The Babylon Bee nails it again.
Excerpts from the Bee:
“This situation is completely unprecedented,” said global warming expert and local dog groomer Rodney Carlson. “I’ve never seen a hurricane of this magnitude forming in hurricane alley during the hurricane season, and my records go back over 75 days! Clearly, this can only be explained by global warming.”
…
“I guess this is the price we pay for destroying the planet with our dangerous CO2 emissions,” Smith continued. “Still, I never thought I’d live to see the day that a hurricane hit Florida. Gee, I hope this won’t affect this weekend’s Miami Hurricanes game!”
Expect the climate kook caterwauling to commence immediately.
As Dr. Roy Spencer says on Facebook, (conveniently tagging me):
… cue the media claims that climate change is causing hurricanes to go farther inland (in addition to previous claims they are stalling on the coast, i.e. Harvey).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Clearly this hurricane is not like any other. Uh huh, and you are clearly not like any other human being on the planet
No two grains of sand are alike either
The seasons are now: hurricane, snow, tornado and heatwave
Good one! Uh maybe you might add “Drought”
Drought is all year round except when there is flooding.
You mean it’s year around Extreme Season.
What is it? Cat 10?
Explanation of cat rating…
Thanks mate… made my day. lol.
Not my work, just a pic I found or got sent… but it is fun. 🙂
I can guarantee you that it just got sent again. 🙂
And again!
Ooooh!
Going to need that for the coming Cyclone season in Northern Australia to annoy the folks in the cult of warming.
They’ve named this hurricane “Helene-Isaac-Joyce-Kirk-Leslie-Milton-Nadine-Oscar-Patty-Rafael-Sara-Tara-Valerie-William-Shatner-XYZ-PDQ-R2D2-C-3PO” to reflect the unprecedented magnitude.
Thus, with the 29 named storms this season, 22 in late September alone, early NOAA projections of OMGWereDOOOOOOMED!!!!! for this hurricane season were sadly understated.
This reflects the urgency of transferring our bank accounts to Dear Chairman Xi, tomorrow, at the soonest.
The picture shows a woman doing what Comrade Harris did during the Trump debate. They are completely clueless.
Holistic this, holistic that, and holistic everywhere–Harris is a complete loser.
“Harris is a complete loser.
In a very wholistic way. 🙂
God help the USA and the world if she becomes president…
But she grew up in a middles-class neighborhood where everyone was proud of their lawn. But if you break into her house, she will shoot you.
And she laughed. Who laughs at shooting someone? It’s only a non-serious person like Comrade Harris.
When Kamala was Attorney General in California, she promoted a gun-confiscation law, and told people that she would come into your house to make sure you were obeying the new gun laws.
So Kamala is more than willing to invade your privacy if it promotes her agenda. In other words, you are a peon, and you will obey Kamala.
We don’t want a person with this mindset as president. We might as well elect Vladimir Putin as president.
The UK has only just released Julian Assange, is locking people up for X post’s and shouting at police dogs, and Edward Snowdon is living in Russia.
But sure, Putin’s bad.
Putin is bad. Snowden and Assange are still alive aren’t they?
Ask H. Clinton. The word is deplorables.
“God help the USA and the world if she becomes president…”
This would be a disaster for everyone if radical Democrats like Harris, continue in power.
Radical Democrats are destroying the United States. Don’t vote for radical Democrats if you value your freedoms because radical Democrats are going to take them away from you. Write this down.
I am actually quite afraid of what my brother might do if she isn’t elected.
To himself or to people around him?
People around him. Like me.
Sorry to hear that. Not my place to jump in on a personal or family issue, but I hope you stay safe.
The programming is real.
Humorous note from yesterday. Harris claims she is a Capitalist.
😂 🤣 😅 😆
Just like she’s not going to try to take your guns, she’s not against frakking, etc.
She’s a holistic capitalist, I guess.
😆😅🤣😂
There is no such thing as a moderate Democrat anymore; they vote lock-step Leftist.
Democrats have decided that “action” is always necessary when they don’t get their way.
I’ve decided that that I don’t want to be associated with whining children throwing tantrums who don’t get their way.
But Tom if you value freedom why would you vote for a man who wants to limit financial freedom by making the people pay tariffs. Whatever happened to the free market?
It was a nice, September day here in east Texas. Only about 85°F. But that must be evidence of climate change.
I live in Georgia just south of Macon. Helene was supposed to be +60 knts wind right now. It’s actually near calm. The weather guy is puzzled as he looks at the radar as it doesn’t agree with observations looking out the window.
I have to laugh at the weather guy on Fox Weather who is always standing out in the high winds and knee-deep water, when a hurricane comes around, and I noticed he was wearing a hard hat this time, supposedly to protect him from flying debris.
Here’s a clue: How about staying out of the high winds, and then you won’t have to wear a hardhat. Of course, that wouldn’t be dramatic enough, would it.
I have lived through Typhoons you couldn’t stand up in. Can’t be much of a hurricane if he’s standing during it.
