Should Barry have been upgraded?

[AtlanticWind]

No, because it didn't have true characteristics of a hurricane and I didn't see any surface reports of hurricane sustained winds. Anybody that might have had damage from the storm 100 miles away now will have to pay a hurricane deductible. The insurance Cos are the big winners on its upgrade

Hurricane deductibles apply to tropical storms.

[Nimbus]

The decision was probably made based on the model runs showing further strengthening.
Hind sight is always easy.
You could ignore the borderline oil platform wind data before landfall and not upgrade but if the storm had intensified and done more damage then where would you be?

[mitchell]

No, because it didn't have true characteristics of a hurricane and I didn't see any surface reports of hurricane sustained winds. Anybody that might have had damage from the storm 100 miles away now will have to pay a hurricane deductible. The insurance Cos are the big winners on its upgrade

Hurricane deductibles apply to tropical storms.

I would sure hope so. How dumb would an insurance actuary have to be to upcharge the policy holder who had damage in a hurricane, but not the guy who had the same damage but from just a TS.

[CrazyC83]

Even if it was a hurricane at landfall (which would be the case if Eugene Island was legit) hurricane conditions were limited to marshy coasts and islands which are largely unpopulated.

[NDG]

No, because it didn't have true characteristics of a hurricane and I didn't see any surface reports of hurricane sustained winds. Anybody that might have had damage from the storm 100 miles away now will have to pay a hurricane deductible. The insurance Cos are the big winners on its upgrade

Hurricane deductibles apply to tropical storms.

Here in Florida is different, a deductible for damage caused by a hurricane is way higher than just a tropical storm or a severe thunderstorm.

[Hammy]

Barry should've been upgraded to a hurricane the day before, there were surface obs indicating it was already just below that, and we had about 12+ hours with no recon in which trends are usually taken into account and intensity adjusted accordingly (they weren't here). Even if it wasn't a hurricane at landfall (though I'll land on the "probably" side of it being) there's enough data to suggest it almost certainly was between missions.

[tolakram]

No, because it didn't have true characteristics of a hurricane and I didn't see any surface reports of hurricane sustained winds. Anybody that might have had damage from the storm 100 miles away now will have to pay a hurricane deductible. The insurance Cos are the big winners on its upgrade

Hurricane deductibles apply to tropical storms.

Here in Florida is different, a deductible for damage caused by a hurricane is way higher than just a tropical storm or a severe thunderstorm.

Here's an article talking about deductibles and triggers. While not a conversation for here I did double checked to make sure this is factual. If not regulated it's pretty much up to the insurer as to what the triggers are. For those who are curious: https://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_hurricane_deductibles.htm

[Javlin]

Nope. If you continue to overplay storms, you end up with the little boy who cried wolf syndrome.

Ditto!! it's happening I remember Nate and one from last year that made a right hand turn to the MS/AL line weras I have seen thunderstorms create more mischief than those two did.

[NDG]

Hurricane deductibles apply to tropical storms.

Here in Florida is different, a deductible for damage caused by a hurricane is way higher than just a tropical storm or a severe thunderstorm.

Here's an article talking about deductibles and triggers. While not a conversation for here I did double checked to make sure this is factual. If not regulated it's pretty much up to the insurer as to what the triggers are. For those who are curious: https://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_hurricane_deductibles.htm

This article shows what each State shows.

Here is for LA:

There are three deductibles for homeowners policies related to wind damage: hurricane, named storm and windstorm and hail. Named storm deductibles are activated when the National Hurricane Center reports that a storm reached tropical storm strength when winds reach 39 miles per hour (mph). Hurricane deductibles are activated when the National Hurricane Center reports that a tropical storm reached hurricane strength, at 74 mph. Windstorm and hail deductibles are used when homes sustain damage from winds from any source: hurricanes and tropical storms, tornadoes, or other storms.

