Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Major Hurricane Michael

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, ncforecaster89 said:

Talking with residents around the area, there's this persistent rumor circulating that this supposed "black box" was found near Tyndall AFB that supposedly recorded a 182 mph sustained wind.  Just sharing for informational purposes, as I don't personally believe it (for obvious reasons), but goes with the consistent narrative that there's additional data, not yet released, from Tyndall AFB.

A 182 mph gust I can easily believe, 182 mph one-minute sustained...can't buy that.   Nonetheless, would be great to learn that there's additional data out there we are currently unaware of...but remain skeptical it could remain unreported this long after the event.   

The sustained part was ridiculous.    But it shouldn't take credit away from the "Black Box Found" part of the story.    Never heard of a weather station being called a black box, nor one randomly being found laying on the side of the road and analyzed for data. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amped said:

The sustained part was ridiculous.    But it shouldn't take credit away from the "Black Box Found" part of the story.    Never heard of a weather station being called a black box, nor one randomly being found laying on the side of the road and analyzed for data. 

My thoughts exactly...lol.  Just thought it was an interesting tidbit of info I keep hearing being repeated by numerous residents around the affected area.   

My best guess is that the original rumor many of us had heard (that there was a weather station at Tyndall AFB that recorded a 172 mph wind gust) has since morphed into this story of the mythical "black box" that recorded sustained winds of 182 mph. 

The one consistency that has lingered, from then until now, being this supposed extra wind data collected at Tyndall AFB...that has yet to be released to the public.  They better hurry up and release it.  Otherwise, Michael might continue to intensify with a newly reported maximum sustained wind of 200 mph!  :)

When conversing with these residents...many of which are genuinely dealing with severe cases of PTSD...I realize that the average person likely has no real concept of what a 115 mph wind can do, much less the type of catastrophic damage the peak wind gusts in Michael were capable of.  

More importantly, it breaks my heart to see these people struggling just simply to get by day to day.  I've witnessed many who have just suddenly burst into tears, while in the process of going about their everyday tasks!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ncforecaster89 said:

My thoughts exactly...lol.  Just thought it was an interesting tidbit of info I keep hearing being repeated by numerous residents around the affected area.   

My best guess is that the original rumor many of us had heard (that there was a weather station at Tyndall AFB that recorded a 172 mph wind gust) has since morphed into this story of the mythical "black box" that recorded sustained winds of 182 mph. 

The one consistency that has lingered, from then until now, being this supposed extra wind data collected at Tyndall AFB...that has yet to be released to the public.  They better hurry up and release it.  Otherwise, Michael might continue to intensify with a newly reported maximum sustained wind of 200 mph!  :)

When conversing with these residents...many of which are genuinely dealing with severe cases of PTSD...I realize that the average person likely has no real concept of what a 115 mph wind can do, much less the type of catastrophic damage the peak wind gusts in Michael were capable of.  

More importantly, it breaks my heart to see these people struggling just simply to get by day to day.  I've witnessed many who have just suddenly burst into tears, while in the process of going about their everyday tasks!

I really have enjoyed your tweets about the trip back!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm from speaking with a person directly involved , who I will NOT name, that Michael will officially be upgraded to a landfall of 140kts based upon recon data AND velocity data from the Eglin AFB radar.


.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Calderon said:

I can confirm from speaking with a person directly involved , who I will NOT name, that Michael will officially be upgraded to a landfall of 140kts based upon recon data AND velocity data from the Eglin AFB radar.


.

Impressive if this is true. It would be only the 4th CAT5 to hit the US mainland and the first in October.

  We knew it wasn't going to be upgraded based on ground station data, but it looks like recon and radar was enough.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Calderon said:

I can confirm from speaking with a person directly involved , who I will NOT name, that Michael will officially be upgraded to a landfall of 140kts based upon recon data AND velocity data from the Eglin AFB radar.


.

Based on your official source, are you 100% certain the NHC has made this decision and that it’s simply a matter of public release?  

