• Member Statistics

    16,050
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NWAflizzard
    Newest Member
    NWAflizzard
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
TropicalAnalystwx13

Cat 5 Major Hurricane Patricia

Recommended Posts

WE GET IT.

Are you suggesting I don't have a right to correct and respond to false allegations made about my previous posts and/or presumed motives?

Are you also suggesting it's wrong for me to simply share my own personal opinion regarding the presumed evidence presented by another poster with whom I might disagree (honestly and respectfully) based solely on the topic being discussed?

In a scientific discussion, one should be open to reasonable arguments that are supported by reasonable evidence. Whether you agree with my personal viewpoint or not, it's hard to argue that the evidence I've presented isn't valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always Maru...awesome information. How involved are you in having that ultrasonic wind sensor tested? In addition to the obvious test of seeing what kind of accuracy can be expected with various wind velocities hopefully they can tell us what the sensitivity is to various vertical orientation angles especially the final orientation after the damage occurred.

 

Ironically, there was a 211 mph wind gust reported in Hurricane Gustav in 2008 as well. I believe that reading was verified as accurate. The circumstances in that case involved the site being in the left flank of the eyewall with the winds passing over mountains and descending down a slope and possibly through gaps focusing the energy. It is thought that collapsing eyewall cells may have added momentum as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ncforecaster89, I completely understand your comments, no need to clarify your thoughts and I never meant to suggest you do not appreciate the damage in all its extent. Actually, I find your posts are quite enlightening (not only yours, of course) and I always enjoy a good discussion on details -and the contrarian viewpoint-. I will add that most roofs that were blown are tile roofs or galvanized steel sheets, many of which were also blown by Jova. Myself, being incapable of anything close to the technical analysis you are doing, when I compare pictures of cat 5 damages with what we observe in well-built buildings (e.g. Wilma on Cancun), I can see some difference, the damage here seems to be lower, but that is only my appreciation and as many have pointed out, we were not at the inner core or inside the eye, as Josh did.

Hi Maru, thanks so much for the kind words, and for all of the very important information you've provided to this forum.

Just for the record, I am not one who enjoys conflict and seeks to promote a contrarian point of view just for debate purposes. Instead, my personal opinion is simply my own best educated guess as to the probable intensity of Patricia at landfall.

Thanks again for your very respectful and thoughtful comments and for adding so much value to this forum! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A blend of the estimated 918mbar pressure from the surface data and Josh's pressure data (going call it 932 mbar)'s, would support ~930 mbar at landfall. A WPAC pressure-wind relationship would support 120 knots normally, but with the steep pressure gradient (steepest he's ever seen) and the fact there may be some lag with an eye filling in but the structure being symmetrical, that'd support at least 130 knots, and maybe 140 knots, not to mention the small size of the storm.

Just curious, where are you getting the 918 mb surface pressure data? Why are you also using a WPAC basin wind/pressure relationship model for an EPAC hurricane?

Although I respectfully suggest there are a lot of unusual presumptions used to get to 140 kt., I agree that Patricia likely had a MSW greater than 120 kt. at landfall.

Edit: Rereading your post, I'm guessing you were referring to the NHC 920 mb landfall estimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always Maru...awesome information. How involved are you in having that ultrasonic wind sensor tested? In addition to the obvious test of seeing what kind of accuracy can be expected with various wind velocities hopefully they can tell us what the sensitivity is to various vertical orientation angles especially the final orientation after the damage occurred.

 

Ironically, there was a 211 mph wind gust reported in Hurricane Gustav in 2008 as well. I believe that reading was verified as accurate. The circumstances in that case involved the site being in the left flank of the eyewall with the winds passing over mountains and descending down a slope and possibly through gaps focusing the energy. It is thought that collapsing eyewall cells may have added momentum as well.

Very interesting post. Can you please provide a link to the 211 mph wind gust measured at the surface during Gustav that was declared valid? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting post. Can you please provide a link to the 211 mph wind gust measured at the surface during Gustav that was declared valid? Thanks.

 

Dr. Jeff Master's Blog.

