".

 

I do find some of the sites with data to be interesting.( 1100 mph winds!!!), transient equipment failures are common. Does it mean all of the data should be tossed?

 

Just a thought or two.

[WxDanny]

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

It's been accurately reporting conditions before and after the storm as well, don't see what agenda there would be. I guess after two hours, the guy holding a hair dryer to the instrument was finally blown away ;>

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Buckeye05]

 

How about 1935 (as posted above.)  Of course, there was reported to be some sandblast effects from that one as well.

 

Several months after Camille, the Journal of Forestry had an article describing the resultant tree damage.  It included a map with concentric parabolas, the outer denoting severe damage and the inner, total forest destruction.  That inner parabola was 20-25 miles wide at the coast and extended about 80 miles inland.  I can't recall seeing any debarking, but the article had pics of acres with 100% of the trees broken/blown down and many so piled up so that any salvage attempt would cost more than the wood was worth.

 

As for that Alex Lamers Patricia pic, I'm surprised that some of that none-too-rugged-looking housing remained relatively intact.

1935 could be the lone exception, but the keyword here is "reliable". We're talking 1935, so yellow journalism was all the rage at the time of that event. I'm not saying it's impossible given the reports of sandlblasting, but the lack of photographic evidence along with no known modern incidences of tropical-cyclone related debarking makes me very skeptical. I'm 90% sure that the reason we don't see debarking in TCs is because even the most violent of eyewalls cannot concentrate debris the way a violent tornado can, and debarking is a debris-related mechanism. When I say "debris", I'm talking about fine scale stuff like gravel, soil, and sand which produces a violent sandblasting effect against vegetation and in turn strips the bark. From what I'm aware of, an eyewall is not going to produce a fine, concentrated, particulate-choked debris cloud like a tornado will, and that is the key difference imo. So regarding the 1935 storm, I'd imagine that if any debarking did occur, I'd imagine it was limited to beachfront locations were there was a lot of sand to work with.

 

Another issue may be that many simply don't understand what legitimate debarking looks like. There were some reports of it after Haiyan, but nothing conclusive was ever photographed or confirmed. Here is the closest thing I could find though. This pic was published online as a "debarked" tree after Haiyan's passage, but I'm not seeing it save for possibly a few small strips of bark missing from some of the outer limbs. Some leaves are clearly still there too. That isn't what I call debarking.

True debarking will leave the tree a ghastly bright yellowish color with a driftwood-like texture. I just don't see that in the above pic like I do with the below examples from violent tornadoes.

 

 

I am a person who observes, I guess it goes with my career path. The one thing that no one has mentioned is that there are always anomalies.  We could go down a street after Andrew hit and see a tree totally debarked, just a few feet away we could see a tree with some damage but basically intact. Sustained winds doesn't mean every single place was hit by the same winds. Was it a Cat 5 at land fall? as my kids always say, "I don't know".

 

I do find some of the sites with data to be interesting.( 1100 mph winds!!!), transient equipment failures are common. Does it mean all of the data should be tossed?

 

Just a thought or two.

Except once again, there is no evidence that Andrew caused any debarking at all, so I wouldn't call that an "anomaly". Research it and you will find nothing. I realize that I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but people always look for debarking after a Cat 5 makes landfall and always come up empty handed, and probably always will. It just doesn't happen.

[tamarack]

1935 could be the lone exception, but the keyword here is "reliable". We're talking 1935, so yellow journalism was all the rage at the time of that event. I'm not saying it's impossible given the reports of sandlblasting, but the lack of photographic evidence along with no known modern incidences of tropical-cyclone related debarking makes me very skeptical. I'm 90% sure that the reason we don't see debarking in TCs is because even the most violent of eyewalls cannot concentrate debris the way a violent tornado can, and debarking is a debris-related mechanism. When I say "debris", I'm talking about fine scale stuff like gravel, soil, and sand which produces a violent sandblasting effect against vegetation and in turn strips the bark. From what I'm aware of, an eyewall is not going to produce a fine, concentrated, particulate-choked debris cloud like a tornado will, and that is the key difference imo. So regarding the 1935 storm, I'd imagine that if any debarking did occur, I'd imagine it was limited to beachfront locations were there was a lot of sand to work with.