FL:
By Florida statute, the application of hurricane deductibles is triggered by windstorm losses resulting only from a hurricane declared by National Weather Service. Hurricane deductibles apply for damage that occurs from the time a hurricane watch or warning is issued for any part of Florida, up to 72 hours after such a watch or warning ends and anytime hurricane conditions exist throughout the state.

https://www.iii.org/article/background- ... eductibles

[Steve]

Where is the actual poll?

[mitchell]

Here in Florida is different, a deductible for damage caused by a hurricane is way higher than just a tropical storm or a severe thunderstorm.

Here's an article talking about deductibles and triggers. While not a conversation for here I did double checked to make sure this is factual. If not regulated it's pretty much up to the insurer as to what the triggers are. For those who are curious: https://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_hurricane_deductibles.htm

This article shows what each State shows.

Here is for LA:

There are three deductibles for homeowners policies related to wind damage: hurricane, named storm and windstorm and hail. Named storm deductibles are activated when the National Hurricane Center reports that a storm reached tropical storm strength when winds reach 39 miles per hour (mph). Hurricane deductibles are activated when the National Hurricane Center reports that a tropical storm reached hurricane strength, at 74 mph. Windstorm and hail deductibles are used when homes sustain damage from winds from any source: hurricanes and tropical storms, tornadoes, or other storms.

FL:
By Florida statute, the application of hurricane deductibles is triggered by windstorm losses resulting only from a hurricane declared by National Weather Service. Hurricane deductibles apply for damage that occurs from the time a hurricane watch or warning is issued for any part of Florida, up to 72 hours after such a watch or warning ends and anytime hurricane conditions exist throughout the state.

https://www.iii.org/article/background- ... eductibles

That phrase seems like a rather strange choice of words! I wonder how you ever would prove that hurricane conditions exist "throughout the state"

[tolakram]

Let's move on from the insurance discussion please.

[1900hurricane]

Looking back through it, I would need to investigate the Eugene Island station. If that is legit then yes; if not then no. SFMR is unreliable at best in shoaling and I would disregard that 63 kt report. However, that 62 kt wind from Eugene Island (at 4 m) would easily support a 65 kt sustained wind when adjusted for elevation. That report will be key - it's the only legit wind to support hurricane intensity, however, you can't beat a surface observation.

If that observation is unrepresentative, would the NHC be willing to do a post-season downgrade? It hasn't happened in a long time if ever (an operationally assessed hurricane being truly a tropical storm at peak intensity).

This is my stance as well. If the station is investigated and passes quality control, I'm all for it. However, I don't know how much I'm willing to trust the SFMR data at the moment since the highest values all occurred over the shallow shelf waters which has been known to give SFMR fits. NHC is definitely going to have to check them out in the postseason. Using the standard 0.8 reduction from an 850 mb flight level, the maximum 76 kt at that level is only good for 60 kt. Not a slam dunk either way I think, but I'm good with it if NHC decides the surface ob is valid and/or uncovers other data (such as radar data or other surface obs) that supports a category 1 intensity.

[CrazyC83]

Looking back through it, I would need to investigate the Eugene Island station. If that is legit then yes; if not then no. SFMR is unreliable at best in shoaling and I would disregard that 63 kt report. However, that 62 kt wind from Eugene Island (at 4 m) would easily support a 65 kt sustained wind when adjusted for elevation. That report will be key - it's the only legit wind to support hurricane intensity, however, you can't beat a surface observation.

If that observation is unrepresentative, would the NHC be willing to do a post-season downgrade? It hasn't happened in a long time if ever (an operationally assessed hurricane being truly a tropical storm at peak intensity).

