• Member Statistics

    16,116
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Irish
    Newest Member
    Irish
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
TropicalAnalystwx13

Cat 5 Major Hurricane Patricia

Recommended Posts

Back on topic...

 

Postanalysis on PATRICIA is underway. I've been in contact with NHC specialists who are reviewing my data, and also a NOAA team that did a two-day survey of the landfall zone. The NOAA team's report should be released any day-- I've seen an early draft-- and I'll share a link when it's publicly available. Their survey, which factors in stuff like which way the trees fell, puts the track of the center basically right over my hotel. I disagree slightly with their timing-- they have the center passing over my location between 6:20 and 6:40 pm CDT, whereas my lowest pressure (and the lull) happened ~6:05 to 6:15 pm, so I've given them this feedback.

 

The NOAA report assesses a substantial area of Cat-4 wind damage that includes Emiliano Zapata (the largest town in the cyclone's inner core, and where I was). That finding makes perfect sense, whether it was a strong Cat 4 or Cat 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it comes down to conversational etiquette. Of course everyone should express their views. Of course. But if you're at a social gathering and someone repeats the same viewpoint again and again-- even if that viewpoint is totally valid-- it's natural for other participants to grow weary and object to the repetition. It's not about free speech or even the merits of the viewpoint being expressed. (It could be that PATRICIA wasn't a Cat 5 at landfall, and arguments can be made either way.) It's about basic conversational etiquette.

 

Message boards need a like or upvote botton for posts like these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it comes down to conversational etiquette. Of course everyone should express their views. Of course. But if you're at a social gathering and someone repeats the same viewpoint again and again-- even if that viewpoint is totally valid-- it's natural for other participants to grow weary and object to the repetition. It's not about free speech or even the merits of the viewpoint being expressed. (It could be that PATRICIA wasn't a Cat 5 at landfall, and arguments can be made either way.) It's about basic conversational etiquette.

Conversational etiquette? Please! No one seems to object much to some who resort to unjustified personal attacks and false accusations. If you guys would read my posts in the context and order for which they're made...you'd see I'm most often simply replying to those who respond to my own.

I suspect if I consistently made posts repeatedly arguing for a category-five landfall designation...I highly doubt I'd be subjected to the same type of ridicule or objection. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic...

Postanalysis on PATRICIA is underway. I've been in contact with NHC specialists who are reviewing my data, and also a NOAA team that did a two-day survey of the landfall zone. The NOAA team's report should be released any day-- I've seen an early draft-- and I'll share a link when it's publicly available. Their survey, which factors in stuff like which way the trees fell, puts the track of the center basically right over my hotel. I disagree slightly with their timing-- they have the center passing over my location between 6:20 and 6:40 pm CDT, whereas my lowest pressure (and the lull) happened ~6:05 to 6:15 pm, so I've given them this feedback.

The NOAA report assesses a substantial area of Cat-4 wind damage that includes Emiliano Zapata (the largest town in the cyclone's inner core, and where I was). That finding makes perfect sense, whether it was a strong Cat 4 or Cat 5.

I've consistently argued that you likely encountered Cat 4 winds at your specific intercept location and that there wouldn't be too much of a differential in wind speeds (maybe 10-15 % max) just a couple miles inland from the immediate coast. The damage pics attached to your chase report look similar to Hugo level wind damage...but not on par with Charley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversational etiquette? Please! No one seems to object much to some who resort to unjustified personal attacks and false accusations. If you guys would read my posts in the context and order for which they're made...you'd see I'm most often simply replying to those who respond to my own.

I suspect if I consistently made posts repeatedly arguing for a category-five landfall designation...I highly doubt I'd be subjected to the same type of ridicule or objection. Just saying.

 

That's really not it, at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've consistently argued that you likely encountered Cat 4 winds at your specific intercept location and that there wouldn't be too much of a differential in wind speeds (maybe 10-15 % max) just a couple miles inland from the immediate coast. The damage pics attached to your chase report look similar to Hugo level wind damage...but not on par with Charley.

