NATL: MELISSA - Aftermath - Discussion

[emeraldislenc]

I have already donated to an organization and I challenge you and others to do the same!

[ncforecaster89]

Some assorted thoughts on the intensity:

From what I can find, Melissa had the most impressive flight-level and 150 meter average dropsonde winds of the 160 kt hurricanes in this archive I'm looking at. Wilma maxed out with FL winds of 168 kts and none of the best dropsondes made it to the surface. Dorian maxed out at 161 kts flight level and 177 kt 150 meter averaged dropsonde wind. Melissa maxed out at 173 kts at flight level and a 188 kt meter averaged dropsonde wind. Wilma and Dorian are kinda carried by having an insanely low pressure and insanely high SFMR values, respectively, but Melissa can justify 160 kts with the ol reliable flight level and dropsonde winds alone.

The satellite and in-situ estimates are out of alignment enough that I really hope we have some kind of other data for the landfall intensity because otherwise nobody is ever going to shut up about it. Still waiting on what Josh Morgerman got. If he was in the RMW the whole time and didn't get any sort of noticeable drop in winds for the minimum pressure then if I'm using the Schloemer equation right a <900 mbar pressure could be justified by a pressure reading in the 930s, which would also be vaguely unsatisfying. Basically, the only hope we have is for the NHC to determine that Melissa didn't actually make landfall at all so we don't have to argue about this.

In my opinion, there’s way too much inconsistency with a lot of the HURDAT2 intensity estimates.

That said, I’ve always stated that I have very little doubt Dorian’s strength was overestimated and should’ve never been assigned a 160 kt MSW intensity. The unreliable SFMR was the *only* data that supported anything greater than 145 kt. Even so, I still would’ve set the peak and landfall intensity estimates at 150-155 kt and 910 mb.

I’ve already covered the reasons why I feel a legitimate 165 kt peak intensity is certainly justified for Melissa and 155 kt/899 mb is likely the most accurate estimate for its landfall in Jamaica.

As far as Wilma is concerned, even though RECON only measured 700 mb FLWs of 168 kt (which equates to 151 kt at the surface), the NHC assigned it a 160 kt peak intensity under the assumption it continued to strengthen after RECON left the storm…given the pressure was continuing to fall at that time. Consequently, we can’t make a 1 to 1 comparison there regarding the respective FLW observations.

In the case of Melissa, the FLWs and the WL150 each convert to 155 kt, so to assign it even a 160 kt intensity also requires similar assumptions about the possibility there could’ve potentially been stronger winds located in the unsampled NE quadrant, for example. I chose 165 kt to give Melissa the benefit of the doubt for just that specific reason, myself, even though that may not have been the case. We’ll never know for sure, unfortunately.

Lastly, a pressure in the 930’s measured from just outside of the eye (within 2 n mi) wouldn’t even come close to supporting a minimum central pressure of < 900 mb. For example, a pressure of 942 mb was recorded at a distance of 2 n mi from just outside the eye of hurricane Andrew (at the innermost portion of the eastern eyewall, as well). It’s also important to mention that unlike with Melissa, hurricane Andrew was still strengthening rapidly through landfall and I’d argue that 150 kt is a far more accurate assessment of its true intensity. Using that as a proxy, you’d need a pressure no greater than 919 mb to make the assumption that Melissa might’ve contained a minimum central pressure of 899 mb.

[ncforecaster89]

Some assorted thoughts on the intensity:

From what I can find, Melissa had the most impressive flight-level and 150 meter average dropsonde winds of the 160 kt hurricanes in this archive I'm looking at. Wilma maxed out with FL winds of 168 kts and none of the best dropsondes made it to the surface. Dorian maxed out at 161 kts flight level and 177 kt 150 meter averaged dropsonde wind. Melissa maxed out at 173 kts at flight level and a 188 kt meter averaged dropsonde wind. Wilma and Dorian are kinda carried by having an insanely low pressure and insanely high SFMR values, respectively, but Melissa can justify 160 kts with the ol reliable flight level and dropsonde winds alone.

