Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Major Hurricane Sam


Jtm12180
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SnowLover22 said:

Pressure is down to 932mb but winds do not support cat 5 maybe because of eyewall replacement cycle? Can it be inferred it was a cat 5 at one point or not enough data

I don't think the NHC will, not right now at least. That might be a postseason analysis question. That said, they still need to sample the other quadrants of the eyewall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

WE do...but will the NHC say it :lol: 

I would think pressure data alone supports cat 5 considering they found 145-150 mph winds at 943mb. I think it is reasonable to assume the winds increased with the pressure drop before the wind field started to expand with the ERC causing the winds to decrease as the pressure gradient decreased. Anyways off to bed now already 1 in the morning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Literally no evidence to suggest that this made cat 5 intensity.  ADT peaked at 130 kt (consistent with NHC CI).  Pressure is more typical of cat 4. And no, they are not going to upgrade it in a post storm analysis with 0 evidence.

I should add, ADT was remarkably consistent with what the recon found yesterday.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jpeters3 said:

Literally no evidence to suggest that this made cat 5 intensity.  ADT peaked at 130 kt (consistent with NHC CI).  Pressure is more typical of cat 4. And no, they are not going to upgrade it in a post storm analysis with 0 evidence.

I should add, ADT was remarkably consistent with what the recon found yesterday.

This is just objectively not true. 

Multiple SFMR readings of Cat 5 surface winds via recon yesterday

Dropsonde yesterday supported Cat 5 intensity

The satellite intensity has obviously degraded over the last few hours before recon entered

The pressure dropped 15 mb since yesterday's recon (~929 mb) and now there's a double wind max, suggesting that intensity peaked before they entered. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

This is just objectively not true. 

Multiple SFMR readings of Cat 5 surface winds via recon yesterday

Dropsonde yesterday supported Cat 5 intensity

The satellite intensity has obviously degraded over the last few hours before recon entered

The pressure dropped 15 mb since yesterday's recon (~929 mb) and now there's a double wind max, suggesting that intensity peaked before they entered. 

 

You are objectively out to lunch.  SFMR has a known high bias and readings were inconsistent with flight level winds.  Dropsonde probably hit a gust/meso-vortex.  There is no double wind max.  Intensity is not based on single measurements - it's based on multiple measurements telling the same story.  And Pressure vs wind is not linear.  Also, winds are up from the higher pressure yesterday.  Sorry.


It's just silly when you all think you are smarter than the NHC forecasters.  Why would the arbitrarily low-ball the intensity?  

  • Thanks 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jpeters3 said:

You are objectively out to lunch.  SFMR has a known high bias and readings were inconsistent with flight level winds.  Dropsonde probably hit a gust/meso-vortex.  There is no double wind max.  And Pressure vs wind is not linear.  Sorry.

929mb on the sonde when the damn thing has dropped almost a full T number in objective dvorak in the past 5 hours lol. 

I know it aint much but there's something here:

223300 1425N 05051W 6958 03062 9910 +109 +100 013066 070 068 005 00
223330 1425N 05049W 6953 03048 9887 +109 +102 012072 073 070 004 00
223400 1425N 05047W 6957 03024 9850 +124 +093 012074 076 072 003 00
223430 1425N 05045W 6950 03004 9817 +124 +091 012081 082 074 006 00
223500 1425N 05043W 6935 02973 9736 +153 +086 010091 094 066 029 00
223530 1425N 05041W 6951 02900 9693 +134 +103 011112 119 111 077 00
223600 1425N 05039W 6978 02772 9607 +119 +133 359107 117 121 071 01
223630 1425N 05037W 6984 02647 9423 +183 +135 345067 096 134 035 00
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OSUmetstud said:

929mb on the sonde when the damn thing has dropped almost a full T number in objective dvorak in the past 5 hours lol. 

I know it aint much but there's something here:

223300 1425N 05051W 6958 03062 9910 +109 +100 013066 070 068 005 00
223330 1425N 05049W 6953 03048 9887 +109 +102 012072 073 070 004 00
223400 1425N 05047W 6957 03024 9850 +124 +093 012074 076 072 003 00
223430 1425N 05045W 6950 03004 9817 +124 +091 012081 082 074 006 00
223500 1425N 05043W 6935 02973 9736 +153 +086 010091 094 066 029 00
223530 1425N 05041W 6951 02900 9693 +134 +103 011112 119 111 077 00
223600 1425N 05039W 6978 02772 9607 +119 +133 359107 117 121 071 01
223630 1425N 05037W 6984 02647 9423 +183 +135 345067 096 134 035 00

All you did was repost a twitter post where someone is also hand waving.  Eyeballing the wind-pressure relationship in this plot (which shows substantial scatter for a given pressure), an argument could be made for anywhere between 130-130 kt. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jpeters3 said:

All you did was repost a twitter post where someone is also hand waving.  Eyeballing the wind-pressure relationship in this plot (which shows substantial scatter for a given pressure), an argument could be made for anywhere between 130-130 kt. 

so ****ing what? 

All intensity estimates are subjective. It's total gaslighting to suggest the pressure drop of 15mb from yesterday along with a degraded satellite intensity over the past 3-5 hours isn't at least some evidence that it was stronger a few hours ago before the plane arrived. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First VDM of the recon mission. 

