NATL: MELISSA - Aftermath - Discussion: Josh Morgerman video of Melissa is up

[GCANE]

 https://x.com/CIRA_CSU/status/1983961609832653270

[Nimbus]

This page has complete obs (wind, pressure, etc) from the airport over the last 24 hours. Pressure falling quickly now.

https://www.weather.bm/tools/graphics.a ... 24HR&user=

69 knots will take out power for a while in Bermuda, the storm is moving fast and forward speed added to the tropical storm strength winds on the east side.

Lowest pressure argument would need to take into account the mesovortex pentagram at landfall.
There were 5 different lowest pressures beyond our skill to determine.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journ ... 0.co_2.xml

[GCANE]

2 Corinthians 1:8-9

We were crushed and overwhelmed beyond our ability to endure, and we thought we would never live through it.
In fact, we expected to die.
But as a result, we stopped relying on ourselves and learned to rely only on God, who raises the dead.

[Dean_175]

Are we really still looking at a cyclone that is still tropical? Just has a bit more to go before it is definitively merged with that frontal system.

[ncforecaster89]

 https://x.com/tbrite89/status/1984217097711292792



Because I’m unfamiliar with how to post images here, I’m going to simply provide my most recent post on twitter/X. It contains the pertinent satellite imagery that clearly shows the significant degradation of the satellite appearance during the last three hours prior to landfall, as noted in the previous post, above.

[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)?

[MGC]

Good riddance Melissa.....interesting to see if Melissa tie or surpassed the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 landfall pressure of 892mb.......MGC

[Teban54]

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.

So many things about Melissa are unique, impressive, and sometimes even bizarre:

• The contrast between a weak, sheared TS that stalled for days, vs. an MH and then top-tier Cat 5 that also stalled for days
• The enormous model uncertainty ranging from Puerto Rico to Honduras -- and GFS's spectacular failure to acknowledge a Jamaica landfall until it was force-fed into the model
• The countless center reformations in its early life: the number of LLCs that Melissa ever had was likely equal to the category number it eventually reached
• The insane sub-900 model runs from HAFS and Google DeepMind (the latter even relied heavily upon by NHC) -- and the fact that they actually verified, in even more impressive manners than depicted
• The two nights of cold cloud tops and ADT showing record-high numbers (eventually to an unholy 8.5), and, especially during the first night, the shocking low actual intensities from recon in comparison
• The repeated eyewall melds, long duration at Cat 5 intensity, and the absolute refusal to undergo an EWRC or weaken by more than a few mb
• The living example to disprove that reaching sub-900 requires ERI with a pinhole eye, instead getting there slowly but steadily
• The near-worst-case scenario for impacts on Jamaica: Days of rainfall from a stalling storm nearby, followed by a historic landfall and flooding well detached from the path
• The multiple scientific debates and future research directions it will (hopefully) leave behind: the role of the tropopause in Dvorak and its factors; the use of dropsonades, SFMR and FL reduction ratios; and the effect of shear direction on EWRCs vs. eyewall melds
• And of course, the strongest, truly once-in-a-lifetime landfall on record, in both winds and pressure

[sasha_B]

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.

[Kazmit]

Melissa was surprisingly potent here in Bermuda. Over half the island lost power (including myself) which is more than Imelda. The forward speed must have contributed quite a bit to the SW winds we experienced. And to think it was only a shell of what it was earlier in its life. These are the peak wind/gust observations I saw last night, before my service stopped working. This station is well above sea level but still impressive.

[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.

[ljmac75]

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.

[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).