The best was some weather “reporter” leaning heavily into the wind, trying to make it look much worse than it was, while two kids nonchalantly walked by in the background. 🤣😂
Helene is the third Atlantic cyclone (Ernestonwas pretty feeble, Beryl Cat 5 landfalling Texas Cat 1). Storm Isaac is the ninth named storm in 2034. By September 27 this is a phenomenally quiet cyclone year despite NOAA BBC and Guardian newspaper predicting catastrophic.
NOAA and the BBC and the Guardian and the other sources of hurricane fearmongering always claim the current hurricane season will be the worst evah!, with the exception of 2014 and 2015 seasons, and they only declared 2014 and 2015 as being “below normal” hurricane numbers after ten years of no major hurricanes (Cat 3, 4, or 5) hitting the United States from 2005 to 2017. So after about 10 years, NOAA finally got a clue and changed their forecast.
I heard one report that said there hadn’t been a hurricane as widespread as Helene since 1896. So, I glean from this, that Helene is not unprecedented and was not necessarily caused by CO2 because we have records of hurricanes just as big as Helene in a period when CO2 was not an issue (1896, much less CO2 in the air then).
How inconvenient for the Climate Alarmists.
University of Colorado.
Reports are surfacing the Helene might not have been a CAT 4 after all.
If reports are true, ground based stations (weather and airports) show it was no where near a CAT 4.
I do not claim any expertise in hurricanes, but it seems highly suspicious that a CAT 4 hurricane degrades in Florida to a tropical storm mere hours after landfall.
What reports? AF306 mission 18 directly measured surface winds of 135 mph at 23:50Z prior to Helene’s peak intensity.
Ground based stations are almost never exposed to the maximum winds.
You think it is highly suspicious that Helene weakened over land?
“You think it is highly suspicious that Helene weakened over land?”
You quote someone, then completely misquote them, ignoring that the comment was talking about how rapid the storm degraded, not the fact that it degraded. This betrays a bias.
Also there are issues with wind speed and dropped radiosonde measurements…
https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/165/2022/
First…no there isn’t. The publication you reference even says so.
Second…the publication you reference has no relevance to Helene’s winds.
was referring to the issue of the instrument tumbling. How much worse in a hurricane? See my below comment desctibing the issue. Your bias prevents you from seeing it.
RS41 radiosondes are not deployed in tropical cyclones. Your own preferred source discusses this.
What does this even mean? What bias?
You linked to “United States Air Force
Aircraft: Lockheed WC-130J Hercules with reg. number AF97-5306
with , “Information About Radiosonde:
– Launch Time: 23:45Z
– About Sonde: A descending radiosonde tracked automatically by satellite navigation with NO solar or infrared correction.”
The issue of tumbling spinning instruments, giving a reading every second, and imperfectly tracked, definitely requires error bars, which you have not provided, as well as discussing sustained wind, vs gusts, which vary greatly.
I am looking for wind damage that matches a cat 4, and a storm surge that matched the predictions. It may well exist, yet I have not seen it yet. Also nice would be a clear definition of how this storm would have been rated in past decades. ( Like before hurricane flights, and post hurricane flights yet pre 24-7 monitoring) I suspect the same storm would have been rated very differently over disparate decades. What do you think?
This comment claims https://realclimatescience.com/2024/09/mann-says-he-was-correct/#comment-900027
I managed to find the VORTEX message delivered from the Hurricane Hunter that traversed the storm just prior to landfall and it reported the maximum surface winds inbound as 104.7 mph and outbound as 105.9, at 1:53 and 1:58Z. (10 PM local time, and landfall was just past 11 PM local)
This puts the storm at a category 2, not a 4. However at 10,000 feet altitude, the speeds were 118.5 mph inbound and 147.3 mph outbound. But wind speed decreases closer to the ground, and we do not use the flight level wind as the yardstick for categorizing Hurricanes!
Likewise the METAR data for Tallahassee airport shows the max winds at 18 to 18.5 mph, with gusts from 53 to 57 mph in the 3 hours of minimum pressure of 977.4 mb – when the eyewall passed a bit to the east of the airport.
With this link…
https://aircraft.myfoxhurricane.com/recon/recon.cgi?basin=al&year=2024&product=vortex&storm=Helene&mission=18&agency=AF&ob=09-27-021050-19-941-103%28129%29-
Thoughts?
I didn’t know I was responsible for providing this information. It provides a reading 4 times per seconds. The error bars are ±0.5 m/s. [Aberson et al. 2023]
I’ve not seen a video taken during or in the aftermath located in the band of maximum winds. This band made landfall in very sparsely populated area…fortunately.
I honestly don’t know.
Yes. Tropical cyclones typically weaken rapidly when over land.
Which Tom Abbot was clearly aware of.
I was responding to Sparta Nova 4’s statement “I do not claim any expertise in hurricanes, but it seems highly suspicious that a CAT 4 hurricane degrades in Florida to a tropical storm mere hours after landfall.”
whch was referencing the speed of degradion, not the fact that it did.
