Humberto's landfall intensity

[CrazyC83]

I've been looking at different sources to try to make an estimate on what Humberto actually hit at. Here are the various parameters that I have used to make guesses:

SFMR - Highest report was 83 kt.

Recon FL - Highest report was 98 kt FL. With the surface reduction of 90%, that translates to 88 kt and with 85%, that translates to 83 kt.

Dropsones - Highest dropsone recorded 83 kt.

Damage reports - The damage reports seem to run on the high end of EF1 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, barely pushing EF2. That would run into gusts of around 95-100 kt, which translates into sustained winds of around 75 kt. (It is possible the strongest winds missed structures)

Land reports - Can't find any land reports that can make decent assessments, possibly because the area is not well-sampled.

Doppler Radar - At 3100 feet there was a 99 kt report. Based on the advisory converting 65-70 kt to 55 kt, that would convert to about 82 kt.

Conclusion - After going through the data, I believe the real intensity at landfall for Humberto was 80 kt. Some of the data does justify upgrading to Cat 2, but there is enough inconsistency to back off of it. Also the pressure of around 985mb would be quite high for that intensity.

[Coredesat]

The conversion factor used in the mission was .75, and a 98 kt FL wind translates to 75 kt. The SFMR measurement may have been inflated.

[CrazyC83]

The conversion factor used in the mission was .75, and a 98 kt FL wind translates to 75 kt. The SFMR measurement may have been inflated.

Interesting; I thought it was 90%?

[WindRunner]

The disco mentioned .75, though I think that is a little low. I don't remember that 83kt SFMR reading, but the dropsonde that wasn't even discussed was the really surprising part. I know, it might not have been an accurate sample, sure sure, but they very rarely completely discount dropsondes like that, since they are - by far - the closest thing they have to ground truth.

Overall though, I would definately agree. 80kts is fully what I expect in post-storm analysis, though I wouldn't be completely shocked at 85kts either. 80kts seems a much more reasonable measurement as well . . . especially since the pressure was dropping faster than they gave credit for. I saw the 989mb eye drop data come in later and it had a 17kt wind on it - i.e. it was at least 988 at that point when it officially had 70kt winds . . .

I think an argument could also be made for extending the time as a TS back to 12z that morning, as that 38kt wind that was operationally deemed "not representative" was probably a decently accurate figure.
Regardless, it'll be interesting to see the TCR on this one . . .

[JonathanBelles]

I was also thinking 90mph due to the data listed.

[Derek Ortt]

please refer to Black et al (2003) for the appropriate conversion factors