 

The first paragraph claims that the WMO did an official review. I couldn't find the review though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maru, just for the record, Wilma was a cat 4 when it hit Cozumel and Cancun. The only recorded cat 5 landfalls have been Janet 1955 around Chetumal, Anita 1977 around La Pesca, Tamaulipas, Gilbert 1988 and Dean 2007 (north and south Quintana Roo, respectively), all from the Atlantic side. The Great Mexico Hurricane of 1959 which hit around Manzanillo is officially a cat 5 hit, but current post analysis indicates that it might have been a cat 4.  And from all those, there's really very little proof of cat 5 winds, mostly because they either hit remote, relatively unpopulated locations (Anita, Dean and to a certain degree Gilbert) or it was before the advent of satellites, radars, buildings not very sturdy and storm surge doing most of the damage (Janet), although the latter has the best proof of cat 5 winds we can find on a Mexican landfall.

 

Even in the USA, the unequivocal proof of cat 5 winds is not that great either, and mostly lies on accounts (Labor day hurricane, 1935) and proxy data. The other two cat 5 USA hits are Camille 1969 and Andrew 1992, and although the latter has been a relatively recent event and had a lot of associated data comparatively, anemometers just didn't survive to measure cat 5 winds.

 

Not saying any of those weren't cat 5 at landfall, I'm pretty sure all were, as there's other data that confirm they had such intensity, but cat 5 winds are very rare, and usually restricted to a very small area (usually in the immediate coast), and it's very hard to have an instrument in the area where those kind of winds were experienced and if there was one, it was invariably destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of ones personal opinion of Patricia's specific landfall intensity, there's no doubt you experienced some extreme wind conditions at your intercept location.

Based on both satellite images and your video, one could reasonably argue that you may have even gotten within 1 nm of the center of the eye. As I've noted previously, it's highly unlikely that there was a true calm in the eye of Patricia at landfall with the rapid weakening that was occurring and the degradation of the eyewall visible on satellite.

As usual, very impressive video! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maru, just for the record, Wilma was a cat 4 when it hit Cozumel and Cancun. The only recorded cat 5 landfalls have been Janet 1955 around Chetumal, Anita 1977 around La Pesca, Tamaulipas, Gilbert 1988 and Dean 2007 (north and south Quintana Roo, respectively), all from the Atlantic side. The Great Mexico Hurricane of 1959 which hit around Manzanillo is officially a cat 5 hit, but current post analysis indicates that it might have been a cat 4.  And from all those, there's really very little proof of cat 5 winds, mostly because they either hit remote, relatively unpopulated locations (Anita, Dean and to a certain degree Gilbert) or it was before the advent of satellites, radars, buildings not very sturdy and storm surge doing most of the damage (Janet), although the latter has the best proof of cat 5 winds we can find on a Mexican landfall.

 

Even in the USA, the unequivocal proof of cat 5 winds is not that great either, and mostly lies on accounts (Labor day hurricane, 1935) and proxy data. The other two cat 5 USA hits are Camille 1969 and Andrew 1992, and although the latter has been a relatively recent event and had a lot of associated data comparatively, anemometers just didn't survive to measure cat 5 winds.

 

Not saying any of those weren't cat 5 at landfall, I'm pretty sure all were, as there's other data that confirm they had such intensity, but cat 5 winds are very rare, and usually restricted to a very small area (usually in the immediate coast), and it's very hard to have an instrument in the area where those kind of winds were experienced and if there was one, it was invariably destroyed.

Great stuff Jorge, some really thoughtful discussions in here bringing lots of pertinent information to the readers thanks to all and thanks especially to our good friend Josh, wow that was intense for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of ones personal opinion of Patricia's specific landfall intensity, there's no doubt you experienced some extreme wind conditions at your intercept location.

Based on both satellite images and your video, one could reasonably argue that you may have even gotten within 1 nm of the center of the eye. As I've noted previously, it's highly unlikely that there was a true calm in the eye of Patricia at landfall with the rapid weakening that was occurring and the degradation of the eyewall visible on satellite.

