Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,415
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Landia_Copeland
    Newest Member
    Landia_Copeland
    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 7

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
2 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.  

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.

×