The satellite and in-situ estimates are out of alignment enough that I really hope we have some kind of other data for the landfall intensity because otherwise nobody is ever going to shut up about it. Still waiting on what Josh Morgerman got. If he was in the RMW the whole time and didn't get any sort of noticeable drop in winds for the minimum pressure then if I'm using the Schloemer equation right a <900 mbar pressure could be justified by a pressure reading in the 930s, which would also be vaguely unsatisfying. Basically, the only hope we have is for the NHC to determine that Melissa didn't actually make landfall at all so we don't have to argue about this.

I made a post earlier on what we should expect from Josh's reading. Seems likely he went past the RMW: radar and the recon wind profile indicates he should have seen some slackening of the winds as he entered the very edge of the eyewall, but not a calm. So we should expect a pressure below the 930s. Dropsondes confirm that max winds were occurring with a pressure in the upper 920s remarkably.

The main issue is the sheer steepness of the pressure gradient. Josh's location in Crawford was ~5.5 miles from the storm's center at closest approach. Mapping this to recon data (NOAA42/Flight 23), this distance from the center falls between two HDOBs - one with a pressure of 899.2 and the other 915.4. So much uncertainty! I see the 900-910mb range as most likely in the case of constant intensity. A pressure in the 910s would be a decent indication of some filling before landfall, and IMO one in the 920s would confirm it.

I’m just catching up on reading posts I seemed to have missed previously. Appears we have the same thoughts on what type of pressure measurement is necessary from Crawford to justify a central pressure of 899 mb or less. Regardless, there’s still going to be a fair amount of subjectivity involved, unfortunately.

Another problem is determining the precise distance Josh was located from the geometric center, given the poor radar coverage and the associated reliance on Satellite imagery, which can lead to some error, there.

The last minute wobble to the N added so much more uncertainty than otherwise would’ve been the case.

[cycloneye]

The fatalities climb to 28.

 https://x.com/JamaicaGleaner/status/1984774514979303439

[Hurricane2022]

 https://x.com/WX867490/status/1985003136080326943

[CrazyC83]

Some assorted thoughts on the intensity:

From what I can find, Melissa had the most impressive flight-level and 150 meter average dropsonde winds of the 160 kt hurricanes in this archive I'm looking at. Wilma maxed out with FL winds of 168 kts and none of the best dropsondes made it to the surface. Dorian maxed out at 161 kts flight level and 177 kt 150 meter averaged dropsonde wind. Melissa maxed out at 173 kts at flight level and a 188 kt meter averaged dropsonde wind. Wilma and Dorian are kinda carried by having an insanely low pressure and insanely high SFMR values, respectively, but Melissa can justify 160 kts with the ol reliable flight level and dropsonde winds alone.

The satellite and in-situ estimates are out of alignment enough that I really hope we have some kind of other data for the landfall intensity because otherwise nobody is ever going to shut up about it. Still waiting on what Josh Morgerman got. If he was in the RMW the whole time and didn't get any sort of noticeable drop in winds for the minimum pressure then if I'm using the Schloemer equation right a <900 mbar pressure could be justified by a pressure reading in the 930s, which would also be vaguely unsatisfying. Basically, the only hope we have is for the NHC to determine that Melissa didn't actually make landfall at all so we don't have to argue about this.

In my opinion, there’s way too much inconsistency with a lot of the HURDAT2 intensity estimates.

That said, I’ve always stated that I have very little doubt Dorian’s strength was overestimated and should’ve never been assigned a 160 kt MSW intensity. The unreliable SFMR was the *only* data that supported anything greater than 145 kt. Even so, I still would’ve set the peak and landfall intensity estimates at 150-155 kt and 910 mb.

I’ve already covered the reasons why I feel a legitimate 165 kt peak intensity is certainly justified for Melissa and 155 kt/899 mb is likely the most accurate estimate for its landfall in Jamaica.

