• Member Statistics

    16,113
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    dhubbard
    Newest Member
    dhubbard
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
TropicalAnalystwx13

Cat 5 Major Hurricane Patricia

Recommended Posts

I'd say Patricia will be more like a Charley or Hugo at landfall than a Camille or Andrew. It essentially has no inner eye wall left and shear looks to be getting to it. It doesn't take long for a Cat 5 house of cards to fall if something goes out of place. Still devastating but not what could have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's too soon to say anyone is lucky. Though I'd imagine Josh wanted to punch a high end cat 5 again, this thing would have wrought unimaginable death and destruction to anyone and anything not in a concrete bunker. They're still going to be devestated. Not to call a spade a spade, but you're either living well in that part of the world or in a tin can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you're joking! This substantial reduction in intensity likely has saved many lives.

I think you're focusing too much on the winds. Most of Mexico's deadliest tropical cyclone-related disasters have resulted from flash floods/heavy rainfall, not extreme winds (including the 1959 hurricane, most of whose 1,000+ deaths were from mudslides).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that a hurricane such as this will still likely bring extreme wind gusts...far exceeding the typical sustained wind to gust ratio.

As a result, I won't be surprised if Josh reports of more turbulent type wind gusts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A high-end Cat 4 is hardly "ordinary"...

Yeah relative terms.  Hard to get a Cat 5 landfall where there is terrain isn't flat, only the Florida Keys have ever recorded a sub 900mb pressure if I'm not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're focusing too much on the winds. Most of Mexico's deadliest tropical cyclone-related disasters have resulted from flash floods/heavy rainfall, not extreme winds (including the 1959 hurricane, most of whose 1,000+ deaths were from mudslides).

Not at all. I was simply stating that it's likely that many lives will be saved as a result of the significant decrease in the MSW than otherwise would've been the case.

No way was I, or am I, remotely suggesting this is anything less than an extremely dangerous and likely very devastating storm!

To reiterate, my post was directly related to the reduction in wind speed...nothing more and nothing less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you're joking! This substantial reduction in intensity likely has saved many lives.

Depends where the 200 mph core came in. If it was an extremely rural area, it's possible less lives would be lost due the the extremely small max wind core. Now that the core has collapsed somewhat the winds are probably spreading out and have the potential to affect a larger area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To keep this in its proper perspective...imagine if Patricia had never intensified to such an extraordinary intensity and was threatening to make landfall as a high-end category-four hurricane.

That's the reality of this situation, and by no means is this anything less than an extremely dangerous and potentially devastating event!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends where the 200 mph core came in. If it was an extremely rural area, it's possible less lives would be lost due the the extremely small max wind core. Now that the core has collapsed somewhat the winds are probably spreading out and have the potential to affect a larger area.

 

 

Great point.  Somewhat less intense conditions in the bullseye region but perhaps more areas getting in on heavy winds. 

The inland hills are going to have some monster gusts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inland towns appear to be mostly in valleys and fairly deep ones that may not channel much wind. I think mudslides will be the only issue away from the coast. Speaking of which, we will know fairly soon just how strong the landfall is, and it could be almost right over Josh's location. I saw that he was tweeting as recently as an hour ago (from EZ). I asked those people at the resort west of Punta Perula to e-mail me any observations when they have a chance. I don't know if their comms are down or whatever, this track has saved them, I think, from any risk of total devastation. Not so optimistic about Punta Perula but hopeful anyway, a cat-3 weak side of eyewall without a massive storm surge there would probably be largely survivable. San Mateo is far enough inland that a direct hit there would not involve surge except across some of their farmland perhaps (going by the images on google earth). Cayeres looks very small but I would be most concerned about that area for combined wind and storm surge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. I was simply stating that it's likely that many lives will be saved as a result of the significant decrease in the MSW than otherwise would've been the case.

No way was I, or am I, remotely suggesting this is anything less than an extremely dangerous and likely very devastating storm!

To reiterate, my post was directly related to the reduction in wind speed...nothing more and nothing less!

I don't think that the decrease in winds necessarily saved many lives. Even in the 1935 Labor Day hurricane, most of the deaths were from surge, not directly related to the extreme (160+ kt) winds. Remember how relatively few people died in Andrew, Charley, Dean, etc.--the intensely windy micro-monsters--compared to those who died in weaker or weakening but larger storms like Katrina, Ike, Sandy, 1915 New Orleans, Rita, etc. And the majority of those deaths were from water. People forget time and time again that the deadliest killers, even in the most powerful cyclones, have been storm surge and inland flooding.

Most of Mexico's deadliest tropical cyclone-related disasters, including the 1959 hurricane (1,000+ deaths), were from mudslides and flash flooding due to heavy rainfall, not extreme winds. Patricia will likely deliver inland rainfall of 20-25"+ in some areas, especially over mountainous terrain. This is the story that should be getting at least as much play as the winds. And as others have mentioned, a weaker but larger wind field still retains considerable energy and would produce more/higher storm surge over a larger area than would a tightly wound, 150+ kt monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just took some kind of hit, now facing down.

There was a pretty big wind gust and the camera was suddenly pointed towards the ground. Hard to tell if the wind did that or an object hit the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of how Katrina fell apart right before landfall. I remember some newscasters on the cable networks talking about New Orleans "dodged a bullet", but as daylight broke it was clear something catastrophic was taking place. Obviously that was a unique circumstance, but it's important to remember that for some people this still has the potential to be extremely devastating even if it's significantly weaker than at it's peak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Satellite imagery suggests landfall around 22z near Cayeres. I would note that all these satellite images have been running 0.2 deg east of NHC reported positions all day, so if that applies here, the landfall will be soon at Punta Perula. We'll find out from Josh or others perhaps where exactly this has come ashore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the decrease in winds necessarily saved many lives. Even in the 1935 Labor Day hurricane, most of the deaths were from surge, not directly related to the extreme (160+ kt) winds. Remember how relatively few people died in Andrew, Charley, Dean, etc.--the intensely windy micro-monsters--compared to those who died in weaker or weakening but larger storms like Katrina, Ike, Sandy, 1915 New Orleans, Rita, etc. And the majority of those deaths were from water. People forget time and time again that the deadliest killers, even in the most powerful cyclones, have been storm surge and inland flooding.

Most of Mexico's deadliest tropical cyclone-related disasters, including the 1959 hurricane (1,000+ deaths), were from mudslides and flash flooding due to heavy rainfall, not extreme winds. Patricia will likely deliver inland rainfall of 20-25"+ in some areas, especially over mountainous terrain. This is the story that should be getting at least as much play as the winds. And as others have mentioned, a weaker but larger wind field still retains considerable energy and would produce more/higher storm surge over a larger area than would a tightly wound, 150+ kt monster.

It's all speculative for one to determine whether or not this significant reduction in wind speed has ultimately saved more lives than would've been the case otherwise. We'll never know the answer to that question.

More importantly, I'm well aware of the point you're making and have always known the dangers of flooding (whether by storm surge or copious amounts of rain).

This is a foolish and unnecessary debate whereby I've never stated the dangers are any less disconcerting or less lives overall will be saved...just that "many lives have likely been saved"...and I stand by that comment. If necessary, please reread my initial post from the proper perspective for which it was made.

To reiterate, I was replying to a poster who stated it was a disappointment that there wasn't going to be a 200 mph hurricane landfall and simply made the point that many lives were likely spared as a result of the substantial weakening. I didn't say less lives overall have been spared...huge difference...and is where you are misunderstanding and misinterpreting my comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's facing up again. Are those guys still there on the beach?

Someone just cleared off the lens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.