NATL: MELISSA - Aftermath - Discussion

[Teban54]

I believe that the most common arguments for some weakening between recon and landfall were due to warming CDO in the final moments (when a quarter - and eventually half - of the CDO was over land, despite the center remaining offshore).

Do we know for sure that such "CDO warming just before landfall" indeed translates to weakening in surface wind? Or could it possibly be just changes in appearance due to land interaction?

Were there any precedents from past storms (leaning one way or another)?

Hi Teban! I appreciate your question. Yes, CDO warming 100% is indicative of weakening regardless of whether land interaction influences it. Not only was there significant warming of the cloud tops within the CDO, but it was most pronounced in the eyewall region. Moreover, the eye was filling, losing symmetry, and beginning to close even before it made landfall. All signs of definitive weakening.

As such, there’s simply no meteorological argument to support the idea that Melissa didn’t weaken prior to landfall. The harder question to answer is to what degree did it do so? Barring in-situ observations (pressure readings) from the landfall area (preferably from within the eye), it’s going to be a more subjective determination than usual, unfortunately.

I’ll add that I totally understand why so many might want Melissa to retain its status as supposedly the strongest and most intense hurricane landfall on record in the Atlantic basin, but as a meteorologist, I can’t allow emotion to influence a wholly objective analysis of the applicable data. More than anything else, I care about truth and accuracy and just simply want to know truly how strong Melissa was at both its peak and landfall. Frustratingly, I also realize there’s a lot more subjectively involved than I’d like…especially in cases like these without the benefit of Doppler radar like we have here in the states.

Personally, I didn't intend to imply that "if CDO warming isn't a definitive sign of weakening => then Melissa can retain its record landfall intensity => woohoo!". My question was intended to be focused primarily on the first part, about appearance vs. intensity alone -- even though I can understand if my post came across the wrong way.

A key factor that made me ask this was: I remember several recent, high-profile hurricanes showing CDO warming (and other degradations) just before landfall, too. The two most vivid examples in my memory were Laura and Ida: they were both frequently refered to as "strengthened all the way until landfall", with wind speed at 130 kt both during peak and at landfall. That's all I remembered at the time of asking the question, hence the confusion.

Having said that, I just realized from their TCRs that NHC had Laura and Ida both weakening by 2mb beween peak and landfall, with a gap of 5-6 hours, even though there were no changes in wind speed.

Again, apologies if the question gave unintended implications.

[Beef Stew]

Well, Melissa is no more. Now, it's time for her to go into the annals of history, where she'll sit alongside the most potent storms to ever churn in the Atlantic Basin.
I'm hopeful to explore some of these points more in-depth with individual posts in the future, but for now, here are a few final thoughts on this historic, incredible, and devastating storm:

1) The pictures, videos, and other media coming from the ground in western Jamaica- especially in proximity of St. Elizabeth/Black River/Whitehouse- are nearly without parallel in terms of wind damage when compared to that I've seen from other Atlantic storms. Structural damage to brick and concrete structures is widespread, and the extent of denuded and debarked trees is quite vast. While pictures and videos will continue to come out in the coming days, based on what I've seen so far, the only parallel- from storms the past decade that I've tracked as closely as Melissa at least- is Dorian. I'd put the wind damage, both in intensity and scale- at the same level as what I observed in pictures (and later in person) in Elbow Key and parts of Abaco in the aftermath of Dorian, and ever so slightly ahead of the damage on Barbuda and St. Maarten from Irma. Specifically regarding tree damage, Micheal, Maria (on Dominica), and Iota (on Providencia Island) had localized instances of debarking to the same degree of what I've seen so far from Melissa, but not to the same scale. Laura appeared to also result in localized debarking, but not to the scale of Iota, Maria, and Michael. While I do recall denuding from Ian and Ida, I do not recall instances of debarking. If we expand outside the Atlantic Basin, Goni resulted in widespread denuding and debarking that seems very comparable to what I've seen from Melissa so far.
Obviously, this is a subjective thing to compare- especially considering that videos and pictures don't always tell the whole story, and that I only observed first-hand damage from Michael and Dorian- but I think it's worth mentioning regardless.

2) I'm surprised by the extent of the damage in Montego Bay- so far, it looks consistent with that of a mid or high-end category 3. Given the shape Melissa was in when she moved off of Jamaica (I personally suspect she was 90-95 kts at that time, and no longer a major, albeit briefly), and the eastward wobble she took when her eyewall was closest to Montego Bay, I expected damage to be more in-line with that of a high-end category 2.

3) After further review of the recon and satellite data, and removed from the frenzy of the morning of the 28th, I also now suspect that Melissa peaked slightly before landfall, and weakened slightly before coming ashore near Whitehouse. I believe that she peaked shortly after 14z, with an MSLP supported by recon of roughly 892 mb, and winds equal to, or in excess of, 165kts. I'd guess her intensity at landfall was still sub-900, somewhere in the neighborhood of 897-899 mb, with winds between 155 and 160 kts. I don't expect we'll see any ground readings of a sub-900 (or even 905) mb pressure- in fact, I've yet to see many ground readings at all so far- but if we do, that would certainly make me reconsider my thoughts about the extent of this suspected 'weakening' (if you can even use that term with a storm as strong as Melissa).

4) Speaking of ground readings, we'll have to see what instrumentation survived, but I'm quite curious to see what MSW and gust data comes out of eastern Jamaica. If anything at elevation survived, I think there's an excellent chance that we see the highest land-based recording of winds from a hurricane in the Atlantic Basin on record. Any wind data could also go a ways in helping to nail down a landfall intensity.

4) I do hope that Melissa leads to more conversation about if flight-level reduction factors need to be adjusted for high-end category 5 storms due to more effective vertical mixing. This is something I've personally suspected for years, but I'm not a met, so my knowledge is certainly limited. Given the NHC's gravitation towards FL-wind reductions as being the gold-standard for classifying storms following 2020, it's something that I hope gets more discussion in meteorological circles.

