Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    kgottwald
    Newest Member
    kgottwald
    Joined
WxWatcher007

Major Hurricane Michael

Recommended Posts

Had this discussion regarding the comparison between hurricane vs. tornado damage elsewhere and figured I'd just copy/paste my text.

Quote

The comparison gets really complicated when you start considering the vertical velocities in a tornado allow for more complete destruction in those cases with the counteracting of gravity.

Comparing hurricane and tornado damage can be done in a qualitative sense (i.e. "if this was a tornado damage, it might be an EF3, etc."), but quantitative wind measurements using that comparison aren't going to work.

And yes, near instantaneous strain and strain over a long duration further muddies the comparison, although mesovortices in the eyewall like with Andrew render some further interest.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, andyhb said:

Friction over land means that there is going to be a ∆ in Uobs vs. Uadvisory when it comes to sustained winds. You can't expect winds, especially sustained winds, to verify over land at the same levels as over the ocean. Both recorded gusts (especially with systems failing before the strongest winds impacted the stations) and damage support the notion of a category 4 hurricane at the coast along with a category 3/4 hurricane inland for some distance (probably to around I-10) in this case.

Um, sure I can. If a radar shows me a thunderstorm over the water, I'd expect it to show me the same returns over land. I think the NHC has scientists that are smart enough to figure out how to incorporate land into their advisories. We know the wind speeds rapidly dissipate, and the wind field typically expands. 

The NHC had this thing as a category 3 in Georgia. I'm sorry, I don't think that there is any evidence to show this. A 140mph cat 4 at I-10. Again, I don't buy it. You say pictures back it up. I say otherwise. Go look at wind damage from places where equipment didn't fail in previous storms where they actually recorded sustained winds for a 1 minute average of 115mph and compare it to damage in extreme southwestern Georgia, and then correct for building codes and whatnot. It's not the same. Compare the wind damage in Punta Gorda, Florida in 2004 with the wind damage from the I-10 corridor today: 

AR-308119431.jpg?MaxW=950&cachebuster=18

It's not even in the same category (no pun intended)

As for the equipment failure issue, that's fine and all, but we see this in virtually every storm... that surface observations inland never live up to what the advisories are showing should be happening. Lots of equipment didn't fail away from the coast, and especially in Georgia. The inland observations just don't really jive with the advisories.

And this is just me opining. There are real reasons why it makes sense to issue accurate advisories. I'd hate for someone who rode this thing out in Interstate 10 and experienced 100 mph sustained winds think they are ready for 140mph winds the next time one comes along.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sakau2007 said:

Um, sure I can. If a radar shows me a thunderstorm over the water, I'd expect it to show me the same returns over land. I think the NHC has scientists that are smart enough to figure out how to incorporate land into their advisories. We know the wind speeds rapidly dissipate, and the wind field typically expands. 

The NHC had this thing as a category 3 in Georgia. I'm sorry, I don't think that there is any evidence to show this. A 140mph cat 4 at I-10. Again, I don't buy it. You say pictures back it up. I say otherwise. Go look at wind damage from places where equipment didn't fail in previous storms where they actually recorded sustained winds for a 1 minute average of 115mph and compare it to damage in extreme southwestern Georgia, and then correct for building codes and whatnot. It's not the same. Compare the wind damage in Punta Gorda, Florida in 2004 with the wind damage from the I-10 corridor today: 

AR-308119431.jpg?MaxW=950&cachebuster=18

It's not even in the same category (no pun intended)

As for the equipment failure issue, that's fine and all, but we see this in virtually every storm... that surface observations inland never live up to what the advisories are showing should be happening. Lots of equipment didn't fail away from the coast, and especially in Georgia. The inland observations just don't really jive with the advisories.

And this is just me opining. There are real reasons why it makes sense to issue accurate advisories. I'd hate for someone who rode this thing out in Interstate 10 and experienced 100 mph sustained winds think they are ready for 140mph winds the next time one comes along.

