• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Tropical Major Hurricane Michael

I think given all the data this supports a cat 5 intensity for landfall. We have 152kts at FL, SFMR of 138kts which if you use the reduction of .9 for the FL winds would give 137kts at the surface. Spike in eye temp, continued pressure falls, radar briefly showing 190-200mph winds just 2-3k feet off the ground now... this is IMO a 160mph cat 5.

172200 2954N 08528W 6967 02555 9327 +140 +139 231142 149 121 002 05
172230 2953N 08527W 6973 02621 9437 +137 +136 225150 152 123 005 03
172300 2952N 08525W 6977 02684 9527 +124 //// 218141 148 132 007 05
172330 2951N 08524W 6971 02747 //// +114 //// 219140 146 133 006 05
172400 2951N 08522W 6976 02789 9613 +128 +118 217132 136 101 002 03

Also this ob the SFMR wasn't flagged it seems for the SFMR.
170600 2947N 08540W 7004 02583 9461 +141 +141 283117 123 138 041 03
 
snowlover91 said:
I think given all the data this supports a cat 5 intensity for landfall. We have 152kts at FL, SFMR of 138kts which if you use the reduction of .9 for the FL winds would give 137kts at the surface. Spike in eye temp, continued pressure falls, radar briefly showing 190-200mph winds just 2-3k feet off the ground now... this is IMO a 160mph cat 5.

172200 2954N 08528W 6967 02555 9327 +140 +139 231142 149 121 002 05
172230 2953N 08527W 6973 02621 9437 +137 +136 225150 152 123 005 03
172300 2952N 08525W 6977 02684 9527 +124 //// 218141 148 132 007 05
172330 2951N 08524W 6971 02747 //// +114 //// 219140 146 133 006 05
172400 2951N 08522W 6976 02789 9613 +128 +118 217132 136 101 002 03

Also this ob the SFMR wasn't flagged it seems for the SFMR.
170600 2947N 08540W 7004 02583 9461 +141 +141 283117 123 138 041 03
Click to expand...


Even if they don't upgrade it now, I'm sure it'll probably be upgraded to cat 5 in post-analysis.
 
yep, just looked on pattern, looks like the car for Brett was officially fully submerged and the electronics were fried. Just pray he makes it with wherever he went for safety.
 
snowlover91 said:
I think given all the data this supports a cat 5 intensity for landfall. We have 152kts at FL, SFMR of 138kts which if you use the reduction of .9 for the FL winds would give 137kts at the surface. Spike in eye temp, continued pressure falls, radar briefly showing 190-200mph winds just 2-3k feet off the ground now... this is IMO a 160mph cat 5.

172200 2954N 08528W 6967 02555 9327 +140 +139 231142 149 121 002 05
172230 2953N 08527W 6973 02621 9437 +137 +136 225150 152 123 005 03
172300 2952N 08525W 6977 02684 9527 +124 //// 218141 148 132 007 05
172330 2951N 08524W 6971 02747 //// +114 //// 219140 146 133 006 05
172400 2951N 08522W 6976 02789 9613 +128 +118 217132 136 101 002 03

Also this ob the SFMR wasn't flagged it seems for the SFMR.
170600 2947N 08540W 7004 02583 9461 +141 +141 283117 123 138 041 03
Click to expand...

That 138 KT SFMR reading was flagged so I wouldn't be so sure about that. It's in a gray area but not conclusive evidence on its own of anything.
 
LovingGulfLows said:
Even if they don't upgrade it now, I'm sure it'll probably be upgraded to cat 5 in post-analysis.
Click to expand...
Yeah they have more things to worry about with all the impacts now spreading inland... I do think there's enough there to warrant an upgrade to cat 5 in the post-analysis of the storm. I hope everyone in the path will be okay...
 
Webberweather53 said:
That 138 KT SFMR reading was flagged so I wouldn't be so sure about that. It's in a gray area but not conclusive evidence on its own of anything.
Click to expand...

The 152kts at FL using a .90 reduction would certainly support that reading along with the radar data I mentioned, eye temp spike, pressure drops, etc. I guess we will have to wait for the post season analysis on this one but in my book it is a cat 5 landfall.
 
snowlover91 said:
The 152kts at FL using a .90 reduction would certainly support that reading along with the radar data I mentioned, eye temp spike, pressure drops, etc. I guess we will have to wait for the post season analysis on this one but in my book it is a cat 5 landfall.
Click to expand...

That observation may have been contaminated though because it was so close to shore & it was raining, so I wouldn't use it outright on the spot to prove anything about whether this was a 4 or 5 without further investigation into that particular reading and SFMR itself (the latter is currently in the process of being reviewed and published in literature). Under sampling bias would be a more legitimate reason to consider upgrading if this observation isn't verified. All else considered it's a tough call but considering cat 5 starts at 136-137 KT and not 140 KT, I would agree we barely made it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top