4) The eyewall melds with this storm were truly astounding, and I haven't seen anything like that in the Atlantic since Irma. This is another topic that, I hope, becomes the center of more scientific discourse in coming years.

5) It will be interesting to see how Melissa's landfall on Jamaica influences future markets and mechanisms for catastrophe bonds- while it won't cover everything by any means, Jamaica has been hedging against a significant hurricane by funding a 100+ million bond, which would result in a payout to the country if a storm below a certain minimum pressure makes landfall on the island- which Melissa certainly did. If this ends up helping significantly in the coming months, it's a strategy that may be replicated by other Caribbean nations in light of the significant number of landfalls the region sees.

[storm_in_a_teacup]

Melissa officially became extratropical at 11am EDT today, October 31, 2025.

To me personally, Melissa was one of the most memorable and fascinating storms to witness and to track, if not the single most. I started tracking in 2018, so I missed Irma and Maria... But it still compares to many Atlantic storms that I did track in the years since then -- Michael, Dorian, Eta, Sam, Ian, Lee, Milton, etc. -- if not above them.

As someone who also started tracking in 2018, I couldn't agree more. Lee, Beryl, and Milton were all special, but none quite rose to Melissa's level, for all the reasons you've stated. In particular, it seems likely that analysis of Melissa in years to come will yield a wealth of knowledge on TC formation, intensification, and structure to aid forecasters in working to prevent the kind of tragic impacts the storm has caused. This was a very promising early outing for operational use of AI models like GDM; the NHC's willingness to weigh it so heavily in their track and intensity forecast may well have saved lives, and it will be interesting to see if its impressive accuracy here will continue to bear out with future storms in complicated forecasting environments.

Melissa mostly frustrated me because if she surpasses Labor Day it makes me feel bad for making him a very fierce character. I mean, I know he still holds the record for landfall intensity in the U.S. but I still feel bad about it.
It's kinda like how they demoted Carla from a Cat 5 and I got upset about it because my character for Carla was really based on her being a Cat 5 at her peak.

But then, I'm the weirdo here watching the storms for story and character ideas as much as for meteorological interest.

[Ubuntwo]

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.

[Woofde]

I believe that the most common arguments for some weakening between recon and landfall were due to warming CDO in the final moments (when a quarter - and eventually half - of the CDO was over land, despite the center remaining offshore).

Do we know for sure that such "CDO warming just before landfall" indeed translates to weakening in surface wind? Or could it possibly be just changes in appearance due to land interaction?

Were there any precedents from past storms (leaning one way or another)?

Hi Teban! I appreciate your question. Yes, CDO warming 100% is indicative of weakening regardless of whether land interaction influences it. Not only was there significant warming of the cloud tops within the CDO, but it was most pronounced in the eyewall region. Moreover, the eye was filling, losing symmetry, and beginning to close even before it made landfall. All signs of definitive weakening.

As such, there’s simply no meteorological argument to support the idea that Melissa didn’t weaken prior to landfall. The harder question to answer is to what degree did it do so? Barring in-situ observations (pressure readings) from the landfall area (preferably from within the eye), it’s going to be a more subjective determination than usual, unfortunately.

I’ll add that I totally understand why so many might want Melissa to retain its status as supposedly the strongest and most intense hurricane landfall on record in the Atlantic basin, but as a meteorologist, I can’t allow emotion to influence a wholly objective analysis of the applicable data. More than anything else, I care about truth and accuracy and just simply want to know truly how strong Melissa was at both its peak and landfall. Frustratingly, I also realize there’s a lot more subjectively involved than I’d like…especially in cases like these without the benefit of Doppler radar like we have here in the states.

There are some caveats to using Satellite data as a sole source of inference. The CDO warming occured during sunrise and that would act to cool the cloud tops and "show weakening" when it may have not have been the case. The opposite was also true during the nights where the CDO cooled and the satellite appearance (and thus Dvorak values) rapidly increased despite no actual strengthening.

I agree with you that Melissa likely did weaken as it went towards landfall; that is usually the case especially with these high end sensitive systems. However I don't believe we can reliably use satellite as the only source of data to estimate weakening. The last recon dropsonde before landfall showing a slight uptick in pressure is a good piece of data, but extrapolating off of that could also lead to a lot of error.

I'm incredibly interested to see Josh Morgerman's data in tandem with the few other chasers that were there. That data should help complete the picture. If that data proves to be murky I doubt NHC will make a large swing in landfall intensity.

[aspen]

Between the slight warming of the CDO closest to the eye and the 894mb drop around 14z, I think it is likely there was some filling prior to landfall. But the whole CDO remained mostly constant up until it struck Jamaica; it was only the inner portion that showed some degradation. Right now I’m leaning towards Crazy’s estimate of 897mb at landfall. I really hope Josh was able to get some decent measurements that we can work off of.

Melissa is a storm we’re going to be talking about for a long time. It’s undoubtedly cemented itself alongside the ranks of Katrina, Patricia, and Haiyan as one of the most notable TCs in recent history. I don’t think any other storm’s recon flights kept me as on-edge as Melissa’s, nor did anything blow me away (no pun intended) as much as that first eye pass Tuesday morning with 893.5mb extrapolated.

Melissa’s earlier recon flights with direct observations falling below satellite estimates has gotten me rethinking about how we assess systems with Dvorak and satellite. I’ve mentioned before how I believe many Cat 4 EPac systems — Douglas, Darby, Dora, Gilma, and more — were 10-20 kt stronger than officially stated, and how some may have been close to Cat 5s. This was going off of their highly symmetrical W-ring CDOs and warm (15-20C eyes) in comparison to systems with recon like Dorian and Sam. Many of us have brought up CDO/eye shape as additional factors which need to be incorporated into Dvorak estimates. However, Melissa’s lagging intensity highlights that there’s even more to be considered for satellite intensity estimates, such as CDO stability and duration of said stability. Melissa over the weekend did exhibit Cat 5-esqe appearances, but that slight CDO instability was a sign it wasn’t quite there yet, and could be key to assessing past and future systems without recon.

