Another Monster Goes *POOF*

[Mac]

Well, we have yet another monster hurricane that went *poof* at landfall.

It seems to me that we have been seeing quite a bit of this lately, with such storms as Dennis, Ivan, et al—monster hurricanes which fizzle out right before mainland landfall. Now, before you jump on me for diminishing the impact of Emily and these other storms, please understand that is not what I am saying. I understand these were all still powerful hurricanes which had devastating impacts on people’s lives. I am speaking in terms relative to their cyclonic history and potential capabilities. I’m talking about storms which seemed to have all the necessary ingredients to remain monster Cat 4/5 hurricanes all the way to a mainland coastline, but, for whatever reason, lost intensity just in the nick of time.

While I am thankful that these storms spared lives and property, I find it a bittersweet victory when such storms diminish in strength right before landfall. I fear that this “diminishing strength” trend will cause more people to fall into harm’s way in the future. Evacuations are extremely costly and, let’s face it, downright disruptive and inconvenient. I am concerned because I know that, despite the devastating potential of major hurricanes, we still see many residents who vacillate regarding whether they should evacuate or not. I worry that when the next monster hurricane is bearing down on Mobile, Houston, or other various points, some guy is going to be telling his wife and kids, “It’s not going to be any damned category 4/5 hurricane when it gets here. They always fizzle out right before they hit. We’re staying put.”

Although Cozumel and Cancun obviously took some damage, initial reports would seem to indicate that they did not take nearly the damage that they could have—or perhaps should have. It is obvious to me that there is still so much we do not understand about how hurricanes attain certain intensity, and how they maintain that intensity. There is also much we apparently don’t understand about how intensity correlates to damage. After all, a 135 mph wind is a 135 mph wind, right? It should do the same type of damage whether it hits in Pensacola or Cozumel, right (barring differences in construction materials and methods, of course)? But if you look at storms of the recent past you can see there were storms which appeared to be quite similar in intensity, yet they have vastly different outcomes regarding damage.

We need to understand why that is.

We need to understand why some hurricanes tend to flatten anything in their path while others just knock down telephone poles and flimsy structures. Does it have to do with the wind radius of the storm? Perhaps the direction the storm is heading at impact? How about the gravitational effect of the moon in its various phases? Etc, etc, etc. Sure, there are lots of theories regarding this subject. But the fact of the matter is, nobody really can say with any degree of certainty.

My hat goes off to the NHC for the marvelous job they have done with forecasting hurricane tracks, especially over the past couple of years. They are, quite obviously, getting much better at predicting hurricane movement. But they readily admit the problems with forecasting intensity. Considering the billions of dollars in damage that is caused by hurricanes each year, I would really like to see this problem addressed. I would like to see more money poured into intensity research, so that we might garner a better understanding of how and why storms attain certain intensities, and the variables that play into maintaining intensity for a prescribed period of time. I think we’re missing the boat in this regard.

Not a rant. Just a concern.

[Anonymous]

135 mph Category 4....no communication from Cozumel...that's poof?

[Mac]

135 mph Category 4....no communication from Cozumel...that's poof?

Please reference the part of my post which read: "I am speaking in terms relative to their cyclonic history and potential capabilities."

[shawn67]

Who says it went to "poof" It seems like the intensity was just as expected by NHC just because the damage wasn't there doesn't mean the predicted winds werent

Shawn

[Mac]

Who says it went to "poof" It seems like the intensity was just as expected by NHC just because the damage wasn't there doesn't mean the predicted winds werent

Shawn

It was apparent from satelite imagery that Emily became somewhat disorganized just prior to landfall. My point is, we have seen this happen repeatedly over the past few years with various storms. Coincidence, or is there something more to it?

[HURAKAN]

135 mph Category 4....no communication from Cozumel...that's poof?

Agree completely, 135 mph is not to be kiding around. Fortunately, it was moving fast. Not every storm can pull an Andrew, meaning, that not every storm will explosively intensify as Andrew did at landfall. By the way, I won't classify a 120 mph strike as a poof. We all know what Ivan did to Pensacola. If it has stayed at its peak when it hit Gulf Shores and Pensacola, then it will be Gulf Poor and Pensanothing.

[Anonymous]

Just wait until pictures from Cozumel come in.

[jkt21787]

135 mph is still a category 4 hurricane, so this didn't go "poof" at landfall. Same goes for Dennis at Cuba 150 mph is not "poof" before landfall.

Saying storms like Ivan and Dennis "fizzled" at landfall in the US is quite a strong term, yes I realize you admit they were strong hurricanes, but using the term "fizzle" doesn't seem to reflect that in your statement.

Please keep in mind the hardest hit areas are still w/o communication, and the government is known for downplaying this. They did it in Gilbert, saying there was little damage when there was in fact little of anything left. It hasn't been 12 hours since landfall, this isn't the US, we don't get info very fast.

[jkt21787]

Who says it went to "poof" It seems like the intensity was just as expected by NHC just because the damage wasn't there doesn't mean the predicted winds werent

Shawn

It was apparent from satelite imagery that Emily became somewhat disorganized just prior to landfall. My point is, we have seen this happen repeatedly over the past few years with various storms. Coincidence, or is there something more to it?