As myself and a few others have been arguing, adamantly, there’s no doubt the data you noted clearly corresponds to a 140 kt intensity.  That said, I will still be very pleasantly surprised if they make that adjustment...mainly because of their reluctance to make such revisions in these cases (as made clear by former NHC forecaster, Todd Kimberlain). 

Must admit, for a second there, I kinda wondered if your post was made on April 1st?!  If this indeed comes to pass as you stated, you have gathered the scoop of the year, hands down, IMHO.

Thanks for sharing!   

Edit:  I’m guessing it will be awhile longer before we see the Report given there are still 4 other TCR’s to be released, as well.  Won’t be surprised if it’s the latter part of April or even into the month of May before they release the Michael TCR.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is 100% confirmed as this person works for the NHC, is a familiar name as a forecaster, and was personally one of the forecasters that had to do the research to reach this conclusion.

It’s literally just a matter of when the report gets published and it’ll obviously be public record and probably an official press release will be given because of the huge nature of this.


.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Calderon said:

It is 100% confirmed as this person works for the NHC, is a familiar name as a forecaster, and was personally one of the forecasters that had to do the research to reach this conclusion.

It’s literally just a matter of when the report gets published and it’ll obviously be public record and probably an official press release will be given because of the huge nature of this.


.

Wow. Thanks for sharing. I look forward to seeing the report. 

This was one of the most incredible storms I've tracked. I just looked back at the first page of this thread and I'm still floored by what this storm did. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 11:02 AM, Calderon said:

I can confirm from speaking with a person directly involved , who I will NOT name, that Michael will officially be upgraded to a landfall of 140kts based upon recon data AND velocity data from the Eglin AFB radar.


.

Thanks for the tip. It would be mildly surprising to me because of the past nature of the NHC. I'm certainly not an expert but having traversed the area of impact including inland. It defiantly seems justified. In a strange way this will be therapeutic for some of the residents. Kind of like a badge of honor. The daily struggles will continue for a long time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Eskimo Joe said:

 

This is a big development that was data-informed. The outcome is also consistent with the detailed commentary from @ncforecaster89's first-hand experience in chasing the hurricane. I've appreciated reading all the insights provided here.

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say thank you again to Calderon for the early heads up! My family in St Joe Beach knew it was a possibility but they responded with silence when I told them it was official.


.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess everyone already knows how I feel about this important development! :)

What I found most interesting are these passages from the TCR:

"It should be noted that future revisions to the Florida landfall intensity are possible, as additional re-assessment is expected once the research on the reliability of the SFMR at these high wind speeds is complete."

"The maximum real-time surface wind estimate from the SFMR was 138 kt in the south eyewall at 1706 UTC that day. However, there were missing SFMR data in the real-time transmission during that penetration of the eyewall. Re-construction of the instrument’s raw brightness temperatures during the dropout period by the NOAA AOC indicates that the maximum 10-second SFMR wind estimate was 152 kt near 1707 UTC. The SFMR winds support an intensity greater than 135 kt, especially if the 152-kt value is correct and uncontaminated by wave shoaling in water about 89 ft deep. However, there is a significant caveat regarding the SFMR data, as experience during Hurricanes Irma, Jose, and Maria in 2017 suggests the possibility that the SFMR has a high bias at the wind speeds in question. Research to determine if this is the case is currently underway.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report mentions the possibility that Michael reached 145 kt per Doppler velocity, but I think 140 kt is a good compromise. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2019 at 12:09 PM, ncforecaster89 said:

Talking with residents around the area, there's this persistent rumor circulating that this supposed "black box" was found near Tyndall AFB that supposedly recorded a 182 mph sustained wind.  Just sharing for informational purposes, as I don't personally believe it (for obvious reasons), but goes with the consistent narrative that there's additional data, not yet released, from Tyndall AFB.

A 182 mph gust I can easily believe, 182 mph one-minute sustained...can't buy that.   Nonetheless, would be great to learn that there's additional data out there we are currently unaware of...but remain skeptical it could remain unreported this long after the event.   

