Jeanne likely actually landfalling as cat 2...per NHC

[yoda]

It is most definitely a cat-3...check out this recon data from the NOAA aircraft....God help those folks in the north eyewall who didn't evacuate

http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/SL.us008001 ... n.0002.txt

For those who can't translate...after making the vortex fix, the NOAA aircraft flew into the north eyewall, right along the coast....and found flight level winds of 113 kts. Even more alarming, check out those three-digit numbers in the column at the far right of the page. That's the surface wind data....98 kts, 104 kts, and one spot where the estimated surface wind is 112 kts....or 129 mph.
That's why flight level winds and central pressure readings don't always tell the true strength of a landfalling hurricane.

Now I know why the reporter in Port St Lucie said it was so bad there...and according to this NOAA recon data, it's likely even worse farther up the coast....in the north eyewall region between Fort Pierce and Melbourne.

Well then the NHC and its vortex data are conflicting with each other...

[senorpepr]

It is most definitely a cat-3...check out this recon data from the NOAA aircraft....God help those folks in the north eyewall who didn't evacuate

http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/SL.us008001 ... n.0002.txt

For those who can't translate...after making the vortex fix, the NOAA aircraft flew into the north eyewall, right along the coast....and found flight level winds of 113 kts. Even more alarming, check out those three-digit numbers in the column at the far right of the page. That's the surface wind data....98 kts, 104 kts, and one spot where the estimated surface wind is 112 kts....or 129 mph.
That's why flight level winds and central pressure readings don't always tell the true strength of a landfalling hurricane.

Now I know why the reporter in Port St Lucie said it was so bad there...and according to this NOAA recon data, it's likely even worse farther up the coast....in the north eyewall region between Fort Pierce and Melbourne.

However, that one report of 112kt is not confirmed as a sustained wind.

[Guest]

so why are max's boys sending out bad discussions? im cornfused.

[Lockhart]

This makes looking back on previous discussion interesting. It was clear that the storm was going to intensify over the much warmer waters just before Florida. Some people mentioned the significant dry air affecting the hurricane negatively and suggested the hurricane was going to get less strong (from 3 to 2) instead of intensify (from 3 to 4). They were screamed at over and over for how stupid they were.

Looks like they were right, and perhaps the people who called others names (when they were actually saying something correct) will be less likely to do so in the future.

If it does actually landfall as a Cat2, they'll be right for all the wrong reasons, so who cares?

Well, clearly you haven't learned from this.

Making arguments based on (obvious) science which end up being borne out by the data cannot be considered "right for all the wrong reasons".

Yelling at people, especially when they are correct, and definitely when they are well-intentioned, is wrong, and not for any right reason.

[Tri-State_1925]

He's referring to all the bickering here when Ivan hit over whether it was really as strong as they said it was. "Ivan's only a cat 2!"

There's as many people who want to downplay storms as there are those who want to overrate a storm. But in the end, there are going to be deaths and a lot of damage.

[Scorpion]

OK end of discussion. Jeanne was a major hurricane at landfall.

[Guest]

waiting for recon to back that up.....

[Guest]

max mayfiled just said recent SFMR data shows a large extent of cat 3 winds

Derek can you tell him that this was stronger then 115? This 115 is a bunch of bs with 951 pressure. It was a strong cat3.

[CAL]

OK end of discussion. Jeanne was a major hurricane at landfall.

Amen.

[Sean in New Orleans]

It is landing as a category 3, IMO. Ft. Pierce has already had gusts over 120mph and with the strongest winds at sustained 115mph just offshore about to move onshore around Ft. Pierce and Sebastien, I think we are looking at a category 3 landfall. I wouldn't be surprised to see isolated gusts over 130mph with Jeanne depending on the strength of the actual squalls as they reach land.

[NorthGaWeather]

waiting for recon to back that up.....

Recon did back it up. Its a Cat 3 sorry if you don't think that.

[yoda]

Umm no. I just heard Max Mayfield say that Jeanne is indeed a Cat 3. There goes the Cat 2 BS.

Well we will see... It may be a CAT 2...

[yoda]

waiting for recon to back that up.....

Recon did back it up. Its a Cat 3 sorry if you don't think that.

At an earlier time...

[Scorpion]

Exactly. Recon does not need to confirm surface winds greater than 111 mph which have already been reported.

[NorthGaWeather]

waiting for recon to back that up.....

Recon did back it up. Its a Cat 3 sorry if you don't think that.

At an earlier time...

yes about 15 mins ago I quess it was.

[Guest]

scorpion..please link me the sustained 111mph+ wind reports.


latest recon was less than 115mph surface, per NHC.

[Lockhart]

According to the latest recon report I can find, it says maximum sustained winds estimated at 111.8 mph. Category 3 is 111-130, so according to that, it's *barely* Category 3. If it makes you feel better to be able to say, "See, it's 3!", great. Personally, it makes *me* feel better to know that it's much less powerful than it could have been if it had intensified a lot recently as many had expected.

[Tri-State_1925]

Nobody was yelling at people about the dry air. The fact was the storm was weakening, but not as much as people were saying at the time.

I don't know what kind of prizes you guys want for being right...

[yoda]

Exactly. Recon does not need to confirm surface winds greater than 111 mph which have already been reported.

Please show me where surface winds have already been reported at 111 mph plus...

[Lockhart]

Nobody was yelling at people about the dry air. The fact was the storm was weakening, but not as much as people were saying at the time.

I don't know what kind of prizes you guys want for being right...

You must have missed those discussions. I saw several in which people who mentioned the storm looking ragged because of running into huge areas of dry air were ridiculed and even called trolls. Your attitude is perfectly symptomatic of the problem. I posted to point out that rude people had been wrong and to note that maybe in the future, they'd be less obnoxious in telling other people they think they're wrong. Considering that those other people just turned out to be right, that should be obvious. Instead of considering that a perfectly reasonable and civil comment/request, you say I'm suggesting people want "prizes" for being right.

People just don't want other people calling them names--especially when they're right and the other people are wrong.