Hurricane Charley Question

[Bocadude85]

Anyone know what the max sustained winds recorded in Punta Gorda were? Also what the max gusts were?

[dizzyfish]

You should be able to find something here. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004charley.shtml?

[Blown Away]

Unofficial 172 mph wind gust Charoltte County Medical Center.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Wow that is very severe. 172. I cannot even imagine
how brutal that must have been to experience.

[MGC]

That measurment was taken well about the 10 meter standard. Its still a pretty good gust thought. I drove through Punta Gorda in Oct 06, could hardly tell a Cat-4+ hurricane had hit there. Of course I was comparing it to our dinky Cat-3 Katrina........MGC

[MiamiensisWx]

That measurment was taken well about the 10 meter standard. Its still a pretty good gust thought. I drove through Punta Gorda in Oct 06, could hardly tell a Cat-4+ hurricane had hit there. Of course I was comparing it to our dinky Cat-3 Katrina........MGC

Charley was an incredibly narrow and intense tropical cyclone. The strongest winds were likely experienced for a few seconds within its inner core. The radius of TS and hurricane winds was also exceptionally small. These factors definitely reduced the potential wind damage to vegetation and structures, including the barrier islands of Sanibel and Captiva. Those areas were situated near the point of landfall. It was still very destructive across the state, and its fast movement brought Category 1 conditions well inland over central Florida, thus hammering many inland communities like Casselberry, Orlando, Daytona Beach, Apopka, Lake Wales et al. You cannot compare Charley with Katrina. Katrina's RMW was much larger; its wind field was more expansive; its forward motion was slower; its angle of approach was different; and the hydrology situation was more challenging than southwest Florida. Charley's rapid intensification occurred within ~150 miles of the coast, thus reducing the potential surge. Small size reduced the surge, too. Katrina's total "energy" was far greater than Charley.

[MGC]

Yes that is all true, but the point is Charley was a 4 (almost a 5) and Katrina a 3, exactly why the SS scale needs refinement.....MGC

[Squarethecircle]

Yes that is all true, but the point is Charley was a 4 (almost a 5) and Katrina a 3, exactly why the SS scale needs refinement.....MGC

But the SS scale is based on wind damage. Perhaps there might be a need for a melded scale of sorts, which takes into account size, winds, and storm surge, specifically for ranking a storms potential danger. Meanwhile, for strength purposes, we may continue to use a more convenient scale (perhaps even one with pressure as a necessary requirement along with wind).

[tolakram]

The SS scale, or the people that use the SS scale fail to take lag into account. it seems to me a hurricane that rapidly strengthens to cat 5 and hits land is not going to be as damaging as a cat 5 the had rapidly weakened to 3 and hits land. I can spin my finger in the water at cat 5 speed but it takes the water a while to really get going. When I stop spinning the water keeps moving.

A good scale would represent the lag time and all the other factors that make a hurricane dangerous. water + wind + lag = danger #.

[Ptarmigan]

Charley had 145 mph winds and gusts as high as 180 mph. However, it was a small hurricane, unlike Katrina, which was a monster.

[HurricaneBill]

Actually, Charley had sustained winds of 150 mph at landfall in Cayo Costa.

[hurricanetrack]

Charley and other hurricanes in our past are great examples of why recording wind speeds with proper equipment is so important. A digital record or similar time-span account of wind speeds would help to truly gauge the severity of hurricanes when they hit land. Having random reports, both official and unofficial, with only a few observations at best is not doing the trick. This leaves the public wondering how strong the winds actually were and many questions remain unanswered.

Go back and read through some of the cyclone reports and note how many times the forecaster(s) mention the dire need for better ground observations during hurricanes. One full minute ad cost of the Superbowl would help to fund such an effort for several years in a row yet only a small handful of people are actually doing anything about it- with little to no funding at all. So as we are inching closer to hurricane season, think about the true lack of reliable wind data out there and what it may mean when the next Charley or Katrina comes calling.

[Derek Ortt]

see Dr Mark Powell's work for a better classification system

[Ed Mahmoud]

see Dr Mark Powell's work for a better classification system

Links?

[Sanibel]

The average hurricane lasts about 5 hours. Charley lasted for 1.5 hours. Apparently structures can withstand high intensity hurricane winds for short periods.

Charley had no surge because of vagaries between width, pressure, gradient and forward speed.

[CrazyC83]

Actually, Charley had sustained winds of 150 mph at landfall in Cayo Costa.

If Charley had 2-3 more hours over water, he would have likely hit at Cat 5...

[Cyclenall]

Actually, Charley had sustained winds of 150 mph at landfall in Cayo Costa.

If Charley had 2-3 more hours over water, he would have likely hit at Cat 5...

And I remember Derek saying Charley would have likely weakened to a category 3 if that happened.

[HurricaneBill]

The average hurricane lasts about 5 hours. Charley lasted for 1.5 hours. Apparently structures can withstand high intensity hurricane winds for short periods.

Charley had no surge because of vagaries between width, pressure, gradient and forward speed.

I thought some places received a 7ft surge.

[Derek Ortt]

Go to http://ams.allenpress.com and search for Powells BAMS article

As for Charley, had it have had 3-4 hours over the water, it likely would have been sheared apart and *could* have even weakened quickly below cat 3 status. Remember, when it reached Orlando, it was sheared apart and spared the city far worse destruction than it otherwise would have received

[CrazyC83]

Go to http://ams.allenpress.com and search for Powells BAMS article

As for Charley, had it have had 3-4 hours over the water, it likely would have been sheared apart and *could* have even weakened quickly below cat 3 status. Remember, when it reached Orlando, it was sheared apart and spared the city far worse destruction than it otherwise would have received

Interesting thoughts; I figured if Charley had not been impacted by shear at all, Orlando would have had mid-range Cat 2 winds of about 105 mph, to perhaps Cat 3 in the southern suburbs (it was a strong Cat 1 over Orlando, Cat 2 in the southern suburbs). Of course, being such a small storm, the numbers probably were quite different across the area - the western suburbs only had tropical storm conditions...

I know that if Charley had gone towards Tampa as forecasted with the trough where it was, he certainly would not have reached 150 mph as shear was greater up there (probably 115 mph at the most, maybe less). Had the trough been set back 100 miles and Charley gone that way, then I think we would have been looking at a Cat 5 landfall there though...