 

Another issue may be that many simply don't understand what legitimate debarking looks like. There were some reports of it after Haiyan, but nothing conclusive was ever photographed or confirmed. Here is the closest thing I could find though. This pic was published online as a "debarked" tree after Haiyan's passage, but I'm not seeing it save for possibly a few small strips of bark missing from some of the outer limbs. Some leaves are clearly still there too. That isn't what I call debarking.

True debarking will leave the tree a ghastly bright yellowish color with a driftwood-like texture. I just don't see that in the above pic like I do with the below examples from violent tornadoes. 

 

Except once again, there is no evidence that Andrew caused any debarking at all, so I wouldn't call that an "anomaly". Research it and you will find nothing. I realize that I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but people always look for debarking after a Cat 5 makes landfall and always come up empty handed, and probably always will. It just doesn't happen.

All good points. Reporting from 80 years ago, along with the controversy about evacuations and casualties from that storm, can lead to exaggerations, though AFAIK the record low barometer reading from 1935 is not suspect.

Another factor in debarking is seasonality, as any logger or forester knows. From about the time of bud break to perhaps a month after full leaf-out, bark peels far more easily than at other times of the year. Andrew was getting late to be in peeling season, 1935 even later. Most tornadic debarking I've seen reported came at/near the height of the "loose bark" season.

[Roger Smith]

Looking at that weather station readout, it seems evident that some of the wind observations are scrambled but perhaps all of them are valid at some other point in the sequence, looking at the pressure record -- if that's accurate, and it matches what Josh said about his experience, the pressure falls and rises were phenomenal and would suggest a gradient easily capable of producing the cat-5 winds that are in the data.

 

Note for example the fall of 0.87 inches which equates to 29 mbs in just one hour from 17:40 to 18:40 CDT. That would be a three-hour fall rate of 87 mbs. The rise in the hour following was even larger -- 0.98 inches or 33 mbs.

 

The wind data show some signs of scrambling and a few readings with southeasterly winds against a general trend of N-NW. There are instances where directions are missing near the eye, and instances of similar reports in alternating sequences. If one assumes that some of these were actually made in the data gap and somehow reported later, it suggests the possibility that the eye went right over this location. The way it looked on satellite at landfall suggests that the eye was being constricted into an elongated structure (in a N-S direction). This might have squeezed out any calm central region.

 

I note today that the Costa Cayeres resort facebook page has posted a message saying that the hurricane made a hit on the area and an update would follow, the situation is being assessed and "everyone is safe" which, reading between the lines, tells me that the place was substantially damaged but not wiped out. As one would conclude from the picture posted from there.

 

My latest and probably final thoughts on what exactly happened would be this -- the distorted eye hit the coast about 2-4 km west of Costa Careyes resort and very close to the village of Cuixmala. It may have then moved inland very close to the nature preserve with the automatic weather station, albeit 2-3 miles to its east and soon after that rapidly downgraded, but for some time there was probably an area of cat-5 winds on land.

 

While some may consider the thread to be a rather abstract discussion of details, I should remind you that based on this thread and all the information I could gather, and no doubt in parallel with what Josh was able to tell people in EZ, it's quite possible that a very accurate forecast of landfall and timing was made available to the stakeholders in the region and perhaps more good was done here than one might imagine.

[Srain]

Josh clearly posted in a reply on the iCyclone feed that Patricia was likely the most intense tropical cyclone he has experienced. Josh is very 'detailed oriented' regarding data. Enough said after what we witnessed with RECON data prior to landfall.

[WxDanny]

Was able to dig up the official numbers from the station, along with additional verification. Believe it or not....

[Ginx snewx]

image.png image.jpg

Was able to dig up the official numbers from the station, along with additional verification. Believe it or not....

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

[WxDanny]

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

I didn't see you posted this earlier, just posted a couple of things myself. I agree it is suspect, but I have no answers as to why or what the manipulation behind it. My colleagues and I found it fascinating nevertheless.

[WxDanny]

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

Honestly this is the first I am seeing 1,100 MPH on ANY source. Guess I should have read the thread before jumping in at the end.

[ncforecaster89]

JOSH says it was cat 5 - wonder what the deniers will say now?

https://www.facebook.com/iCyclone/photos/a.403096644596.183425.52553204596/10153433315334597/?type=3

On a meteorological note: The pressure gradient in the core of this cyclone was frightening. The pressure recovered explosively-- 31 mb in 26 minutes (6:24 - 6:50 pm) (!!) and an incredible 15 mb in just 9 minutes (6:34 - 6:43 pm) while the winds ripped apart the hotel. It was an incredible, frightening experience (and honor) to punch the core of this Cat-5 hurricane-- the strongest known landfall ever in the Eastern Pacific. My video footage is messy, shaky, and wild, but I believe it captures the terror of the experience and I hope to post it soon.