Which Sparta Nova was clearly aware of.
If this poster was clearly aware that tropical cyclones weaken rapidly then why state that it is highly suspicious?
the definition of rapidly weaken
Apparently the trajectory of the storm had something to do with it.
I used to live in Florida.
From what I read it is typical for a hurricane to lose half its strength in 24 hours after landfall.
Published reports:
9/26 11:10 pm cat 4
9/27 2:00 am cat 1
9/27 1:56 pm tropical depression
In 3 hours dropped from 140 mph to 95 mph? That was the point of my curiosity.
I have yet to find a weather station that reported hurricane-force winds. The National Data Buoy Center has one buoy that was directly in line with Helene. Check out the data on 42036. I would call Helene a Cat 1 storm. There are many weather stations with data surrounding where Helene came ashore. None show wind speeds higher than 50 mph. NOAA is just not telling the truth. No surprise there.
increase in sea surface temperature (SST) is supposed to cause bigger hurricanes according the the Climate experts (not hurricane experts)
Over the last 200 years the SST has increased, yet the ACE (the measure of accumulated hurricane intensity ) has been very steady over the last 200 years (after adjusting for observational deficiencies).
In other words, we have 200 years of data that does not support the theory!
If it’s unprecedented it must, by definition, be a one-off event (to date, that is). Statistically, one-off events prove nothing, they’re just “happenings”. God, they’re getting desperate!
The Climate Alarmists *are* getting desperate. They seize on every weather event as being evidence of CO2 affecting the Earth’s weather.
There is no evidence that CO2 is or can affect the Earth’s weather. Any claims to the contrary are pure speculation.
Further to – Helene dropped to Cat2 immediately on landfall but that part of Florida also had Storm Denny earlier this year so sell up and move to Winnipeg.
I was reading the other day that the average track of the hurricanes had gradually been moving north for many hundreds of years, but since 1870 it was definitely down to anthropogenic climate change. And that was serious climate science.
There was also strong indication of the mother of all hurricanes, unrecorded by history, in the 1500s I think it was.
I think it was a Bermuda cave stalagmite proxy report.
I heard that too. Also there was an article (PBS,NOVA?) concerning coral fragments from a rare coral located well S of Puerto Rico found N of Puerto Rico by underwater archeologists -same time frame. There was also supposed to be a big sea battle between the English, French, and Dutch navies over colonization goals in the Carib. sea. The Dutch were late to the festivities and found no other fleets; estimates were 60,000 dead sailors and 2 fleets wiped out. Wish I could remember the source.
Anybody know more or differently?
How can Helene have been rated Category 4? I’ve been looking at buoy readings near landfall, from https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/radial_search.php?lat1=29.4&lon1=-84.2&uom=E&dist=150&ot=A&time=12 , and here is the strongest I could find:
42036 B 2310 28.50 -84.51 56 197 20 58.3 93.2 – – – – 28.04 – 81.0 – 81.0 – – – – – – – – – —- —– 14.76 12.1 SSE 19.68 7.7 ESE STEEP
42036 B 2300 28.50 -84.51 56 197 30 62.2 87.4 24.6 – 8.1 167 28.18 -0.82 81.0 – 81.0 – – – – – – – – – —- —– 14.76 12.1 SSE 19.68 7.7 ESE STEEP
So, highest sustained speed 62.2 knots at 2300Z, just about Cat 1. Highest gust 93.2 knots at 2310Z.
That is among all buoys within 150 nautical miles. Can some American raise an FOI with NOAA for actual data on Helene? It’s amazing how the wind field managed to duck and weave between all those buoys! Buoy oh buoy [sorry]!
The CO2 was not well-mixed around those buoys and that threw the readings off.
This would not be the first time NOAA’s hurricane speed numbers have been questioned.
I see your buoys and raise you a VORTEX and 3 METARS! The Air Force Hurricane Hunter report (VORTEX message) at 10 PM local, an hour before landfall reports surface wind speeds as 104.7 mph inbound and 105.9 mph outbound. This puts it as a CAT 2 storm, not a CAT 4 as the NHC reported. (National Hurricane Center)
https://aircraft.myfoxhurricane.com/recon/recon.cgi?basin=al&year=2024&product=vortex&storm=Helene&mission=18&agency=AF&ob=09-27-021050-19-941-103%28129%29-
Now what these malfeasant’s are doing is reporting the flight level winds to determine category, which is not accurate, nor protocol. Same VORTEX report shows inbound at 10,000 feet above sea level as 118.5 mph inbound and 147.3 mph outbound.
Likewise, the METAR for KTLH (Tallahassee International Airport) for the 3 hours of minimum pressure at 39-41 mph with 53-60 mph gusts, and the eyewall passed a few miles to the east of the airport. (see attached) This is mere tropical storm force winds, not Hurricane force.
These idiots at NOAA and the NHC had better rethink their lying ways, because people living through these storms will recognize they were lied to, and never again trust the warnings.
Tallahassee was not in the area of maximum wind; not even close.
