• Member Statistics

    15,528
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NJRunner
    Newest Member
    NJRunner
    Joined
Jtm12180

Hurricane Dorian Banter Thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TheDreamTraveler said:

For anyone complaining why everyone is making a big deal about this...if we sit idly by and say and do nothing then this will become the norm.

I'd definitely be double and triple checking any econ data between now and November 2020

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cheese007 said:

I'd definitely be double and triple checking any econ data between now and November 2020

I still wonder why Dorian wasn't upgraded to a Cat. 5 sooner. Every single piece of data showed it being a Cat. 5 and the NHC refused to upgrade it until they could no longer wait. Very odd behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TriPol said:

I still wonder why Dorian wasn't upgraded to a Cat. 5 sooner. Every single piece of data showed it being a Cat. 5 and the NHC refused to upgrade it until they could no longer wait. Very odd behavior.

I think realistically, there isn't much if any difference between a high-end CAT 4 and a low-end CAT 5, as these terms are nothing more than artificial constructs for data categorizing purposes, where in either case, the potential damage impact is the same - catastrophic.  Since "CAT 5" is the highest designation for the scale, it behooves balancing the "drama" of the term with the confirmation that it is truly sustained at that level, as there is no other category "officially" above that level. And when conditions are at the threshold of either designation and one is trying to communicate that to the public, it requires extra care to assess the risk of what might be confusing frequent category changes, while working around the media's propensity to exaggerate (for ratings). So there is a need to confirm, without doubt, that the category has truly been achieved and sustained, again with the knowledge that whether it is a high-end CAT 4 or a low-end CAT 5, the damage is the same.

I do expect like what was done with the "S word" storm in 2012, there will be a "Lessons Learned" activity as part of the full reanalysis of this storm.  NHC took a big hit because the existing criteria was correctly followed when that storm became post-tropical and was no longer considered a "hurricane" ("hurricane" being a term very recognizable by the lay public).  However public outrage ensued because anything less than the use of that term for a storm with equivalent winds/rain/surge and damage impact, became unnecessarily confusing to the public due to the focus on the technicality of "tropical" vs "post-tropical".  I.e., to the scientific met community, that storm's technical makeup and dynamics had changed ("quantitative"), but to the public, the "look" and "feel" and "impact" had not ("qualitative").  And now with climate change altering storm behavior, we are seeing storms maintain tropical characteristics further north in latitude than in the past, often due to a warmer ocean further north.

So in a similar fashion, they may look at ways to more quickly but definitively declare a storm as having achieved that highest category (outside of reported wind speed at the surface through dropsondes) without compromising the science behind the confirmation.  I think this would really be a good idea to do given the sudden increased frequency of such storms (and as we know here, this was the 5th one in 4 years, where in the past, this level of storm was more rare).  You might recall the same issue with Hurricane Michael and a decision, after a post-storm reanalysis, to upgrade it to a CAT 5 at landfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hurricane Agnes said:

I do expect like what was done with the "S word" storm in 2012, there will be a "Lessons Learned" activity as part of the full reanalysis of this storm.  NHC took a big hit because the existing criteria was correctly followed when that storm became post-tropical and was no longer considered a "hurricane" ("hurricane" being a term very recognizable by the lay public).  However public outrage ensued because anything less than the use of that term for a storm with equivalent winds/rain/surge and damage impact, became unnecessarily confusing to the public due to the focus on the technicality of "tropical" vs "post-tropical".  I.e., to the scientific met community, that storm's technical makeup and dynamics had changed ("quantitative"), but to the public, the "look" and "feel" and "impact" had not ("qualitative"). 

Bryan Norcross discusses this specific communication problem in a 2017 writing. This is a less elegant piece than I'm accustomed seeing from him. He has a number of good pieces easily found with a Google search showing where improvements in communication and could be warranted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, f2tornado said:

Bryan Norcross discusses this specific communication problem in a 2017 writing. This is a less elegant piece than I'm accustomed seeing from him. 

The issue of "threat" (and "risk") will always be "mush".  And mainly because it becomes a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario when you attempt to definitively characterize something and you end up being "wrong" because of an outcome that went to the other side of the "wiggle room" spectrum (probability range) from what was expected. It's akin to teasing out the degrees of difference between near-synonymous words like "shall", "should", "will", and "must". The hope is to be able develop tools to help reduce the probability range.