As usual, very impressive video! :)

Looks like a partial eyewall in the video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, where are you getting the 918 mb surface pressure data? Why are you also using a WPAC basin wind/pressure relationship model for an EPAC hurricane?

Although I respectfully suggest there are a lot of unusual presumptions used to get to 140 kt., I agree that Patricia likely had a MSW greater than 120 kt. at landfall.

Edit: Rereading your post, I'm guessing you were referring to the NHC 920 mb landfall estimate.

 

The Schloemer equation from the CCXJ1 reports suggest a pressure of around 920mbar, which I've adjusted down to 918 mbar since the station was slightly inland. And I'm using a WPAC P-W relationship since the storm was born from the monsoon trough and in an area of lower than normal pressures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Jeff Master's Blog.

 

The first paragraph claims that the WMO did an official review. I couldn't find the review though.

Thanks for posting the link to the very interesting article. One thing to note is that Gustav was in an intensification phase at the time of landfall. That aside, I've also witnessed first-hand unusually high MSW to gust factors as a hurricane moves just inland from the coastline. If one looks back, this is something I continued to emphasize as a concern for those like Josh despite the rapid weakening Patricia was undergoing prior to and after landfall.

I remember reading an article where some post-storm damage analysis teams were arguing that not enough attention is being paid to abnormally high wind gusts that often exceed the presumed MSW...and as a result, can exceed some building codes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a partial eyewall in the video

Agreed. That's actually a great shot of the eye he observed, it appears. Hard to say just how close it is based on the video, though. Very impressive, nonetheless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff Jorge, some really thoughtful discussions in here bringing lots of pertinent information to the readers thanks to all and thanks especially to our good friend Josh, wow that was intense for a while.

Thanks. Yes, I agree there have been good discussions and a bunch of information that isn't easily found elsewhere. I agree that Josh's video is pretty intense, from the meteorological and human perspective likewise.

 

 

Looks like a partial eyewall in the video

Also, reading the report and looking at the video, the relative lull was short lived, so it looks he clipped the eye, and 2 nm sounds like a good estimation, which also appears to be confirmed by satellite imagery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Schloemer equation from the CCXJ1 reports suggest a pressure of around 920mbar, which I've adjusted down to 918 mbar since the station was slightly inland. And I'm using a WPAC P-W relationship since the storm was born from the monsoon trough and in an area of lower than normal pressures.

With all due respect, the WPAC wind/pressure relationship isn't applicable in the EPAC, despite your reasoning.

Based on the RECON obs (to include the last one 2.75 hours prior to landfall) and the pressure data recorded by both Josh and the station you referenced, it's highly unlikely that that estimate is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Yes, I agree there have been good discussions and a bunch of information that isn't easily found elsewhere. I agree that Josh's video is pretty intense, from the meteorological and human perspective likewise.

Also, reading the report and looking at the video, the relative lull was short lived, so it looks he clipped the eye, and 2 nm sounds like a good estimation, which also appears to be confirmed by satellite imagery.

Not specifically saying you're incorrect, but the increasing translational speed combined with the decrease in size of the eye (down to only 5 nm observed by RECON 2.75 hours prior to landfall), it's conceivable that he was closer to the eye than originally assumed. At 12-13 kt. forward speed combined with a 5 nm eye...that would roughly correlate to a 20 minute eye passage if the eye had gone directly over him.

Not saying he was in the exact centroid of the eye, but may have been even closer based on video evidence and satellite interpretation. Obviously, this is speculative and your assessment may very well be just as accurate.

Either way, he accomplished the goal of getting into the eye! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not specifically saying you're incorrect, but the increasing translational speed combined with the decrease in size of the eye (down to only 5 nm observed by RECON 2.75 hours prior to landfall), it's conceivable that he was closer to the eye than originally assumed. At 12-13 kt. forward speed combined with a 5 nm eye...that would roughly correlate to a 20 minute eye passage if the eye had gone directly over him.

Not saying he was in the exact centroid of the eye, but may have been even closer based on video evidence and satellite interpretation. Obviously, this is speculative and your assessment may very well be just as accurate.

