What was Hurricane Ivan at landfall

[Audrey2Katrina]

It is really just an educated guess as to a hurricane's intensity at landfall lacking direct land based observations. I find it amusing that when a hurricane strike the USA, most all wind measuring equipment near landfall is rendered inoperative while in third world countries their equipment somehow keep working. This equipment reliability issues leave hurricane landfall wind intensity open for debate. Since the Hurricane Hunters can't deploy sondes overland, and SFMR works only over water , we are left with doppler radar. Unless the doppler radar is on a recon plane the NWS dopper is the only other option. Frequently, the strongest winds hit areas that are well removed from the radar and the radar beam is typically thousands of feet above the surface. Also, the further away the beam is from the target the less resolution the radar can provide. Greater distance equates to less accuracy of the measurement. The altitude issue requires a reduction factor to be employed, making an educated guess at the winds at the surface.....MGC

Have to agree with you on just about all of that with one possible codicil. A LOT of the "third world" gets their data from far less reliable "estimates" rather than truly in-situ observations. I wonder about the dropsonde statement though, as I know of at least one that was retrieved inland near Pass Christian from Katrina. But even with these, as one individual who had flown into all the Gulf majors last year cited, you are still not assured you'll be getting the highest winds at surface levels. Your point on reduction factors producing educated "estimates" is well taken, as well as the fact that it is highly unlikely that even if land measurements would not fail, that you'd just happen to have one in the area of highest winds to be measured. Hence, you will always have discussions like this one in which differing viewpoints on just what this cane or that one "really" might have been.

Makes life interesting

A2K

[beachbum_al]

But it is back up and running. Not the same old rustic building but it is open for business again.

So I heard, when he returned from their annual 4th of July celebration over there. They had a ball.

A2K

We went to the Mullet Toss a couple of months ago there.

[WxGuy1]

Ivan had a slower rise in pressure before landfall than Katrina, but the rise was more rapid (very similar to Dennis)

Ivan had a slower rise in pressure, but the rise was more rapid? So, was it more rapid, or was it slower? Reading it again, did yo umean Ivan had a lower rise in pressure (as compared to "slower")?

The fact is that we can only assign an intensity to the tornado based on hard data. Estimates, particularly from the public, can be horribly inaccurate, and there is a very strong tendency for people to overestimate wind speeds, especially once the wind speeds exceeds 40-50mph. Doppler radar data is a remote measurement source, which also creates problems. There are a lot of assumptions about things like power density distribution, weighting functions, data windows, etc, used in the signal processing of said data that create various sources of error. In other words, you only trust velocity data to a certain point (e.g. because a bin or gate indicates that the MEAN wind in the sample is 50 m/s does not mean that the true mean wind was 50 m/s). In addition, to accurately measure SURFACE winds, you really want data as close to the surface as possible. Sure, you can use "standard' reductions, but those too are estimates.

Of course, we don't have anemometers at high enough spatial density to really let us be confident that the highest winds were measured. So, we need to rely on estimates (such as Doppler radar data) and proxy data (such as damage assessments). The later should only be performed by trained experts, since looks can be extremely conceiving. As research on tornado damage has indicated, the integrity of a structure has a pivotal impact on the degree of damage experienced. For example, there were some areas iht by the La Plata tornado in 2001 (I think 2001) that were preliminarily rated as being F5 damage (winds above 261mph). More extensive examination of this damage (using engineering principles and knowledge) revealed that the actual winds were likely only in the F1-F2 range! Yes, a house knocked completely off it's foundation (commonly thought as F5) was determined to actually have been caused by only 110-120mph winds. How so? The houses had almost no anchoring to the foundation, so they literally "slid" off their foundations. So, areas preliminarily rated as F5 were later revised to only having been F1-F2.

What's my point? Detailed examinations of the structural integrity of a damage building needs to be performed to determine an accurate estimate of winds used to produced the damage. This makes me extremely hesitant to conclude anything based on pictures or video seen on TV, in newspapers, or online. This also leads me to be very cautious about accepting someone's damage report and their own 'estimate'. I realize that there are building codes used in hurricane regions that may help standardize the engineering integrity of buildings, but there's still a lot of variability. Just because a house is de-roofed and an outside wall is knocked down does not automatically mean that it faced 140mph sustained winds. In addition, that brings up another point... The change in the wind can have a significant impact on damage produced. Therefore, it may be the repeated battering of high GUSTS that produces severe damage, which doesn't really tell you much about the SUSTAINED winds experienced.