As far as Wilma is concerned, even though RECON only measured 700 mb FLWs of 168 kt (which equates to 151 kt at the surface), the NHC assigned it a 160 kt peak intensity under the assumption it continued to strengthen after RECON left the storm…given the pressure was continuing to fall at that time. Consequently, we can’t make a 1 to 1 comparison there regarding the respective FLW observations.

In the case of Melissa, the FLWs and the WL150 each convert to 155 kt, so to assign it even a 160 kt intensity also requires similar assumptions about the possibility there could’ve potentially been stronger winds located in the unsampled NE quadrant, for example. I chose 165 kt to give Melissa the benefit of the doubt for just that specific reason, myself, even though that may not have been the case. We’ll never know for sure, unfortunately.

Lastly, a pressure in the 930’s measured from just outside of the eye (within 2 n mi) wouldn’t even come close to supporting a minimum central pressure of < 900 mb. For example, a pressure of 942 mb was recorded at a distance of 2 n mi from just outside the eye of hurricane Andrew (at the innermost portion of the eastern eyewall, as well). It’s also important to mention that unlike with Melissa, hurricane Andrew was still strengthening rapidly through landfall and I’d argue that 150 kt is a far more accurate assessment of its true intensity. Using that as a proxy, you’d need a pressure no greater than 919 mb to make the assumption that Melissa might’ve contained a minimum central pressure of 899 mb.

The size of the RMW was about 7 nautical miles? That would provide a starting point.

The 172 kt dropsonde deserves some weight in the sample, although the 179 kt SFMR definitely should be ignored.

[Ubuntwo]

The size of the RMW was about 7 nautical miles? That would provide a starting point.

The 172 kt dropsonde deserves some weight in the sample, although the 179 kt SFMR definitely should be ignored.

The 172kt measurement was instantaneous, a standard reduction of the 150m averaged wind (188kt) translates to 156kt 1-min sustained surface winds. That is at one point in the storm, though, and not the strongest quad, which was likely part of the NHC's justification for jumping to 160kt.

Another data point is KZC analysis, which comes out to 166.7kt for the recon-measured 892mb peak.

[MarioProtVI]

I thought Milton wouldn’t be outdone for a while but apparently Melissa decided to do just that this year but Milton’s EI episode still puts it a little over Melissa, but for the most part they’re basically tied for the most insane episodes of TC tracking that I’ve experienced. Good riddance to Melissa especially though, she ain’t coming back

[CrazyC83]

I thought Milton wouldn’t be outdone for a while but apparently Melissa decided to do just that this year but Milton’s EI episode still puts it a little over Melissa, but for the most part they’re basically tied for the most insane episodes of TC tracking that I’ve experienced. Good riddance to Melissa especially though, she ain’t coming back

In some ways, the evolution reminded me of Haiyan. In both cases, they didn't explode like Patricia, Milton or some WPAC storms, and instead had an initial RI period, followed by continued steady intensification and the whole process lasted 3+ days.

[FireRat]

2025 saved its worst monster for last. 3rd Cat 5, and in a messed up version of "three times the charm", this 3rd and worst Cat 5 of the season hit land.

It was crazy to watch Melissa patiently slither like a snake near Jamaica for days, preparing to deal its devastating strike, at maximum intensity!

What a BEAST, truly the defining storm of this unusually tricky season. Can't believe it was almost November when we got to see Labor Day '35 get rivaled.
'25 will forever live in infamy for all-time landfalls in the whole Atlantic basin. We now have a good idea what Labor Day could've looked like and how violent it could've been at landfall thanks to Melissa.

Imagine if Melissa gets upgraded wind-wise, might make a case for Labor Day ro regain its old 200 mph estimate.
Indeed, what a WOW moment this late season!

[ncforecaster89]

The size of the RMW was about 7 nautical miles? That would provide a starting point.