 

Those sure do look like manufactured homes, lmao. 

 

Not even close to the same type of buildings you see damaged in the photos and videos coming from the Panama City and Mexico Beach areas. 

 

Edit: There isnt even any debarking or defoliation of the trees in the pic you attached either. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hurricane Agnes said:

There is often a few who do stay but the area only has a population of about 1,200 and it may actually be a bit less as it appears a good chunk of the newer housing may actually be for seasonal use and/or 2nd homes.

This.  That chunk of the coast - and eastwards to Bald Point - is packed with developments marketed heavily as winter homes and vacation rentals.  Which means a non-trivial chunk of the economy is in the management and servicing of those rentals. I'd see the flyers in the hotel lobby for new developments pitching "build your dream retirement home and rent it out for big $$ until you're ready to move in". 

Eastwards towards Panacea the population density was much lower, btw.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chargers09 said:

Those sure do look like manufactured homes, lmao. 

 

Not even close to the same type of buildings you see damaged in the photos and videos coming from the Panama City and Mexico Beach areas. 

 

Edit: There isnt even any debarking or defoliation of the trees in the pic you attached either. 

“lmao”

 

you are strawmanning. try to keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wmsptwx said:

No he's not...those are manu and or double wide trailers....

Yes, he is. Do you know what a strawman is? He is comparing damage from PC/Mexico Beach to the photo I posted.

Why not compare it to the I-10 corridor which was my claim? I never said anything about this landfalling as a cat 2 or that Sandy was worse or anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the tree damage(even inland!) is extremely impressive and reminds me of a EF2-3 tornado. Even a couple images with debarked trees. Here's a nearly complete forest blowdown near Tyndall.  77325df19046a6c61dfde0afbc7f54fa.jpg&key=2d55eea5e466e000f0f5393e460c7327a281812366a871a93b865537d9e91da1

 

We compare TCs with tornadoes so frequently but we always have to keep in mind that the directional and downburst wind associated in eyewalls are generally not the same as the vertical lift and suction in EF damage. Interestingly, in Michael's case, considering the frequent mesovorticies observed rotating around the eyewall and something characteristic of high end TCs, perhaps there were short-lived ground level vorticies imbedded within directional flow, as was found with Andrew. I should also point out these type of vorticies are not the same as your typical isolated outer band cells and supercell meso tornadoes commonly observed in TCs.

 

Based on the massive acreage of downed forest that is now coming out in flight footage, and despite the horrific devastation seen at Mexico Beach, we may still consider that the landfall could have been much worse. Shift this landfall 15 miles west and PCB and PC look like Mexico Beach. This is not to downplay at all. We still have massive wind damage in residential communities of PC, such as Callaway and Parker, as well as the business infrastructure, all from the western eyewall alone. Additonally we still don't have all the story and imagery from communities further inland that were hit by the eastern eyewall.

 

Edit: Meant to say a shift west, not east.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chargers09 said:

Posting objective facts is strawmanning now. 

That’s kinda exactly what a strawman is... Posting objective facts(that are indeed facts) that don’t dispute a claim and then making the jump to the conclusion that the original claim was false.

 

If nothing else, at least you learned about the logical fallacy known as the strawman today!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s kinda exactly what a strawman is... Posting objective facts(that are indeed facts) that don’t dispute a claim and then making the jump to the conclusion that the original claim was false.
 
If nothing else, at least you learned about the logical fallacy known as the strawman today!

No one cares. Give it a rest.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, friedmators said:


No one cares. Give it a rest.


.

I was called out by name in this thread. If people think they are going to make me sound like an idiot without backing up what they are saying, they are delusional.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wmsptwx said:

How do we know there isn't small communities in that area having similar damage? From tree damage some may be downright inaccessible.

It is possible. We shall see. I simply said that I seriously doubted it.

