ncforecaster89

On the forecast track, it's most certainly possible...maybe even likely. It really depends on the actual intensity at landfall, the translational speed as it moves further inland, and its precise trek there. With Fran, it was moving at about 17 mph and deep convection from the NE quadrant moved into the city. Edit: Should add that the rate of weakening/filling is another determining factor.

Hi. I didn't forget about those areas, as I was referencing the area of highest wind gusts. Those winds were in the NE quadrant from Wrightsville beach northwards to North Topsail beach. Of course, your area saw extreme winds, as well.

This map isn't entirely accurate as the strongest wind gusts were measured at Figure Eight Island at 122 mph. That's what was actually measured. The above map only has 90 mph there. Wilmington ASOS gusted to 86 mph. Winds obviously gusted much higher on the New Hanover county beaches, but less than 90 mph according to that map? Ridiculous!

Hi Ray! Nice blog post. Recognize how much time and effort goes into putting that together. The only thing I'd add to the blog is that another extremely important prerequisite to intensification being the lack of dry air...need a very warm and moist ambient environment. You covered the other three of the four, very well.

I'll take the under on that intensity forecast. The HWRF has been notorious for overestimating intensity since its inception...not to say I would rule out the prospect of Florence being able to achieve cat 5 strength at its max intensity...won't be cat 5 at landfall, naturally. High-end category four hurricane would be the more likely scenario...at peak intensity...would be my best educated guess at this point. Then again, it's not totally inconceivable that Florence may not be able to regain its former strength if the inner core continues to be disrupted and elongated. Plenty of time to observe the inevitable, regardless.

I'm enjoying reading the unique hurricane experiences so many of you have shared in this thread. This is somewhat hypocritical, as I will do my best to be in the absolute center of the eye if at all possible, but I too would recommend those who haven't truly experienced the full force of an intense hurricane to be wary of its power to change lives and the landscape where it barrels through. Edit: Despite having endured/intercepted more than 25 hurricanes, to date, I always feel genuine fear prior to each one...realizing just how destructive and deadly they can ALL be.

Replying to SENC's quote below from other forum: "Besides If We get "wacked" I know some pretty cool places to set up.. Sat on "Sheep Island" during Fran, THAT was a experience!" Fran was my first major hurricane experience. I rode it out only 500 yards from the Intracoastal waterway in Scott's Hill. It was awesome and will always have a special place for me...despite the other majors I've experienced since or hope to document in the future. That said, I'm very interested in hearing about your own incredible Fran encounter, as well!

Speaking of EL Nino, here's a copy of a tweet I shared recently: Latest seasonal update from CSU; via @philklotzbach, is close to Avg of last three #Elnino #hurricane seasons: 2006 = 10/5/2 2009 = 9/3/2 2015 = 11/4/2 Avg. = 10/4/2 USA landfalls: 2006 = 3/0/0 2009 = 2/0/0 2015 = 2/0/0 5 of 7 TS strikes outside of Aug-Oct peak, 0 #hurricanes

Joaquin reached 135 kt at its peak, just short of a cat 5. Andrew actually occured during a very Neutral ENSO for ASO in 1992.

Matthew achieved cat 5 intensity during a neutral ENSO (ASO) in 2016.

Revising "July" down to 2/1/0. Won't be surprised if we get less activity than that.

Here's a tweet from my Twitter account (@tbrite89) on June 1, sharing numbers of all known TS/H/MH formations dating back to 1851: Hurricaneseason2018 just officially began. Thought I’d share updated statistical research into #June TS activity for the NATL basin (1851-2017): 1) 94 tropical storm formations (1 every 1.78 years) 2) 33 hurricanes (1 per 5.1 years) 3) 2 “major” hurricanes (1 per 83.5 years) Will add last occurrence of each: 1) TS = 2017 x 2 2) H = 2012 (Chris) 3) MH = 1966 (Alma)

The trends so far aren't as favorable for as active a start to the season, as I originally anticipated; such as a June hurricane. Unless I see a moderation of the current atmospheric conditions, I will likely adjust my July projections. Going through, and updating, my past research into June & July climatology, thought it'd be interesting to share that a surprisingly high percentage of seasons (49.7%) didn't have a single TS develop during both of those two consecutive months. That said, I don't expect we get through both months without at least one TS formation.

Let me preface my comments by stating that I appreciate your viewpoint, and also don't expect some of the higher predictions to materialize. That aside, it's important to remember that the ENSO cycle isn't the only factor influencing seasonal activity, as well as the fact that not all El Nino phases are created equal, so to speak. Moreover, it's still possible an El Nino could be delayed or even fail to transpire. The other significant factor that could lead to suppressed activity (anomalously cold MDR) could very well moderate as we get to the peak months of the season. The El Nino year of 1969 (you alluded to) was pretty hyper-active...so a similar active season wouldn't even be unprecedented. To reiterate, I too, don't anticipate an unusually active season. But, there's very little discernable skill in seasonal forecasts at this range. Considering that, and the recognition that weather forecasting in general is an inexact science...not too much surprises me anymore; relative to the atmospheric sciences. My own totals are slightly enhanced based on the additional May TS, and the tendency for the NHC to name a system that might otherwise not have been classified back when I interned there in the late 80's. Regardless, I'm looking forward to observing whatever this particular season has in store.