Either way, he accomplished the goal of getting into the eye! :)

23 to 25 minutes...the relative calm lasted 5 to 7 minutes...let's say 12 minutes to make calculations easier, and I think that's generous...that means that the chord of the circumference they tracked into (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(geometry)) was about half the eye diameter (2.5 nm).

 

To get the midpoint distance from the circle center to the chord we can use the following formula:

 

t = sqrt(r^2 - c^2/4)

 

where:

t =  circle center to chord midpoint distance

r = radius of the circumference (eye) = 2.5 nm

c = chord distance (track of the subject inside the eye) = 2.5 nm

 

that resolves to t = 2.165 nm

 

So I would think 2 nm  would be the closest Josh got to the center.

 

Taking 7 minutes and a translation speed of 13kt, the chord distance would be 1.5nm and for that input t resolves to 2.384 nm...

 

So I think we can say with certain confidence that Josh was about 2.1 to 2.4 nm away from the center.

 

See the following link to make your own calculations:

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpcircle/circle_segment_chord_t.php#ajscroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 to 25 minutes...the relative calm lasted 5 to 7 minutes...let's say 12 minutes to make calculations easier, and I think that's generous...that means that the chord of the circumference they tracked into (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(geometry)) was about half the eye diameter (2.5 nm).

 

To get the midpoint distance from the circle center to the chord we can use the following formula:

 

t = sqrt(r^2 - c^2/4)

 

where:

t =  circle center to chord midpoint distance

r = radius of the circumference (eye) = 2.5 nm

c = chord distance (track of the subject inside the eye) = 2.5 nm

 

that resolves to t = 2.165 nm

 

So I would think 2 nm  would be the closest Josh got to the center.

 

Taking 7 minutes and a translation speed of 13kt, the chord distance would be 1.5nm and for that input t resolves to 2.384 nm...

 

So I think we can say with certain confidence that Josh was about 2.1 to 2.4 nm away from the center.

 

See the following link to make your own calculations:

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpcircle/circle_segment_chord_t.php#ajscroll

Lol good directive from someone to Josh  :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 to 25 minutes...the relative calm lasted 5 to 7 minutes...let's say 12 minutes to make calculations easier, and I think that's generous...that means that the chord of the circumference they tracked into (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(geometry)) was about half the eye diameter (2.5 nm).

To get the midpoint distance from the circle center to the chord we can use the following formula:

t = sqrt(r^2 - c^2/4)

where:

t =

circle center to chord midpoint distance

r = radius of the circumference (eye) = 2.5 nm

c = chord distance (track of the subject inside the eye) = 2.5 nm

that resolves to t =

2.165 nm

So I would think 2 nm would be the closest Josh got to the center.

Taking 7 minutes and a translation speed of 13kt, the chord distance would be 1.5nm and for that input t resolves to 2.384 nm...

So I think we can say with certain confidence that Josh was about 2.1 to 2.4 nm away from the center.

See the following link to make your own calculations:

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpcircle/circle_segment_chord_t.php#ajscroll

Hi wxmx. Thanks for the link and the very informative post. Very well articulated! As you noted, it appears Josh was roughly 2 nm from the actual center...but still inside the eye, which is the point I was making. I said this in order to compliment Josh for getting inside the eye (for as Scott said earlier, it was either the eye or bust). The same congrats belongs to you and the others who were advising him in that regard.

Edit: Just for the record, I sometimes prefer to not be in the eye, specifically, in order to document the absolute strongest winds in the eyewall. This often times means a choice between either getting inside the eye or staying just outside of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maru, just for the record, Wilma was a cat 4 when it hit Cozumel and Cancun. The only recorded cat 5 landfalls have been Janet 1955 around Chetumal, Anita 1977 around La Pesca, Tamaulipas, Gilbert 1988 and Dean 2007 (north and south Quintana Roo, respectively), all from the Atlantic side. The Great Mexico Hurricane of 1959 which hit around Manzanillo is officially a cat 5 hit, but current post analysis indicates that it might have been a cat 4.  And from all those, there's really very little proof of cat 5 winds, mostly because they either hit remote, relatively unpopulated locations (Anita, Dean and to a certain degree Gilbert) or it was before the advent of satellites, radars, buildings not very sturdy and storm surge doing most of the damage (Janet), although the latter has the best proof of cat 5 winds we can find on a Mexican landfall.