To be a supposed "denier", there would have to be uncategoritcal proof that Patricia was still a category-five hurricane at landfall, and that isn't the case.

As far as Josh's personal opinion, I respect his viewpoint even though I personally believe the available evidence suggests it had weakened below category-five intensity prior to landfall.

[ncforecaster89]

Josh clearly posted in a reply on the iCyclone feed that Patricia was likely the most intense tropical cyclone he has experienced. Josh is very 'detailed oriented' regarding data. Enough said after what we witnessed with RECON data prior to landfall.

Once again, I respect Josh's opinion, but that in and of itself doesn't make his own opinion, infallible. Just because he may personally believe it retained category-five intensity doesn't mean it did so.

[ncforecaster89]

As for that Alex Lamers Patricia pic, I'm surprised that some of that none-too-rugged-looking housing remained relatively intact.

Exactly! If that area had actually experienced category-five conditions, they wouldn't be there. They are certainly no more well-built than those in the Florida City picture I posted a page or two ago...and Andrew only decimated that specific area with category-four MSW.

[ncforecaster89]

I am a person who observes, I guess it goes with my career path. The one thing that no one has mentioned is that there are always anomalies. We could go down a street after Andrew hit and see a tree totally debarked, just a few feet away we could see a tree with some damage but basically intact. Sustained winds doesn't mean every single place was hit by the same winds. Was it a Cat 5 at land fall? as my kids always say, "I don't know".

I do find some of the sites with data to be interesting.( 1100 mph winds!!!), transient equipment failures are common. Does it mean all of the data should be tossed?

Just a thought or two.

The answer to your question, in my own humble opinion, is yes. I know of no trees that were "totally debarked" within a few feet of others that were "basically intact." Please feel free to post any pics showing that.

[ncforecaster89]

It's been accurately reporting conditions before and after the storm as well, don't see what agenda there would be. I guess after two hours, the guy holding a hair dryer to the instrument was finally blown away ;>

Sent from my SM-G925V

This is not the first instance of examples where anemometers fail to give accurate reports in extreme wind conditions, and most certainly won't be the last. There's nothing in the wind record that suggests any of the category-five wind reports are remotely accurate...much less accepting the idea that category-five MSW was measured at that location for two hours. It's impossible!

The reality is that with the small inner-core, the locations proximity to landfall, the rapid weakening of the storm, and with its forward speed, it'd be hard to even argue major hurricane MSW impacted the area for a two hour period...much less extreme category-five.

[ncforecaster89]

Looking at that weather station readout, it seems evident that some of the wind observations are scrambled but perhaps all of them are valid at some other point in the sequence, looking at the pressure record -- if that's accurate, and it matches what Josh said about his experience, the pressure falls and rises were phenomenal and would suggest a gradient easily capable of producing the cat-5 winds that are in the data.

Note for example the fall of 0.87 inches which equates to 29 mbs in just one hour from 17:40 to 18:40 CDT. That would be a three-hour fall rate of 87 mbs. The rise in the hour following was even larger -- 0.98 inches or 33 mbs.

The wind data show some signs of scrambling and a few readings with southeasterly winds against a general trend of N-NW. There are instances where directions are missing near the eye, and instances of similar reports in alternating sequences. If one assumes that some of these were actually made in the data gap and somehow reported later, it suggests the possibility that the eye went right over this location. The way it looked on satellite at landfall suggests that the eye was being constricted into an elongated structure (in a N-S direction). This might have squeezed out any calm central region.

I note today that the Costa Cayeres resort facebook page has posted a message saying that the hurricane made a hit on the area and an update would follow, the situation is being assessed and "everyone is safe" which, reading between the lines, tells me that the place was substantially damaged but not wiped out. As one would conclude from the picture posted from there.

My latest and probably final thoughts on what exactly happened would be this -- the distorted eye hit the coast about 2-4 km west of Costa Careyes resort and very close to the village of Cuixmala. It may have then moved inland very close to the nature preserve with the automatic weather station, albeit 2-3 miles to its east and soon after that rapidly downgraded, but for some time there was probably an area of cat-5 winds on land.

