BuffaloWeather Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Camille was 190 mph at landfall Wow, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxtrackercody Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 Camille was 190 mph at landfall Actually, Camille was downgraded. It moved ashore at 150kt/175 mph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbcmh81 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 This is a beautiful coastline, and I have friends in the area, especially in PV. Not good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Has this ever occurred before? Andrew was at 155 at landfall and Camille 160? Labor Day '35 was ~185 mph (perhaps even stronger) and 892 mb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubiksDestroyer Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Actually, Camille was downgraded. It moved ashore at 150kt/175 mph. Didn't know, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The landfall intensity is unlikely to verify as microwave data indicate a formative outer eyewall that is likely to commence an ERC over the next six hours. Combined with increasing shear and frictional effects from mountains, this factor is likely to cause faster-than-indicated weakening before landfall, regardless of exact speed and track. (Keep in mind that the NHC usually underestimates weakening as well as rapid deepening.) I would anticipate 130-135 kt (rather than 160 kt) at landfall, however, with an expanding wind field/fetch meaning a bigger storm surge. Given everything that I've mentioned, plus the fact that previous NHC forecasts (such as at 03Z) showed ~20 kt of weakening due to shear, I'm surprised that the latest forecast totally omits shear/land and shows no weakening before landfall, despite mentioning ERC potential. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 That will be cool to see if that's the highest flight level wind ever record in a tropical cyclone. Wilma's highest recorded was 168 kt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The landfall intensity is unlikely to verify as microwave data indicate a formative outer eyewall that is likely to commence an ERC over the next six hours. Combined with increasing shear and frictional effects from mountains, this factor is likely to cause faster-than-indicated weakening before landfall, regardless of exact speed and track. (Keep in mind that the NHC usually underestimates weakening as well as rapid deepening.) I would anticipate 130-135 kt (rather than 160 kt) at landfall, however, with an expanding wind field/fetch meaning a bigger storm surge. I'm going to be brutally honest for a minute here. I really don't know what to believe with your analysis anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncforecaster89 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The landfall intensity is unlikely to verify as microwave data indicate a formative outer eyewall that is likely to commence an ERC over the next six hours. Combined with increasing shear and frictional effects from mountains, this factor is likely to cause faster-than-indicated weakening before landfall, regardless of exact speed and track. (Keep in mind that the NHC usually underestimates weakening as well as rapid deepening.) I would anticipate 130-135 kt (rather than 160 kt) at landfall, however, with an expanding wind field/fetch meaning a bigger storm surge. Excellent post, GS! Summarizes my general thinking as well (as I've stated repeatedly). That said, the probability of a 140 kt. landfall has increased substantially and it's a 50/50 proposition for me, at this point. I will add that I can't see anything greater than 150 knots max intensity, if it comes ashore outside of 12-15 hours...which should be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srain Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I 'll pay far more attention to the forecasters at the NHC than some 30 year old wanna be in Florida...just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The landfall intensity is unlikely to verify as microwave data indicate a formative outer eyewall that is likely to commence an ERC over the next six hours. Combined with increasing shear and frictional effects from mountains, this factor is likely to cause faster-than-indicated weakening before landfall, regardless of exact speed and track. (Keep in mind that the NHC usually underestimates weakening as well as rapid deepening.) I would anticipate 130-135 kt (rather than 160 kt) at landfall, however, with an expanding wind field/fetch meaning a bigger storm surge. You do realize it will be coming ashore in 12-16 hours, and you think it will weaken 30kts between now and then with it currently showing no sign of weakening... I think you need to realize what you actually said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmx Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 0z Euro has landfall at around 4-5 pm CDT vs 0z GFS 1-2 pm CDT vs NHC at around 7pm CDT. 4pm CDT would be my choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I 'll pay far more attention to the forecasters at the NHC than some 30 year old wanna be in Florida...just sayin... I never said that it wouldn't be devastating...a larger, 130- to 135-kt hit is extremely destructive. A little more polite tone would be nice, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan88 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Still going in, but 180kt FL winds, flagged 182kt SFMR 055930 1624N 10519W 6959 02743 9559 +116 //// 216143 152 122 011 05060000 1625N 10520W 6971 02559 9369 +109 //// 221169 177 182 023 05060030 1626N 10521W 6942 02339 9098 +138 //// 221140 180 /// /// 05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubiksDestroyer Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 There it goes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmx Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Still going in, but 180kt FL winds, flagged 182kt SFMR 055930 1624N 10519W 6959 02743 9559 +116 //// 216143 152 122 011 05060000 1625N 10520W 6971 02559 9369 +109 //// 221169 