 

Even in the USA, the unequivocal proof of cat 5 winds is not that great either, and mostly lies on accounts (Labor day hurricane, 1935) and proxy data. The other two cat 5 USA hits are Camille 1969 and Andrew 1992, and although the latter has been a relatively recent event and had a lot of associated data comparatively, anemometers just didn't survive to measure cat 5 winds.

 

Not saying any of those weren't cat 5 at landfall, I'm pretty sure all were, as there's other data that confirm they had such intensity, but cat 5 winds are very rare, and usually restricted to a very small area (usually in the immediate coast), and it's very hard to have an instrument in the area where those kind of winds were experienced and if there was one, it was invariably destroyed.

 

First good point made in pages. Almost no sensor measures CAT 5 winds, seems measurements are usually a Category low, I can't find a station that measured CAT 2 sustained in Arthur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh, thanks for the report and video, very interesting and awe-inspiring!

 

Just maybe an idea for improvement: try setting up a GoPro in some sturdy sheltered location (if one exists in a situation like that, but maybe the end of that corridor would be one) so that you can get some steady footage, as your hand-held can be very unsteady at times. The GoPro would also give a nice timelapse sequence, great for determining eye-passage, etc.

 

This is not a criticism, just some feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First good point made in pages. Almost no sensor measures CAT 5 winds, seems measurements are usually a Category low, I can't find a station that measured CAT 2 sustained in Arthur.

In the case of Arthur, the category-two winds remained just offshore...as noted in the NHC report.

Another reason the observed winds are typically "a category low" is that the obs are not normally taken in or near a marine exposure (or at the land/sea interface) which is virtually the only place one can expect to see MSWs somewhat closely corresponding to the NHC advisory estimates. Another reason is that the advisory MSW is an estimate based on RECON data that doesn't always translate perfectly to the surface.

As chasers, most of us can expect (as a general rule) to see 3-sec wind gusts matching the MSW estimate (maybe a little higher depending on various factors).

All that being said, it is highly unlikely that anyone actually experiences the peak MSW listed in the NHC advisories (at the surface).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, the WPAC wind/pressure relationship isn't applicable in the EPAC, despite your reasoning.

Based on the RECON obs (to include the last one 2.75 hours prior to landfall) and the pressure data recorded by both Josh and the station you referenced, it's highly unlikely that that estimate is correct.

 

WPAC P-W doesn't necessarily apply to all WPAC storms (Megi/Haiyan for instance), but it does also apply to some ATL storms (Ike, Irene, Wilma), a few EPAC ones (Odile, Juliette, Polo) and likely most NIO storms and some SHEM storms. As I mentioned above, it arguably could apply here, and I used it as a baseline above but admitted it was too low, likely partially due to the small size of the storm.

 

Last recon obs prior to landfall could have missed the strongest winds, though the storm had clearly weaken as the wind difference between quadrant was not that great in previous Recon passes.  For the record, the 155 knt winds if correct would support around 135 knts at the surface, which given some undersampling, supports around 145 knots at landfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, please allow me to clarify some apparent misinterpretations of my previous posts.  First, I did say that the difference between Patricia having come ashore at peak intensity (175-180 kt.) and at high-end category-four strength may very well have been the difference between life and death for Josh and residents in that area.  There is no discrepancy when I state the same possibility may have been the case if Patricia had made landfall at the current operational 145 kt. intensity. Interpreting all of the available data to suggest a 125-130 kt. landfall intensity is the 10-15 kt. differential I referred to in the post you quoted...that again, may very well have been the difference between life and death for the aforementioned.  It's most important to note that in each case, I specifically said it in the context of "could" ("may very well have been"), which isn't an inaccurate remark or one that is contradictory to anything else I stated in that regard.

