Hurricane Charley report

[Andrew92]

GREAT ONE RETURNS!!!

[recmod]

Who has created these updated reports on Charley and Ivan???? and what level of credibility does the individual have that has released these reports?? I think the spelling errors and poor use of grammar speaks for itself. Ivan was NOT a category 4 and Charley was NOT a 5 at landfall....at least I have seen no credible evidence presented to indicate otherwise

--Lou

[vbhoutex]

GREATLESS ONE IS GONE!!!

[MGC]

Code pink.......MGC

[MWatkins]

Talking with Richard Pasch NHC used 88 percent flight level not 90 to get 150. I talk with Landsea and other forecasters all the time.

No. There is 0% chance that Charley was a Category 5...an your "official wrapper" does not make it so.

Surface pressures in the low 940's...regardless of an indirect relationship to max winds considering the pressure background do not support it.

The eye was relatively well measured...nothing even gusting to cat 5 strength (please provide a source for the 173 gust) ...and the damage pattern...although severe...does not represent a category 5 hurricane.

I know I'm wasting my time in replying to this...but for anyone reading this thread Charley was never...or will never be classified a Category 5 hurricane. In terms of central pressure...Charley isn't even in the top 15 storms of all time.

What recon report are you taking 90% of? Why don't you mention this in your "report"?

Over the next several hours leading to landfall Charley based on radar and satellite continued to rapidly intensify and around 3pm edt right before first landfall on Captiva Island it's estimated that Charley hit category 5 status with sustained winds of 160mph in a very narrow area around the eye.

Tom...please...may I ask that you don't throw names around to support data you haven't presented. Although most of the information in your report was lifted right out of the NHC report (lead author...none other than Richard Pasch...who calls it a category 4)...you threw in your 173 gusts that were not covered in the NHC report. I do not think Mr. Pasch would be very happy with you using him as a source to contridict HIS work.

MW

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I would think 6 mph is not a heck of alot. 150 to 156 mph. So Charley was very close to a cat5. Some day shown Gust upwards of 180 mph. Even taking off that would still be 155 to 160 mph storm.

13 or so billion dollars of damage. Its darn close.

Ivan yes it was a cat5 over the Caribbean. No it was not a cat5 at the coast. Data shown that winds where no more then 130 mph at landfall. Some data I was looking at only shown 95 knot winds at landfall.


Mw you also forget Cyclone Tracy with 950 pressure.

[HurricaneBill]

Talking with Richard Pasch NHC used 88 percent flight level not 90 to get 150. I talk with Landsea and other forecasters all the time.

No, those are the voices in your head. We just didn't have the heart to tell you.

Over the next several hours leading to landfall Charley based on radar and satellite continued to rapidly intensify and around 3pm edt right before first landfall on Captiva Island it's estimated that Charley hit category 5 status with sustained winds of 160mph in a very narrow area around the eye.

First landfall was on Cayo Costa, you twit.

Honestly, Greatone, you've raised mental retardation to an art form.

[MWatkins]

I would think 6 mph is not a heck of alot. 150 to 156 mph. So Charley was very close to a cat5. Some day shown Gust upwards of 180 mph. Even taking off that would still be 155 to 160 mph storm.

13 or so billion dollars of damage. Its darn close.

Ivan yes it was a cat5 over the Caribbean. No it was not a cat5 at the coast. Data shown that winds where no more then 130 mph at landfall. Some data I was looking at only shown 95 knot winds at landfall.


Mw you also forget Cyclone Tracy with 950 pressure.

Matt...

My biggest beef is the outright lie that Richard Pasch says this was a cat 5. My second beef is the making up of facts that do not show up anywhere else.

Your point...as to what is the big deal between 150 and 156 MPH...is a good one but I think for a different reason. Our complete inability to get accurate wind measurements renders discussions like this one purely acedemic...what difference does it make if a cat 4 or cat 5 took your roof off and destroyed your belongings?

But in this case...peak winds were estimated at 130 knots...a full 10 knots below the threshold for a category 5 storm...and at that level 10 knots makes a huge difference.

We do know that the NHC/TPC will go up even in the absence of actual wind data (Gaston being a hurricane in post-analysis is a good example) there is nothing concrete or compelling...anywhere...that would support a category 5 classification. Even the made-up data didn't support the arguement.

But to your point....I agree 100%...what difference does it really make other than to have something to discuss in the dead of winter? It was still a nasty hurricane.

(ps I didn't forget tracy..the intensity at Darwin is still debated...I believe it is still also offically a Cat 4 but there is some debate that it was a Cat 5 (even though the Saffir Simpson sale only applies to the Atlantic)...but the damage pattern there was worse than SW FL...course...that's hard to quantifty considering differences in construction standards etc.)

MW