[ncforecaster89]

I believe that the most common arguments for some weakening between recon and landfall were due to warming CDO in the final moments (when a quarter - and eventually half - of the CDO was over land, despite the center remaining offshore).

Do we know for sure that such "CDO warming just before landfall" indeed translates to weakening in surface wind? Or could it possibly be just changes in appearance due to land interaction?

Were there any precedents from past storms (leaning one way or another)?

Hi Teban! I appreciate your question. Yes, CDO warming 100% is indicative of weakening regardless of whether land interaction influences it. Not only was there significant warming of the cloud tops within the CDO, but it was most pronounced in the eyewall region. Moreover, the eye was filling, losing symmetry, and beginning to close even before it made landfall. All signs of definitive weakening.

As such, there’s simply no meteorological argument to support the idea that Melissa didn’t weaken prior to landfall. The harder question to answer is to what degree did it do so? Barring in-situ observations (pressure readings) from the landfall area (preferably from within the eye), it’s going to be a more subjective determination than usual, unfortunately.

I’ll add that I totally understand why so many might want Melissa to retain its status as supposedly the strongest and most intense hurricane landfall on record in the Atlantic basin, but as a meteorologist, I can’t allow emotion to influence a wholly objective analysis of the applicable data. More than anything else, I care about truth and accuracy and just simply want to know truly how strong Melissa was at both its peak and landfall. Frustratingly, I also realize there’s a lot more subjectively involved than I’d like…especially in cases like these without the benefit of Doppler radar like we have here in the states.

Personally, I didn't intend to imply that "if CDO warming isn't a definitive sign of weakening => then Melissa can retain its record landfall intensity => woohoo!". My question was intended to be focused primarily on the first part, about appearance vs. intensity alone -- even though I can understand if my post came across the wrong way.

A key factor that made me ask this was: I remember several recent, high-profile hurricanes showing CDO warming (and other degradations) just before landfall, too. The two most vivid examples in my memory were Laura and Ida: they were both frequently refered to as "strengthened all the way until landfall", with wind speed at 130 kt both during peak and at landfall. That's all I remembered at the time of asking the question, hence the confusion.

Having said that, I just realized from their TCRs that NHC had Laura and Ida both weakening by 2mb beween peak and landfall, with a gap of 5-6 hours, even though there were no changes in wind speed.

Again, apologies if the question gave unintended implications.

Completely understand. I apologize if my post came across the wrong way as well.

As far as the two examples you sighted, the FLWs in both suggested they each peaked before landfall as well at 135 kt, even though the NHC chose 130 kt for both time frames (peak and landfall).

Something else I should’ve mentioned earlier, these high-end hurricanes (such as we saw with Patricia) generally weaken much more quickly because they contain such a small RMW as compared to one that’s larger and tends to be more stable. Because it takes such a pristine environment to even attain such an extreme intensity, they’re susceptible to more rapid weakening from a slight change in those conditions.

I also should add that I don’t mean to imply Melissa weakened dramatically, but it’s highly likely it lost about 10 kt from the aforementioned (1300-1400z) earlier peak intensity. Looking back at ADT satellite estimates and reviewing the corresponding imagery, it’s quite possible that Melissa actually peaked just prior to RECON’s arrival and subsequent measurement of the 892 mb pressure reading. Interestingly, ADT analyzed the peak around 1200z. If that’s the case, it would better explain why RECON found the pressure had risen to 894 mb on their last pass through the eye at 1346z.

[CrazyC83]

This is unofficial, but pending surface data, here's my BT analysis:

AL132025, MELISSA, xx,
20251020, 1200, , LO, 13.5N, 66.5W, 30, 1008,
20251020, 1800, , LO, 13.7N, 67.7W, 35, 1006,
20251021, 0000, , LO, 13.9N, 68.9W, 35, 1005,
20251021, 0600, , LO, 14.1N, 70.1W, 40, 1004,
20251021, 1200, , LO, 14.1N, 71.3W, 40, 1003,
20251021, 1800, , LO, 14.1N, 72.5W, 40, 1002,
20251022, 0000, , TS, 14.1N, 73.2W, 45, 1002,
20251022, 0600, , TS, 14.2N, 73.4W, 45, 1001,
20251022, 1200, , TS, 14.3N, 73.6W, 45, 1000,
20251022, 1800, , TS, 14.4N, 73.9W, 40, 1002,
20251023, 0000, , TS, 14.6N, 74.3W, 40, 1004,
20251023, 0600, , TS, 14.8N, 74.6W, 35, 1005,
20251023, 1200, , TS, 15.2N, 75.0W, 35, 1005,
20251023, 1800, , TS, 15.5N, 75.3W, 40, 1002,
20251024, 0000, , TS, 15.7N, 75.6W, 40, 1001,
20251024, 0600, , TS, 16.0N, 75.3W, 40, 1001,
20251024, 1200, , TS, 15.8N, 74.9W, 45, 1000,
20251024, 1800, , TS, 15.8N, 74.5W, 50, 996,
20251025, 0000, , TS, 16.1N, 74.7W, 55, 993,
20251025, 0600, , TS, 16.3N, 74.9W, 60, 986,
20251025, 1200, , HU, 16.4N, 75.1W, 65, 983,
20251025, 1800, , HU, 16.5N, 75.3W, 70, 977,
20251026, 0000, , HU, 16.4N, 75.7W, 85, 970,
20251026, 0600, , HU, 16.3N, 76.0W, 100, 957,
20251026, 1200, , HU, 16.4N, 76.4W, 110, 952,
20251026, 1800, , HU, 16.4N, 76.9W, 120, 944,
20251027, 0000, , HU, 16.4N, 77.3W, 130, 932,
20251027, 0600, , HU, 16.3N, 77.7W, 135, 922,
20251027, 1200, , HU, 16.4N, 78.0W, 145, 913,
20251027, 1800, , HU, 16.4N, 78.3W, 155, 906,
20251028, 0000, , HU, 16.5N, 78.6W, 155, 905,
20251028, 0600, , HU, 16.9N, 78.4W, 155, 900,
20251028, 1200, , HU, 17.5N, 78.1W, 165, 894,
20251028, 1400, I, HU, 17.7N, 78.0W, 170, 892,
20251028, 1700, L, HU, 18.1N, 78.0W, 160, 897,
20251028, 1800, , HU, 18.2N, 77.9W, 140, 910,
20251029, 2200, R, HU, 18.7N, 77.4W, 95, 953,
20251029, 0000, , HU, 18.9N, 77.2W, 100, 952,
20251029, 0600, , HU, 19.8N, 76.3W, 105, 951,
20251029, 0715, L, HU, 20.0N, 76.1W, 105, 950,
20251029, 1200, , HU, 20.9N, 75.8W, 75, 972,
20251029, 1800, , HU, 22.1N, 75.3W, 80, 974,
20251029, 2130, L, HU, 22.5N, 75.0W, 85, 971,
20251030, 0000, , HU, 23.5N, 74.8W, 90, 970,
20251030, 0215, L, HU, 24.0N, 74.5W, 90, 969,
20251030, 0600, , HU, 24.9N, 73.8W, 95, 966,
20251030, 1200, , HU, 26.6N, 72.8W, 95, 964,
20251030, 1800, , HU, 28.8N, 71.0W, 90, 968,
20251031, 0000, , HU, 31.3N, 68.9W, 80, 970,
20251031, 0600, , HU, 34.4N, 65.5W, 75, 972,
20251031, 1200, , HU, 37.5N, 62.1W, 70, 972,
20251031, 1800, , EX, 40.6N, 58.6W, 70, 972,