AF306 mission 18 dropsonde 5 measured 135 mph at 950 mb (sfc) at 23:45Z when the minimum central pressure was 942 mb. The hurricane intensified another 5 mb bottoming out at 937 mb at 2:14Z. The KTLH radar was measuring 190 mph winds at this time. We cannot eliminate the possibility that Helene’s maximum surface winds were actually over 140 mph just prior to landfall.
You are mistaken, or misguided. KTLH was in fact 6-7 statute miles from the eye, which had a radius of 16 Statute miles. The Eyewall was several miles extending from this measured radius, outward, so KTLH was indeed very close to the region of maximum wind.
In fact you claim (without evidence) that radar from KTLH measured 190 mph winds. (which is doubtful) I supplied the only facts that matter, which is the official METAR from KTLH, which if fudged or incorrect will cause passenger plane accidents, so it is not fudged..
The METARs From 02:58Z until 03:53Z the wind speed on the ground measured by anemometers was 32-41 MPH with gusts 47-60 MPH when the airport encountered the minimum pressure. i.e. it was closest to the center of the eye. (see attachment in previous post)
Furthermore, attached is the latest AF306 mission before landfall. It was transmitted (from the aircraft) at 02:34Z. It reports the center at time 02:10:05Z, and minimum central pressure of 941 mb. So you are claiming that the pressure dropped from 941 to 937 mb in 4 minutes??? Nonsense you are mistaken.
You further muddy your discombobulated reply by including supposed AF306 reports from 23:45Z, stating the central pressure was 942 mb and saying a dropsonde measured 135 mph at the surface. Again I challenge your statements. For one 23:45Z is 2 hours and 50 minutes, or almost 3 hours before the final pass of AF306 attached. And this final report puts the surface wind speeds at 105 to 106 MPH with central pressure at 941 mb. So are you saying the general guideline of wind speed being proportional to central pressure is false, or reversed here? No I believe you are mistaken or making stuff up.
And we can eliminate that the wind speed was 140 MPH just before landfall based on the attached AF306 data, the lack of CAT 4 wind damage, the fact numerous ground stations all around never got above tropical storm force winds, and the KTLH METAR data.
Personally I would not believe one thing you have to say in the numerous following posts. Have a nice day.
The level 2 radar data can be downloaded here.
Being closest to the center eye necessarily means you weren’t in the band of maximum winds. Further not a single station broadcasting METARs were close to the band of maximum winds or along the coast where frictional effects of the land are at a minimum.
I mad no such claim. All I said is that at the time the 135 mph was measured the central pressure was at 942 mb. The official landfalling pressure is list by the NHC as 938 mb. AF306 measured 937.2 mb at 2:14Z. The dropsonde measurement of 941 mb at 2:14Z had 27 kt winds meaning that it didn’t hit the center. The general rule is a 1-2 mb high bias per 10 kts. The 4 minutes thing is something you claimed. I’m going to tell you what I tell everyone else. Don’t expect me to defend your arguments especially when they are absurd.
Here and here.
I know. So in about 3 hours Helene intensified another 4-5 mb after the 135 mph was measured. I have no idea where you get the idea that this intensification happened in 4 minutes.
No it doesn’t. Just because the final pass of AF306 did not go through band of maximum winds nor penetrated the center of the eye does not mean that Helene did not have a band of maximum winds or a center within the eye. Remember, recon’s mission is to sample the whole storm; not just a small part of it.
I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying wind speeds are proportional to the central pressure. A 4-5 mb drop in pressure indicates an increase in wind speeds. That means we cannot eliminate the possibility that the NHC’s 140 mph estimate may actually be too low.
I posted the data. I believe you are misunderstanding how tropical cyclones behave. It is important to note that tropical cyclones do not have homogenous wind fields. They’re maximum winds are always over water and the wind speeds decrease significantly over land. Buoy and land stations 1) are almost never in the band of maximum winds and 2) often do not survive long enough to measure the maximum wind even when they are.
Remember, 135 mph was at 942 mb. Helene further intensified to at least 938 mb and KTLH observed 190 mph winds suggesting that the surface winds may have been higher than 140 mph.
I have yet to see any damage reports from location that experienced the band of maximum winds so you can’t say it wasn’t a category 4 based only on the damage you’ve seen thus far. And like I said you can’t say it wasn’t a category 4 based on land stations. Whether it is right or wrong hurricane categories are based on the maximum winds; not on random wind reports far away from that band.
Ok. If you want to believe that Helene wasn’t even a hurricane go ahead, but that is contrary to all of the data collected.
Hurricanes are rated based on their maximum wind speed. Buoy’s are 1) almost never in the area of maximum winds, 2) do not reliability record winds that high, and 3) often do not survive. The maximum wind speed is usually recorded by aircraft recon or estimated by radar. No need for an FOI request. Most of the data is publicly available. For example, AF306 mission #18 dropsonde #5 measured 174 mph at 920 mb and 135 mph at 950 mb and that still wasn’t the area of maximum wind. And as Helene approached land the KTLH radar measured over 190 mph at about 1000 feet in the area of maximum wind. Given that it is possible that the NHC may upgrade Helene as part of their post storm analysis. The NHC has a history of being too conservative with their wind speed updates in real time.