While some may consider the thread to be a rather abstract discussion of details, I should remind you that based on this thread and all the information I could gather, and no doubt in parallel with what Josh was able to tell people in EZ, it's quite possible that a very accurate forecast of landfall and timing was made available to the stakeholders in the region and perhaps more good was done here than one might imagine.

Although I respect your well thought out opinion, the fact that Patricia was rapidly weakening prior to landfall...not just after it came ashore (which obviously greatly exacerbated that rapid rate of weakening) easily explains the rapid rises in observed pressure at both locations you noted.

As a result, the theorized pressure-gradient you and Josh suggest is possible (or actually occurred) would not support a category-five MSW. So far, there remains no reliable data, or any evidence, that category-five conditions were experienced anywhere on the coast at landfall. If there had been, there would be no room for this debate and the resultant damage would be obvious.

[Fergal]

Was able to dig up the official numbers from the station, along with additional verification. Believe it or not....

 

Compare that chart to the raw unmanipulated data and my original question below remains. How did they decide where the reliable data stop and the crazy data started?

 

Here are two charts of sustained and gusts from that station. The link is here

 

I am very suspicious of the report as it is at the base of a very peculiar spike (gust of 1138 mph anyone?). The question arises, where do the reliable data stop and the crazy start? 

 

Sustained (mph)

 

Gusts (mph)

 

Pressure (hPa)

pressure.JPG

[Ellinwood]

It was probably a Cat 5 at landfall.

[Maru Gonzalez]

Hello everyone,
This is my first post and will be long. I actually live and work at the Chamela Biological Station where the wind readings you all have been discussing come from, so I thought I could add something to this most interesting thread. I have followed some of the threads in this forum since Jova made its landfall very close to the station four years ago.

The met station is part of a system installed in federal protected lands by CONAGUA and CONANP, the government agencies in charge of the national meteorological system and the national protected areas systems, respectively. The biology station is located at the top of a hill, at an altitude of around 95 meters asl, and the anemometer is approximately 9.7 m above ground. The station was situated, as some of you have stated, on the NW quadrant of Patricia at landfall. The anemometer in question is a RM Young ultrasonic sensor (SDI-UWS-RMY), and I did suspected its readings since Patricia. Before the hurricane, the station had been giving reliable information, but at some point during the storm the sensor got tilted considerably (I thought it would not survive). I attach a picture of it. Besides that, the range of operation goes from 0 to 70 m/s, so anything above 252 km/h cannot be sensed by this thing. I downloaded the data as soon as I got to the station on the 24th, and I also noticed the red flags. I think the crazy readings (in the thousands of kph) might just be malfunctioning, and I agree that the very high winds sustained for an inordinate amount of time look really bad. All data from 18:20 to 19:40 might be garbage, and of course the anemometer remained tilted, so any data since 18:20 are affected. The pressure readings I believe.

Here is where I will frankly abuse this forum where I never contribute and may tap into your collective wisdom: does anyone think it might be scientifically sounded to perform a correction of the data <250 km/h based on some sort of empirical assessment of the bias (i.e. wind blowing on the tilted and leveled anemometer), or on calculations of such bias based on the tilt angle and the azimuth? I hope the question makes sense.

Finally I want to share this with you all: I was going to stay at the station with my husband and my dog during the storm, and you guys scared the hell out of me when you started to advise Josh to get out the area. The station is first rate (one of the first of its kind in Latin America, it is visited by people all over the world), the buildings are really solid (many big windows though), but the comments on this thing being something like an EF4/EF5 made me doubt our ability to come out of this monster unscathed. I will send pictures if you are interested in the kind of damage we sustained, but I can say it is considerable, the biology station and the forest look very different now after the hurricane. I have not seen signs of debarking, but I have not been able to go much into the forest yet.

Please take into account I am not a meteorologist, so I won´t be able to answer questions you may have (although I am somewhat familiar with the region). Just a humble biologist here, I do research on turbulent CO2 exchange in the tropical dry forest, so naturally weather and hurricanes and their effect on vegetation fascinate me. I really enjoy and learn a lot reading this forum.

Thanks!

P.S. I apologize in advance if people have some questions and I do not answer soon. We only have electricity and access to internet for a couple of hours every day since dear Patty, and reading all your posts today consumed most of this time.

P.S.2. I swear I did not hold a hair dryer to the anemometer!

 

[wxmx]

http://www.weather.com/news/weather/video/storm-chaser-rides-out-category-5-hurricane

A bit of josh's video