There is a similar issue that goes on with the aftermath of an EFx tornado vs straight-line winds.  There has been tremendous damage done to infrastructure from straight-line winds akin to tornado damage, but the mechanisms (and debris patterns) behind either phenomena are different and this often triggers public frustration on what to call the "cause" of the damage they might experience or have experienced. I.e.,  the public is more familiar with the term "tornado", whereas "straight-line winds" is a more nebulous term and is often automatically considered as "less than a tornado", yet the damage can be the same or even worse.  This is not so much a scientific issue as it is a "perception" issue that happens with media reporting.  The implementation of the "key" things to know - notably the potential "impact", is a good step in the right direction (knowing however that the average person is not visiting the point-and-click maps on the NWS site for their locations to read the actual warning text and are usually getting their weather news filtered by the media on TV, radio, or even from a smart-device weather app).

I really don't think there is a good way to resolve this (at least off the top of my head and in a manner that doesn't introduce a dozen technical terms for damage-causing "storms" - not unlike differentiating hail from sleet... or snow from rimmed flakes or graupel... let alone explaining the ice caused by freezing rain when the air temperature is above freezing). 

One thing that I thought was pretty cool that NHC had done was the creation of an animation illustrating the type of damage a hurricane of "x" range of wind speed could generate.  Unfortunately it is a flash animation (and really should be converted to something like an animated gif or perhaps a HTML5 animation), but can be found here as a standalone - https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/animations/images/hurricane_winddamage.swf (and is also embedded here - https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php)

This type of illustration could actually apply to any type of system that produces extreme winds (whether hurricane or tornado or straight-line winds, etc).  The visualization pretty dramatically illustrates wind force and its potential impact (assuming the infrastructure wasn't already compromised by age or other factors). But it would also behoove the media to pass this type of thing along as well, perhaps as a public-private partnership/collaboration.  As it is, there is quite a bit of rancor that goes on between the private forecasters and the public ones and this sadly tends to cloud (pun intended) the issue of communicating hazards as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Shades of Chernobyl. The State didn't want scientists to spread anything that in any way shape or form disagreed with the official position of the State. It's easy to see where Trump gets his behavior from.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 5:35 PM, Jim Marusak said:

well, Dr. Neil Jacobs, current acting head of NOAA, will be speaking a keynote address tomorrow morning at 8am CT at the NWA Annual meeting in Huntsville. how do you think that will go? especially any Q&A after the speech?

Here is an article on the follow-up of that -

 

Share this post


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

 

This is disappointing, but not surprising. It was clear from the onset that the unattributed NOAA statement was a political statement. That the origins are being traced to the White House can be expected given how forcefully and persistently the President clung to his erroneous statement concerning Dorian and Alabama.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm posting this comment in the banter thread, as I would suspect any convo regarding chasers (more personally) would be more applicable outside the main storm specific thread.

That said, I wanted to make it abundantly clear that I was (and am) genuinely excited for Josh to have intercepted the eye and core of Dorian.  Unlike some, I don't get jealous of others' chasing success.  Why should they?  It has no relevancy on their own chase abilities.  

My wholly scientically objective observation that the winds don't appear to have been any higher in Marsh Harbour than those I happened to observe on the western-most portion of Mexico Beach, shouldn't be taken as somehow an attempt at minimizing the effects on Marsh Harbour.  The only relevancy to Josh in such evaluation is simply an objective review of the winds he documented on video.  As stated multiple times already, I feel he captured genuine Cat 5 winds on video...which is a VERY rare occurrence.  

It makes zero difference that I happened to be the one who documented the highest winds in Michael or that Josh happened to be the one documenting Dorian in MH.  The only relevancy between the two is that each intercept location experienced the greatest impact from the two storms, respectively.  Thus, my own personal interest in knowing what the peak MSW might've been at each specific locality.

Given Josh is typically in the core of a major landfalling hurricane at or near ground-zero, I can understand why some might misinterpret my objective analysis of the peak winds that most likely were encountered in that area, and falsely presume I have some stupid ulterior motive or "agenda".  Nothing could be further from the truth! 