Every single weather station anywhere near Helene shows sub 60 mph winds. The data is what it is.
First… that’s not true. Many (too many to count) did, in fact, show winds > 60 mph. Many of these were well inland where land friction slows the wind speeds dramatically. Second, there was no surviving ground station which reports to the public that was in Helene’s maximum wind field and near the coast. The closest station was Keaton Beach and it was not operational. We’ll have to wait for the post storm investigation to see what other stations may have been in the path that the general public is not aware of.
Yep. And the data unequivocally and indisputably says Helene was a category 4 hurricane. And given the KTLH radar data showing 190 mph winds in the western eyewall we cannot yet eliminate the possibility that that NHC was actually underestimating the maximum wind of 140 mph.
Same question! Perry Airport Max= ESE55 G99 on 9/26 11:15pm; Tallahassee Airport Max= NW41G60 on 9/26 11:51pm and Buoy 42306 Max= NNE67 G107 on 9/26 5:10pm. NHC Update 9/26 11:20pm “based on aircraft data, winds estimated at 140mph”. Why not use actual mph data or Doppler signature?! During Hurricane Andrew, Cat 5, the anemometer at the NWS showed a gust of 163mph! Helene was a serious storm and “Cat 4” is great for headlines, but is this how the official records get “adjusted”?
They use that too. But they have to adjust it down to compensate for the vertical wind profile. KTLH was measuring winds of 190 mph in area where the maximum winds were being generated.
Was not exposed to Helene’s maximum winds.
Was not exposed to Helene’s maximum winds.
Was not exposed to Helene’s maximum winds.
No. Hurricane intensities are set based on the maximum winds. As is often the case the NHC is often conservative with real time hurricane intensity updates. Based on the data collected we cannot eliminate the possibility that Helene had winds in excess of 140 mph. The NHC will do a post storm analysis and determine the final intensity.
Never the less, historically that is not how hurricanes were measured, as said technology was not there. So it is very valid to use the saffer Simpson scale, and actual ground readings from as close to the eye wall as possible. Likewise with storm surge. There is little doubt that past historic storms would have been even stronger, with current measurement methods.
Also it is maximum “sustained” winds, and I am not certain radiosonde reading give that, and know their are accuracy issues with them…
https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/165/2022/
“A descending radiosonde tracked by satellite navigation from an airplane may not be accurate for wind speed because the rapid descent can cause the balloon to behave erratically, leading to unreliable position data which is crucial for calculating wind speed; essentially, the descent is too fast to accurately measure the wind’s influence on the radiosonde’s movement.
Key points to consider:
It’s good article, but it has nothing to do Helene’s windspeed or any hurricane’s wind speed for that matter.
Well your surface reading 135 mph before peak intensity was from a radiosonde dropped from a plane, ao please explain how that can not apply, and provide a link to the error bars for such plane drops as you quoted.
It was from a dropsonde.
Because the RS41 radiosonde is different than the NRD41 dropsonde. The NRD41 is specifically designed for descents into strong hurricanes.
[Aberson et al. 2023]
This is a good article on the ther methods used in dropsconde, and the many challenges..
“Individual dropsonde profiles contain information on a variety of scales. Because the sonde responds to whatever turbulence it encounters as it descends, “spot” values at any given level should not be interpreted as a sustained (e.g., 1-min mean) wind. Turbulence studies have demonstrated that Lagrangian (parcel) wind measurements are inherently smoother than Eulerian (fixed-point anemometer) measurements (Gifford 1955), with dominant periods longer by a factor of about 3–4 (Angell et al. 1971). This result can be understood by considering an air parcel representing a gust as it moves past an anemometer. From the anemometer’s point of view, the gust parcel moves quickly past the instrument and is gone, whereas a tracer embedded within the gust continues to experience the higher wind speed for an extended period of time. This would suggest that a parcel trajectory would in general require very long averaging times, on the order of several minutes, to obtain something equivalent to a 1-min mean anemometer wind. Such averaging is, of course, not possible with a dropsonde, which samples the wind at any given level only briefly.”
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2003)018%3C0032:GDWPIH%3E2.0.CO;2
In other sections other challenges are discussed. Modeling choices are made, and it is difficult to know which are being used. Again, lets us look at physical wind speed damage and storm surge, as well as anemonitor reading where possible.
Do you know of an anemometer that was in the band of maximum winds?
Since anemometers use complex models to provide a meaningful wind speed would you even accept observations from them?
Since anemometers often have higher uncertainties than dropsondes would you even accept observations from them?
You are underestimating the anemometers for sustained winds, and not considering the disparate factors that affect dropsconde readings for actual surface measurements.