* Genesis is actually moved back 12 hours, as when it was first declared a TC, it still didn't have a clear single center. With some uncertainty, it is assessed at 22/0000.

* The first three days were a struggle for Melissa. I smoothed that track out and also brought it down as low as 35 kt. There were times that it was barely a TC, but it appeared to remain one throughout as opposed to a disturbance or trough, as there remained a closed low.

* The initial intensification is largely unchanged, although the rapid intensification at first is slowed down as the aircraft data was underperforming satellite estimates. It started to catch up on the 26th and certainly on the 27th.

* The peak intensity will be a long topic of discussion. However, there were a few data points that were in this analysis: the 179 kt FL winds (supporting 161 kt), a dropsonde measurement of 172 kt at the surface, the T8.0+ Dvorak readings and the limited spatial analysis as the aircraft had to quickly leave due to turbulence. A blend of the data lends itself to a peak intensity of 170 kt (+/- 10 kt). That likely occurred at 28/1400, a non-synoptic point, and concurrent with a pressure reading of 892 mb, accepted as the minimum pressure.

* This analysis has slight weakening before landfall assumed by the fact that the cloud tops were not quite as deep (although still very impressive, more T7.5 than T8.0+). There was no aircraft data at the time and no surface data has been received yet. In the absence of any surface data to make an assessment, the landfall intensity is assessed at 160 kt based on that weakening, and the pressure estimate of 897 mb makes the same assumption.

* Melissa clearly weakened over Jamaica, and by the time it emerged over the Cayman Trench, the intensity is estimated to be 95 kt (a non-synoptic point to clearly show it). However, aircraft data suggests it re-intensified some in between Jamaica and Cuba - the landfall at the latter is maintained at 105 kt with a pressure estimate of 950 mb.

* Two landfalls in the Bahamas are added on Long Island and San Salvador Island as well. They were at 85 kt and 90 kt, based on aircraft data.

* Near the Bahamas, it is likely that the 90% rule was still valid, as while the RMW expanded, the cloud tops were still extremely deep. The final peak of 95 kt is based on the readings (FL winds up to 113 kt) but a bit more cautious out of respect of the initial analysis. It is possible Melissa briefly regained major hurricane intensity around 30/0900 but inconclusive.

* The final weakening is accelerated a bit, as by 30/1800, the 90% rule clearly didn't apply as the eyewall was gone and it was beginning its extratropical transition (which is unchanged).

[ncforecaster89]

This is unofficial, but pending surface data, here's my BT analysis:

