Charley report is up

[Derek Ortt]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004charley.shtml?

they just have not put the link on the report page, but this is on their public html site

[Hurricanehink]

Well, the final intensity was 150. Sounds right.

[Dave C]

I noticed that at an ASOS site in Puenta Gorda had a lowest pressure of 964 mb at closest approach according to their report. If that area was in the eye and min. pressure was about 941mb at landfall could the 964 mb pressure be a typo?

[Derek Ortt]

no,

that is the type of pressure gradient in a major hurricane.

In Hurricane Lenny, St Criox was in the western eye wall and had a pressure of 980mb when the eye pressure was 932

[MGC]

Only a 78kt wind reported from Punta Gorda? Did the instrument break like all did in Ivan? Using the same logic, then Charley was only a Cat 2 at landfall. Just kidding but that same logic was used in Pensacola for Ivan......MGC

[Dave C]

They must have missed the eye at that ASOS station, that's what I figured must have happened. Jim Leonard had a 950 mb in the west edge of the eye while Jim Edds and others close to the center of the eye had 943 mb. It definately was a tight system!!

[Derek Ortt]

but there was a 139KT gust recorded at port charlotte, which is typical of 120KT sustained winds. I have yet to see those types of winds from Ivan

[Stormsfury]

FWIW, Ivan was a much broader scale tropical entity, and therefore, the pressure gradient itself wasn't as steep to its surrounding environment ... Charley was extremely tight, and seeing 20 MB differences in pressure in a span of only a few miles can only result in near catastrophic winds ...

139KT gust in Port Charlotte? Whoa ...

[Anonymous]

Unoffical 180 mph there as well.

[hurricanetrack]

I wish so much that I had a wind tower that I could have anchored down out in the open where I was near Punta Gorda. Once we ducked under the overpass- all wind readings are subject to compression from the overpass- and I don't consider them valid.

We "took shelter" under that overpass within seconds of recording a gust to 133 miles per hour on our 5 meter anemometer- mounted on the roof of our Tahoe. We also have a 10 foot anemometer that recorded 127 mph at that exact same time- both anemometers are the same- RM Young.

I feel strongly that if I had remained out in the open, or had a wind tower- like the one we're building for next year- that we could have recorded some extremely high winds in that eyewall! Our exposure was excellent- wide open for 1/3 of a mile. Oh- what could have been! As it was- we had to duck under the overpass to get out of the stream of debris flying past us. Debris that was coming from 1/3 of a mile away- easy to do in 145 mph winds. We were lucky- that was the worst weather I have ever been in.

Anyhow- next year we hope to mitigate this "problem of wind instruments failing" issue for ground observations. We will have two 5 meter wind towers available for each hurricane from now on. More on that later- but I can assure you that unless something hits the anemometer itself, our instruments will be there to record the next Charley!

[Anonymous]

I'm telling ya...we may have another Charley next year.

[Stormsfury]

We "took shelter" under that overpass within seconds of recording a gust to 133 miles per hour on our 5 meter anemometer- mounted on the roof of our Tahoe. We also have a 10 foot anemometer that recorded 127 mph at that exact same time- both anemometers are the same- RM Young.

I feel strongly that if I had remained out in the open, or had a wind tower- like the one we're building for next year- that we could have recorded some extremely high winds in that eyewall! Our exposure was excellent- wide open for 1/3 of a mile. Oh- what could have been! As it was- we had to duck under the overpass to get out of the stream of debris flying past us. Debris that was coming from 1/3 of a mile away- easy to do in 145 mph winds. We were lucky- that was the worst weather I have ever been in.

To be honest with you, I would have liked to see the wind measurement from out open (hopefully the wind towers will solve that down the road), but had you and your team tried, you may have been able to type out these posts as I speak ... As much as many of us would have loved to have seen what an unobstructed wind gusts might have been in Charley, let's just say, that I, for one, am very happy that you chose to err on the side of caution and sought shelter when you did ...

The video you have is absolutely compelling and mesmeriizing to Charley's awesome power ... that alone is enough to keep me in awe for years to come ...

SF

[SouthernWx]

There was a measured peak gust of 173 mph (150 kt) at Charlotte Medical Center....just before the anemometer failed and the hospital badly damaged.

[Stormsfury]

There was a measured peak gust of 173 mph (150 kt) at Charlotte Medical Center....just before the anemometer failed and the hospital badly damaged.

If I remember correctly, that was at a height of about 10m or so and normal height is about 4M ... but still equates to a solid 135-140 kt gust at the NWS measurement level ...

[Aslkahuna]

Actually, the standard height for wind measurements these days IS 10m. RM Youngs are very good responsive anemometers of the aerovane design. They have them in the mesonet at FHU. They can be easily damaged, however, by flying debris as they are lightweight.

Steve

[Stormsfury]

Actually, the standard height for wind measurements these days IS 10m. RM Youngs are very good responsive anemometers of the aerovane design. They have them in the mesonet at FHU. They can be easily damaged, however, by flying debris as they are lightweight.

Steve

Thanks, Steve for relaying that ... throws out what I've believed for the last 10 years about the standard height ... I take most of my wind measurements at about 4-5M (that is when I have working equipment and/or one that isn't destroyed by a strong microburst ... 82 MPH before wind equipment blown over and taken out by a fallen tree ...)

SF

[tronbunny]

I'm really curious as to what the actual peak winds were in Kissimmee.
WFTV was using doppler and had noted winds in the mid to upper 90's just southeast in winter haven area.
We still have at least 2 homes completely stripped (and not yet repaired) of roofs within a 1 mile radius.
I'm so glad it didn't last long.
Floydbuster, if we have another Charley next year, please kindly direct it elsewhere (:roll:)
Oh and I wish it were daylight up here, so I could see what was happening! I'd almost kill for some footage from within the direct path around here. The only thing I ever saw were some DOT traffic cameras on the NW side of the storm in Orlando.

[Rainband]

I'm telling ya...we may have another Charley next year.

and one of us may win the lottery. No way to tell

[Sanibel]

Reading this you get the idea that Charley was in an intensification phase prior to Cuba and that they took a 105KT hurricane with 13 foot surge on their south shore. If it wasn't for Cuba I would expect Charley would have gone category 5 easily on his way into SW Florida and done much worse damage...

[hurricanemike]

the reported max wind/min pressure from Punta Gorda (Charolotte Co Airport ASOS) are before the instruments failed. If u read the report, their biggest problem is that very few instruments stand up to hurricane force winds before they fail. I think we need to address this problem some how. 10m/33' is the NWS standard for wind measurements.