True, however recon actually showed the winds INCREASING as it made landfall, from ~150 mph FL to 162 mph FL. That actually could have supported a 140-145 mph surface wind at landfall, and its possible NHC could re-assess at that at a later date.

[HURAKAN]

Ask anyone in Pensacola if Ivam fizzled, probably the answer is going to be no.

[Mac]

It is getting harder and harder to post thoughts on this board without people reading between the lines and getting so consumed with defending their storms that they entirely miss the underlying message.

[jkt21787]

It is getting harder and harder to post thoughts on this board without people reading between the lines and getting so consumed with defending their storms that they entirely miss the underlying message.

Your free to express your opinion, but your title, "Another monster goes *POOF*" is extremely inaccurate. If you consider a strong 4 going to a weak or moderate 4 at landfall going "poof", then OK, but I think most disagree with that assertion.

[calidoug]

It is getting harder and harder to post thoughts on this board without people reading between the lines and getting so consumed with defending their storms that they entirely miss the underlying message.

Perhaps if your thread didn't have a ridiculous, inaccurate title, folks might respond better?

[Mac]

Who says it went to "poof" It seems like the intensity was just as expected by NHC just because the damage wasn't there doesn't mean the predicted winds werent

Shawn

It was apparent from satelite imagery that Emily became somewhat disorganized just prior to landfall. My point is, we have seen this happen repeatedly over the past few years with various storms. Coincidence, or is there something more to it?

True, however recon actually showed the winds INCREASING as it made landfall, from ~150 mph FL to 162 mph FL. That actually could have supported a 140-145 mph surface wind at landfall, and its possible NHC could re-assess at that at a later date.

Thank you. That's my point. Throughout Emily's life we saw IR images that did not appear to correspond with observed pressure readings and NHC reports. The best anybody can say at this point is that "the winds were lagging behind the pressure drops," etc. Based upon satelite imagery, Emily did not appear as though she should have been able to sustain 135-145 mph winds at landfall. So why did she? And, if she really did, why doesn't the damage correlate to those wind speeds?

I think an understanding of this is important.

[HURAKAN]

For me Adrian is the best example of a poof.

[cycloneye]

It is getting harder and harder to post thoughts on this board without people reading between the lines and getting so consumed with defending their storms that they entirely miss the underlying message.

I understand your message.Your concern is about people not looking at a cat 4 threatening a place as before because of weakening landfalls lately.People may trend to not evacuate thinking that a cat 4 threatening an area will weaken.Yes It is cause for concern.

[jkt21787]

Who says it went to "poof" It seems like the intensity was just as expected by NHC just because the damage wasn't there doesn't mean the predicted winds werent

Shawn

It was apparent from satelite imagery that Emily became somewhat disorganized just prior to landfall. My point is, we have seen this happen repeatedly over the past few years with various storms. Coincidence, or is there something more to it?

True, however recon actually showed the winds INCREASING as it made landfall, from ~150 mph FL to 162 mph FL. That actually could have supported a 140-145 mph surface wind at landfall, and its possible NHC could re-assess at that at a later date.

Thank you. That's my point. Throughout Emily's life we saw IR images that did not appear to correspond with observed pressure readings and NHC reports. The best anybody can say at this point is that "the winds were lagging behind the pressure drops," etc. Based upon satelite imagery, Emily did not appear as though she should have been able to sustain 135-145 mph winds at landfall. So why did she? And, if she really did, why doesn't the damage correlate to those wind speeds?

I think an understanding of this is important.

As far as damage, we still have little if any information from the areas hardest hit. Most of what we're seeing is from Cancun or areas that were 30-50 miles north of the eye. This was a small storm. The damage area will be small but extensive.

[jasons2k]

And there are also plenty of storms that did just the opposite, or came in stronger than forecasted, such as Cindy (which will probably be upgraded to H status)

I don't know if anyone can answer your question in a reasonable amount of space, since there are so many factors to consider.

One rule that Joe B. on Accuweather preaches is that with a tightening (intensifying) storm, it's generally "up" a category at landfall and a weakening storm it's generally "down" a category at landfall, at least in terms of damage and wind reports.

I've not completed my own scientific study or anything on this, but this theory so far seems to hold water with the recent storms I've been tracking.

Something I would watch with Emily too. If she's bombing while she's coming ashore, expect the damage to be worse than expected.

[Mac]

It is getting harder and harder to post thoughts on this board without people reading between the lines and getting so consumed with defending their storms that they entirely miss the underlying message.

Your free to express your opinion, but your title, "Another monster goes *POOF*" is extremely inaccurate. If you consider a strong 4 going to a weak or moderate 4 at landfall going "poof", then OK, but I think most disagree with that assertion.

And what exactly does *POOF* mean that it so offends you?

If I'm driving a race car at 200 mph and my high gear suddenly goes *POOF* on me, I might still be able to drive at 100 mph. That's still fast. But relative to the 200 mph I was traveling before, it's not. So what caused my gear to fail?

That's the point of the post. Not diminishing the effect of Emily or other storms.

[Normandy]

Im still waiting to see Cozumel....Ive seen Playa Del Carmen and they came out ok (even though lots of trees down and weak structures blown over).