 

I’m sure there is widespread damage to mobile homes along I-10. It would really surprise me if an area got hit with 100mph winds and gusts to 120 and there wasn’t widespread mobile home damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chargers09 said:

They're not making you sound like an idiot, you're doing that all by yourself. 

Are you saying that by explaining to you what a strawman is when you obviously didn’t know what it was makes me sound like an idiot?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, sakau2007 said:

That’s kinda exactly what a strawman is... Posting objective facts(that are indeed facts) that don’t dispute a claim and then making the jump to the conclusion that the original claim was false.

 

If nothing else, at least you learned about the logical fallacy known as the strawman today!

You are trying to say that we cannot find cat 3 damage (115mph wind would be cat three) yet you are showing damage pics of manufactured housing that may have experienced only the worst part of a hurricane with cat 4 winds (145 mph) and using that as a comparison. You have no evidence that the damage pic is of an area that ONLY experienced max winds of 115 mph(or at least you have not shown it). That was a very compact storm with a very narrow corridor of most intense winds. Unless you can show that the area in the pic is very close to a place that measured wind speeds of a certain speed without any failure then it is irrelevant-and is not any objective fact at all. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sojitodd said:

You are trying to say that we cannot find cat 3 damage (115mph wind would be cat three) yet you are showing damage pics of manufactured housing that experienced the worst part of a hurricane with cat 4 winds (145 mph) and using that as a comparison. You have no evidence that the damage pic is of an area that ONLY experienced max winds of 115 mph(or at least you have not shown it). That was a very compact storm with a very narrow corridor of most intense winds. Unless you can show that the area in the pic is very close to a place that measured wind speeds of a certain speed without any failure then it is irrelevant-and is not any objective fact at all. 

 

You are also strawmanning, although I think you may be doing it unintentionally. Nowhere did I claim that picture only got 115 sustained. Infact I am almost certain the winds were much higher there. I am showing you damage from a 145mph storm. I think that’s a fair comparison to a supposedly 140mph cat 4 as it was crossing I-10, no? But the damage along I-10 (that we have seen so far) is not even close to as bad as what we saw in Punta Gorda from Charley. 

 

I think some of ya’ll read my posts and just immediately think I am saying the storm wasn’t bad or something. Simply not true... I’m merely disputing the intensity of the storm several hours after landfall. Cat 2/3 damage, particularly that far away from the coast, is still incredible.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sakau2007 said:

You are also strawmanning, although I think you may be doing it unintentionally. Nowhere did I claim that picture only got 115 sustained. Infact I am almost certain the winds were much higher there. I am showing you damage from a 145mph storm. I think that’s a fair comparison to a supposedly 140mph cat 4 as it was crossing I-10, no? But the damage along I-10 (that we have seen so far) is not even close to as bad as what we saw in Punta Gorda from Charley. 

 

I think some of ya’ll read my posts and just immediately think I am saying the storm wasn’t bad or something. Simply not true... I’m merely disputing the intensity of the storm several hours after landfall. Cat 2/3 damage, particularly that far away from the coast, is still incredible.

 

 

How do you know how strong the winds were in the exact location where the photo was taken? Do you know what day it was taken, or the location where it was taken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you don’t understand is that literally nobody cares about your opinion. You act like if you just keep saying stuff we’ll all see the light. You’re like the guy suing subway because footlongs are 11”. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Superstorm93 said:

 

 

It actually reminds me of driving through Francis Marion National Forest like a month after Hugo as a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dunkman said:

It actually reminds me of driving through Francis Marion National Forest like a month after Hugo as a child.

You have to wonder how many animals died in the storm. Not sure how anything could survive in those woods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, psv88 said:

You have to wonder how many animals died in the storm. Not sure how anything could survive in those woods.

This and animals left behind in the houses swept away.  I cannot imagine leaving animals behind but people do it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, psv88 said:

You have to wonder how many animals died in the storm. Not sure how anything could survive in those woods.

There will be some loss, but wildlife are much more resilient than you might think. Think fire ant rafts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×