 

Whether PATRICIA was a low-end Cat 5 or high-end Cat 4 at landfall, the wind damage 2.5 n mi inland over very coarse terrain would be Cat 4-- so it was exactly what we'd all expect either way. Therefore, the Cat-4 wind damage at my location gives us zero insights into whether the landfall intensity was 145 kt or 135 kt.

 

Comparing inland wind damage of PATRICIA and CHARLEY seems to lack relevance, since Florida is a flat coastal plain, and Jalisco is mountainous and coarse.

 

This aside... I want to make sure one thing is very clear-- to you and everyone else: My damage pics cannot be used to make razor-thin judgments Re: the landfall intensity-- i.e., down to a 5- or 10-kt range. Not even a qualified engineer or a senior specialist from the NHC could come to such a specific conclusion Re: the landfall intensity from my pics. We don't even know if my very limited damage pics/footage reflect the absolute highest wind that occurred 2.5 n mi inland. You need a comprehensive survey to make even an educated guess at the max winds, and my pics are not a comprehensive survey-- they're just a few pics and some video I shot wandering around for an hour. So I just want to make that clear-- that attempting to extrapolate an exact landfall intensity from my pics would be nothing more than junk science.

 

Anyhoo, I totally understand that you believe it was a 130-kt Cat 4. I totally get it. Totally. :) Goodnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect if I consistently made posts repeatedly arguing for a category-five landfall designation...I highly doubt I'd be subjected to the same type of ridicule or objection. Just saying.

 

Nope. Folks here-- including me-- have acknowledged it may have been a Cat-4 landfall. I'll say it again: it may have been a Cat 4. No issue with that viewpoint. What's getting to everybody is the obsessive repetition of the same point. Just saying.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether PATRICIA was a low-end Cat 5 or high-end Cat 4 at landfall, the wind damage 2.5 n mi inland over very coarse terrain would be Cat 4-- so it was exactly what we'd all expect either way. Therefore, the Cat-4 wind damage at my location gives us zero insights into whether the landfall intensity was 145 kt or 135 kt.

Comparing inland wind damage of PATRICIA and CHARLEY seems to lack relevance, since Florida is a flat coastal plain, and Jalisco is mountainous and coarse.

This aside... I want to make sure one thing is very clear-- to you and everyone else: My damage pics cannot be used to make razor-thin judgments Re: the landfall intensity-- i.e., down to a 5- or 10-kt range. Not even a qualified engineer or a senior specialist from the NHC could come to such a specific conclusion Re: the landfall intensity from my pics. We don't even know if my very limited damage pics/footage reflect the absolute highest wind that occurred 2.5 n mi inland. You need a comprehensive survey to make even an educated guess at the max winds, and my pics are not a comprehensive survey-- they're just a few pics and some video I shot wandering around for an hour. So I just want to make that clear-- that attempting to extrapolate an exact landfall intensity from my pics would be nothing more than junk science.

Anyhoo, I totally understand that you believe it was a 130-kt Cat 4. I totally get it. Totally. :) Goodnight.

I don't have time to adequately respond to this post except to say that I wasn't simply using your damage pics to extrapolate a certain wind speed estimate. Just making an observation. To say they have absolutely no relevance is also very short-sighted, however. Having actually participated in post-storm NWS damage surveys, I'm fully aware of their relevance.

That said, you would be inaccurate to suggest that the damage photos I've seen posted online are even 10% of my argument for why I believe the data/evidence clearly supports a Cat 4 landfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Folks here-- including me-- have acknowledged it may have been a Cat-4 landfall. I'll say it again: it may have been a Cat 4. No issue with that viewpoint. What's getting to everybody is the obsessive repetition of the same point. Just saying. :)

No different than those who suggest a Cat 5 landfall. As mentioned previously, the vast majority of my posts are in response to those referencing my own.

That aside, why wouldn't I respond to posts that appear to be "junk science" to me in attempt to support a category-five designation? It's not like I'm implying it "felt" like a category-five hurricane, for instance.

A person would have to be pretty naive to believe you have zero invested interest or desire to see the category-five landfall status retained. Although you make sure to state you are supposedly not arguing for a specific intensity, all of your posts are geared towards that implication. That being said, let me be clear to emphasize that I'm not saying your own best educated guess is any less valid...even though I may disagree with it.