The upgrade to Cat 5 made sense in terms of what was going on with the storm just prior to landfall.  160 is much more reasonable than 182 lol.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ncforecaster89 said:

Guess everyone already knows how I feel about this important development! :)

What I found most interesting are these passages from the TCR:

"It should be noted that future revisions to the Florida landfall intensity are possible, as additional re-assessment is expected once the research on the reliability of the SFMR at these high wind speeds is complete."

"The maximum real-time surface wind estimate from the SFMR was 138 kt in the south eyewall at 1706 UTC that day. However, there were missing SFMR data in the real-time transmission during that penetration of the eyewall. Re-construction of the instrument’s raw brightness temperatures during the dropout period by the NOAA AOC indicates that the maximum 10-second SFMR wind estimate was 152 kt near 1707 UTC. The SFMR winds support an intensity greater than 135 kt, especially if the 152-kt value is correct and uncontaminated by wave shoaling in water about 89 ft deep. However, there is a significant caveat regarding the SFMR data, as experience during Hurricanes Irma, Jose, and Maria in 2017 suggests the possibility that the SFMR has a high bias at the wind speeds in question. Research to determine if this is the case is currently underway.

Wow, 152?!  Maybe that 182 mph report wasn't so far-fetched!  Reading between the lines, do you think this was stronger than Andrew?  Closer to Camille in intensity?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Wow, 152?!  Maybe that 182 mph report wasn't so far-fetched!  Reading between the lines, do you think this was stronger than Andrew?  Closer to Camille in intensity?

 

It’s conceivable that Michael attained 145 kt...as noted in the Report by Doppler radar velocity data, but I don’t see any data that argues for a higher intensity than that...unless that 152 kt SFMR reading is reliable.  The rest of the data supports 140-145 kt, and I’m cool with the 140 kt intensity baring verification of the aforementioned SFMR.  

EDIT:  Should add that I think the Report still needs to revise the central pressure at landfall.  Likely was in the 916-918 mb range.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a chance to read a portion of the report this morning. Amazing amount of info for anyone who is a "weather nerd"! I found the portion below very interesting. It lines up very well with my previous comments in the thread after our drive thru.

 

Data gaps in Fig. 5 marked with an “M” indicate when a significant eyewall mesovortex rotated through the southeastern quadrant of the eyewall, disturbing the flow in that area, and making the calculations of background tangential flow less reliable and/or unrepresentative. It should be noted that some of the mesovortices contained peak actual velocities aloft of 180–200 kt as they passed through the southeastern eyewall.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that the NHC best track intensities typically have an uncertainty of +- 10%.

 

So Micheal could have been 126-154kts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 8:51 PM, ncforecaster89 said:

It’s conceivable that Michael attained 145 kt...as noted in the Report by Doppler radar velocity data, but I don’t see any data that argues for a higher intensity than that...unless that 152 kt SFMR reading is reliable.  The rest of the data supports 140-145 kt, and I’m cool with the 140 kt intensity baring verification of the aforementioned SFMR.  

EDIT:  Should add that I think the Report still needs to revise the central pressure at landfall.  Likely was in the 916-918 mb range.  

Yes, I really dont think it had time to intensify far beyond 140 kt.  Still below Camille but about equivalent in intensity to Andrew.  I dont know why Andrew feels like it was much more intense- perhaps because of how long ago it happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes, I really dont think it had time to intensify far beyond 140 kt.  Still below Camille but about equivalent in intensity to Andrew.  I dont know why Andrew feels like it was much more intense- perhaps because of how long ago it happened?

I'd say it's mainly because of the fact that so many buildings were destroyed by those poorer design codes/standards back then, and there was a sizable number of trailer homes in the highest impacted areas. 

