NATL: MELISSA - Aftermath - Discussion

Current storms and invests:

Moderators: hurricanetrack, S2k Moderators


The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
emeraldislenc
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:49 pm
Location: Emerald Isle NC

Re: NATL: MELISSA - Post-Tropical - Discussion

#3001 Postby emeraldislenc » Sat Nov 01, 2025 10:22 pm

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

ncforecaster89
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 243
Age: 55
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:32 pm
Contact:

Re: NATL: MELISSA - Post-Tropical - Discussion

#3002 Postby ncforecaster89 » Sat Nov 01, 2025 10:28 pm

ljmac75 wrote: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.
1 likes   

ncforecaster89
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 243
Age: 55
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:32 pm
Contact:

Re: NATL: MELISSA - Post-Tropical - Discussion

#3003 Postby ncforecaster89 » Sat Nov 01, 2025 10:47 pm

Ubuntwo wrote:
ljmac75 wrote: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. :(
1 likes   

User avatar
cycloneye
Admin
Admin
Posts: 148349
Age: 69
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: NATL: MELISSA - Aftermath - Discussion

#3004 Postby cycloneye » Sun Nov 02, 2025 12:32 pm

0 likes   
Visit the Caribbean-Central America Weather Thread where you can find at first post web cams,radars
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here


Return to “Active Storms/Invests - Atlantic/EastPAC/CentralPAC/MED”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 120 guests