No offense to anyone, but just because someone wasn't at your house or with you to experience the winds does not mean that they don't know how high the real winds were. I've read this argument several times lately, and I just don't get it. There is a known tendency for people to want to think they went through the worst that mother nature can dish out. It helps us think that we can trump nature. By now means I am this to be unsympathetic or insensitive! I truely feel for those who experience the wrath of a hurricane. However, very few people have ever experienced high sustained winds (in the cat 4 or 5 range), which may help contribute to the fact that people tend to (sometimes drastically) overestimate wind speeds. I'm NOT saying that someone's estimate may not be accurate, but I have to base my own thoughts on available data. Remember, kinetic energy of the wind increases as the square of the velocity increase. So, 120mph winds have a lot more energy / power than 90 mph winds. This means that increasing the winds from 120 to 130mph should look like a much more significant increase than an increase in winds from 80mph to 90mph. Heck, I'm sure I've overestimated some winds at times, and I will willfully concede that wind damage experts can more accurately determine the probable wind speeds after the event than I can estimate during the event. I don't have a problem yielding my estimates to those who have much more experience measuring and estimating winds (i.e. damage experts like Tim Marshall). I don't know enough about engineering principles (and probably don't have plans to thoroughly examine such subjects) to say with any confidence that my estimate is truth.

[Derek Ortt]

oops

Katrina's was more gradual, since its rise started about 14 hours prior to landfall, while Ivan's started about 9

[Aslkahuna]

Well APOS was never fielded with backup power/commo/or data storage which is why it's a worthless piece of crap. Many Third World Stations in the hinterlands use old style Wind sensors where the anemometer sends a voltage to a pen on a recording chart which may be clock driven by a windup mechanism.

Steve

[f5]

Katrina was at 175 Ivan was never that strong in the Gulf

[wxman57]

Ivan and Katrina were quite alike. Both were massive CAT-5 hurricanes at one time, both weakened as they approached land (thankfully) by dry air intrainment. Both were Cat-3 at landfall. Had Ivan made landfall where Katrina did, it would be Ivan that would have destroyed the Mississippi Gulf Coast and flooded New Orleans.......MGC

I agree with some of those points; but the conclusion, while not proveable (since it's impossible to prove a negative anyway).. is highly speculative. Katrina was a monstrous 5 only 150 miles from the mouth of the Mississippi, Ivan was NEVER at Cat 5, while fully in the Gulf... so yes, it would have brought in a sizeable surge, and doubtless would have done massive damage to the Miss/La coastal areas... I doubt very seriously since it had neither the intensity, nor the size of wind field, nor quite the wind speed, and had not nearly the fetch that Katrina built up, that the damage would have been as extensive--by a fairly wide margin. JMHO.

A2K

I've made extensive comparisons of Ivan's and Katrina's wind field just southeast of the mouth of the MS River (Ivan a bit farther southeast, of course). Of the two, Ivan had the larger wind field. This was particularly true of Ivan's eastern half. It really makes no difference that Katrina had a tiny area of 175 mph winds and Ivan didn't, in terms of surge potential. The absolute peak winds are really irrelevant with respect to surge potential unless they cover a large area. Ivan was creating tremendous trapped-fetch waves, over 90 ft at times. Katrina's max waves were about 5-10 feet lower. Ivan was clearly pushing a larger volume of water toward the coast than was Katrina, even though it lacked that small area of Cat 5 winds. Remember, it's not the peak wind that determines the surge, it's the size of the max wind area.

Fortunately, Ivan hit an area of the coast with a surge multiplier of 0.6 vs. the MS coast which is a 1.8. So, had Ivan hit where Katrina hit, it could have produced a surge about 2-3 times what was observed at Pensacola, along the MS coast. Now Ivan's wind field shrunk a fair bit more than Katrina's did at landfall, and that could reduce the surge to maybe closer to twice what was observed at Pensacola (maybe around 20 ft or a bit more) along the MS coast. Could have been pretty close to what Katrina produced.