The 172 kt dropsonde deserves some weight in the sample, although the 179 kt SFMR definitely should be ignored.

The 172kt measurement was instantaneous, a standard reduction of the 150m averaged wind (188kt) translates to 156kt 1-min sustained surface winds. That is at one point in the storm, though, and not the strongest quad, which was likely part of the NHC's justification for jumping to 160kt.

Another data point is KZC analysis, which comes out to 166.7kt for the recon-measured 892mb peak.

I see you’ve already clarified how the 172 kt dropsonde wind is an instantaneous gust and doesn’t correlate to a direct MSW.

I feel the WL150 winds is the most reliable measurement of the MSW as it provides the best representation of how well the 700 mb FLWs are mixing down to the surface…which in this case matches perfectly with the standard 90% FLW reduction factor to arrive at 155 kt.

But, as you also mentioned, it’s conceivable that stronger winds may have been found in the unsampled NE quadrant of the eyewall and that’s why I went as high as 165 kt for the assumed MSW at the peak (13-14z) even though there’s no actual in-situ data supportive of an intensity that high.

The much more difficult question, in my opinion, pertains to the landfall intensity as it certainly didn’t retain its peak through the subsequent 3-4 hours, thereafter, to landfall. The 2 mb rise in the central pressure between the last two passes through the eye (only 45 minutes apart) make that abundantly clear, as does the notable degradation of the satellite presentation after 14z…which was also reflected in the various satellite intensity estimates (such as ADT calculating a possibly conservative 7 mb increase in the pressure). Although a reasonable case could be made for 150 kt/902 mb if we were to simply extrapolate out the pressure increase between the aforementioned RECON flights, I still feel 155kt/899 mb is a better reflection of Melissa’s likely strength at landfall barring any other data becoming available in the future.

[ljmac75]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvH5Pe28GjQ

Interview

[GCANE]

 https://x.com/CIRA_CSU/status/1985493042393203109

[GCANE]

PERILS OF A SLOW-MOVING STORM : THE IMPACT OF HURRICANE MELISSA ON JAMAICA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOFcdcmSB0o

[Easterlywave]

Some assorted thoughts on the intensity:
Lastly, a pressure in the 930’s measured from just outside of the eye (within 2 n mi) wouldn’t even come close to supporting a minimum central pressure of < 900 mb. For example, a pressure of 942 mb was recorded at a distance of 2 n mi from just outside the eye of hurricane Andrew (at the innermost portion of the eastern eyewall, as well). It’s also important to mention that unlike with Melissa, hurricane Andrew was still strengthening rapidly through landfall and I’d argue that 150 kt is a far more accurate assessment of its true intensity. Using that as a proxy, you’d need a pressure no greater than 919 mb to make the assumption that Melissa might’ve contained a minimum central pressure of 899 mb.

As a frame of reference - We were 2 1/2 miles from the northern edge of Andrew's 922 mb eye, and recorded that 942 mb. Stanley Goldenberg, about 1 1/4 miles from the eye recorded 932 mb. The wind at our location was sustained at 145 mph, with gusts of 175 mph.

[ncforecaster89]

Some assorted thoughts on the intensity:
Lastly, a pressure in the 930’s measured from just outside of the eye (within 2 n mi) wouldn’t even come close to supporting a minimum central pressure of < 900 mb. For example, a pressure of 942 mb was recorded at a distance of 2 n mi from just outside the eye of hurricane Andrew (at the innermost portion of the eastern eyewall, as well). It’s also important to mention that unlike with Melissa, hurricane Andrew was still strengthening rapidly through landfall and I’d argue that 150 kt is a far more accurate assessment of its true intensity. Using that as a proxy, you’d need a pressure no greater than 919 mb to make the assumption that Melissa might’ve contained a minimum central pressure of 899 mb.

