Windspeed

Posted in the main thread in the tropical subforum but posting here as it is just incredible footage. Sudduth mounted a GoPro in Mexico Beach. In all the recent years of impressive landfall footage, this takes the cake. Some of the gusts/bursts look similar to shockwaves:

ECMWF is now on board for a Portugal landfall as well. That stink jet though. Could be bad timing for landfall and PT transition.

We almost always have a worse scenario with every bad landfall. Michael is no exception. Actually, perhaps 8-10 miles further west would have been the death knell. It would have put PC in the worst of the eastern eyewall and PCB in the worst if the western eyewall and maximized destruction for the most infrastructure damage and people in harms way. Fortunately that did not occur, but no less downplays the catastrophe for the region.

Thanks to Leslie and Michael, Accumulate Cyclone Energy (ACE) is now 119 for the Atlantic Basin, pushing the 2018 season above climateological mean of 111 considered for an above-normal season. 153 ACE is the mark for a hyperactive season like the one we experienced in 2017. So far 2018 has resulted in 14 storms, 7 hurricanes and 2 major hurricanes.

This will probably be poor neglected Nadine's only mention here. lol..

Leslie's track guidance has shifted north significantly due to deeper longwave trough interaction. Baroclinic influences by that interaction may also bring hurricane force gusts to Portugal coast as a post-tropical low. 10/12 12z GFS is now suggesting this as well. NHC 11 AM AST:

53°F and overcast. If this garbage low level coverage can clear out, perhaps radiational cooling can get us down close to 40° by dawn. 30s might be asking too much. Tonight feels freaking amazing! I hate Michael happened to the SE. But combined with the high amplitude trough, these are the most seasonal Autumn temperatures we've had. Still don't expect a frost for another few weeks. Eager for that Fall foliage.

Perhaps anyone that engages SENC appears gullible, but when someone posts images or data sets from obs to support a claim, it should to be analyzed and explained like anything else. Otherwise, such posts can be misleading. There is also the possibility this person is legitimate and believes their point of view. Not everyone that reads these forums are capable of telling the difference however. Crazy rambling rant? Sure, easy to ignore. Posting data or images to support a claim, no matter how misconstrued? Yeah, that's going to need to be explained. At the risk of having fed a troll, data is data. At any rate, if a discussion gets out of hand, there are mods.

Once again, if you would just do some actual analysis of the data you are viewing, you would have quickly realized that station lost power in the preceding hour before landfall. Notice the last report, 12:53 PM. Port Saint Joe, FL is located in the Eastern timezone. Landfall time was approx 17:33z or 12:33 PM CDT. Simply put, that last reading was at 11:53 AM CDT. Again, the last reading ended with power failure or a malfunction due to conditions, but before closest proximity of eyewall and the highest winds experienced at that location. Edit: Perhaps semantics, but for posterity, PSJ WStem failure was approx 40 minutes prior to 17:33z/12:33 PM CDT landfall.

For the sake of accuracy, Google was a few ticks off, not that you'll notice from eyeballing the map. This is dead on for 29.408 N 84.858 W, the station in question. And this is exactly where you'd expect such readings:

A simple lat/long search... 990 mb? Looks about right.

Man, trying to navigate all these armed mines and contribute any meaningful analyzing discussion with regards to Michael's observed meteorological phenomenon is a good lesson in futility. It's more than enough to present your opinion and evidence in a debate, it's another to hijack all the discussion because the majority disagrees with you, much more demand everyone believe you. Present your point, your reasoning and evidence, whatever; debate it, amend it later if there is new evidence to support your claim if you must; but in the meantime, get over yourself and move on. People get so damn offended when not agreed with. It may be a science forum, but you're not defending your dissertation. Step away. Chill out. Stop being miserable and go enjoy life for a while.

But SENC has aerial survey photos from 17 years ago he searched on google. Oh and lets not forget bouys. Clearly all the resources at the tips of his fingers he needs to assign wind damage and post reoccurring rant after rant a mere 6 hours after landfall to discredit a 919 mb Category 4 and the NHC. "But the SLABS! The... SLABS! ..... Anemometers! Politicized.. NHC!.....They are not... **GOD***** Government... CONSPIRACY!!!! You young whipper SNAPPERS! ... 69 SURVIVOR!......and OBX bound!!!!!"

Your reading comprehension skills also need improvement. You completely missed the point. There have yet to be damage survey flights for Michael over the swath of landfall shoreline. Yet you use older ones as a comparison example to argue intensity.

Like grammar? Perhaps the ability to engage in a mature debate? You of all people are telling me I must be young and have a lot to learn. Grow up.

Neither has anyone else. Usually helicopter survey flights occur the next day or days.

Michael had sub 940 mb pressure readings for nearly 8 hours prior to landfall. Think about that. Before anyone should have to defend the official intensity statements, it would seem to me someone would need to explain their hypothesis against the meteorological fact above as to how in the hell maximum sustained winds never exceeded C2 at landfall. I don't care that we've yet to have an official or unofficial anemometer reading analyzed. There are way more logical explanations for the latter.

I've just thought it was always weird to have to remind everyone that you aren't an official source of information on a weather forum. I mean, I get it if you are making videos or posting media like Levi Cowan or Jeff Masters on your weather blog, regardless if you are a professional. But if a person uses a poster's forecast opinion on a weather forum over an official agency to make life or property decisions, regardless if the poster is a professional, well... what the hell are you doing? Weather forums are for professionals, enthusiasts and amateurs to discuss weather and science-related matters. But policing and forcing that is annoying and counterintuitive.

Meh, I like the community that posts here. I also enjoy the discussions more. The ****show was extreme, yes, but not typical of most landfall threads here. Mods volunteer their time so I'm not going to criticize, but I do wish the meteorological thread had went into Storm Mode last night when it became clear that we were going to have a major landfall. Having said that, I enjoy not having to type a bloody damn disclaimer every time I want to analyze development, modeling or a forecast, or be careful about my opinion if is not in line with an official agency.

Imbedding via tapatalk is broke or I am broke.

HEY MODS!!... https://www.youtube.com/embed/MMzd40i8TfA?

Yes, I am aware. But it's a laughable comparison to use in reference to their "storm survey" and then use a photo from Panama City Beach, which was on the outter edge or just outside the western eyewall. Not trying to downplay Sandy's damage but this is getting ridiculous. They could have at least made an effort to find actual surge or wind damage. Search engines aren't that hard to use. There are plenty of bad Sandy images to choose from besides damage from a fire, which is clearly going to be deceiving if not pointed out. I bet they didn't even realize that was from a fire.

Hahaha that first photo is fire damage.

I bursted out laughing. You should do standup.