Hurricane Wilma's WindField.

[wjs3]

No...From what I can see, the HRD (see earlier in the thread) only issued windfield analyses at 1030Z and 1630Z.

AS WXMAN points out, we need to wait for the HRD to issue the wind swath--which looks at the wind distribution over time--to see what the official impact on the east coast was.

[JonathanBelles]

ok ty anyway

[ROCK]

Sorry Chris, let me explain. Just wanted to point out the fact that some people in this thread discounted Katrina's HRD analysis in which you posted:

http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic ... &start=100

page 6. So I ask the question, why is one discounted and one not when they are both official. Makes you go hmmmmm....

Still not sure what you're talking about, Rock. There are two graphics posted in this thread. One is a post-storm wind analysis for Wilma at one time period - landfall. The other is a marine (offshore) wind field forecast from the NHC, not an analysis.

nevermind.....

[wxman57]

thanxs do u have one about 3 or 4 hours earlier (about the peak of the winds on the east coast)

You can find all the post-storm analysis maps for Wilma here;

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_page ... /wind.html

Just click on the 2, 4, or 8 degree-wide map link for each time period. The lower the degree number, the more zoomed-in the map.

[wjs3]

WXMAN:

Do you know why sometimes the windfield analyses are at odd time intervals--sometimes 3 or 6 hours apart, sometimes one hour or less? 3 or 6 hours makes sense...the others dont's so much.

Unless the odd hour analyses would exist to have an analysis at key times...like landfalls.

Just curious.

[Derek Ortt]

a word of caution about the Wilma maps

The re is still some question over the reduction factor used for Wilma in these maps. That said, they are very very close to accurate and describes the wind field nicely (and that Naples did not come close to experiencing a major hurricane)

[Derek Ortt]

also of note is the prolonged period that Grand Bahama was under cat 3 winds. That is why Wilma was far worse there than Frances and even Jeanne

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Hurricane Wilma's wind field over Florida was helped a lot by a zone of baroclinic enhancement that was starting to get involved in her circulation. This aided in the generate of the huge area of coverage of relatively strong surface winds that were, in some cases, well removed from the eye wall. A very impressive set up and storm

[Extremeweatherguy]

yes...my river house in Merritt Island, Fl...well north of the center...recieved strong TS force winds from Wilma with river surge/waves in the area being enough to destroy it's dock and rip away at the front lawn. There were also many large branches downed...narrowly missing the house. I am just glad I was not there at the time, because knowing me; I would have been out on that dock when it ripped away.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Okay, nevermind; I just noticed the HRD's map... for comparison here it is:

[img]ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2005/al24.2005/1024/1030/col08deg.png[/img]

Looks like the worst winds were to the south... didn't realize how much the Keys could've gotten from this one.

A2K

HRD windfield chart?? If I remember correctly, WXMN57 posted Katrina's and it was proved not accurate to people living in that area. Which is it?

Nice try at instigation--once AGAIN, Rock... let's just say I was giving the folks who use these charts as dogma a little of "goose-gander" dosage. Personally, I don't care which is closer to accurate. Shall I post the windfield that SAME site has for Katrina? Would you find it more believable? Didn't think so! Wxman57 is correct inasmuch as it is NOT based on observed windspeeds; rather a marine forecast.

Have a nice day

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

page 6. So I ask the question, why is one discounted and one not when they are both official. Makes you go hmmmmm....

Only if you can't pick up on the duplicity that goes the OTHER way as well. Accept all of their data and you're at least consistent--otherwise, don't cherry pick which "windfields" you prefer to accept. (by "you" I do not mean you personally, anymore than you imply me in your post...lest I be accused of another "attack" which this isn't--just a clarification. ) You will note I did not put up this same sites Katrina windfield as it is obviously skewed.

A2K

[ROCK]

page 6. So I ask the question, why is one discounted and one not when they are both official. Makes you go hmmmmm....

Only if you can't pick up on the duplicity that goes the OTHER way as well. Accept all of their data and you're at least consistent--otherwise, don't cherry pick which "windfields" you prefer to accept. (by "you" I do not mean you personally, anymore than you imply me in your post...lest I be accused of another "attack" which this isn't--just a clarification. ) You will note I did not put up this same sites Katrina windfield as it is obviously skewed.

A2K

I think that was a valid question given that some think Kat's HRD was out to lunch. I just wanted to point out the discrepancy. Thats all.....

have a wonderful day...

[Audrey2Katrina]

think that was a valid question given that some think Kat's HRD was out to lunch. I just wanted to point out the discrepancy. Thats all.....

Ditto!

and thanks... having one now, same to you and yours!

A2K

[caneflyer]

No...From what I can see, the HRD (see earlier in the thread) only issued windfield analyses at 1030Z and 1630Z.

AS WXMAN points out, we need to wait for the HRD to issue the wind swath--which looks at the wind distribution over time--to see what the official impact on the east coast was.

As a point of clarification, the HRD wind fields are not official. HRD is a research organization, and while part of NOAA, is not part of the National Weather Service. HRD analyses often are in disagreement with NHC assessments of the strength and size of tropical cyclones.

These analyses are only as good as the assumptions used to manipulate the data and the quality and quantity of data ingested. Some are good, some aren't so good. Let the buyer beware...