Product: NOAA Vortex Message (URNT12 KWBC)
Transmitted: 26th day of the month at 23:36Z
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Aircraft: Lockheed WP-3D Orion (Reg. Num. N42RF)
Storm Name: Sam
Storm Number & Year: 18 in 2021 (flight in the North Atlantic basin)
Mission Number: 2
Observation Number: 09 ( See all messages of this type for this mission. )

A. Time of Center Fix: 26th day of the month at 22:37:19Z
B. Center Fix Coordinates: 14.43N 50.56W
B. Center Fix Location: 614 statute miles (988 km) to the E (81°) from Bridgetown, Barbados.
C. Minimum Height at Standard Level: Not Available
D. Minimum Sea Level Pressure: 932mb (27.53 inHg)
E. Dropsonde Surface Wind at Center: From 120° at 30kts (From the ESE at 35mph)
F. Eye Character: Closed
G. Eye Shape & Diameter: Circular with a diameter of 7 nautical miles
H. Estimated (by SFMR or visually) Maximum Surface Wind Inbound: 134kts (154.2mph)
I. Location & Time of the Estimated Maximum Surface Wind Inbound: 4 nautical miles to the W (270°) of center fix at 22:36:23Z
J. Maximum Flight Level Wind Inbound: From 9° at 119kts (From the N at 136.9mph)
K. Location & Time of the Maximum Flight Level Wind Inbound: 7 nautical miles to the W (270°) of center fix at 22:35:35Z
L. Estimated (by SFMR or visually) Maximum Surface Wind Outbound: 98kts (112.8mph)
M. Location & Time of the Estimated Maximum Surface Wind Outbound: 7 nautical miles to the E (90°) of center fix at 22:39:02Z
N. Maximum Flight Level Wind Outbound: From 174° at 120kts (From the S at 138.1mph)
O. Location & Time of the Maximum Flight Level Wind Outbound: 8 nautical miles to the E (90°) of center fix at 22:39:06Z
P. Maximum Flight Level Temp & Pressure Altitude Outside Eye: 13°C (55°F) at a pressure alt. of 3,064m (10,052ft)
Q. Maximum Flight Level Temp & Pressure Altitude Inside Eye: 20°C (68°F) at a pressure alt. of 3,065m (10,056ft)
R. Dewpoint Temp (collected at same location as temp inside eye): 12°C (54°F)
R. Sea Surface Temp (collected at same location as temp inside eye): Not Available
S. Fix Determined By: Penetration, Radar, Wind, Pressure and Temperature
S. Fix Level: Other - Not surface, 1500ft, 925mb, 850mb, 700mb, 500mb, 400mb, 300mb or 200mb
T. Navigational Fix Accuracy: 0.01 nautical miles
T. Meteorological Accuracy: 2 nautical miles

Remarks Section:
 

Maximum Flight Level Wind: 120kts (~ 138.1mph) which was observed 8 nautical miles to the E (90°) from the flight level center at 22:39:06Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

so ****ing what? 

All intensity estimates are subjective. It's total gaslighting to suggest the pressure drop of 15mb from yesterday along with a degraded satellite intensity over the past 3-5 hours isn't at least some evidence that it was stronger a few hours ago before the plane arrived. 

This is not enough evidence to warrant a cat 5 upgrade, and not enough to say "we all know it was cat 5."  We don't, and the objective evidence suggests to the contrary. 

What would be enough evidence?  ADT number near or above 140 kt + flight-level winds high enough + SFMR >> 140 kt.  We didn't get that.  No cat 5.  Sorry.  You can wishcast all you want, but that doesn't change things.

Obviously NHC experts agree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jpeters3 said:

This is not enough evidence to warrant a cat 5 upgrade, and not enough to say "we all know it was cat 5."  We don't, and the objective evidence suggests to the contrary. 

What would be enough evidence?  ADT number near or above 140 kt + flight-level winds high enough + SFMR >> 140 kt.  We didn't get that.  No cat 5.  Sorry.  You can wishcast all you want, but that doesn't change things.

Obviously NHC experts agree.

Well this is your opinion and that's fine. The degradation in satellite presentation is literally an objective measure. It's almost fallen a full T number in the past 5 hours. 

They could still upgrade in best track. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OSUmetstud said:

Well this is your opinion and that's fine. The degradation in satellite presentation is literally an objective measure. It's almost fallen a full T number in the past 5 hours. 

They could still upgrade in best track. 

And an upgrade in best track isn't going to happen without clear evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jpeters3 said:

Could it have been cat 5? Yes.  But is there obvious evidence pointing to cat 5 intensity? No.  Ad-hoc arguments about pressure falls don't constitute obvious evidence. 

We all know it was a cat 5 was a tongue in cheek line, you're taking it too seriously lol. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OSUmetstud said:

We all know it was a cat 5 was a tongue in cheek line, you're taking it too seriously lol. 

 

 

That's quite the argument you put forward to support a tongue and cheek line. 

For the record, I want it to have been cat 5. Just tryin' to keep it real.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jpeters3 said:

That's quite the argument you put forward to support a tongue and cheek line. 

For the record, I want it to have been cat 5.

I believe it was a cat 5 yes. The only evidence we are ever going to have is the satellite degradation in the past few hours before recon and the pressure. Because there's nothing else. So either they think that's enough or they don't in best track. And that's fine. I'm making a case. You don't have to like what I'm presenting. But you actually suggested there's no evidence. That's not true either. You just don't think the evidence im presenting is strong enough. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OSUmetstud said:

I believe it was a cat 5 yes. The only evidence we are ever going to have is the satellite degradation in the past few hours before recon and the pressure. Because there's nothing else. So either they think that's enough or they don't in best track. And that's fine. I'm making a case. You don't have to like what I'm presenting. But you actually suggested there's no evidence. That's not true either. You just don't think the evidence im presenting is strong enough. 

You're right.  Saying "there is no evidence" was incorrect.  There is *scant* evidence.

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...