[Ivanhater]

Amazing

[Frank P]

Ivan and Katrina were quite alike. Both were massive CAT-5 hurricanes at one time, both weakened as they approached land (thankfully) by dry air intrainment. Both were Cat-3 at landfall. Had Ivan made landfall where Katrina did, it would be Ivan that would have destroyed the Mississippi Gulf Coast and flooded New Orleans.......MGC

I agree with some of those points; but the conclusion, while not proveable (since it's impossible to prove a negative anyway).. is highly speculative. Katrina was a monstrous 5 only 150 miles from the mouth of the Mississippi, Ivan was NEVER at Cat 5, while fully in the Gulf... so yes, it would have brought in a sizeable surge, and doubtless would have done massive damage to the Miss/La coastal areas... I doubt very seriously since it had neither the intensity, nor the size of wind field, nor quite the wind speed, and had not nearly the fetch that Katrina built up, that the damage would have been as extensive--by a fairly wide margin. JMHO.

A2K

I've made extensive comparisons of Ivan's and Katrina's wind field just southeast of the mouth of the MS River (Ivan a bit farther southeast, of course). Of the two, Ivan had the larger wind field. This was particularly true of Ivan's eastern half. It really makes no difference that Katrina had a tiny area of 175 mph winds and Ivan didn't, in terms of surge potential. The absolute peak winds are really irrelevant with respect to surge potential unless they cover a large area. Ivan was creating tremendous trapped-fetch waves, over 90 ft at times. Katrina's max waves were about 5-10 feet lower. Ivan was clearly pushing a larger volume of water toward the coast than was Katrina, even though it lacked that small area of Cat 5 winds. Remember, it's not the peak wind that determines the surge, it's the size of the max wind area.

Fortunately, Ivan hit an area of the coast with a surge multiplier of 0.6 vs. the MS coast which is a 1.8. So, had Ivan hit where Katrina hit, it could have produced a surge about 2-3 times what was observed at Pensacola, along the MS coast. Now Ivan's wind field shrunk a fair bit more than Katrina's did at landfall, and that could reduce the surge to maybe closer to twice what was observed at Pensacola (maybe around 20 ft or a bit more) along the MS coast. Could have been pretty close to what Katrina produced.

Yeah, that's what I thought about Ivan after it hit Pensacola... I was amazed at its surge and figured that if it his the MS coast we would have had at least 20 feet... ... and that's one of the reasons I evacuated off the coast of Biloxi for Katrina... just think, the MS coast came really close to back to back years with 20 feet plus surges... Ivan just missed and Katrina nailed us.... something to seriously think about... another reason why I'm going up as high as I can...

[Audrey2Katrina]

I've made extensive comparisons of Ivan's and Katrina's wind field just southeast of the mouth of the MS River (Ivan a bit farther southeast, of course). Of the two, Ivan had the larger wind field. This was particularly true of Ivan's eastern half. It really makes no difference that Katrina had a tiny area of 175 mph winds and Ivan didn't, in terms of surge potential. The absolute peak winds are really irrelevant with respect to surge potential unless they cover a large area. Ivan was creating tremendous trapped-fetch waves, over 90 ft at times. Katrina's max waves were about 5-10 feet lower. Ivan was clearly pushing a larger volume of water toward the coast than was Katrina, even though it lacked that small area of Cat 5 winds. Remember, it's not the peak wind that determines the surge, it's the size of the max wind area.

Fortunately, Ivan hit an area of the coast with a surge multiplier of 0.6 vs. the MS coast which is a 1.8. So, had Ivan hit where Katrina hit, it could have produced a surge about 2-3 times what was observed at Pensacola, along the MS coast. Now Ivan's wind field shrunk a fair bit more than Katrina's did at landfall, and that could reduce the surge to maybe closer to twice what was observed at Pensacola (maybe around 20 ft or a bit more) along the MS coast. Could have been pretty close to what Katrina produced.

