Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    16,988
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Dankles
    Newest Member
    Dankles
    Joined

Major Hurricane Ida


Recommended Posts

So it looks like nearly 60 directly related storm fatalities. Who would have thought that about 75% of those would happen in the Northeast? I think this storm has already topped 50 billion in damage as well.
 
Maybe the extreme flooding caught so many people off guard because there had just been an extreme flooding event two weeks ago, with "records" being broken and all, and the flash flooding was bad but you did not have the fatalities? It would be understandable for people to think that it would not be as bad as what had just happened, and that even if it came close, again there would be damage but nothing like what actually happened? Nobody thought that the new 1 hour rainfall record in Central Park would be shattered by another storm just two weeks later-nobody was thinking that could happen.
 
Just really bad timing- a horrible flooding tropical system, and then just a couple weeks later, and even worse system. 
Ida, though not as intense a hurricane, reminded me a lot of Camille in both track and extreme inland flooding far away from landfall. Sometimes these TC setups over the ECONUS can lead to much greater loss of life than the initial impact at landfall.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/3/2021 at 12:18 PM, Windspeed said:
On 9/3/2021 at 12:08 PM, sojitodd said:
So it looks like nearly 60 directly related storm fatalities. Who would have thought that about 75% of those would happen in the Northeast? I think this storm has already topped 50 billion in damage as well.
 
Maybe the extreme flooding caught so many people off guard because there had just been an extreme flooding event two weeks ago, with "records" being broken and all, and the flash flooding was bad but you did not have the fatalities? It would be understandable for people to think that it would not be as bad as what had just happened, and that even if it came close, again there would be damage but nothing like what actually happened? Nobody thought that the new 1 hour rainfall record in Central Park would be shattered by another storm just two weeks later-nobody was thinking that could happen.
 
Just really bad timing- a horrible flooding tropical system, and then just a couple weeks later, and even worse system. 

Ida, though not as intense a hurricane, reminded me a lot of Camille in both track and extreme inland flooding far away from landfall. Sometimes these TC setups over the ECONUS can lead to much greater loss of life than the initial impact at landfall.

Yea, Camille was def. a solid analog.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of comments are pointing to Henri, as the sole contributor to the wet conditions in the tri-state area prior to Ida.  In reality, it was the just the last in a series of flooding rain events leading up to Ida. July 2021 was the 8th wettest on record for NJ.  Rutgers has a great write-up on it recapping each event.  You can find it here: https://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim/?section=menu&target=jul21

The region was already very wet, Henri just kept the party rolling.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is becoming pretty obvious here that the inner eyewall of Ida was very intense and clearly upper Cat 4 intensity. Was it as intense as Michael? No. But this particular gust was definitely supportive of 150+ sustained at the surface. It is really just a matter of luck that Ida's inner eyewall did not strike a populated community at landfall.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Windspeed said:

I think it is becoming pretty obvious here that the inner eyewall of Ida was very intense and clearly upper Cat 4 intensity. Was it as intense as Michael? No. But this particular gust was definitely supportive of 150+ sustained at the surface. It is really just a matter of luck that Ida's inner eyewall did not strike a populated community at landfall.

Yeah. I'm guessing the 150 mph seems pretty right now. You can have ridiculous gusts with a 150 mph storm. Look at Charley in 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Windspeed said:

I think it is becoming pretty obvious here that the inner eyewall of Ida was very intense and clearly upper Cat 4 intensity. Was it as intense as Michael? No. But this particular gust was definitely supportive of 150+ sustained at the surface. It is really just a matter of luck that Ida's inner eyewall did not strike a populated community at landfall.

What’s amazing looking at the extreme damage in grand isle and is that the town itself never actually got into the inner eyewall. It was left kind of in the moat between the concentric eyewalls

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I remember Grand Isle did get into the eyewall....Port Fourchoun was in the middle of the eye and Grand Isle is a few miles east of that location.  Its fairly likely Grande Isle received the worst winds in Ida

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I’ve been discussing on Twitter, it’s important to recognize that the Port Fourchon measurement was an instantaneous gust and not representative of the standard three-second value.  It’s just not simply the fact that it was also measured above 30 m height.  
 