 

Secondly, I did express that it would be difficult for one to discern the difference in damage between a 130 kt. category-four and a 140 kt. category-five, and I still believe that to be the case.  The reasoning being that most structures aren't built to withstand winds of such severe intensity.  Furthermore, these type of wind speeds are so rare (and extreme) that it would be very difficult, if not virtually impossible, for anyone to tell the difference in those respective wind speeds without an anemometer (i.e. based solely on a visual estimation).

 

All that being said, I didn't specifically say, or meant to insinuate, that there isn't an increased danger to both life and property by a 10-15 kt. increase in the MSW...for there definitely is...as I alluded to in my preceding post.

 

Gotta go crash.  Good night!

Maybe this is a separate argument, but I can't think of a single tropical cyclone, globally, that killed more than 50-100 people from wind alone. I have read many sources on the history of tropical cyclones worldwide, and I've yet to find a reliable source indicating such a high death toll solely attributable to intense winds. This is true even for the strongest landfalls such as the 1935 hurricane, Andrew, Charley, Hugo, Janet, Haiyan, Camille, etc. If we were to estimate death tolls by the strength of a storm, then Andrew, based on its damage, should have caused hundreds of deaths. The actual toll in the storm, based on direct deaths, was 15 in the worst-hit areas of South Florida.

 

All evidence that I've seen, including the judgment of former meteorologists, is that the vast majority (likely ≥ 75-80%) of deaths in tropical cyclones have been related to inland flooding or storm surge. All the Category 4/5 landfalls that caused 100+ deaths seem to have done so via storm surge or flooding/mudslides. In Camille, for instance, I don't think that there was a single death attributable to major hurricane winds at any particular location. All the deaths in the U.S. were from storm surge and inland flooding, with a relative handful from falling/uprooted trees (indicative of tropical storm-force or Category 1 winds).

 

As you've said, a collapsed structure is a collapsed structure, and most inhabited areas don't experience the strongest winds in a Category 4/5 cyclone, even one that is rapidly deepening, especially if the system is compact. Given that lightweight or poorly anchored structures disintegrate in even minimal hurricane winds, the practical, wind-based impact from a Category 1/2 would be the same as that of a Category 4/5...at least on frail structures, such as those in the rural fishing villages that Patricia impacted. Yet so far, we have heard of very few direct deaths from Patricia, almost none of them wind-related.

My point is that, based on historical experience, my own judgment is that, for certain types of (weak) structures, there is little difference between the impact of a weak storm and a major hurricane...much less between a 130-kt hit and a 145-kt hit. Given that we haven't directly sampled the strongest winds on land in a 130- or 145-kt landfall, we don't have much empirical data with which to compare the wind-based damages at the site of strongest winds in each case. We only have subjective, visual estimates.

 

Based on these data, I don't think that we can suggest that a 130-kt landfall would save more lives than a 145-kt landfall, given the relatively low number of wind-caused deaths in intense tropical cyclones and the varying impacts such winds have on structures, depending on construction standards, the duration of the strongest winds, etc. Well-built, poured-concrete structures can survive winds into Category 5 status, so, for those buildings, there would seem to be little difference between 130- and 145-kt winds.

 

(Case in point: Andrew and Charley made their U.S. landfalls at 145 and 130 kt, respectively, but even in the core, I don't think that any structures experienced the maximum winds. Charley's peak winds passed close to North Captiva Island, but we don't have empirical evidence that homes there encountered 130-kt winds. Andrew's peak, 145-kt winds apparently affected the thinly populated mangroves on the immediate shoreline of Biscayne Bay.)

Again, this is just my opinion, and you're welcome to disagree.

 

(I do find it interesting that, given your Southern emphasis on courtesy and due respect, you sometimes come off, at least in my view, as being rather defensive and discourteous in your posts. Maybe honor is a non-negotiable for you, and you may have a trigger finger, but I would appreciate a bit more restraint in your tone, no matter how often others may misconstrue your posts. If you don't like other people's insinuations, then don't descend to their level, please. Just ignore them. That's my friendly advice. :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea for those who are beating a dead horse, wait until the reanalysis occurs early next year. Then we will know whether it is a cat 5 or not. No sense in rehashing the same tired points over and over until then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI: ridiculous. not rediculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting I don't have a right to correct and respond to false allegations made about my previous posts and/or presumed motives?