I agree with some of your opinion here, (and I want to confine opinion to the speculative arena, as I am not contending any of your beyond doubt certified "data") and respectfully disagree on other points. I concur with your closing sentence that it "might" have been around 20 ft..which is by no means small... but still nearly 10 feet lower than that created by Katrina. I do know that I'd read reports that surge levels and inundation in the Mobile area was worse for Katrina (which struck a good 100 miles WEST) than it did from Ivan which hit it almost dead center. And again, yes, I know the greater surge would have been east of the eyewall--but this was 100 miles east. As far as the wind field, I can't really argue the point other than to say that while the NHC clearly made a point of discussing the enormity of Katrina's hurricane winds, up to 125 miles from center... it did not do the same for Ivan, which makes me dubious about any claim that Ivan had a larger wind field, and yes I'm aware the narrow band of Cat 5 winds wouldn't play as large a role as the overall spread of winds. I'm sure you know that while Katrina was moving west, then WNW, then NW... she was intensifying up till almost the last 24 hours before landfall, whereas Ivan was actually weakening the entire trip through the Gulf. I mean, it matters little, they were both very large storms, and Frank's point is extremely well taken in that thank God they didn't get a double whammy on the MGC two straight years. All this speculation is interesting, and I know a lot is founded in sound mathematical principles; but we also should know that there is no way to truly know with any degree of certainty what "might" have been, had a storm taken a different tack. I dunno... maybe there was a warmer current to the west, that had Ivan taken would have rejuvenated it which is a frightening thought. I guess the only point I'm attempting to make is that the only thing we know for sure--is what we know for sure--and as far as all this second-guessing and speculation goes... well, one never can really know for sure.

And those are the sorts of things that make life--and boards like this, interesting.

A2K

[all_we_know_is_FALLING]

I have a question.. I'd rather not start a new thread for it, but was Dennis REALLY a Category 3 at landfall?

[Audrey2Katrina]

According to the official NHC reports I've seen, it's registered as a 105 KT landfall, which would be mid/low end Cat 3--doubtless confined to a VERY narrow band and along the very edge of the coast. The highest recorded sustained winds found in the report (US landfall) were at Eglin AFB, at 73 KT, which sounds like high-end Cat 1. Now if you're talking Cuba... the data of which is probably not quite as reliable, I'm certain it was probably a 3 there, maybe even minimal 4, I dunno; but it looked a LOT more impressive while it was down there.

A2K

[all_we_know_is_FALLING]

Okay. The NHC ARE the experts, so I believe them. I agree it would have to have been a very small area in Floriday.

Is that all in Cuba? I thought it made landfall there with winds of 150 mph?

[Audrey2Katrina]

Again, by the NHC report it's landfall twice along Cuba was a 120 KT low-end Cat 4. the highest measured winds were 116 KT sustained--but there may have been an instrument failure. The highest measured anywhere (including over water) by the NHC report, seems to have been 125 KT, which is still Cat 4.

So yeah... I'm fairly sure it was a Cat 4 in Cuba...but no higher--as if Cat 4 isn't bad enough... cuz it sure is!

A2K

[gulfcoastdave]

this is the 2pm update from NHC on Dennis right before landfall. One has to remember that the wind field with Dennis was small compared to Ivan.

ZCZC MIATCPAT4 ALL
TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM
BULLETIN
HURRICANE DENNIS INTERMEDIATE ADVISORY NUMBER 25B
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
2 PM CDT SUN JUL 10 2005

...CATEGORY THREE HURRICANE DENNIS WITHIN AN HOUR OR SO OF
LANDFALL...

A HURRICANE WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT ALONG THE NORTHEASTERN COAST
OF THE GULF OF MEXICO FROM THE OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WESTWARD TO THE
MOUTH OF THE PEARL RIVER.

A TROPICAL STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM WEST OF THE PEARL
RIVER TO GRAND ISLE...INCLUDING METROPOLITAN NEW ORLEANS AND LAKE
PONTCHARTRAIN...AND FROM EAST OF THE OCHLOCKONEE RIVER TO LONGBOAT
KEY FLORIDA.

PREPARATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY SHOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN
COMPLETED.

FOR STORM INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO YOUR AREA...INCLUDING POSSIBLE
INLAND WATCHES AND WARNINGS...PLEASE MONITOR PRODUCTS ISSUED
BY YOUR LOCAL WEATHER OFFICE.

AT 2 PM CDT...1900Z...THE CENTER OF HURRICANE DENNIS WAS LOCATED
NEAR LATITUDE 30.2 NORTH...LONGITUDE 87.0 WEST OR ABOUT 20 MILES
EAST-SOUTHEAST OF PENSACOLA FLORIDA.