For me, it's nothing more than a genuine interest in the accuracy of the HURDAT record. If there's irrefutable data/evidence to support the retention of the current category-five designation...I am just as eager to see it and hope it can be found. To reiterate, my own personal best educated guess is based solely on all of the available data/evidence I've seen. If additional evidence becomes available that suggests to me that Patricia was indeed a Cat 5 at landfall, I will just as strongly argue for that viewpoint. I have no emotional attachment or personal biases either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No different than those who suggest a Cat 5 landfall. As mentioned previously, the vast majority of my posts are in response to those referencing my own.

That aside, why wouldn't I respond to posts that appear to be "junk science" to me in attempt to support a category-five designation? It's not like I'm implying it "felt" like a category-five hurricane, for instance.

A person would have to be pretty naive to believe you have zero invested interest or desire to see the category-five landfall status retained. Although you make sure to state you are supposedly not arguing for a specific intensity, all of your posts are geared towards that implication. That being said, let me be clear to emphasize that I'm not saying your own best educated guess is any less valid...even though I may disagree with it.

For me, it's nothing more than a genuine interest in the accuracy of the HURDAT record. If there's irrefutable data/evidence to support the retention of the current category-five designation...I am just as eager to see it and hope it can be found. To reiterate, my own personal best educated guess is based solely on all of the available data/evidence I've seen. If additional evidence becomes available that suggests to me that Patricia was indeed a Cat 5 at landfall, I will just as strongly argue for that viewpoint. I have no emotional attachment or personal biases either way.

 

You referred to yourself 13 times in four short paragraphs.  We get it.  Time to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person would have to be pretty naive to believe you have zero invested interest or desire to see the category-five landfall status retained. Although you make sure to state you are supposedly not arguing for a specific intensity, all of your posts are geared towards that implication. That being said, let me be clear to emphasize that I'm not saying your own best educated guess is any less valid...even though I may disagree with it.

 

My posts are not "geared toward" any "implication." This accusation is the product of a rich imagination. (Anyone can read this thread for themselves and see I've pushed no agenda.) This conversation has gotten silly and I don't have time for it. Don't bother to respond. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My posts are not "geared toward" any "implication." This accusation is the product of a rich imagination. (Anyone can read this thread for themselves and see I've pushed no agenda.) This conversation has gotten silly and I don't have time for it. Don't bother to respond. :)

Why can't people honestly share a differing opinion without someone presuming the other has some sort of misguided or self-fulfilling "agenda?" With that in mind, I could've certainly chosen a better word than "geared to" in conveying my observations from the totality of your posts on this subject.

As I've written to you personally, I respect you on a personal level and all the work you accomplished during this specific intercept. Thus, the suggestion that I have my own "agenda" to prove Patricia wasn't a category-five hurricane at landfall is categorically (no pun intended) false.

My posts discussing the scientific merits of Patricia's retention as a category-five hurricane upon landfall aren't personal, nor should they be incorrectly interpreted as such.

That said, it doesn't take a supposedly "rich imagination" to objectively see that you are very quick to take exception with posts that suggest Patricia wasn't a category-five at landfall. Of course, there's nothing wrong with one simply viewing the available evidence and genuinely believing it supports a category-five landfall. That's one's choice and I don't begrudge their right to state as much...as long as it is founded in a reasonable scientific argument (supported by the data).

Quick question; do you still believe Patricia was only "slowly weakening" at landfall, as opposed to rapidly weakening at an astonishing rate?

I don't desire to deal with all this unnecessary b.s. where I've had members unjustifiably resort to personal attacks or make comments that I'm supposedly not adhering to some sort of preconceived "conversational etiquette", in this particular thread. Consequently, I will create my own thread detailing and summarizing the various reasons why I believe all of the available evidence strongly asserts Patricia had weakened below category-five intensity at landfall (which I have been requested by others to do). OTOH, I will continue to reserve the right to respond respectfully to any posts that reference my own or I feel is warranted from a scientific point of view.

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.