“I managed to find the VORTEX message delivered from the Hurricane Hunter that traversed the storm just prior to landfall and it reported the maximum surface winds inbound as 104.7 mph and outbound as 105.9, at 1:53 and 1:58Z. (10 PM local time, and landfall was just past 11 PM local)
This puts the storm at a category 2, not a 4. However at 10,000 feet altitude, the speeds were 118.5 mph inbound and 147.3 mph outbound. But wind speed decreases closer to the ground, and we do not use the flight level wind as the yardstick for categorizing Hurricanes!”
https://aircraft.myfoxhurricane.com/recon/recon.cgi?basin=al&year=2024&product=vortex&storm=Helene&mission=18&agency=AF&ob=09-27-021050-19-941-103%28129%29-
There is no anemometer to underestimate because there was no anemometer in the band of maximum wind.
That VORTEX message is consistent with a category 4 hurricane. It says the maximum flight level wind was 149 mph which corresponds to 134 mph at the surface using the standard 0.9 multiplier.
Flight level winds are used for hurricane classification. Other types of observations include dropsondes, buoys, land based radar, flight based radar, drone boats, UAVs, ADT, etc. All are used for hurricane classification.
The most important factor in all of this to that seems be misunderstood is that it is the MAXIMUM wind that matters.
BTW…I mentioned ADT above. That is the Advanced Dvorak Technique based on satellite data. It actually classified Helene as a category 5 with winds of 158 mph.
I think another real issue with drop sondes and aircraft is that they cannot measure at 10m above ground level, and then it is up to models to convert their high altitude readings into 10m values. But those algorithms might not be especially accurate, especially at hurricane wind speeds, since the vortex of a hurricane isn’t just a normal laminar air flow. I think there needs to be a serious study into continuing mismatches between those “measurements” and actual ones during a hurricane. Hey, perhaps the NWS should install many mobile anemometers in the path of a hurricane, and then they would get a proper assessment of this problem.
They can measure at 10m above ground level. Anyway, there is no mismatch of observations at least in Helene’s case. All observations are consistent with the expectation of the other observations given Helene’s vertical and horizontal structure at least with a reasonable margin of error. For example, buoy 42036 reported 72 mph at 23:00Z in or close to the western eyewall during a time when our expectation might have been as low as 65 mph.
See above please…
I do not know what they define by or as surface reading. It depends on the timing of the signal during the drop. But yes, they often model the surface measurement, and there is considerable variability and controversy of that. The link I placed described how the profiles vary from storm to storm.
Bdgwx noted the anemometer comment I made, but missed the cogent part of that. (Good idea about placing more in the path to get confirmation.) The single reading he quotes, as a surface measurement, can not be considered to be more then a gust.
He also did not acknowledge the wide variety of assumed variance at disparate altitudes, or the individual storm variable, as the profiles change markedly.. He did not comment on the link to the comments at Real Climate closer to landfall. His reading was about an hour before. He did not define surface reading, and a hundred feet makes a difference. By the time the storm eye hits, especially if the eye wall is in the weak part of a typical cycle, the storm may weaken by the time of landfall as almost 1/2 the storm is over land.
Every MSM news organization claimed record storm surge for The Cedar Key area from Helena. It was about 10′, and nowhere near a record, just slightly beating a late 1890s storm.
October 4, 1842 – A 955 mbar major hurricane which makes landfall on northwestern Florida produces a 20-foot (6 m) storm surge at Cedar Key. Strong winds result in severe damage in Tallahassee, (9555 mb, and twice the surge)
October 11, 1846 – The Great Havana Hurricane of 1846 passes near Key West with an estimated pressure of 902 mbar (hPa) and winds of possibly Category 5 status,[39] damaging or destroying all but 6 of the houses in the city. 50 are killed,(No reported surge?)
None of this means this was not a very serious storm, and like usuall, the water and extreme flooding, even well inland, created the worst issues. I would like to see exactly the current criteria for storm rating. I do not think 24 7 satellite readings and dropscondes are accurate for surface winds, storm surge, and wind damage, especially compared to past methods.
I’ve talked a lot about the difference in both the horizontal and vertical wind structure of Helene.
I’ve talked a lot about multiple corroborating observations that confirmed that Helene was not only a hurricane, but a category 4 by a comfortable margin.
If you missed these discussion points in my posts then I ask you to go back and read my posts again.
As it turns out, no cities in FL experienced hurricane-force winds.
Monticello, FL weather forecast | MSN Weather
To confirm this just look at the September wind speeds for every city around where Helene came ashore.
That site is junk. I clicked on Perry, FL and it said the maximum wind for September was 15.9 mph. The Perry-Foley Airport reported 99 mph at 11:15pm last night and that may have been at the upper limit of what it was capable of recording depending on the model deployed. Keep in mind that the station was damaged and is no longer reporting correctly. Furthermore, the Perry-Foley Airport was west of the maximum wind and receiving SE winds at the time meaning those winds traversed many miles of land to get there in which they were slowed greatly by the friction of land.