This is my stance as well. If the station is investigated and passes quality control, I'm all for it. However, I don't know how much I'm willing to trust the SFMR data at the moment since the highest values all occurred over the shallow shelf waters which has been known to give SFMR fits. NHC is definitely going to have to check them out in the postseason. Using the standard 0.8 reduction from an 850 mb flight level, the maximum 76 kt at that level is only good for 60 kt. Not a slam dunk either way I think, but I'm good with it if NHC decides the surface ob is valid and/or uncovers other data (such as radar data or other surface obs) that supports a category 1 intensity.

https://i.imgur.com/hOo8cg7.png

That is the key and I wholeheartedly agree. The SFMR data (all of it) in the near-shore flights I wouldn't trust at all, and flight level winds don't support hurricane intensity. I don't think radar data supported hurricane intensity either, at least from what I have seen. However, you can't beat a legitimate surface observation. Case in point: the 1928 Okeechobee/Puerto Rico hurricane, the pressure was 931 mb (would have supported about 125 kt) in Puerto Rico, but San Juan reported a legitimate 139 kt sustained wind and it was officially kept at 140 kt. Also, with Hurricane Gustav, there was a 135 kt sustained wind report in Pinar del Rio in Cuba and that was legitimate, even though the aircraft data supported about 120-125 kt.

[TheStormExpert]

NO! Not to mention it was only for 3 hours so if you blinked (like me) you missed it.

I'm pretty sure Barry now holds the crown for most ugliest hurricane in the Atlantic basin ever followed by Bertha (2014), that storms looks scarred me for life!

[Hurricaneman]

NO! Not to mention it was only for 3 hours so if you blinked (like me) you missed it.

I'm pretty sure Barry now holds the crown for most ugliest hurricane in the Atlantic basin ever followed by Bertha (2014), that storms looks scarred me for life!

Barry definitely takes the crown for ugly hurricanes so in order of ugly I have this as my top 5

1. Barry 2019
2. Bertha 2014
3. Gordon 1994
4. Earl 1998
5. Noel 2001

[Blinhart]

No, because it didn't have true characteristics of a hurricane and I didn't see any surface reports of hurricane sustained winds. Anybody that might have had damage from the storm 100 miles away now will have to pay a hurricane deductible. The insurance Cos are the big winners on its upgrade

Hurricane deductibles apply to tropical storms.

Here in Florida is different, a deductible for damage caused by a hurricane is way higher than just a tropical storm or a severe thunderstorm.

Not here in Louisiana with State Farm, the deductible is the same no matter the type of storm.

[somethingfunny]

Barry has stronger evidence going for it than Cindy 2005 did. If it wasn't upgraded at the time of landfall, it would have been upgraded in the postseason TCR. The insurance angle is interesting, and political.

[1900hurricane]

I took a peek at Barry's f-deck, and they actually had some of the radar estimates in there. Looks like several were good for a 62-63 kt estimate, which is again right on the line. That data obviously needs to be reviewed, but if I'm NHC, I think I'll probably retain the operational 65 kt.

AL, 02, 201907131014, 40, RDRD, I, , , , , 2, 61, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLIX 4-bin avg 68 kt at 10
AL, 02, 201907131019, 40, RDRD, I, , , , , 2, 63, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLIX- 4-bin avg 70 kt @ 10
AL, 02, 201907131030, 40, RDRD, CI, , 2915N, 9183W, , 3, 62, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLCH cntr 10
AL, 02, 201907131047, 40, RDRD, I, , , , , 2, 63, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLIX 4-bin avg 70 kt at 10
AL, 02, 201907131051, 40, RDRD, I, , , , , 2, 63, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLIX 4-bin avg 70 kt at 10
AL, 02, 201907131054, 70, ANAL, , , , , , 2, 62, 2, , 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , KNHC, JLB, JLB, , , , , l, EUGENE ISLAND NOS STN
AL, 02, 201907131102, 40, RDRD, CI, , 2919N, 9185W, , 3, 62, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLCH posn 9560 ft/KLCH 4-bin avg 69 kt at 9560 ft
AL, 02, 201907131131, 40, RDRD, CI, , 2925N, 9191W, , 3, 61, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLCH cntr 9500 ft/KLIX 4-bin avg 68 kt at 10
AL, 02, 201907131150, 20, DVTO, I, , 2930N, 9195W, , 3, 49, 2, 986, 2, DVRK, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , CIMS, AUT, I, 31, 2, 28, 3, L, 29, -12, -48, CBND, R9, GOES16, ,
AL, 02, 201907131155, 50, AIRC, CI, , 2968N, 9208W, , 2, 63, 2, 996, 1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , KNHC, NHC, , 850, 1392, 63, 114, 40, 188, 72, 106, 60, 996, 16, 20, 15, , , , , , , , 50, 11, MAX OUT SFC 37KT 12:21Z FLT 33KT CNTR DROP 335/13
AL, 02, 201907131200, 10, DVTS, CI, , 2960N, 9190W, , 3, 55, 2, 994, 2, DVRK, , , , , , , , , , , , , , L, TAFB, CM, VI, 5, 3535 /////, , , GOES16, CSC, T, Center position just barely S of northern edge of co
AL, 02, 201907131200, 70, ANAL, CIR, , 2930N, 9190W, 10, 2, 65, 2, 993, 2, MEAS, 34, NEQ, 90, 150, 130, 70, , , , , 2, , , L, CAR0, , , 201907131200, 201907131200, , , , CARQ tau0 34radii

