Windspeed Climatology out the window in 2005...

[Anonymous]

Allen, Gilbert, and 1935 Labor Day were each 899 mb, 888 mb, and 892 mb respectively. However, Gilbert and the Labor Day storm had 185 mph winds, and Hurricane Allen had 190 mph winds.

With Camille and Mitch being 905/906 mb, and each 180-190 mph, it makes me wonder...WHY, Despite any pressure gradient, winds in the other storms in 2005 weren't stronger.

Katrina had a 902 mb pressure...lower than Mitch and Camille's 905/906 mb...and that gave Mitch and Camille 180-190 mph winds. Then why did Katrina peak out at 165-175 mph only?

Even more...if any storm this year would have been in the range of 1980's Hurricane Allen (899 mb-190 mph), then that storm was the 897 mb Hurricane Rita. However, Rita too, only peaked out at 175 mph...when the real windspeed typically would have been 185-190 mph.

THEN...Hurricane Wilma. 882 mb....yet only 175 mph. 882 mb would typically support 185-200 mph sustained winds...yet, 175 mph.

Good friend Senor Pepr might be able to help me out, because it has to be something involving the pressure gradient. Remember too, Wilma was in an area of lower pressures. Hurricane Linda in the Eastern Pacific in 1997 was just down to 905 mb...but reached 185 mph. There has to be some kind of reasoning.

[cjrciadt]

Pressure Gradients did this to this year. 175mph was the magic number this year, dont know why.

[SouthFloridawx]

Allen, Gilbert, and 1935 Labor Day were each 899 mb, 888 mb, and 892 mb respectively. However, Gilbert and the Labor Day storm had 185 mph winds, and Hurricane Allen had 190 mph winds.

With Camille and Mitch being 905/906 mb, and each 180-190 mph, it makes me wonder...WHY, Despite any pressure gradient, winds in the other storms in 2005 weren't stronger.

Katrina had a 902 mb pressure...lower than Mitch and Camille's 905/906 mb...and that gave Mitch and Camille 180-190 mph winds. Then why did Katrina peak out at 165-175 mph only?

Even more...if any storm this year would have been in the range of 1980's Hurricane Allen (899 mb-190 mph), then that storm was the 897 mb Hurricane Rita. However, Rita too, only peaked out at 175 mph...when the real windspeed typically would have been 185-190 mph.

THEN...Hurricane Wilma. 882 mb....yet only 175 mph. 882 mb would typically support 185-200 mph sustained winds...yet, 175 mph.

Good friend Senor Pepr might be able to help me out, because it has to be something involving the pressure gradient. Remember too, Wilma was in an area of lower pressures. Hurricane Linda in the Eastern Pacific in 1997 was just down to 905 mb...but reached 185 mph. There has to be some kind of reasoning.

Recon is only a snap shot of the winds at the exact second... we will never know if the winds were stronger than 175. Recon will never give us an a totally 100% accurate because Hurricanes are ever constant changing.

[f5]

I heard Max Mayfield tell the media when asked about accurate data he said recon can't be out there every second of a hurricane's life

[quandary]

And then Wilma's 2mi wide eye. Gradient should've been immensely tight, like Charley at 150-941mb, while 941mb generally supports about 135-140, or even Katrina 115!

[senorpepr]

And then Wilma's 2mi wide eye. Gradient should've been immensely tight, like Charley at 150-941mb, while 941mb generally supports about 135-140, or even Katrina 115!

The eye of Wilma may have had an extremely tight gradient, but the rest of the storm had an unusually loose gradient.

[wxmann_91]

One theory that I have is that the average pressure across the Atlantic was lower than normal. This allowed more storms to form and also allowed more Cat 5's this year. However this provided a more loose pressure gradient which prevented winds from getting over 175 mph. Actually the conditions across the Atlantic this year were very similar to conditions in the WPAC.

[HURAKAN]

I think we should continue working with satellites to improve their accuracy, therefore, we can measure every second of a hurricane life. I think that's the future!

[Scorpion]

I believe Wilma had sustained winds of 155-160 kts when recon wasn't in there.

[wxman57]

I believe the somewhat low wind speeds with respect to central pressures this year are due solely to a lower pressure gradient. This lower pressure gradient was due to:

1. A general monsoonal-type trough across the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico through most of the season, if not all. This resulted in a lower environmental pressure than normal, perhaps by 5-10 millibars. So there was generally a lower pressure gradient from the core to the outside of the hurricanes. This would explain Wilma's lower than expected winds for an 882 mb hurricane. It's possible that there could have been stronger winds that were missed by recon, of course.

2. We saw some unusually large-core hurricanes this season (Katrina/Rita/Wilma after Oct. 20th). The cores of these hurricanes were much larger than a typical hurricane. Hurricane-force winds extended out 4-5 times farther than average. This means that the pressure did not increase rapidly outward of the eyewall, so the pressure gradient was lower. Lower pressure gradient means lower peak winds.

[MGC]

Allen, Gilbert, Camile and the Labor Day Hurricane were before the invention of the GPS dropsonde. Therefore, I can only conclude that hurricanes prior to the deployment of the GPS sonde were over estimated in max wind speed......MGC

[thunderchief]

even now... recon wind speeds are only a close estimate of actuall winds, there is room for error.

1) the plane cant be everywhere, all the time.
2) the "standard reduction from flight level" isnt always exact.

[f5]

i wonder if a huuricane with a loose pressure gradients is more dangerous than one with a extremly tight pressure gradient

[wxman57]

i wonder if a huuricane with a loose pressure gradients is more dangerous than one with a extremly tight pressure gradient

That's a good question. If Katrina had a very tight center with stronger winds, it probably would not have produced such a large storm surge well down the Mississippi Coast. That surge would have moved ashore closer to the point of landfall. It's really the scope of 75+ mph winds that determines the height of the surge, not the absolute peak wind in a tiny area.

[f5]

if Katrina was a CAT 5 it would of been concentrated on one area like Andrew's winds were but instead what happen is Katrina's wind field spread out and that push a good size surge up through mobile bay down into downtown mobile.I wonder how many people were expecting a hurricane that made landfall 100 miles to the west to push a surge into downtown mobile