ncforecaster89

Members
  • Content Count

    1,031
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ncforecaster89

  • Birthday 05/03/1970

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
    KILM
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Wilmington, NC
  • Interests
    Hurricanes and blizzards are my primary interests relative to a specific atmospheric phenomenon. Tropical meteorology was, and has been, my focus since my first hurricane experience at the impressionable age of 14. It was this fateful encounter that led me to pursue a degree in atmospheric sciences. While in college, I was most fortunate to have interned at the NHC (by way of a student internship) with the late Bob Case as a mentor. Although I no longer work in the meterological field professionally, I still enjoy helping others by sharing the knowledge others have so generously given me. Thus, one is most likely to see the vast majority of my posts being centered on tropical meterology.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,687 profile views
  1. With the upcoming one year anniversary of landfall tomorrow, I was reviewing all the data related to its landfall strength. As a result, l think it suggests a 145 kt intensity is more applicable (not that it's a significant difference, in the scheme of things). Yes, I'm aware I may be a little OCD about such estimates. That said, here's my reasoning: Already noted the causes as to why it's highly likely that the BP had dropped at least another 2-3 mb from the current 919 mb estimate in HURDAT2. This would bump the wind-pressure relationships up to 145 kt. The radar analysis argues for 145 kt, by itself, as detailed in the NHC TCR. As stated in the TCR, it appears RECON missed sampling the peak winds, and had it done so, they'd been higher than the 152 kt at FL. Lastly, a blend of the FLWs and the SFMR (152 kt) would equate to a 145 kt intensity, as well. This is the current standard used the past 3 seasons with all the high-end Cat 4 and Cat 5 hurricanes due to the probable high-bias of SFMR measurements at such extreme wind speeds.
  2. Thanks so much for sharing the link and summarization of the paper. If it occurs during my lifetime, I will most certainly be there to document it, as well!
  3. Agree on all accounts. Can only imagine a repeat of the GLDH of 1935 with all the buildup over the past 84 years. Not to mention, it's one of the most vulnerable areas in the U.S. for such a monster Cat 5!
  4. Lol. I know I can be too long-winded. Need to work on being more concise.
  5. If you're referring to me, as it appears you are...you couldn't be farther from the truth. Then again, that seems to be a regular thing with you. One thing I'm certainly not is self-centered or an attention seeker...unlike many other chasers. If anything, I'm probably too empathic and truly care about others. But, what would you know about that? I'm not the one consistently posting such immature and rude comments.
  6. As far as wind damage is concerned, the small Island of Guanaja (offshore to the N of Honduras) were subjected to major hurricane-force winds for 72 hours and max winds near Cat 5 intensity. The center of Mitch stalled and meandered near the Island for three days while it was at its max intensity of 155 kt/180 mph MSW. As a result, virtually the entire mangrove forest and pine trees were destroyed on the island. Even a decade later, evidence of Mitch's wrath was still evident with countless trees debarked.
  7. Thanks for the objectivity. Greatly respect that. Although some may not realize or appreciate it, my own personal opinion isn't rooted in the fact I was the one who shot the footage at that location in MB. It's all about Michael's intensity and effects...not anything to do with me. It's not like I've been suggesting Dorian didn't produce Cat 5 conditions in Marsh Harbour. Josh's footage, MH's position in the eyewall, and the engineering evaluation by Steer all support Cat 5 conditions occurred at MH. Thanks again for taking the time to objectively review the video, and I hope you have a great rest of the day!
