So Charley was a 145mph storm, where are the wind reports?

[PTrackerLA]

The highest wind report I've heard of is 127mph. Now that is strong but if a storm has 145mph SUSTAINED winds I would have at least expected to hear of gusts to 145. Maybe the reports just haven't come in yet but something just doesn't make sense.

[wx247]

Were there sensors/ AWSOS where Charley came inland? If not, then we may not everh ave official readings to verify.

[PTrackerLA]

Well the eye passed right over Punta Gorda and port Charlotte and they are decent sized towns/cities. I think I saw earlier that 50,000+ people live in Punta Gorda, surely they have a wind measuring device somewhere.

[Derecho]

Well the eye passed right over Punta Gorda and port Charlotte and they are decent sized towns/cities. I think I saw earlier that 50,000+ people live in Punta Gorda, surely they have a wind measuring device somewhere.

They do.

The Punta Gorda NWS ASOS recored a 98kt gust and then failed/was destroyed.

[HurricaneBill]

They do.

The Punta Gorda NWS ASOS recored a 98kt gust and then failed/was destroyed.

That tends to mean it was higher than that.

[DCA]

NWS instruments should not be failing in a 100 mph GUST. When all said and done (i.e. after the NHC prelim report) Charley will not be a 145mph storm. The Recon may have observed a 160kt wind at 10,000 ft. but that appears to have never traversed down to the surface. Every storm teaches us something new, Charley is no different.

[bahamaswx]

a 98kt gust is closer to 115mph, not 100. =/

[DCA]

My mistake Bahamas...still, NWS instruments should not be failing at 115mph. Over a decade ago, instruments near Andrew's eye pegged at over 115mph for 15-20 minutes before having problems. Maybe Punta Gorda had a bad instrument.

[HurricaneBill]

Also, a piece of flying debris may have struck the instrument and damaged it.

[PurdueWx80]

There are a number of things that can prevent a station from reporting - including: lightning, downed phone lines, no electricity, damage from flying debris, or if the tower simply blows over. Also, the eye was 8 miles wide, so you can't expect that it would've passed over every anemometer in the area. Finally, you also do have to consider that the flight level extrapolation to the surface isn't necessarily perfect.

[Anonymous]

If you had seen the video TWC showed where the gas station was destroyed (On video mind you), then you would not argue.

But seriously folks, you cant assume that Charley wasn't a 145 mph storm due to wind recordings. If recon finds 160 mph flight level winds, then Charley is indeed a Cat 4 hurricane no matter what you want to believe.

[Anonymous]

If you had seen the video TWC showed where the gas station was destroyed (On video mind you), then you would not argue.

But seriously folks, you cant assume that Charley wasn't a 145 mph storm due to wind recordings. If recon finds 160 mph flight level winds, then Charley is indeed a Cat 4 hurricane no matter what you want to believe. Look at the devastation it has caused, there should be NO argument whatsoever its ridiculous.

[wxman57]

Just because a hurricane has 145 mph wind, it doesn't mean those winds can be found all around the eye. If you look at the HRD wind analysis of Charley at landfall, you'll see that the 120kt winds covered only a very tiny area in the SE quadrant of the eye, perhaps just a few miles across. With an area of max winds that tiny, it's unlikely that they hit any reporting station.

ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2 ... l02deg.png

[mf_dolphin]

NWS instruments should not be failing in a 100 mph GUST. When all said and done (i.e. after the NHC prelim report) Charley will not be a 145mph storm. The Recon may have observed a 160kt wind at 10,000 ft. but that appears to have never traversed down to the surface. Every storm teaches us something new, Charley is no different.

I'm sorry but what is your basis for this statement? This seems almost foolish based on the damage reports that are coming in. There are plenty of things that could have caused the mentioned unit to fail.

[Derecho]

My mistake Bahamas...still, NWS instruments should not be failing at 115mph. Over a decade ago, instruments near Andrew's eye pegged at over 115mph for 15-20 minutes before having problems. Maybe Punta Gorda had a bad instrument.

Time to put the thinking caps on.

If the instrument REPORTS a gust, that's NOT the gust that caused it to fail, obviously.

The gust that causes the failure isn't reported. We have no idea what the windspeed was that damaged the instrument (or if it was plain wind at all, rather than debris, etc.)

[Anonymous]

If a wind instrument records a windspeed of 127 mph in the core of a 145 mph storm, it can be safe to assume that the 127 mph wind gust was the last windspeed it recorded, before being destroyed (by the wind, debris, whatever). You could have an idea what the wind is, you dont have to go outside to the wind device to read its measurement.

[SouthernWx]

I think a lot of people are going to be shocked when they see the extreme damage this extremely small but violent hurricane caused. I'm hearing reports from inland counties NE of Charlotte Harbor of damage being described as catastrophic. We haven't heard anything from some of the coastal areas inside the eyewall, nor Captiva Island...and other nearby barrier islands.

In all likelyhood, Captiva Island and the western end of Sanibel Island no longer exist.....at least not as we remember them. A 941 mb hurricane coming from the SSW means a storm surge of 16-20' feet in that area. You'll IMO see storm surge damage via newschopper tomorrow on those barrier islands that will rival what hurricane Camille did to the Mississippi coast in 1969.