AL132025, MELISSA, xx,
20251020, 1200, , LO, 13.5N, 66.5W, 30, 1008,
20251020, 1800, , LO, 13.7N, 67.7W, 35, 1006,
20251021, 0000, , LO, 13.9N, 68.9W, 35, 1005,
20251021, 0600, , LO, 14.1N, 70.1W, 40, 1004,
20251021, 1200, , LO, 14.1N, 71.3W, 40, 1003,
20251021, 1800, , LO, 14.1N, 72.5W, 40, 1002,
20251022, 0000, , TS, 14.1N, 73.2W, 45, 1002,
20251022, 0600, , TS, 14.2N, 73.4W, 45, 1001,
20251022, 1200, , TS, 14.3N, 73.6W, 45, 1000,
20251022, 1800, , TS, 14.4N, 73.9W, 40, 1002,
20251023, 0000, , TS, 14.6N, 74.3W, 40, 1004,
20251023, 0600, , TS, 14.8N, 74.6W, 35, 1005,
20251023, 1200, , TS, 15.2N, 75.0W, 35, 1005,
20251023, 1800, , TS, 15.5N, 75.3W, 40, 1002,
20251024, 0000, , TS, 15.7N, 75.6W, 40, 1001,
20251024, 0600, , TS, 16.0N, 75.3W, 40, 1001,
20251024, 1200, , TS, 15.8N, 74.9W, 45, 1000,
20251024, 1800, , TS, 15.8N, 74.5W, 50, 996,
20251025, 0000, , TS, 16.1N, 74.7W, 55, 993,
20251025, 0600, , TS, 16.3N, 74.9W, 60, 986,
20251025, 1200, , HU, 16.4N, 75.1W, 65, 983,
20251025, 1800, , HU, 16.5N, 75.3W, 70, 977,
20251026, 0000, , HU, 16.4N, 75.7W, 85, 970,
20251026, 0600, , HU, 16.3N, 76.0W, 100, 957,
20251026, 1200, , HU, 16.4N, 76.4W, 110, 952,
20251026, 1800, , HU, 16.4N, 76.9W, 120, 944,
20251027, 0000, , HU, 16.4N, 77.3W, 130, 932,
20251027, 0600, , HU, 16.3N, 77.7W, 135, 922,
20251027, 1200, , HU, 16.4N, 78.0W, 145, 913,
20251027, 1800, , HU, 16.4N, 78.3W, 155, 906,
20251028, 0000, , HU, 16.5N, 78.6W, 155, 905,
20251028, 0600, , HU, 16.9N, 78.4W, 155, 900,
20251028, 1200, , HU, 17.5N, 78.1W, 165, 894,
20251028, 1400, I, HU, 17.7N, 78.0W, 170, 892,
20251028, 1700, L, HU, 18.1N, 78.0W, 160, 897,
20251028, 1800, , HU, 18.2N, 77.9W, 140, 910,
20251029, 2200, R, HU, 18.7N, 77.4W, 95, 953,
20251029, 0000, , HU, 18.9N, 77.2W, 100, 952,
20251029, 0600, , HU, 19.8N, 76.3W, 105, 951,
20251029, 0715, L, HU, 20.0N, 76.1W, 105, 950,
20251029, 1200, , HU, 20.9N, 75.8W, 75, 972,
20251029, 1800, , HU, 22.1N, 75.3W, 80, 974,
20251029, 2130, L, HU, 22.5N, 75.0W, 85, 971,
20251030, 0000, , HU, 23.5N, 74.8W, 90, 970,
20251030, 0215, L, HU, 24.0N, 74.5W, 90, 969,
20251030, 0600, , HU, 24.9N, 73.8W, 95, 966,
20251030, 1200, , HU, 26.6N, 72.8W, 95, 964,
20251030, 1800, , HU, 28.8N, 71.0W, 90, 968,
20251031, 0000, , HU, 31.3N, 68.9W, 80, 970,
20251031, 0600, , HU, 34.4N, 65.5W, 75, 972,
20251031, 1200, , HU, 37.5N, 62.1W, 70, 972,
20251031, 1800, , EX, 40.6N, 58.6W, 70, 972,

* Genesis is actually moved back 12 hours, as when it was first declared a TC, it still didn't have a clear single center. With some uncertainty, it is assessed at 22/0000.

* The first three days were a struggle for Melissa. I smoothed that track out and also brought it down as low as 35 kt. There were times that it was barely a TC, but it appeared to remain one throughout as opposed to a disturbance or trough, as there remained a closed low.

* The initial intensification is largely unchanged, although the rapid intensification at first is slowed down as the aircraft data was underperforming satellite estimates. It started to catch up on the 26th and certainly on the 27th.

* The peak intensity will be a long topic of discussion. However, there were a few data points that were in this analysis: the 179 kt FL winds (supporting 161 kt), a dropsonde measurement of 172 kt at the surface, the T8.0+ Dvorak readings and the limited spatial analysis as the aircraft had to quickly leave due to turbulence. A blend of the data lends itself to a peak intensity of 170 kt (+/- 10 kt). That likely occurred at 28/1400, a non-synoptic point, and concurrent with a pressure reading of 892 mb, accepted as the minimum pressure.

* This analysis has slight weakening before landfall assumed by the fact that the cloud tops were not quite as deep (although still very impressive, more T7.5 than T8.0+). There was no aircraft data at the time and no surface data has been received yet. In the absence of any surface data to make an assessment, the landfall intensity is assessed at 160 kt based on that weakening, and the pressure estimate of 897 mb makes the same assumption.

* Melissa clearly weakened over Jamaica, and by the time it emerged over the Cayman Trench, the intensity is estimated to be 95 kt (a non-synoptic point to clearly show it). However, aircraft data suggests it re-intensified some in between Jamaica and Cuba - the landfall at the latter is maintained at 105 kt with a pressure estimate of 950 mb.

* Two landfalls in the Bahamas are added on Long Island and San Salvador Island as well. They were at 85 kt and 90 kt, based on aircraft data.

* Near the Bahamas, it is likely that the 90% rule was still valid, as while the RMW expanded, the cloud tops were still extremely deep. The final peak of 95 kt is based on the readings (FL winds up to 113 kt) but a bit more cautious out of respect of the initial analysis. It is possible Melissa briefly regained major hurricane intensity around 30/0900 but inconclusive.

* The final weakening is accelerated a bit, as by 30/1800, the 90% rule clearly didn't apply as the eyewall was gone and it was beginning its extratropical transition (which is unchanged).

Hi Crazy! I’m very interested as to where I can find the report about the 179 kt FLW you referenced? The highest I’m aware of is the 172 kt measurement during the last pass by RECON obtained at 1350z.

[cycloneye]

Wow.

 https://x.com/iCyclone/status/1984415270262247531

[ncforecaster89]

Wow.

 https://x.com/iCyclone/status/1984415270262247531

That’s why storm surge/water is the most destructive.

[CrazyC83]

This is unofficial, but pending surface data, here's my BT analysis:

AL132025, MELISSA, xx,
20251020, 1200, , LO, 13.5N, 66.5W, 30, 1008,
20251020, 1800, , LO, 13.7N, 67.7W, 35, 1006,
20251021, 0000, , LO, 13.9N, 68.9W, 35, 1005,
20251021, 0600, , LO, 14.1N, 70.1W, 40, 1004,
20251021, 1200, , LO, 14.1N, 71.3W, 40, 1003,
20251021, 1800, , LO, 14.1N, 72.5W, 40, 1002,
20251022, 0000, , TS, 14.1N, 73.2W, 45, 1002,
20251022, 0600, , TS, 14.2N, 73.4W, 45, 1001,
20251022, 1200, , TS, 14.3N, 73.6W, 45, 1000,
20251022, 1800, , TS, 14.4N, 73.9W, 40, 1002,
20251023, 0000, , TS, 14.6N, 74.3W, 40, 1004,
20251023, 0600, , TS, 14.8N, 74.6W, 35, 1005,
20251023, 1200, , TS, 15.2N, 75.0W, 35, 1005,
20251023, 1800, , TS, 15.5N, 75.3W, 40, 1002,
20251024, 0000, , TS, 15.7N, 75.6W, 40, 1001,
20251024, 0600, , TS, 16.0N, 75.3W, 40, 1001,
20251024, 1200, , TS, 15.8N, 74.9W, 45, 1000,
20251024, 1800, , TS, 15.8N, 74.5W, 50, 996,
20251025, 0000, , TS, 16.1N, 74.7W, 55, 993,
20251025, 0600, , TS, 16.3N, 74.9W, 60, 986,
20251025, 1200, , HU, 16.4N, 75.1W, 65, 983,
20251025, 1800, , HU, 16.5N, 75.3W, 70, 977,
20251026, 0000, , HU, 16.4N, 75.7W, 85, 970,
20251026, 0600, , HU, 16.3N, 76.0W, 100, 957,
20251026, 1200, , HU, 16.4N, 76.4W, 110, 952,
20251026, 1800, , HU, 16.4N, 76.9W, 120, 944,
20251027, 0000, , HU, 16.4N, 77.3W, 130, 932,
20251027, 0600, , HU, 16.3N, 77.7W, 135, 922,
20251027, 1200, , HU, 16.4N, 78.0W, 145, 913,
20251027, 1800, , HU, 16.4N, 78.3W, 155, 906,
20251028, 0000, , HU, 16.5N, 78.6W, 155, 905,
20251028, 0600, , HU, 16.9N, 78.4W, 155, 900,
20251028, 1200, , HU, 17.5N, 78.1W, 165, 894,
20251028, 1400, I, HU, 17.7N, 78.0W, 170, 892,
20251028, 1700, L, HU, 18.1N, 78.0W, 160, 897,
20251028, 1800, , HU, 18.2N, 77.9W, 140, 910,
20251029, 2200, R, HU, 18.7N, 77.4W, 95, 953,
20251029, 0000, , HU, 18.9N, 77.2W, 100, 952,
20251029, 0600, , HU, 19.8N, 76.3W, 105, 951,
20251029, 0715, L, HU, 20.0N, 76.1W, 105, 950,
20251029, 1200, , HU, 20.9N, 75.8W, 75, 972,
20251029, 1800, , HU, 22.1N, 75.3W, 80, 974,
20251029, 2130, L, HU, 22.5N, 75.0W, 85, 971,
20251030, 0000, , HU, 23.5N, 74.8W, 90, 970,
20251030, 0215, L, HU, 24.0N, 74.5W, 90, 969,
20251030, 0600, , HU, 24.9N, 73.8W, 95, 966,
20251030, 1200, , HU, 26.6N, 72.8W, 95, 964,
20251030, 1800, , HU, 28.8N, 71.0W, 90, 968,
20251031, 0000, , HU, 31.3N, 68.9W, 80, 970,
20251031, 0600, , HU, 34.4N, 65.5W, 75, 972,
20251031, 1200, , HU, 37.5N, 62.1W, 70, 972,
20251031, 1800, , EX, 40.6N, 58.6W, 70, 972,

* Genesis is actually moved back 12 hours, as when it was first declared a TC, it still didn't have a clear single center. With some uncertainty, it is assessed at 22/0000.

* The first three days were a struggle for Melissa. I smoothed that track out and also brought it down as low as 35 kt. There were times that it was barely a TC, but it appeared to remain one throughout as opposed to a disturbance or trough, as there remained a closed low.

* The initial intensification is largely unchanged, although the rapid intensification at first is slowed down as the aircraft data was underperforming satellite estimates. It started to catch up on the 26th and certainly on the 27th.

* The peak intensity will be a long topic of discussion. However, there were a few data points that were in this analysis: the 179 kt FL winds (supporting 161 kt), a dropsonde measurement of 172 kt at the surface, the T8.0+ Dvorak readings and the limited spatial analysis as the aircraft had to quickly leave due to turbulence. A blend of the data lends itself to a peak intensity of 170 kt (+/- 10 kt). That likely occurred at 28/1400, a non-synoptic point, and concurrent with a pressure reading of 892 mb, accepted as the minimum pressure.

* This analysis has slight weakening before landfall assumed by the fact that the cloud tops were not quite as deep (although still very impressive, more T7.5 than T8.0+). There was no aircraft data at the time and no surface data has been received yet. In the absence of any surface data to make an assessment, the landfall intensity is assessed at 160 kt based on that weakening, and the pressure estimate of 897 mb makes the same assumption.

* Melissa clearly weakened over Jamaica, and by the time it emerged over the Cayman Trench, the intensity is estimated to be 95 kt (a non-synoptic point to clearly show it). However, aircraft data suggests it re-intensified some in between Jamaica and Cuba - the landfall at the latter is maintained at 105 kt with a pressure estimate of 950 mb.

* Two landfalls in the Bahamas are added on Long Island and San Salvador Island as well. They were at 85 kt and 90 kt, based on aircraft data.

* Near the Bahamas, it is likely that the 90% rule was still valid, as while the RMW expanded, the cloud tops were still extremely deep. The final peak of 95 kt is based on the readings (FL winds up to 113 kt) but a bit more cautious out of respect of the initial analysis. It is possible Melissa briefly regained major hurricane intensity around 30/0900 but inconclusive.

* The final weakening is accelerated a bit, as by 30/1800, the 90% rule clearly didn't apply as the eyewall was gone and it was beginning its extratropical transition (which is unchanged).

Hi Crazy! I’m very interested as to where I can find the report about the 179 kt FLW you referenced? The highest I’m aware of is the 172 kt measurement during the last pass by RECON obtained at 1350z.

I saw it on the ATCF fix.

https://www.opah.ncep.noaa.gov/atcf/fix/fal132025.dat

Update: now I see 179 kt was an SFMR reading and 172 kt was a FLW reading. 165 kt might be a better estimate as well, but the dropsonde and satellite estimates, plus poor coverage, still lead me to think it was quite high.