Are you also suggesting it's wrong for me to simply share my own personal opinion regarding the presumed evidence presented by another poster with whom I might disagree (honestly and respectfully) based solely on the topic being discussed?

In a scientific discussion, one should be open to reasonable arguments that are supported by reasonable evidence. Whether you agree with my personal viewpoint or not, it's hard to argue that the evidence I've presented isn't valid.

 

I'm not suggesting any of these things, but you've been pounding this into the ground (and through the ground) ever since this thing happened. If you're wondering why you're getting these kinds of responses, look no further than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh,

Before I comment on the discussion re: Patricia's landfall intensity, I must commend you on an excellent video. For me this video shows two different storms. The first half looks hardly a major, with winds seemingly barely getting above hurricane force sustained with maybe 90 mph gusts, where the second half resembles a truly violent, violent storm unlike many I've seen filmed. Not only with strong straight line winds but serious downburst like gusts with debris flying everywhere. It's hard to gauge the true ferocity because it sent you into survivor mode, but perhaps that indeed is a measure of the true ferocity...that it send you inside. Truly amazing stuff and I can't imagine how that experience must have been. The icing on the cake is showing just how fortunate you were, with many rooms nearby losing the roof. This video is your best, up there with Haiyan. It's no coincidence both were land falling cat 5s.

Re: the discussion. I won't rehash points re: satellite presentation or surface wind reports. One thing I will say is that people in general have incredibly unrealistic expectations for wind damage in major hurricanes. You see words like "wiped off the map" or "goodbye New Jersey" or "skyscrapers expected to sway to point of collapse". Then when the cat 3-4-5 hits and none of these phrases come to fruition you ask the question "was it really a 5?"

People expect these violent hurricanes to behave like violent tornadoes when they are completely different. It's easier to design a building to withstand straight line wind. much more difficult to design a structure to withstand violent upward motion. Motion violent enough to rip concrete out the ground, lift trains, etc. hurricanes aren't built like that, even category 5s. Even 200 mph category 5s. Which is why the initial comparisons of Patricia to a 20 mile wide ef5 tornado were inaccurate. And it's thoughts like this that inevitably disappoint weenies looking for complete obliteration. Patricia was not a 20 mile wide ef5. It was a 20 mile wide hurricane.

Then people also say..."people say well the wind damage wasn't as bad as x hurricane, which was also a 5." Each hurricane is different. And if you notice with this video there is a reasonable explanation as to why this damage might appear light for a category 5. Duration of violent winds. Looking at this video they last maybe 20 mins. The first half comes with strong but bearable winds, the second half comes with violent destructive winds. That's not a lot of time to completely shred a city or town. Had the front half of this storm been as severe back....completely different story for josh. It's things like these we need to consider if we are going to jump the gun and assign hurricane categories or tornado ratings before official findings. We shouldnt indulge in this but it's bound to happen. What I can gather from Josh's video regarding Patricia was that for its second half, it was a violent, violent hurricane. One of the worst he's filmed from my eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 One thing I will say is that people in general have incredibly unrealistic expectations for wind damage in major hurricanes. You see words like "wiped off the map" or "goodbye New Jersey" or "skyscrapers expected to sway to point of collapse". Then when the cat 3-4-5 hits and none of these phrases come to fruition you ask the question "was it really a 5?"

People expect these violent hurricanes to behave like violent tornadoes when they are completely different. It's easier to design a building to withstand straight line wind. much more difficult to design a structure to withstand violent upward motion. Motion violent enough to rip concrete out the ground, lift trains, etc. hurricanes aren't built like that, even category 5s. Even 200 mph category 5s. Which is why the initial comparisons of Patricia to a 20 mile wide ef5 tornado were inaccurate. And it's thoughts like this that inevitably disappoint weenies looking for complete obliteration. Patricia was not a 20 mile wide ef5. It was a 20 mile wide hurricane.

 

hmm

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.