DENNIS IS MOVING JUST WEST OF DUE NORTH NEAR 17 MPH...AND A GENERAL
NORTH-NORTHWESTWARD MOTION IS EXPECTED OVER THE NEXT 24 HOURS. THE
EYEWALL OF DENNIS IS JUST NOW REACHING THE COAST...AND THE CENTER
OF DENNIS IS EXPECTED TO MAKE LANDFALL JUST EAST OF PENSACOLA
WITHIN THE NEXT HOUR OR SO.

DENNIS CONTINUES TO SLOWLY WEAKEN...AND MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE
NOW NEAR 120 MPH...WITH HIGHER GUSTS. DENNIS IS NOW A CATEGORY
THREE HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE. NO
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN STRENGTH IS EXPECTED PRIOR TO LANDFALL.

HURRICANE FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 40 MILES FROM THE
CENTER...AND TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP
TO 230 MILES. HURRICANE FORCE WINDS ASSOCIATED WITH DENNIS MAY
OCCUR AS FAR AS 100 TO 150 MILES INLAND ALONG THE TRACK OF THE
HURRICANE.

THE MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE REPORTED BY RECONNAISSANCE
AIRCRAFT WAS 943 MB...27.85 INCHES.

STORM SURGE FLOODING OF 10 TO 15 FEET ABOVE NORMAL TIDE LEVELS...
ACCOMPANIED BY LARGE AND DANGEROUS BATTERING WAVES...IS POSSIBLE
NEAR AND JUST TO THE EAST OF WHERE THE CENTER OF DENNIS CROSSES THE
NORTHERN GULF COAST. A STORM SURGE OF 4 TO 6 FEET IS LIKELY
ELSEWHERE IN THE HURRICANE WARNING AREA TO THE EAST OF THE CENTER.

DENNIS IS EXPECTED TO PRODUCE TOTAL RAINFALL ACCUMULATIONS OF 5 TO
10 INCHES OVER THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE...ALABAMA...EASTERN
MISSISSIPPI...AND SOUTHWESTERN GEORGIA. ISOLATED MAXIMUM RAINFALL
AMOUNTS TO NEAR 15 INCHES ARE POSSIBLE NEAR WHERE DENNIS MAKES
LANDFALL.

ISOLATED TORNADOES ARE POSSIBLE TODAY OVER THE WEST-CENTRAL FLORIDA
PENINSULA...THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE...WESTERN GEORGIA AND CENTRAL AND
SOUTHERN ALABAMA.

REPEATING THE 2 PM CDT POSITION...30.2 N... 87.0 W. MOVEMENT
TOWARD...JUST WEST OF DUE NORTH NEAR 17 MPH. MAXIMUM SUSTAINED
WINDS...120 MPH. MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE... 943 MB.

THE NEXT ADVISORY WILL BE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL
HURRICANE CENTER AT 4 PM CDT.

FORECASTER FRANKLIN

[all_we_know_is_FALLING]

Yah, I've read that before.

I vaguely recall Dr. Lyons on TWC saying just as Dennis came ashore that he thought the strongest surface winds had lifted off the ground a bit.

Oh, and A2K, I know for sure that a Category 4 is HORRIBLE, you just seemed hesitant about Dennis being a Cat 4 over Cuba when just prior to landfall there was winds near or at 150 mph.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well I wasn't really hesitant.. I was uncertain. I said that I was certain it was a 3 and "possibly a minimal 4"... and since the report--even from Cuba--shows top sustained around 120 KT... (138 mph--or 8 mph into 4) was pretty much close to it. The highest actual sustained measured from Cuba at 116 is actually barely into the 4 range. Turns out it certainly was a 3, and as it turned out a low-end 4. The 150 mph is not anywhere on the NHC report that I'd seen; but I won't deny that a possible advisory might have said those winds existed somewhere out at sea--or perhaps I missed some "unofficial" reading" on the report you can direct me to. And yes.. Cat 4, even minimal is horrible... as is a high-end Cat 3....In fact, if you're in a Cat 2 for a protracted period of time you'll think you're in a living hell.

A2K

[all_we_know_is_FALLING]

...DENNIS NOW A STRONGER CATEGORY FOUR HURRICANE AS IT NEARS THE
SOUTH-CENTRAL COAST OF CUBA...

A HURRICANE WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR CUBA FOR THE PROVINCES OF LA
HABANA...CIUDAD DE LA HABANA...MATANZAS...VILLA CLARA...
CIENFUEGOS...SANCTI SPIRITUS...CIEGO DE AVILA...CAMAGUEY...LAS
TUNAS...GRANMA...SANTIAGO DE CUBA...HOLGUIN AND GUANTANAMO. A
HURRICANE WATCH REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR THE ISLE OF YOUTH AND THE
PROVINCE OF PINAR DEL RIO.