[cheezyWXguy]

Hi Teban! I appreciate your question. Yes, CDO warming 100% is indicative of weakening regardless of whether land interaction influences it. Not only was there significant warming of the cloud tops within the CDO, but it was most pronounced in the eyewall region. Moreover, the eye was filling, losing symmetry, and beginning to close even before it made landfall. All signs of definitive weakening.

As such, there’s simply no meteorological argument to support the idea that Melissa didn’t weaken prior to landfall. The harder question to answer is to what degree did it do so? Barring in-situ observations (pressure readings) from the landfall area (preferably from within the eye), it’s going to be a more subjective determination than usual, unfortunately.

I’ll add that I totally understand why so many might want Melissa to retain its status as supposedly the strongest and most intense hurricane landfall on record in the Atlantic basin, but as a meteorologist, I can’t allow emotion to influence a wholly objective analysis of the applicable data. More than anything else, I care about truth and accuracy and just simply want to know truly how strong Melissa was at both its peak and landfall. Frustratingly, I also realize there’s a lot more subjectively involved than I’d like…especially in cases like these without the benefit of Doppler radar like we have here in the states.

Personally, I didn't intend to imply that "if CDO warming isn't a definitive sign of weakening => then Melissa can retain its record landfall intensity => woohoo!". My question was intended to be focused primarily on the first part, about appearance vs. intensity alone -- even though I can understand if my post came across the wrong way.

A key factor that made me ask this was: I remember several recent, high-profile hurricanes showing CDO warming (and other degradations) just before landfall, too. The two most vivid examples in my memory were Laura and Ida: they were both frequently refered to as "strengthened all the way until landfall", with wind speed at 130 kt both during peak and at landfall. That's all I remembered at the time of asking the question, hence the confusion.

Having said that, I just realized from their TCRs that NHC had Laura and Ida both weakening by 2mb beween peak and landfall, with a gap of 5-6 hours, even though there were no changes in wind speed.

Again, apologies if the question gave unintended implications.

Completely understand. I apologize if my post came across the wrong way as well.

As far as the two examples you sighted, the FLWs in both suggested they each peaked before landfall as well at 135 kt, even though the NHC chose 130 kt for both time frames (peak and landfall).

Something else I should’ve mentioned earlier, these high-end hurricanes (such as we saw with Patricia) generally weaken much more quickly because they contain such a small RMW as compared to one that’s larger and tends to be more stable. Because it takes such a pristine environment to even attain such an extreme intensity, they’re susceptible to more rapid weakening from a slight change in those conditions.

I also should add that I don’t mean to imply Melissa weakened dramatically, but it’s highly likely it lost about 10 kt from the aforementioned (1300-1400z) earlier peak intensity. Looking back at ADT satellite estimates and reviewing the corresponding imagery, it’s quite possible that Melissa actually peaked just prior to RECON’s arrival and subsequent measurement of the 892 mb pressure reading. Interestingly, ADT analyzed the peak around 1200z. If that’s the case, it would better explain why RECON found the pressure had risen to 894 mb on their last pass through the eye at 1346z.

In my opinion, the most glaring case is one not listed here - hurricane Otis. Otis’ eye rapidly filled prior to landfall and its cdo warmed to some degree, yet its status as a cat5 at landfall was retained. Personally, I can confidently say I have not done the research nor have the expertise to wager an authoritative estimate here, but I’m inclined to believe the NHC’s landfall estimate and suspect that Otis peaked higher than stated prior to landfall. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that storm if you have any. I’m inclined to think similarly of Melissa, at least in terms of wind, and I think that CrazyC83’s numbers line up nicely. In terms of pressure, I speculate that minimum pressure less than 892mb was achieved, and it seems likely that the pressure rose above 892mb by the time landfall occurred. It’s unfortunate that there is so much subjectivity in estimating what the final estimate of landfall intensity will be, even with the comparatively high amount of sampling that Melissa received in comparison to other comparable situations of high end hurricanes making landfall, but there’s not much that can be done about that when the lives of the people who provide us this data are at risk from the extreme conditions they subject themselves to.

[Category5Kaiju]

Now that Melissa is gone, all I have to say is....DID I JUST WITNESS THAT?!

What a horrific and extraordinary storm. Melissa was the storm that will define the 2025 season and turned what looked to be a rather harmless, OTS-heavy year into a calamity.

I think we were all expecting this storm to become a very strong one based on early model consensus, but I don't think anybody really anticipated Labor Day 2.0, especially hitting a country that hasn't been directly struck by a violent hurricane for nearly 40 years (and that was a Category 3, not an upper-echelon Category 5 for god's sake).

It will be interesting to see what post-analysis holds, but I personally wouldn't be shocked to see Melissa's maximum 1-min sustained windspeeds get upgraded to 190 mph, as well as potential minimum pressure adjustments. The damage in western Jamaica is just...wow. I truly hope the victims of this tragedy a strong and speedy recovery, though I know that this process won't be easy and will take many years and steps. Much like what Katrina was for the Lousiana Gulf Coast, or what Maria was for Puerto Rico, Dorian for the Bahamas, Ian for SW Florida, Helene for Appalachia, and so forth, Melissa will go down as the benchmark storm for a specific geographic region of the Atlantic Basin.

As an anecdote, I've known a nurse from my workplace for 2 years; she recently moved to a different state, but I still keep in touch with her. She's always been proud of her Jamaican heritage, and she and her extended family immediately came to my mind when I learned of Melissa's potential direct path toward Jamaica. Thankfully, they were in the eastern part of the island when Melissa came through, so they avoided the worst winds and surge (though they reported that the amount of rain that fell was no joke).


*she gave me this before she left us*

[CrazyC83]

One thing is for sure...we won't be seeing Melissa again when the list rotates back in 2031.

[Teban54]

One thing is for sure...we won't be seeing Melissa again when the list rotates back in 2031.

List 5 was so close to escaping its curse of having at least one name retired on every use... But nope.