That's also why from a wind damage perspective that you can see what older codes versus newer within the same area, such as Tyndall AFB, is so variable on structures. The newer structures mainly suffered some extent of roof and window damage while some of the older warehouses and housing units were completed destroyed. If you remove the storm surge element from Mexico Beach, the wind damage there wasn't as extreme as Andrew largely in part because much of that town's building stock is post-Andrew codes, vegetation damage not being taken into account obviously. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2019 at 1:44 PM, Calderon said:

I'd say it's mainly because of the fact that so many buildings were destroyed by those poorer design codes/standards back then, and there was a sizable number of trailer homes in the highest impacted areas. 

That's also why from a wind damage perspective that you can see what older codes versus newer within the same area, such as Tyndall AFB, is so variable on structures. The newer structures mainly suffered some extent of roof and window damage while some of the older warehouses and housing units were completed destroyed. If you remove the storm surge element from Mexico Beach, the wind damage there wasn't as extreme as Andrew largely in part because much of that town's building stock is post-Andrew codes, vegetation damage not being taken into account obviously. 

 

I've long thought that Andrew may have been stronger than 165 mph at landfall, perhaps more in the 175-180 mph range given the wind damage. The radar and satellite of Andrew, even in the 1992 era, is just so unbelievably powerful in the final hours into landfall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Floydbuster said:

 

I've long thought that Andrew may have been stronger than 165 mph at landfall, perhaps more in the 175-180 mph range given the wind damage. The radar and satellite of Andrew, even in the 1992 era, is just so unbelievably powerful in the final hours into landfall.

 

I agree that it's conceivable that Andrew may have had a higher MSW than the current 145 kt value assigned for its SE Fl landfall.  If so, it's unlikely that those top winds exceeded 150 kt (175 mph).  The highest 700 mb FLW was measured at 162 kt...which corresponds to 146 kt at the surface using standard conversion rates.  Considering it was still rapidly intensifying through landfall, 150 kt is most certainly plausible.  But, as Calderon noted, much of the worst structual damage consisted of obliterated mobile home parks...which helps magnify the severity of the wind damage in comparison with the other modern category five hurricanes.  

Another recent S FL hurricane that I personally think should have its landfalling intensity increased would be hurricane Charley from 2004.  The peak 700 mb FLW was 148 kt measured just before its first SW FL landfall...which equates to 133 kt surface winds.   Given it's very tiny RMW, continued rapid intensification, and the aforementioned FLW winds, I'd suggest 135 kt (155 mph) is a more applicable intensity estimate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew produced 10 min sustained winds of 100 kt + in the southern eyeball.  also produced a 168 mph gust outside of the northern eyewall.  there is no doubt in my mind that Andrew is more intense then they Reanalyzed it at.

I am glad Michael was upgraded.  data was a slam dunk imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still a little confused as to why/how the authors of the TCR chose to retain the operational pressure of 919 mb.  The data they referenced for their decision argues for a slightly lower pressure at landfall. 

Here's their reasoning from the Report:

"Michael’s minimum and landfall pressure is assessed at 919 mb based mainly on three data points: 1) a dropsonde measured pressure of 922 mb with a surface wind of 34 kt at 1558 UTC 10 October, 2) a pressure of 920.2 mb measured at the FCMP T3 tower at 1713 UTC 10 October, and 3) a pressure of 922.4 mb and simultaneous hurricane-force winds at the Tyndall AFB station at 1720 UTC 10 October."

The first data point they reference is a measurement equivalent to 919 mb...at a full hour and a half prior to landfall.  Since Michael was continuing to rapidly intensify during the subsequent 90 minutes thereafter, this observation suggests a pressure around 916 mb may be more accurate. 

The second data point referenced a lowest pressure of 920 mb measured in the eye...but not in the center. This suggests a lowest pressure estimate around 918 mb.

The third data point of a 922 mb measured with accompanying hurricane-force winds would equate to an estimated pressure as low as 915-916 mb.

Based on these data, the absolute minimum pressure located anywhere inside Michael's eye was likely in the 916-918 mb range.   I'd had settled on 917 mb, myself...but no higher than 918 mb.   '

  • 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.

×