As a frame of reference - We were 2 1/2 miles from the northern edge of Andrew's 922 mb eye, and recorded that 942 mb. Stanley Goldenberg, about 1 1/4 miles from the eye recorded 932 mb. The wind at our location was sustained at 145 mph, with gusts of 175 mph. [url]https://i.postimg.cc/s1FsSFnh/carsover.jpg [/url]

It’s most probable you actually saw stronger wind gusts than 175 mph.

As I mentioned above, it’s likely that Andrew crossed the shoreline with MSWs of 150 kt. Given your distance from the immediate coast, you can figure a reduction factor of 0.85 on the MSW…which equates to 127.5 kt (right in line with the estimate you noted). The gust factor would be closer to 1.3 which puts it at 165.8 kt or 190.6 mph. The only real difference in the two respective estimates is the associated gust factor (1.2 vs 1.3). The typical gust factor used for the immediate coastline is 1.23, so a gust factor of 1.2 is too low based on recent studies.

[kevin]

The number of deaths caused by Melissa on Jamaica is now 35 and still rising with an unknown number of people missing. Unfortunately, as expected, this makes Melissa one of the deadliest hurricanes in Jamaica in the recorded database (1851 - now) and the deadliest since Gilbert (using the current death toll). Here are the other most destructive hurricanes in Jamaica since 1851.

Hurricane / Year / Death toll
Charlie / 1951 / 152
1912 Jamaica hurricane / 1912 / 100
1903 Jamaica hurricane / 1903 / 65
Gilbert / 1988 / 45
Tropical Depression One / 1979 / 41
Melissa / 2025 / 35

Edit: Updated Charlie's year to 1951.

[LarryWx]

The number of deaths caused by Melissa on Jamaica is now 35 and still rising with an unknown number of people missing. Unfortunately, as expected, this makes Melissa one of the deadliest hurricanes in Jamaica in the recorded database (1851 - now) and the deadliest since Gilbert (using the current death toll). Here are the other most destructive hurricanes in Jamaica since 1851.

Hurricane / Year / Death toll
Charlie / 1952 / 152
1912 Jamaica hurricane / 1912 / 100
1903 Jamaica hurricane / 1903 / 65
Gilbert / 1988 / 45
Tropical Depression One / 1979 / 41
Melissa / 2025 / 35

Hey Kevin,
This is sad to hear but not at all surprising. I hope not but fear that even Charlie’s 152 may eventually be exceeded.

Aside: You have a typo as the Charlie that hit Jamaica was
the one in 1951 rather than the one in 1952.

[Teban54]

The number of deaths caused by Melissa on Jamaica is now 35 and still rising with an unknown number of people missing. Unfortunately, as expected, this makes Melissa one of the deadliest hurricanes in Jamaica in the recorded database (1851 - now) and the deadliest since Gilbert (using the current death toll). Here are the other most destructive hurricanes in Jamaica since 1851.

Hurricane / Year / Death toll
Charlie / 1952 / 152
1912 Jamaica hurricane / 1912 / 100
1903 Jamaica hurricane / 1903 / 65
Gilbert / 1988 / 45
Tropical Depression One / 1979 / 41
Melissa / 2025 / 35

Hey Kevin,
This is sad to hear but not at all surprising. I hope not but fear that even Charlie’s 152 may eventually be exceeded.

Aside: You have a typo as the Charlie that hit Jamaica was
the one in 1951 rather than the one in 1952.

I'm surprised how obscure Charlie 1951 was, despite its impacts on Jamaica. The name Charlie was technically from the phonetic alphabet for the 1950-1952 seasons, not a list of human names, and it predated the practice of retiring names.

It must have been bizarre to some Jamaican residents, especially older generations that went through Charlie 1951, when Charley 2004 passed just west of Jamaica (even though it was "just" a Cat 1 and obviously not what Charley was eventually remembered for).

[cycloneye]

Hurricane2022, moveed the thread to the 2025 archives forum so the members can continue the discussions and analysis of Melissa and of course waiting for the TCR.