BDGWX Here is the link to the Perry airport data
National Weather Service
There were no recorded wind speeds over 60 mph. This is the data. Why you mislead the Board is beyond me. Yes, there was one gust measured at 99 mph.on the 26th at 23:15. There were a few gusts in the 70 mph range as well. I used the NWS website for all of my data analysis. I linked to the MSN site because it was easy to use.
Why don’t you provide a link to land based weather stations that support your claim. I don’t think you can.
99 mph > 60 mph
Hurricans are rated on sustained winds.
Hurricanes are rated on MAXIMUM sustained winds; not the sustained winds at some random location away from the band of MAXIMUM wind. I have capitalized and boldened MAXIMUM to drive home that point.
bdgwx, we are talking about buoy 42036 here, presumably yours is a typo. Anyway, Nelson above claimed that 42036 was very close to Helene’s path. In other words, it is very likely that the eyewall passed over or near to 42036, and the eyewall is generally where the strongest winds occur.
I can accept that buoys may under-record wind speeds, but I would hope the experts would know roughly by what factor. But we are seeing a huge factor between 42036’s measurement of 62.2 knots (Category 1) and the claimed Category 4. A further question is are we seeing anywhere near the wind damage associated with a Cat 4?
P.S. I have just viewed some damage shown by the BBC at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwylvy7enrgo . The very first photograph looks really bad, but I am suspicious: without a wider view to show destruction across a wide area, I would suspect that this was caused by a tornado spawned by Helene. Of course, tornados can have much higher wind speeds than hurricanes.
Another example is Steinhatchee. There are several videos out there showing the surge at or over 12′ in the city which is 2 miles up river and on the southern end of the high surge risk zone. This is corroborating evidence that predicted surges of 15′ north of Steinhatchee may have verified, but we’ll have to wait for the survey teams to make it to these remote areas of Florida where the maximum wind band traversed. That may be a difficult task given the remoteness of the region. We won’t have the final report regarding Helene until early next year.
Let’s take a deeper look at buoy 42036. It is located at 28.5N,84.5W. Helene made her closest approach between 23:00Z and 23:10Z at 949 mb. The highest wind speeds were 32 m/s sustained and 45 m/s gust during this period. The center of Helene was located at 28.3N,84.4W moving 23 mph at 23:00Z with a pressure of 945 mb and maximum wind of 130 mph. This means buoy 42036 was likely in or at least clipped the western eyewall. Given the speed of 23 mph we expect a 23 mph augmentation of the eastern eyewall winds and 23 mph attenuation of the western eyewall winds assuming Helene had a symmetric storm relative horizontal profile (it didn’t, but that is complicated detail that isn’t significant in this context). This means the storm relative winds were about 107 mph with the western eyewall closer to 84 mph. 32 m/s is 72 mph so buoy 42036 is consistent with at least a maximum wind of 118 mph assuming Helene was symmetric (it wasn’t) and that the buoy was directly in the western eyewall (it may not have been).
Unfortunately NOAA2 was loitering in the eye during this time remotely piloting a UAV for research purposes so we don’t have information regarding the western eyewall from them during this period. However, AF306 did make a pass through the western eyewall at 23:30Z and reported flight level winds of 75 mph and consistent with buoy 42036 observations 20 minutes earlier. AF306 continued through the eye and reported flight level winds of 151 mph in the eastern eyewall. So from the recon mission we know that the western eyewall was generating winds about 50% less than the eastern eyewall. At the surface we would expect 130 * 0.5 = 65 mph which again is consistent with buoy 42036 observations.
The point…buoy 42036 observations were consistent with Helene being a category 4 hurricane. And if anything those observations might suggest that Helene was even stronger than the 130 mph that the NHC officially reported when she was over the buoy.
bdgwx, that is interesting, with some good points, and you seem to have access to hurricane data that I currently don’t. Could you possibly tell me, when Helene was around 29 degN, what was the diameter of the eyewall, roughly, and do you have the exact co-ordinates of the landfall of the centre? This would help me do some east-side versus west-side calculations to help me understand your points.
Always interesting to compare actual data to predictions. The pre-landfall storm surge around Big Bend area was predicted to be up to 20 feet. Anybody know what the actual max was?
seconded?
I reported on this on another blog. Helene was likely a Cat 1. 42036 was right in the path of the storm. I wrote about it on an energy blog when I was called out on my prediction that Helene’s winds wouldn’t top 80 mph at the buoy
Energy Investing – Helene was not a Cat 4 – Energy Investing – InvestorVillage
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2024/09/25/saffir-simpson-hurricane-wind-scale-explained/75374839007/
Hey, don’t click on “Man Saves Bear Cub” – and Charles The Moderator please can you remove this and like advertizing? I did, and I was frozen into an American woman telling me my computer now had a virus and to call a toll free number. I couldn’t get out of it, until I thought of good ol’ Ctrl-ALt-Del -> Task Manager -> Firefox -> End process, and all was well. Quite stressful though.