  8. And, you say my posts "have an extremely salty tone?" Btw, I sincerely apologize if my posts come off that way, as that's certainly not my intention. I have no problems sharing the video. It's a long one, for it's basically all the raw footage and isn't edited to just show the highlights. Keep in mind, the strongest winds were on the backside after the wind shift in the video. This matches well with the Recon and radar data that showed the peak winds were in the SE eyewall. It's virtually complete whiteout at the peak. There's a lot to see in the video, but for highest winds...best to view from about the 58:00:00 mark to 1:04:00 and again around the 1:06:00 mark onward to about 1:17:00, as the section in between is right before the wind shift shot from over the railing in the NE eyewall. Peak winds somewhere during that 15 minute period or so. Not simply the aforementioned data and insane conditions encountered at the western-most portion of MB, but also the damage evaluations performed by steer who showed debarking at both locations from each storm, respectively. No doubt both locations saw genuine Cat 5 conditions, and it's ok for people to disagree on the exact winds experienced in Marsh Harbour...given the lack of data compared to what was available with Michael.
  9. Obviously, I disagree, and it's ok that you view it differently. Edit: I certainly wouldn't argue the winds were stronger at Tyndall. They weren't. Anyway, I genuinely hope you have a good rest of the night!
  10. Please read my last post in the main Dorian thread. So excited you were able to get into the eye and core of Dorian, and the same applies to Jim Edds, as well. Very disappointed that James wasn't allowed to get to the Island, himself. Naturally, I'd also liked to have been there, but I've long ago resigned myself to the reality that I'll never be able to chase outside the U.S. (my wife will never allow it). Now, things would be completely different if I missed any Cat 3 or higher landfall in the U.S. To this day, I wish I'd been able to chase Andrew. Unfortunately, my studies were paramount at the time and I have to remind myself of that. Charley is another I regret not chasing in Florida, but work obligations made that impossible. Anyway, I eagerly look forward to documenting the next major hurricane in the U.S., as well as seeing all the footage you capture during your own chase exploits. Have a great rest of the night, Josh!
  11. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm genuinely excited for you to have gotten into the eye and core of hurricane Dorian. It's a huge accomplishment from a chase perspective and you have every reason to be proud of it. It's ok we might disagree on Michael's max intensity at landfall. Even though I don't personally understand it, based on the objective data, I no less respect your opinion. Given your availability and interest in chasing outside the continental U.S., it's only a matter of time before you document another Cat 5 from its core. The same applies to other chasers such as Jim Edds and James Reynolds. Consequently, it's most certainly conceivable that you may document a TC even more intense than Dorian. If so, I will be truly happy for you! Although I'm aware of a couple of other chasers who are genuinely envious of others chase success, that's not the case with me. I want to see video of the greatest impact, regardless, and since I'm unable to chase outside of the U.S. (wife isn't cool with it), why would I be jealous that I wasn't the one who obtained it? Most importantly, I'm thankful you survived those genuine Cat 5 conditions from Dorian without harm. The fact you collected incredible data and awesome video is the cherry on top, so to speak!
  12. I'm posting this comment in the banter thread, as I would suspect any convo regarding chasers (more personally) would be more applicable outside the main storm specific thread. That said, I wanted to make it abundantly clear that I was (and am) genuinely excited for Josh to have intercepted the eye and core of Dorian. Unlike some, I don't get jealous of others' chasing success. Why should they? It has no relevancy on their own chase abilities. My wholly scientically objective observation that the winds don't appear to have been any higher in Marsh Harbour than those I happened to observe on the western-most portion of Mexico Beach, shouldn't be taken as somehow an attempt at minimizing the effects on Marsh Harbour. The only relevancy to Josh in such evaluation is simply an objective review of the winds he documented on video. As stated multiple times already, I feel he captured genuine Cat 5 winds on video...which is a VERY rare occurrence. It makes zero difference that I happened to be the one who documented the highest winds in Michael or that Josh happened to be the one documenting Dorian in MH. The only relevancy between the two is that each intercept location experienced the greatest impact from the two storms, respectively. Thus, my own personal