Moreover, we have no idea as to the capability of said anemometer to accurately record wind speeds at such high velocities.  Some might recall the 212 mph observation during hurricane Andrew that was subsequently revised to 177 mph after tunnel testing of that particular model. 
 

These important points aren’t to minimize the fact hurricane Ida was most certainly a high-end Cat 4 at landfall, but rather to view these elevated and instantaneous wind gust measurements in their proper context.  

All the collective data is supportive of the operational landfall intensity of 130 kt.  At its peak (roughly 3.5 hours preceding landfall), I’d argue for 135 kt…based mainly on the 148 kt 700 mb FLWs measured by Recon.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instantaneous gust or not that still a ridiculous observation.  And what exactly is the definition of instantaneous (1-second long?)? I don't know why but since you claimed you saw stronger winds than Josh did in Dorian I always view your posts as angling to keep Michael greater than "x".

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Normandy said:

Instantaneous gust or not that still a ridiculous observation.  And what exactly is the definition of instantaneous (1-second long?)? I don't know why but since you claimed you saw stronger winds than Josh did in Dorian I always view your posts as angling to keep Michael greater than "x".

First of all, I’m a meteorologist first and foremost…and a chaser/weather enthusiast, second.  This means I’m far more concerned with the accuracy of scientific data than anything else. 
 

Your ignorant assumption that I give two cents about supposedly “angling to keep Michael greater than x” has zero merit!  
 

As for Dorian, I’ve already given my unbiased, wholly objective scientific opinion (has nothing whatsoever to do with me) as to why I still believe the winds in Michael (at the west end of MX Beach) were just a little stronger than what anyone experienced in Marsh Harbor.  It’s not just simply the video evidence (as it’s virtually impossible to accurately compare wind speeds at such extreme velocities), but also the fact that the strongest winds of Dorian remained well N of that area, and offshore, thankfully.  
 

Despite your false presuppositions, I genuinely could care less if someone records stronger winds on video than myself.  Why would I?  I’m not that kind of narcissistic, immature, attention-seeking individual…but nice try to discredit my well-reasoned viewpoint.  
 

There will be many far more intense tropical cyclones in the WPAC, for example, that I’m sure one day someone will capture even stronger winds than I saw in Michael.  It certainly won’t be me, because I have no interest whatsoever in chasing TCs outside the U.S. mainland.  For me, I don’t chase hurricanes to bring attention to myself, but rather to share that experience with others.  How many selfie’s have you ever seen of me?   Furthermore, I stay behind at least 1-2 days following each intercept to help in the cleanup…not rushing to get out of the area to showcase the footage I captured.  I bring these things up simply to highlight how misguided and ignorant your mischaracterization of me and my motives truly are…not to begrudge other chasers who may choose to do things differently.  
 

Back to Ida, “instantaneous” wind gusts are exactly that; they aren’t even of 1 second duration.  As I stated in the post you found so objectionable, those wind gusts should be viewed in their proper context.  Instead, I keep reading posts all over social media wrongly assuming these measurements correspond to a category-five MSW at 10 m.  That aside, we can agree that it’s an impressive recorded value, regardless.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2021 at 9:03 PM, Normandy said:

From what I remember Grand Isle did get into the eyewall....Port Fourchoun was in the middle of the eye and Grand Isle is a few miles east of that location.  Its fairly likely Grande Isle received the worst winds in Ida

You’re absolutely correct.  I’ll add that the strongest winds measured by Recon (located in the innermost portion of the E eyewall) actually moved in between the two aforementioned locations…with Grand Isle likely getting higher winds than Port Fourchon.  See attached radar image, below.  

It’s important to remember that the most intense winds are generally located in the innermost portion of the NE eyewall…as the winds are not uniformly distributed throughout the eyewall, as some incorrectly assume.  

39744AF5-CA55-498C-B19B-DBAF0343EC82.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi everyone I wanted to put my thoughts on this matter this is jock williams meteorologist and researcher. Cj at the time he made those posts I and other individual had already progressed way north by 45 min at no point during my intercept was I concerned cj had asked to follow I informed him of the consequences and being this was his first major Cain  what would happen he agreed  fast-forward  surge was not a concern as a matter of fact nothing was concerning given my expertise and 18 years of doing this type of work and going to college for my masters having completed in 4 years. I do everything for the scientific side and to educate and help prepare people for these events.    Thank you all and always keep calm I never yell or panic because why would I need to 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To better understand (determine) how that 223 mph instantaneous wind gust corresponds to a one-minute sustained wind speed at standard height…one can use the power law to covert from that 30 meter height to 10 meters elevation. 
 