Even when some resorted to unjustified personal attacks when I respectfully argued that all the objective scientific data clearly suggested Patricia wasn't a Cat 5 at landfall, I didn't waver on my wholly objective opinion.   Subsequently, the NHC agreed with my precise 130 kt estimate.  Similar instances occurred in discussion of Michael's landfall intensity.   Yet again, my best educated guess (based solely on the objective scientific data) was validated in the NHC TCR.  Now, some are taking exception to my objective viewpoint that Marsh Harbour didn't get anywhere close to those one-minute 10 m estimated MSWs.  Unlike with Michael, we have a lot less access to all the available data, whereby making a specific best educated estimate of the MSW encountered in MH is far more problematic.  That's why I've asked if anyone knows of any additional data that may be available?  Regardless, I'm confident that MH saw a MSW of at least 140 kt.  

I don't personally consider chasing a sport, much less a competition with other chasers.  In sequence of events, my initial goal is to either get into the eye or the area of strongest winds from a documentation standpoint.  Secondly, record the barometric pressure at that location.  Currently in the process of obtaining an anemometer to accurately record wind measurements in future intercepts.  Next, to assist with search and rescue following a devastating event...followed by documentation of the aftermath.   Lastly, I always have (since Katrina in 2005) and always will devote at least one full day to assisting with the cleanup.  This is one thing I wish all chasers would do, and feel we all should do, considering we intentionally place ourselves in these areas of greatest impact and often times benefit from doing so.  Regardless of the other ways we help, I still think it's the least we can do...but that's just me.  

This post is long enough.  But, I just simply wanted to share my personal viewpoints on the contents contained herein to help those who might misinterpret them.  Thanks for taking the time to read it.  Hope all have a great rest of the day! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ncforecaster89 said:

I'm posting this comment in the banter thread, as I would suspect any convo regarding chasers (more personally) would be more applicable outside the main storm specific thread.

That said, I wanted to make it abundantly clear that I was (and am) genuinely excited for Josh to have intercepted the eye and core of Dorian.  Unlike some, I don't get jealous of others' chasing success.  Why should they?  It has no relevancy on their own chase abilities.  

My wholly scientically objective observation that the winds don't appear to have been any higher in Marsh Harbour than those I happened to observe on the western-most portion of Mexico Beach, shouldn't be taken as somehow an attempt at minimizing the effects on Marsh Harbour.  The only relevancy to Josh in such evaluation is simply an objective review of the winds he documented on video.  As stated multiple times already, I feel he captured genuine Cat 5 winds on video...which is a VERY rare occurrence.  

It makes zero difference that I happened to be the one who documented the highest winds in Michael or that Josh happened to be the one documenting Dorian in MH.  The only relevancy between the two is that each intercept location experienced the greatest impact from the two storms, respectively.  Thus, my own personal interest in knowing what the peak MSW might've been at each specific locality.

Given Josh is typically in the core of a major landfalling hurricane at or near ground-zero, I can understand why some might misinterpret my objective analysis of the peak winds that most likely were encountered in that area, and falsely presume I have some stupid ulterior motive or "agenda".  Nothing could be further from the truth! 

Even when some resorted to unjustified personal attacks when I respectfully argued that all the objective scientific data clearly suggested Patricia wasn't a Cat 5 at landfall, I didn't waver on my wholly objective opinion.   Subsequently, the NHC agreed with my precise 130 kt estimate.  Similar instances occurred in discussion of Michael's landfall intensity.   Yet again, my best educated guess (based solely on the objective scientific data) was validated in the NHC TCR.  Now, some are taking exception to my objective viewpoint that Marsh Harbour didn't get anywhere close to those one-minute 10 m estimated MSWs.  Unlike with Michael, we have a lot less access to all the available data, whereby making a specific best educated estimate of the MSW encountered in MH is far more problematic.  That's why I've asked if anyone knows of any additional data that may be available?  Regardless, I'm confident that MH saw a MSW of at least 140 kt.  

I don't personally consider chasing a sport, much less a competition with other chasers.  In sequence of events, my initial goal is to either get into the eye or the area of strongest winds from a documentation standpoint.  Secondly, record the barometric pressure at that location.  Currently in the process of obtaining an anemometer to accurately record wind measurements in future intercepts.  Next, to assist with search and rescue following a devastating event...followed by documentation of the aftermath.   Lastly, I always have (since Katrina in 2005) and always will devote at least one full day to assisting with the cleanup.  This is one thing I wish all chasers would do, and feel we all should do, considering we intentionally place ourselves in these areas of greatest impact and often times benefit from doing so.  Regardless of the other ways we help, I still think it's the least we can do...but that's just me.  