A HURRICANE WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR THE LOWER FLORIDA KEYS
FROM THE SEVEN MILE BRIDGE WESTWARD TO THE DRY TORTUGAS. A
TROPICAL STORM WARNING AND A HURRICANE WATCH IS IN EFFECT FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THE FLORIDA KEYS...EAST OF THE SEVEN MILE BRIDGE TO
OCEAN REEF AND FLORIDA BAY.

A TROPICAL STORM WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR CAYMAN BRAC AND LITTLE
CAYMAN ISLAND.

A TROPICAL STORM WARNING IS ALSO IN EFFECT ALONG THE FLORIDA WEST
COAST SOUTH OF BONITA BEACH...AND ALONG THE FLORIDA EAST COAST
SOUTH OF GOLDEN BEACH. A TROPICAL STORM WATCH IS IN EFFECT ALONG
THE FLORIDA WEST COAST NORTH OF BONITA BEACH TO LONGBOAT KEY.

A HURRICANE OR TROPICAL STORM WARNING MEANS THAT HURRICANE OR
TROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS...RESPECTIVELY...ARE EXPECTED WITHIN THE
WARNING AREA WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS. PREPARATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE
AND PROPERTY SHOULD BE RUSHED TO COMPLETION IN THE HURRICANE
WARNING AREA. A HURRICANE OR TROPICAL STORM WATCH MEANS THAT
HURRICANE OR TROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS...RESPECTIVELY...ARE
POSSIBLE WITHIN THE WATCH AREA...GENERALLY WITHIN 36 HOURS.

INTERESTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA...FLORIDA...AND THE
EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO SHOULD MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM.

FOR STORM INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO YOUR AREA...INCLUDING POSSIBLE
INLAND WATCHES AND WARNINGS...PLEASE MONITOR PRODUCTS ISSUED
BY YOUR LOCAL WEATHER OFFICE.

AT 11 AM EDT...1500Z...THE CENTER OF HURRICANE DENNIS WAS LOCATED
NEAR LATITUDE 21.4 NORTH... LONGITUDE 79.9 WEST OR ABOUT 130
MILES... 205 KM... WEST OF CAMAGUEY CUBA AND ABOUT 250 MILES... 405
KM...SOUTH-SOUTHEAST OF KEY WEST FLORIDA.

WHILE SOME WOBBLING HAS OCCURRED...AS IS TYPICAL OF A MAJOR
HURRICANE...DENNIS IS EXPECTED TO CONTINUE MOVING TOWARD THE
NORTHWEST NEAR 15 MPH...24 KM/HR. ON THIS TRACK...THE CENTER SHOULD
MAKE LANDFALL ALONG THE SOUTH-CENTRAL COAST OF CUBA THIS AFTERNOON.

RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT DATA INDICATE MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS HAVE
INCREASED TO NEAR 150 MPH...240 KM/HR...WITH HIGHER GUSTS. DENNIS
IS A STRONG CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE. SOME
WEAKENING IS FORECAST AS DENNIS MOVES OVER CUBA...BUT IS EXPECTED
TO REMAIN A MAJOR HURRICANE AS IT EMERGES OVER THE STRAITS OF
FLORIDA AND THE SOUTHEASTERN GULF OF MEXICO TONIGHT.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Thanks for the advisory report... only 2 comments tho':

1.) This is only an "advisory" and not a post-hurricane report. It reflects a lot of estimates "near" 150, that simply were not validated in the post hurricane report which says max winds were never higher than 125 KTS.

2.) This does not reflect a landfalling measurement, or measure of surface wind speeds over Cuba; but it is actually before landfall; hence the actual measurements shown later would justify a somewhat weaker evaluation as it tracked over Cuba.

A perfect example would be the "advisories"of Katrina being a Cat 4 at landfall, which we all know were changed downward to 3 after landfall...either way you look at it though... it was a pretty rough ride.

A2K

[all_we_know_is_FALLING]

Yeah, good point with the Katrina point.

And I don't think Dennis was THAT strong as the advisory indicated, but Cuba doesn't have nearly as many stations as the US does either.