First, we need to convert the instantaneous gust to a 1-minute sustained wind speed.  Extensive research

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/12031496/estimating-3-second-and-maximum-instantaneous-gusts-from-1-/3

has shown that an instantaneous wind gust can be converted to a 1-minute wind speed by a factor of 1.45.  In this case, it would translate to 154 mph.

Then, we’ll simply use the power law equation to extrapolate the aforementioned 154 mph wind at 30 m to a 10 m equivalent.  To do so accurately, you need to utilize the appropriate surface roughness length.  In this case, I’m using 0.10 for open ocean.  
 

This converts to a 139 mph (120 kt) one minute sustained wind value.  That’s a very impressive in-situ measurement to be captured at landfall in Port Fourchon.  
 

Given its highly unlikely that any anemometer would be positioned perfectly to capture the highest wind speed in the eyewall, and taking into account that the strongest winds were likely found just to the E…this measurement provides excellent additional support for the operational intensity of 130 kt.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Ida” is a prime example of why I wish the NHC would add the descriptive term of “Super” for major hurricanes with a MSW of 130 kt or greater…similar to the WPAC.

Reasoning being there is a significant difference in the ferocity of the wind and its destructive ability at these velocities in comparison with those at the lower-end of the Cat 4 range.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ncforecaster89 said:

“Ida” is a prime example of why I wish the NHC would add the descriptive term of “Super” for major hurricanes with a MSW of 130 kt or greater…similar to the WPAC.

Reasoning being there is a significant difference in the ferocity of the wind and its destructive ability at these velocities in comparison with those at the lower-end of the Cat 4 range.   

If they did that the climate change deniers would pitch a fit and say it’s being done to make global warming seem scarier. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ncforecaster89 said:

“Ida” is a prime example of why I wish the NHC would add the descriptive term of “Super” for major hurricanes with a MSW of 130 kt or greater…similar to the WPAC.

Reasoning being there is a significant difference in the ferocity of the wind and its destructive ability at these velocities in comparison with those at the lower-end of the Cat 4 range.   

Though I agree somewhat, I think a better solution would be to look at revising the wind speed category system. To me, cat 4 should comprise 130-150 mph, cat 5 should be 150-170 mph and there should be a cat 6, for storms such as Dorian and Irma. I think the difference in wind magnitude between a 160 mph hurricane and a 180 mph hurricane is enough to justify a separate category for only the strongest storms on earth. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I agree somewhat, I think a better solution would be to look at revising the wind speed category system. To me, cat 4 should comprise 130-150 mph, cat 5 should be 150-170 mph and there should be a cat 6, for storms such as Dorian and Irma. I think the difference in wind magnitude between a 160 mph hurricane and a 180 mph hurricane is enough to justify a separate category for only the strongest storms on earth. 
The problem with having a "Category 6" based on Dorian is the limitations of categorically confining a value of time and motion. Dorian was horrible regardless, but even worse due to its slow motion. You cannot underestimate how much the long duration of sustained Category 5 winds did to magnify the devastation. In reality, anything above 155 mph sustained that persists for a slow mover is going to be magnified. There is no need for a Category 6. If it's a fast moving intense hurricane, the damage is going to be less than a slow moving intense hurricane due to inevitable structural failure caused by prolonged wind force.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2021 at 12:53 PM, NorthHillsWx said:

Though I agree somewhat, I think a better solution would be to look at revising the wind speed category system. To me, cat 4 should comprise 130-150 mph, cat 5 should be 150-170 mph and there should be a cat 6, for storms such as Dorian and Irma. I think the difference in wind magnitude between a 160 mph hurricane and a 180 mph hurricane is enough to justify a separate category for only the strongest storms on earth. 

No location got 155 kt winds in either Irma or Dorian. If they did they would have been completely flattened. They were Cat 5’s just like all the others. I do think the only hurricane that you could debate as Cat 6 would be 1935 Labor Day.

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...