This post is long enough.  But, I just simply wanted to share my personal viewpoints on the contents contained herein to help those who might misinterpret them.  Thanks for taking the time to read it.  Hope all have a great rest of the day! :)

Thanks for your interest in my work, Tony. I appreciate it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, HurricaneJosh said:

Thanks for your interest in my work, Tony. I appreciate it. :)

Please read my last post in the main Dorian thread.  

So excited you were able to get into the eye and core of Dorian, and the same applies to Jim Edds, as well.  Very disappointed that James wasn't allowed to get to the Island, himself.   

Naturally, I'd also liked to have been there, but I've long ago resigned myself to the reality that I'll never be able to chase outside the U.S. (my wife will never allow it).

Now, things would be completely different if I missed any Cat 3 or higher landfall in the U.S.  To this day, I wish I'd been able to chase Andrew.  Unfortunately, my studies were paramount at the time and I have to remind myself of that.  Charley is another I regret not chasing in Florida, but work obligations made that impossible.   

Anyway, I eagerly look forward to documenting the next major hurricane in the U.S., as well as seeing all the footage you capture during your own chase exploits.  

Have a great rest of the night, Josh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ncforecaster89 said:

I'm posting this comment in the banter thread, as I would suspect any convo regarding chasers (more personally) would be more applicable outside the main storm specific thread.

That said, I wanted to make it abundantly clear that I was (and am) genuinely excited for Josh to have intercepted the eye and core of Dorian.  Unlike some, I don't get jealous of others' chasing success.  Why should they?  It has no relevancy on their own chase abilities.  

My wholly scientically objective observation that the winds don't appear to have been any higher in Marsh Harbour than those I happened to observe on the western-most portion of Mexico Beach, shouldn't be taken as somehow an attempt at minimizing the effects on Marsh Harbour.  The only relevancy to Josh in such evaluation is simply an objective review of the winds he documented on video.  As stated multiple times already, I feel he captured genuine Cat 5 winds on video...which is a VERY rare occurrence.  

It makes zero difference that I happened to be the one who documented the highest winds in Michael or that Josh happened to be the one documenting Dorian in MH.  The only relevancy between the two is that each intercept location experienced the greatest impact from the two storms, respectively.  Thus, my own personal interest in knowing what the peak MSW might've been at each specific locality.

Given Josh is typically in the core of a major landfalling hurricane at or near ground-zero, I can understand why some might misinterpret my objective analysis of the peak winds that most likely were encountered in that area, and falsely presume I have some stupid ulterior motive or "agenda".  Nothing could be further from the truth! 

Even when some resorted to unjustified personal attacks when I respectfully argued that all the objective scientific data clearly suggested Patricia wasn't a Cat 5 at landfall, I didn't waver on my wholly objective opinion.   Subsequently, the NHC agreed with my precise 130 kt estimate.  Similar instances occurred in discussion of Michael's landfall intensity.   Yet again, my best educated guess (based solely on the objective scientific data) was validated in the NHC TCR.  Now, some are taking exception to my objective viewpoint that Marsh Harbour didn't get anywhere close to those one-minute 10 m estimated MSWs.  Unlike with Michael, we have a lot less access to all the available data, whereby making a specific best educated estimate of the MSW encountered in MH is far more problematic.  That's why I've asked if anyone knows of any additional data that may be available?  Regardless, I'm confident that MH saw a MSW of at least 140 kt.  

I don't personally consider chasing a sport, much less a competition with other chasers.  In sequence of events, my initial goal is to either get into the eye or the area of strongest winds from a documentation standpoint.  Secondly, record the barometric pressure at that location.  Currently in the process of obtaining an anemometer to accurately record wind measurements in future intercepts.  Next, to assist with search and rescue following a devastating event...followed by documentation of the aftermath.   Lastly, I always have (since Katrina in 2005) and always will devote at least one full day to assisting with the cleanup.  This is one thing I wish all chasers would do, and feel we all should do, considering we intentionally place ourselves in these areas of greatest impact and often times benefit from doing so.  Regardless of the other ways we help, I still think it's the least we can do...but that's just me.  

This post is long enough.  But, I just simply wanted to share my personal viewpoints on the contents contained herein to help those who might misinterpret them.  Thanks for taking the time to read it.  Hope all have a great rest of the day! :)

Your posts just have an extremely salty tone to them. 

This isn't "scientific" but video from Mexico Beach or even the Air Force base area compared to video from Dorian look nothing alike. Dorian looks 100x worse. It's really visually apparent which hurricane had higher wind speeds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Benadrill said:

Your posts just have an extremely salty tone to them. 