15/7/3 May 1/0/0 June 1/1/0 July 3/1/0 August 3/2/1 September 4/2/1 October 2/1/1 November 1/0/0 Note: May revise prior to deadline on the 4th. Can envision a slightly less active late-season, compliments of possible El Nino.

So happy to see/read so many of you cashed in on this event! Personally, drove 19 hours back to Plymouth yesterday morning...after being back home only 36 hours from covering the two previous storms (3/1-10/18). After napping 2 hours, awoke and dressed. At the very moment I was setting up my tripod, a big rumble of thunder (8th or 9th separate event w/ TSSN)! Consequently, just missed capturing it by mere seconds. From there, it was onto Brant Rock in Marshfield to film the surge and blizzard conditions...at the coast. Here's raw and completely unedited visual documentation of the powerful blizzard that hammered the Massachusetts coast, yesterday morning. https://youtu.be/3RqE7jk8R48

If those figures actually verify, and simply usuing a standard 10:1 ratio, it would qualify as a top 10 March event for both KBOS and KHFD, alone. With bulk of precip occurring on Tuesday, would also likely break the single day MARCH snowfall record for KBOS of 13.2” from 3/19/1956! In other words, potential for an historic storm/blizzard IF it phases and tracks close enough to BM.

Very true I'm sure for many who weren't around for the March blizzards/big snow storms of the late fifties and early sixties (myself included prior to research); especially the epic blizzards in 1956 and 1960. In meteorology, one can be sure history is destined to repeat itself. That era (relative to March climatology) is similar to our current period of the past 6 years or so.

My analog for this system is hurricane Earl of 2010. It caused sustained 70 mph winds, and gusts to 89 mph, at Nags Head, as it passed due E at longitude 73.7 w. It was at 35.3 n and 74.0 w, as well. H Maria is of similar size, and Earl's proximity to the coast provides a good barometer of what may occur on the outer-most Outer Banks of NC.

Hi cheeseland! The technology and data available is greatly improved from 1992, as you alluded to, which would have certainly helped. OTOH, the main reason Andrew rapidly intensified shortly before and through landfall was the completion of an EWRC that had caused it to weaken, beforehand. The underestimate of the MSW, at the time, was due to the more limited knowledge of the proper ratio between FLvl to surface winds.

I agree. Excellent footage! Definitely one of Josh's best/most intense chases (maybe top 3 after Hyian and Patricia?). The extreme wind damage and incredible flooding, as you noted, make this a rather catastrophic event for too many on the island. Thoughts and prayers are with them all.

Hi Steve! Thanks for posting this velocity data. Please let me clarify that my post was intended to rebutt the suggestion that Maria was anything less than a very powerful category-four hurricane, at landfall. The part about possibly having weakened below 135 kts is based on the Recon data, continued rise in the central pressure, and satellite presentation at landfall. My best guess is 130 kts.; the same estimate I had for Patricia. However, it's just as conceivable that it retained that extra 5 kts, as well. Either way, a very intense upper-end category-four hurricane, which was the intent of my post.

Hi Paragon, I am only aware of the empirical wind data contained in the NWS post-storm report that actually features a wind gust measurement of 122 kt (140 mph). Given that it's highly unlikely that the maximum wind gusts will be measured at a single station, I'd suspect it's probable that peak gusts were as high as 150 mph. As far as Rockport, it appears an estimate of 140 mph gusts seems most reasonable, maybe slightly higher, but not the locality of the highest winds experienced on land. In many cases, your rule of thumb would be applicable, but in the aforementioned cases of Katrina and Irma, it would significantly overestimate the MSW. Although Irma generated extreme wind gusts =/> 142 mph in the Naples area, the cumulative data clearly suggests it was not a 140 mph category-four at that time. Edit: The NWS report also lists a 1-sec gust of 126 kt (145 mph) at virtually the same location (between Fulton and Lamar) as the 122 kt measurement mentioned above. Important to emphasize that these are both 1-second gusts, rather than the 3-sec standard, which makes it a slightly inflated value.

Concerning all this discussion regarding estimated/presumed wind speeds and categorical damage relative to Maria's intensity, I would add that each hurricane is unique and there's not necessarily a one to one correlation between Recon estimated MSW at the surface and the actual winds that occur on land. In most cases, and in general, one should expect to see wind gusts equal to the MSW value contained in the NHC advisory in the area of the RMW, as the advisory intensity is the absolute maximum estimated surface wind found anywhere in the storm; which is a single point. OTOH, there have been much weaker hurricanes (such as Katrina and Irma), which were also weakening at their respective landfalls, but generated extreme wind gusts that far exceeded the typical sustained to wind gust ratio. Taking into consideration various factors such as how an EWRC might effect wind transport from FLvl to the surface, land friction, influences of orography and topography, an objects exposure to the strongest winds, and the quality and durability of said onjects, are just a few reasons why we shouldn't presume a one to one correlation between the NHC advisory MSW and the damage that occurs or similar assumptions comparing storms of similar intensity. Although one can reasonably argue that Maria may have weakened below 135 kt at landfall (for which I agree), I think all the respective data strongly suggests that Maria was most certainly still a very powerful category-four hurricane, regardless of the extent or severity of the damage that has been left in its wake.