[ncforecaster89]

Personally, I didn't intend to imply that "if CDO warming isn't a definitive sign of weakening => then Melissa can retain its record landfall intensity => woohoo!". My question was intended to be focused primarily on the first part, about appearance vs. intensity alone -- even though I can understand if my post came across the wrong way.

A key factor that made me ask this was: I remember several recent, high-profile hurricanes showing CDO warming (and other degradations) just before landfall, too. The two most vivid examples in my memory were Laura and Ida: they were both frequently refered to as "strengthened all the way until landfall", with wind speed at 130 kt both during peak and at landfall. That's all I remembered at the time of asking the question, hence the confusion.

Having said that, I just realized from their TCRs that NHC had Laura and Ida both weakening by 2mb beween peak and landfall, with a gap of 5-6 hours, even though there were no changes in wind speed.

Again, apologies if the question gave unintended implications.

Completely understand. I apologize if my post came across the wrong way as well.

As far as the two examples you sighted, the FLWs in both suggested they each peaked before landfall as well at 135 kt, even though the NHC chose 130 kt for both time frames (peak and landfall).

Something else I should’ve mentioned earlier, these high-end hurricanes (such as we saw with Patricia) generally weaken much more quickly because they contain such a small RMW as compared to one that’s larger and tends to be more stable. Because it takes such a pristine environment to even attain such an extreme intensity, they’re susceptible to more rapid weakening from a slight change in those conditions.

I also should add that I don’t mean to imply Melissa weakened dramatically, but it’s highly likely it lost about 10 kt from the aforementioned (1300-1400z) earlier peak intensity. Looking back at ADT satellite estimates and reviewing the corresponding imagery, it’s quite possible that Melissa actually peaked just prior to RECON’s arrival and subsequent measurement of the 892 mb pressure reading. Interestingly, ADT analyzed the peak around 1200z. If that’s the case, it would better explain why RECON found the pressure had risen to 894 mb on their last pass through the eye at 1346z.

In my opinion, the most glaring case is one not listed here - hurricane Otis. Otis’ eye rapidly filled prior to landfall and its cdo warmed to some degree, yet its status as a cat5 at landfall was retained. Personally, I can confidently say I have not done the research nor have the expertise to wager an authoritative estimate here, but I’m inclined to believe the NHC’s landfall estimate and suspect that Otis peaked higher than stated prior to landfall. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that storm if you have any. I’m inclined to think similarly of Melissa, at least in terms of wind, and I think that CrazyC83’s numbers line up nicely. In terms of pressure, I speculate that minimum pressure less than 892mb was achieved, and it seems likely that the pressure rose above 892mb by the time landfall occurred. It’s unfortunate that there is so much subjectivity in estimating what the final estimate of landfall intensity will be, even with the comparatively high amount of sampling that Melissa received in comparison to other comparable situations of high end hurricanes making landfall, but there’s not much that can be done about that when the lives of the people who provide us this data are at risk from the extreme conditions they subject themselves to.

Hi Cheesy!

The main difference between Otis and Melissa is that unlike with Otis, we have verifiable evidence that Melissa had begun to weaken (pressure rose 2 mb between last two RECON passes through the eye). Moreover, this observed weakening began at least 4 hours prior to landfall while Otis’ was less than 1.5 hours duration before its own center crossed the shoreline.

As far as Otis is concerned, like with Melissa, it’s highly likely it was about 5 kt stronger than analyzed at its own respective peak.

Keep in mind, too, that I’m only suggesting a relatively minimal differential of 10 kt between its presumed peak intensity I’m advocating for of 165 kt and the likely strength of 155 kt when the center actually crossed the shoreline.

Keep in mind, too, that my analysis of a 165 kt maximum sustained wind intensity is a good bit above what the actual in-situ data would support using the standard reduction factors from FLWs to the surface. To reiterate, highest 700 mb FLW converts to 155 kt and the WL150 winds of 188 kt converts to 156 kt. Despite these data, I’m assuming Melissa potentially contained higher winds in the unsampled NE quadrant (which may not have been the case as in many other instances with high-end hurricanes, that had turned NE, their peak winds were located in the SE quadrant) and/or had achieved a slightly higher intensity just prior to the 892 mb measurement by RECON at 1302z…which the ADT satellite estimates showed.

Even though I’m assigning a 155 kt/899 mb landfall intensity for Melissa at landfall, it’s conceivable that the central pressure had actually risen above that number. As previously mentioned, ADT calculated a 7 mb rise from 1400z to landfall at 1700z while the RECON data itself implies a a greater rate of filling may have occurred…to no less than 10 mb…if we were to simply extrapolate the 2 mb/45 minute rate over those last 4 hours (1300-1700z).

Taking all the aforementioned into account, I feel the intensity estimates I’ve analyzed here best fit the likely strength of this historical hurricane at both its peak and when landfall occurred 3-4 hours, thereafter.

[galaxy401]

I feel like we are over-analyzing every little thing Melissa was doing. Let the NHC do that when they make their TCR report.

[emeraldislenc]

I agree let's let the NHC make the final call! It was a horrible storm. We should be using our time helping those in need. Like having fund raisers, helping those who are going out on work teams secure the funding they need! What difference does it make to those who are suffering if it was 180, 185, 190
Or 195. Too many people are suffering! Let's do what we can to help those in need! We will have plenty of time to analyze the storm! Just my thoughts and opinion! Let's pray for Jamaica and Cuba!

[cheezyWXguy]

I agree let's let the NHC make the final call! It was a horrible storm. We should be using our time helping those in need. Like having fund raisers, helping those who are going out on work teams secure the funding they need! What difference does it make to those who are suffering if it was 180, 185, 190
Or 195. Too many people are suffering! Let's do what we can to help those in need! We will have plenty of time to analyze the storm! Just my thoughts and opinion! Let's pray for Jamaica and Cuba!

This is a weather thread on a weather board, so people are going to talk about the weather. If you want to start a fundraiser or highlight one for board members to donate to, start a thread to raise awareness and post a link. It would likely get lost in a 100+ page thread like this that’s soon to be archived.