This isn't "scientific" but video from Mexico Beach or even the Air Force base area compared to video from Dorian look nothing alike. Dorian looks 100x worse. It's really visually apparent which hurricane had higher wind speeds.

Obviously, I disagree, and it's ok that you view it differently.

Edit: I certainly wouldn't argue the winds were stronger at Tyndall.  They weren't. 

Anyway, I genuinely hope you have a good rest of the night!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ncforecaster89 said:

Obviously, I disagree, and it's ok that you view it differently.

This is ridiculous. Post your Mexico Beach video that you think looks similar to Dorian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Benadrill said:

This is ridiculous. Post your Mexico Beach video that you think looks similar to Dorian.

And, you say my posts "have an extremely salty tone?"  Btw, I sincerely apologize if my posts come off that way, as that's certainly not my intention. 

I have no problems sharing the video.  It's a long one, for it's basically all the raw footage and isn't edited to just show the highlights.  Keep in mind, the strongest winds were on the backside after the wind shift in the video.  This matches well with the Recon and radar data that showed the peak winds were in the SE eyewall.  It's virtually complete whiteout at the peak.  

There's a lot to see in the video, but for highest winds...best to view from about the 58:00:00 mark to 1:04:00 and again around the 1:06:00 mark onward to about 1:17:00, as the section in between is right before the wind shift shot from over the railing in the NE eyewall.  Peak winds somewhere during that 15 minute period or so.

Not simply the aforementioned data and insane conditions encountered at the western-most portion of MB, but also the damage evaluations performed by steer who showed debarking at both locations from each storm, respectively.

No doubt both locations saw genuine Cat 5 conditions, and it's ok for people to disagree on the exact winds experienced in Marsh Harbour...given the lack of data compared to what was available with Michael.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Benadrill said:

I dunno. Kind of look the same as they both go to a full white blur. 

Thanks for the objectivity.  Greatly respect that. 

Although some may not realize or appreciate it, my own personal opinion isn't rooted in the fact I was the one who shot the footage at that location in MB.  It's all about Michael's intensity and effects...not anything to do with me.

It's not like I've been suggesting Dorian didn't produce Cat 5 conditions in Marsh Harbour.  Josh's footage, MH's position in the eyewall, and the engineering evaluation by Steer all support Cat 5 conditions occurred at MH.  

Thanks again for taking the time to objectively review the video, and I hope you have a great rest of the day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the ghost of leroy said:

Me me me me me me me

If you're referring to me, as it appears you are...you couldn't be farther from the truth.  Then again, that seems to be a regular thing with you.  

One thing I'm certainly not is self-centered or an attention seeker...unlike many other chasers.  If anything, I'm probably too empathic and truly care about others.   But, what would you know about that?  I'm not the one consistently posting such immature and rude comments.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ncforecaster89 said:

If you're referring to me, as it appears you are...you couldn't be farther from the truth.  Then again, that seems to be a regular thing with you.  

One thing I'm certainly not is self-centered or an attention seeker...unlike many other chasers.  If anything, I'm probably too empathic and truly care about others.   But, what would you know about that?  I'm not the one consistently posting such immature and rude comments.  

Yeah I am talking about you. You’re annoying with all your paragraphs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, the ghost of leroy said:

Yeah I am talking about you. You’re annoying with all your paragraphs. 

Lol.  I know I can be too long-winded.  Need to work on being more concise.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing Josh's vid and this Mexico Beach Michael vid, they both in my opinion, show sustained Category 5 winds. The "whiteout" conditions in both storms is very similar to the infamous gas station video in Charlotte Harbor during Hurricane Charley, where the tiny and fast moving eyewall briefly produced sustained Category 4 winds and a gust to Cat 5 within several seconds which destroyed the gas station. The "whiteout" conditions are seen in that video as well, and Charley was 145 mph by the time winds hit Charlotte Harbor.

The only thing I disagree with Josh about is that Dorian is the cherry on his hurricane sundae. I think Dorian may just be a thick layer of fudge. Just wait until he's in the eye of the next 1935. (I suspect the winds in the '35 storm were actually stronger than 185 mph, and the motion was about 6 kts in a tiny eye with 892 mb pressure).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Comparing Josh's vid and this Mexico Beach Michael vid, they both in my opinion, show sustained Category 5 winds. The "whiteout" conditions in both storms is very similar to the infamous gas station video in Charlotte Harbor during Hurricane Charley, where the tiny and fast moving eyewall briefly produced sustained Category 4 winds and a gust to Cat 5 within several seconds which destroyed the gas station. The "whiteout" conditions are seen in that video as well, and Charley was 145 mph by the time winds hit Charlotte Harbor.