[CrazyC83]

I took a peek at Barry's f-deck, and they actually had some of the radar estimates in there. Looks like several were good for a 62-63 kt estimate, which is again right on the line. That data obviously needs to be reviewed, but if I'm NHC, I think I'll probably retain the operational 65 kt.

AL, 02, 201907131014, 40, RDRD, I, , , , , 2, 61, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLIX 4-bin avg 68 kt at 10
AL, 02, 201907131019, 40, RDRD, I, , , , , 2, 63, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLIX- 4-bin avg 70 kt @ 10
AL, 02, 201907131030, 40, RDRD, CI, , 2915N, 9183W, , 3, 62, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLCH cntr 10
AL, 02, 201907131047, 40, RDRD, I, , , , , 2, 63, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLIX 4-bin avg 70 kt at 10
AL, 02, 201907131051, 40, RDRD, I, , , , , 2, 63, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLIX 4-bin avg 70 kt at 10
AL, 02, 201907131054, 70, ANAL, , , , , , 2, 62, 2, , 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , KNHC, JLB, JLB, , , , , l, EUGENE ISLAND NOS STN
AL, 02, 201907131102, 40, RDRD, CI, , 2919N, 9185W, , 3, 62, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLCH posn 9560 ft/KLCH 4-bin avg 69 kt at 9560 ft
AL, 02, 201907131131, 40, RDRD, CI, , 2925N, 9191W, , 3, 61, 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2, , , , KNHC, SRS, L, D, , , , , 2575N, 8038W, , , , , , , , , , , , , , KLCH cntr 9500 ft/KLIX 4-bin avg 68 kt at 10
AL, 02, 201907131150, 20, DVTO, I, , 2930N, 9195W, , 3, 49, 2, 986, 2, DVRK, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , CIMS, AUT, I, 31, 2, 28, 3, L, 29, -12, -48, CBND, R9, GOES16, ,
AL, 02, 201907131155, 50, AIRC, CI, , 2968N, 9208W, , 2, 63, 2, 996, 1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , KNHC, NHC, , 850, 1392, 63, 114, 40, 188, 72, 106, 60, 996, 16, 20, 15, , , , , , , , 50, 11, MAX OUT SFC 37KT 12:21Z FLT 33KT CNTR DROP 335/13
AL, 02, 201907131200, 10, DVTS, CI, , 2960N, 9190W, , 3, 55, 2, 994, 2, DVRK, , , , , , , , , , , , , , L, TAFB, CM, VI, 5, 3535 /////, , , GOES16, CSC, T, Center position just barely S of northern edge of co
AL, 02, 201907131200, 70, ANAL, CIR, , 2930N, 9190W, 10, 2, 65, 2, 993, 2, MEAS, 34, NEQ, 90, 150, 130, 70, , , , , 2, , , L, CAR0, , , 201907131200, 201907131200, , , , CARQ tau0 34radii

That lends itself to a bit more confidence. It would be borderline anyway, but I would give it the benefit of the doubt when combined with the surface obs and maintain the operational 65 kt.