177 182 023 05060030 1626N 10521W 6942 02339 9098 +138 //// 221140 180 /// /// 05 Both are recon records, I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncforecaster89 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I 'll pay far more attention to the forecasters at the NHC than some 30 year old wanna be in Florida...just sayin... To be fair...Although I think GS may be slightly underestimating Patricia's probable landfalling intensity, his prognostic reasoning does have merit. For the same reasons, aside from the reference to the NHC's forecasting tendencies, I also anticipate some weakening prior to landfall; not necessarily below category-five intensity. That said, if an ERC does not occur and wind shear isn't as strong as reflected in the current analysis maps, then all bets are off. Regardless, those in harms way should expect the absolute worst and hope for the best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan88 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Extrap 888.3mb, 2 more SMFR observations above 170kt 060100 1626N 10522W 7028 02128 8916 +241 +130 218041 097 /// /// 03 060130 1628N 10524W 7105 02014 8893 +254 +096 277012 021 043 004 00 060200 1629N 10525W 7036 02086 8883 +249 +098 020027 046 054 002 03 060230 1630N 10527W 7043 02153 8952 +184 +134 037110 144 /// /// 05 060300 1631N 10528W 7022 02392 9285 +146 //// 040169 172 178 040 01 060330 1632N 10528W 7015 02547 9442 +129 //// 042157 166 173 038 05 060400 1632N 10529W 6995 02676 9555 +117 //// 046141 153 140 029 01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurricaneman Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Based on that I would go to 195mph on the next advisory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Extrap 888.3mb, 2 more SMFR observations above 170kt060100 1626N 10522W 7028 02128 8916 +241 +130 218041 097 /// /// 03060130 1628N 10524W 7105 02014 8893 +254 +096 277012 021 043 004 00060200 1629N 10525W 7036 02086 8883 +249 +098 020027 046 054 002 03060230 1630N 10527W 7043 02153 8952 +184 +134 037110 144 /// /// 05060300 1631N 10528W 7022 02392 9285 +146 //// 040169 172 178 040 01060330 1632N 10528W 7015 02547 9442 +129 //// 042157 166 173 038 05060400 1632N 10529W 6995 02676 9555 +117 //// 046141 153 140 029 01 And all these observations are from the "weaker" southeast quadrant, amazingly. Winds are likely 165-170 kt, based on the higher reduction ratio likely applicable in this RI case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncforecaster89 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 0z Euro has landfall at around 4-5 pm CDT vs 0z GFS 1-2 pm CDT vs NHC at around 7pm CDT. 4pm CDT would be my choice. It's sure looking like a progressively earlier landfall which is GREATLY increasing the probability of a category-five landfall. Almost reaching the point where the possible mitigating factors I've continually alluded to won't have time to stave off a 145-150 kt. category-five landfall. With that said, I'd increase the probability of a category-five landfall to 60%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan88 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 890mb with 40kt at the surface on the drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorMu Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Both are recon records, I think Like a ginormous EF5 - just to think about the power. The force is proportional to the square of the wind speed. OMG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmx Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Radiosonde has 890mb with 40kts surface winds...thats like 886-887 mb probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan88 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 000 URPN12 KNHC 230621 VORTEX DATA MESSAGE EP202015 A. 23/06:01:50Z B. 16 deg 28 min N 105 deg 25 min W C. 700 mb 2134 m D. 182 kt E. 128 deg 6 nm F. 221 deg 180 kt G. 126 deg 5 nm H. 890 mb I. 12 C / 3077 m J. 27 C / 2913 m K. 10 C / NA L. CLOSED M. C7 N. 12345 / 7 O. 0 / 1 nm P. AF303 0320E PATRICIA OB 14 MAX FL WIND 180 KT 126 / 5 NM 06:00:30Z CNTR DROPSONDE SFC WIND 195 / 40 KT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncforecaster89 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 It's cases like these that make it exceedingly difficult to accurately compare the most intense storms. Especially when considering those prior to the satellite era. Even then, satellite estimates in this case have been substantially underestimating Patricia's actual Recon observed intensity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawkeye_wx Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 886 (if that's what they officially go with) would pass Gilbert, with only Wilma left in front. This is pretty remarkable stuff, easily worth staying up for. It appears we will get one more recon pass through the eye before they have to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncforecaster89 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 This rapid intensification is getting rather unfathomable...even considering the absolute perfect oceanic and atmospheric environmental conditions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmx Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 It's cases like these that make it exceedingly difficult to accurately compare the most intense storms. Especially when considering those prior to the satellite era. Even then, satellite estimates in this case have been substantially underestimating Patricia's actual Recon observed intensity. It happens frequently with small eyed storms. Cyclones with normal sized eyes are usually much better estimated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Like a ginormous EF5 - just to think about the power. The force is proportional to the square of the wind speed. OMG. Doesn't quite work that way since violent tornadoes also have very strong vertical velocities (counteracting gravity) in addition to the horizontal velocities, making them much more destructive over the areas they affect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.