The only thing I disagree with Josh about is that Dorian is the cherry on his hurricane sundae. I think Dorian may just be a thick layer of fudge. Just wait until he's in the eye of the next 1935. (I suspect the winds in the '35 storm were actually stronger than 185 mph, and the motion was about 6 kts in a tiny eye with 892 mb pressure).

 

Hey, thanks, Mike! I'm flattered that you have such a firm belief in my ability to pull that off again-- or top it. If I go to my grave with DORIAN being my biggest score, I'll feel like I did what I was put on this earth to do. But, hey, it's always worth striving for that next level. Anyhoo, thanks for watching the video. Hope you're well, man.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Comparing Josh's vid and this Mexico Beach Michael vid, they both in my opinion, show sustained Category 5 winds. The "whiteout" conditions in both storms is very similar to the infamous gas station video in Charlotte Harbor during Hurricane Charley, where the tiny and fast moving eyewall briefly produced sustained Category 4 winds and a gust to Cat 5 within several seconds which destroyed the gas station. The "whiteout" conditions are seen in that video as well, and Charley was 145 mph by the time winds hit Charlotte Harbor.

The only thing I disagree with Josh about is that Dorian is the cherry on his hurricane sundae. I think Dorian may just be a thick layer of fudge. Just wait until he's in the eye of the next 1935. (I suspect the winds in the '35 storm were actually stronger than 185 mph, and the motion was about 6 kts in a tiny eye with 892 mb pressure).

 

Agree on all accounts.  Can only imagine a repeat of the GLDH of 1935 with all the buildup over the past 84 years.  Not to mention, it's one of the most vulnerable areas in the U.S. for such a monster Cat 5!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ncforecaster89 said:

Agree on all accounts.  Can only imagine a repeat of the GLDH of 1935 with all the buildup over the past 84 years.  Not to mention, it's one of the most vulnerable areas in the U.S. for such a monster Cat 5!

You and Josh may be interested in this:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JCLI1772.1

 

Discussing return periods for sub-900 mb hurricanes in the United States.

"The 1935 Labor Day Florida Keys storm was the most severe in our dataset. With a 265-yr wind speed return period and a 102-yr central pressure return period, it presses the fitted model boundaries. We believe this is due in part to the extreme southern latitude of this landfalling storm. Another storm of this intensity would likely again require a very southern landfalling latitude, with the Florida Keys or the Brownsville, Texas, region being the most likely hosts."

 

Very interesting. That means, according to "return periods", a sub-900 mb U.S. landfall should come around again in about 10-20 years. But I'm also envisioning a Brownsville landfall of a storm of that intensity. I picture a pinhole eyewall on a morning visibile crossing South Padre Island.

I can picture Josh now, a big white beard, tweeting from Port Isabel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You and Josh may be interested in this: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JCLI1772.1   Discussing return periods for sub-900 mb hurricanes in the United States.

"The 1935 Labor Day Florida Keys storm was the most severe in our dataset. With a 265-yr wind speed return period and a 102-yr central pressure return period, it presses the fitted model boundaries. We believe this is due in part to the extreme southern latitude of this landfalling storm. Another storm of this intensity would likely again require a very southern landfalling latitude, with the Florida Keys or the Brownsville, Texas, region being the most likely hosts."

 

Very interesting. That means, according to "return periods", a sub-900 mb U.S. landfall should come around again in about 10-20 years. But I'm also envisioning a Brownsville landfall of a storm of that intensity. I picture a pinhole eyewall on a morning visibile crossing South Padre Island.

I can picture Josh now, a big white beard, tweeting from Port Isabel.

That's a mean for projected return. It doesn't suggest we are due in another 10-20 years, only that per climatological average, a sub-900 mb landfall occurs within a spread of 102 years. There could be more or less years, or even 300 years between such events. I would need to read the paper in more detail on how they came up with those means. The 265-yr mean seems much too large to me however these are modeled datasets from projections and not historical observations since we do not have measurements prior to the 1800s. There are only a few estimated examples of such strong tempests prior to that due to captain logs or governing records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.