jason0509 wrote:tallywx wrote:theworld wrote:jkt21787 wrote:boca_chris wrote:ERC over land, is that not paradoxical. ?
Not really. Storms can replace their eyewalls anytime, it doesn't have to be over water.
Curious, were there any storms that had an ERC over land, well at least since we've had the instrument to see it ?
Yes. In fact, every storm that stalls over land with a portion of its circulation over water experiences a weakening/collapse of the inner core whilst the outer part of the circulation maintains more of its vigor because it remains over water. What we see here is textbook physics, folks: the inner core has been disrupted by friction from land and lack of a heat source, while the outer circulation remains robust. Since Wilma didn't move too far inland, enough of the circulation remained over water for an eyewall to form.
So now here's the kicker: the fact that the inner core HAS collapsed may mean the storm MIGHT NOT strengthen as rapidly as some here are thinking. The reason is that storms that have lost their inner core, as Wilma has by definition of the 75 mi wide eye, have a tough time tightening up again. That's why Frances in 2004 never recovered, even over the Gulf stream, and didn't strengthen before hitting Florida. That's why so many other storms that have lost their inner core, like Isidore in 2002 after the Yucatan, couldn't strengthen whatsoever.
Dennis spent 12-18 hours over Cuba and was able to re-intensify. Is there something different with Wilma that will prevent that from happening here?
Dennis was in a completely different (better) shape upon leaving Cuba in this important respect: it still had a tight inner core intact, meaning it could spin up rapidly (and did). Here is the image from recon:
[img]ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2005/al04.2005/0709/0430/col08deg.png[/img]
We don't have that in Wilma at all. Her inner core has collapsed, and thus her recovery is less certain.