interest in knowing what the peak MSW might've been at each specific locality. Given Josh is typically in the core of a major landfalling hurricane at or near ground-zero, I can understand why some might misinterpret my objective analysis of the peak winds that most likely were encountered in that area, and falsely presume I have some stupid ulterior motive or "agenda". Nothing could be further from the truth! Even when some resorted to unjustified personal attacks when I respectfully argued that all the objective scientific data clearly suggested Patricia wasn't a Cat 5 at landfall, I didn't waver on my wholly objective opinion. Subsequently, the NHC agreed with my precise 130 kt estimate. Similar instances occurred in discussion of Michael's landfall intensity. Yet again, my best educated guess (based solely on the objective scientific data) was validated in the NHC TCR. Now, some are taking exception to my objective viewpoint that Marsh Harbour didn't get anywhere close to those one-minute 10 m estimated MSWs. Unlike with Michael, we have a lot less access to all the available data, whereby making a specific best educated estimate of the MSW encountered in MH is far more problematic. That's why I've asked if anyone knows of any additional data that may be available? Regardless, I'm confident that MH saw a MSW of at least 140 kt. I don't personally consider chasing a sport, much less a competition with other chasers. In sequence of events, my initial goal is to either get into the eye or the area of strongest winds from a documentation standpoint. Secondly, record the barometric pressure at that location. Currently in the process of obtaining an anemometer to accurately record wind measurements in future intercepts. Next, to assist with search and rescue following a devastating event...followed by documentation of the aftermath. Lastly, I always have (since Katrina in 2005) and always will devote at least one full day to assisting with the cleanup. This is one thing I wish all chasers would do, and feel we all should do, considering we intentionally place ourselves in these areas of greatest impact and often times benefit from doing so. Regardless of the other ways we help, I still think it's the least we can do...but that's just me. This post is long enough. But, I just simply wanted to share my personal viewpoints on the contents contained herein to help those who might misinterpret them. Thanks for taking the time to read it. Hope all have a great rest of the day!
  13. Your specific response to his comment about Michael (and only Michael) being reassessed as a Cat 4 was "very true." Is it possible for you to have a reasonable scientific discussion without the need to resort to unmerited personal jabs (I.e., "your favorite cyclone ever"). Obviously, that comment has no relevancy, whatsoever, to the conversation. You do it so frequently that it appears the intention might be to deflect and attempt to discredit the objective points discussed with whom you might disagree. Anyway, those future revisions to the Florida intensity could be an upward adjustment as the SFMR (alone) argues for a 150 kt estimate. None of the other collective data suggests a decrease in the current estimate contained in the TCR. As mentioned previously, one could reasonably argue that the aforementioned 140 kt estimate is more on the conservative side, even excluding the SFMR data. To clarify, I don't think the current operational estimate of 160 kt is unwarranted for Dorian. Although, I'd consider it a little too generous if the SFMR measurements are discounted, entirely.
  14. Actually, that's not the case with Michael. Its Cat 5 designation isn't totally reliant on the SFMR data...nor is Dorian's, obviously.
  15. Forgive me for thinking this was a thread to discuss Dorian and correspondingly, also the objective scientific data relating to its intensity and effects. May be difficult for you or some others to comprehend, but my fascination with hurricanes doesn't carry an emotional attachment. For those whom it might, that should have absolutely no influence on the evaluation of any wholly objective data pertaining to them. All that aside, like Dorian...the data clearly shows that Michael was at least a 140 kt Cat 5 at maximum intensity, even without considering the SFMR measurements. Based on all the data detailed in the TCR by the NHC, the 140 kt estimate could be deemed a conservative one. Not that I'd argue for anything greater than 145 kt without verification of the SFMR reliability. Back to the case of Dorian, the FLW data alone would equate to 145 kt. Of course, one should take into consideration other meterological factors and it's highly unlikely the NHC would assign an intensity below 150 kt... even without any consideration of the SFMR. I was simply making an observation and certainly not implying Michael's max intensity was on par with that of Dorian. Even without the SFMR, the other data argues for an intensity no less than 155 kt. (in my opinion).