How strong was Hurricane Melissa 2025?

[Hurricane2000]

So I've been seeing a lot of debate about Melissa's intensity on YouTube and Twitter, and I've wanting to have a place to talk all about it. What better place than here? Anything relevant to the storm regarding its intensity is allowed.

[Category5Kaiju]

We will have to see when the TCR comes out of course, but I think that Melissa peaked at 190 mph with a minimum pressure of 890-891 mbar.

[ncforecaster89]

We will have to see when the TCR comes out of course, but I think that Melissa peaked at 190 mph with a minimum pressure of 890-891 mbar.

I agree with that estimate as well.

165 kt/890 mb

RECON found 892 mb at 1302z and 894 mb at 1346z. Although the 892 mb figure could’ve been the low, I’m going with the assumption it peaked just before RECON obtained that measurement based on the subsequent filling 45 minutes later and satellite estimates analyzing the peak around 1230z. The notable satellite degradation began around 14z…so the maximum intensity most certainly occurred prior to that time.

[ljmac75]

300 MPH, recon missed the peak.

[sasha_B]

Presumably the user above me means 200 mph?

In any case, I believe there's an argument for 170 knots and 889 hPa at peak, that peak having occured prior to the final recon flight's first center pass. Satellite estimates were seriously overblown and no one disputes that, but Melissa made a valiant effort to "catch up" on the morning of 28 October. And those estimates are an uncontested record for the Atlantic, with the only runners-up globally being Haiyan and Patricia. Her structure was as about close to ideal as has been observed; for example, as has been discussed extensively, she broke the global record for WV temperature in the eye of a tropical cyclone well before peaking - and then proceeded to break her own record another dozen times, eventually surpassing the previous record-holder (STY Goni) by around 2°C. Does any of this change what was observed by the Hurricane Hunters in situ? No. But is it totally irrelevant? The level of damage to trees and structures over which Melissa's eyewall passed may suggest otherwise.

There was almost certainly some weakening before landfall, but damage indicators at ground level lend a lot of credence to NHC's estimate of 160 knots on the 17z position update, even considering the previously-noted increase in central pressure. This is higher than the 155 kts listed on the 18z best track point, and there is no non-synoptic point for 17z on the operational best track - but surface winds tend to drop off very quickly in the first hours after landfall. Maintaining the 160kt MSW estimate, but with central pressure having risen to 895～900 hPa by then, seems reasonable.

All that said, post-season changes tend to be conservative, and not without reason. I will be a bit surprised if the TCR reports a peak depth below 892 hPa, peak sustained winds above 165 knots, or any change (upward or downward) to sustained winds at landfall. The only change that seems all-but-guaranteed is an increase to central pressure at landfall, as filling was empirically observed between the last two center fixes; I do not think Melissa will keep her tie with Labor Day '35 for that particular record. The NHC telegraphed as much on the landfall advisory.

[ncforecaster89]

Presumably the user above me means 200 mph?

In any case, I believe there's an argument for 170 knots and 889 hPa at peak, that peak having occured prior to the final recon flight's first center pass. Satellite estimates were seriously overblown and no one disputes that, but Melissa made a valiant effort to "catch up" on the morning of 28 October. And those estimates are an uncontested record for the Atlantic, with the only runners-up globally being Haiyan and Patricia. Her structure was as about close to ideal as has been observed; for example, as has been discussed extensively, she broke the global record for WV temperature in the eye of a tropical cyclone well before peaking - and then proceeded to break her own record another dozen times, eventually surpassing the previous record-holder (STY Goni) by around 2°C. Does any of this change what was observed by the Hurricane Hunters in situ? No. But is it totally irrelevant? The level of damage to trees and structures over which Melissa's eyewall passed may suggest otherwise.

There was almost certainly some weakening before landfall, but damage indicators at ground level lend a lot of credence to NHC's estimate of 160 knots on the 17z position update, even considering the previously-noted increase in central pressure. This is higher than the 155 kts listed on the 18z best track point, and there is no non-synoptic point for 17z on the operational best track - but surface winds tend to drop off very quickly in the first hours after landfall. Maintaining the 160kt MSW estimate, but with central pressure having risen to 895～900 hPa by then, seems reasonable.

All that said, post-season changes tend to be conservative, and not without reason. I will be a bit surprised if the TCR reports a peak depth below 892 hPa, peak sustained winds above 165 knots, or any change (upward or downward) to sustained winds at landfall. The only change that seems all-but-guaranteed is an increase to central pressure at landfall, as filling was empirically observed between the last two center fixes; I do not think Melissa will keep her tie with Labor Day '35 for that particular record. The NHC telegraphed as much on the landfall advisory.

A very reasonable post, Sasha!

As noted above, I agree that the peak likely occurred prior to the first RECON pass around 1300z on the 28th and I’ll be surprised if the NHC doesn’t make a minor 5 kt increase to the MSW estimate around that time frame.

The tree and structural damage seen in the hardest hit areas match what would be expected from a 155 kt high-end Cat 5 landfall (not that one could possibly differentiate between 155 kt and 160 kt) and aren’t indicative of whether or not Melissa maintained a 160 kt MSW through landfall of the center, in and of itself.

What matters most is the actual in-situ data available to formulate as accurate an intensity estimate as possible.

At this time, we know that there was a 2 mb rise in pressure between the last two RECON center fixes (45 minutes apart) and that there was appreciable satellite degradation that occurred thereafter to an increasingly significant degree. That suggests that the central pressure *likely* continued to rise at no less than that particular rate. Simple extrapolation would equate to 903 mb at 17z and that’s not taking into account the possibility of a faster filling rate. The ADT satellite intensity estimates analyzed a 7 mb increase in the pressure from 13-17z…which would translate to 899 mb. Based on these data, it’s difficult to ascribe to a prospective landfall pressure below 899 mb and greater than 905 mb isn’t out of the realm of realistic probability. As is, I’d settle on 899-901 mb to give Melissa the benefit of the doubt.

Given the aforementioned substantial satellite degradation, and the obvious weakening that occurred during the last 3-4 hours prior to landfall, I just simply can’t objectively derive a MSW above 155 kt at that time (a 10 kt decrease from its earlier peak). Having said that, barring any other data becoming available, I don’t think the NHC will revise its current 160 kt estimate for landfall.