I am supremely impressed that climate scientists know more about hurricanes than hurricane experts. sarc
I appreciate much of the humor here in the comments! The main problem is that the hype leading up to actual landfall never did materialize.
Almost all of those spaghetti models had it coming in right over Tallahassee, the state capital. It did come ashore almost 50 miles to the East in a sparsely populated county of Taylor.
I’m in the northern Florida panhandle, 4 miles from Alabama and 25 miles from Georgia, quite near the projected path of Helene. We got less than 5 inches of rain even though it rained all day and winds were never over 10 mph. Didn’t even lose a branch off a tree.
If I’m not mistaken that puts you close to Jacob City and not far from Marianna Municipal Airport which reported 37 mph winds overnight and a storm total of 9.37″ of rain as of the time of this post. Jacob City and Marianna was about 130 and 120 miles respectively from the maximum winds.
Good sleuthing! Jacob City is less than 10 miles away. Odd that you would mention it as it is a very small city of 222.
When looking at the graphic at the start of the article, that red area of the hurricane’s western side is where I am. I have a Davis Instruments weather station in my side yard and the rainfall was 4.84 inches of rain with winds of 8 mph.
Ha…thanks. I attempted a triangulation based on your clues. You were on the “good” side of the storm fortunately. The east side took the worst of it.
They WANT TO BELIEVE. Wasn’t that an X-Files theme ? Similar phobias, similar scripting ?
Lots of rain. SC had more power outages than Florida. Many trees down and mudslides. It’s nice and breezy in the Carolina’s.
“Experts” claim that falling trees in hurricanes that land on and kill people are deaths caused by climate change. Except every death certificate lists blunt force trama as the cause instead.
Here is what NOAA was telling us as the storm came ashore. Hurricane winds would extend out 60 miles. The storm came ashore 10 miles west/southwest of Perry. According to NOAA, Perry should have experienced hurricane force winds. Perry didn’t see winds north of 30 mph and it was in the NE quadrant, which means it should have seen the strongest winds.
Perry, FL weather forecast | MSN Weather
DISCUSSION AND OUTLOOK
———————-
At 1100 PM EDT (0300 UTC), the center of Hurricane Helene was
located near latitude 29.9 North, longitude 83.9 West. Helene is
moving toward the north-northeast near 24 mph (39 km/h). A turn
toward the north is expected overnight, taking the center over
Georgia. The center of the hurricane should make landfall
very soon in the Big Bend region of Florida. After landfall,
Helene is expected to turn northwestward and slow down over the
Tennessee Valley on Friday and Saturday.
Maximum sustained winds are near 140 mph (220 km/h) with higher
gusts. Helene is an extremely dangerous category 4 hurricane on
the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Weakening is expected
after Helene moves inland, but the fast forward speed will allow
strong, damaging winds, especially in gusts, to penetrate well
inland across the southeastern United States, including over the
higher terrain of the southern Appalachians.
Hurricane-force winds extend outward up to 60 miles (95 km) from the
center and tropical-storm-force winds extend outward up to 310 miles
(500 km). A sustained wind of 64 mph (103 km/h) with a gust to 84
mph (135 km/h) was recently reported at Cedar Key, Florida. A
gust of 83 mph (134 km/h) was recently reported at Steinhatchee,
Florida.
The estimated minimum central pressure based on Hurricane Hunter
aircraft observations is 938 mb (27.70 inches).
ZCZC MIATCUAT4 ALL
TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM
Hurricane Helene Tropical Cyclone Update
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL AL092024
1120 PM EDT Thu Sep 26 2024
…HELENE MAKES LANDFALL IN THE FLORIDA BIG BEND…
Based on NWS Doppler radar data, the eye of Helene has made landfall
as a Category 4 hurricane in the Florida Big Bend region at about
11:10 PM EDT (0310 UTC) just east of the mouth of the Aucilla
River. This is about 10 miles (15 km) west-southwest of Perry,
Florida. Based on data from Air Force reconnaissance aircraft, the
maximum sustained winds are estimated to be 140 mph (225 km/h) and
the minimum central pressure is 938 mb (27.70 inches).
This is like trying to convince people that blizzards and below normal temperatures are extraordinary occurrences on the North American northern plains in mid-January and another instance of violent weather caused by climate change caused by excessive use of fossil fuels, etc. ad nauseam. Except the majority have stopped listening and don’t aim to alter their lifestyles to deal with a non-problem.
Just another hurricane season. Natural variability still apparent.
🤡🤡😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤡🤡
Odd, the news prior to Helene’s landfall were filled with references to similar hurricanes and their paths decades before 2024.
Similarities, that were even compared to a previous hurricane named ‘Helene’.
The first estimates of cost are rolling in. AccuWeather puts it at between 95 and 115 billion.
https://www.silive.com/weather/2024/09/hurricane-helene-accuweather-finds-storm-is-among-costliest-in-us-history.html
Those wanting to minimize this number will willfully conflate total losses with insured losses. Many, many Floridians went bare, because of justified, exponential, rate increases.
The ratio for the 11/21 Texas freeze was over 6/1…