NWS Mobile report on Katrina: Cat-4 140mph La landfall

[timNms]

For those who are still skeptics, thought I'd relay this information to you.
I just spoke to an employee at Stennis Space Center. The unofficial report from Marine Government Science's instruments located close to the Pearl River in Hancock, County, MS (about 10 miles inland) shows sustained winds of 135 mph with gusts to 140 mph BEFORE the instuments failed. According to this employee, this occured BEFORE the eyewall reached that area.

I questioned why this was unofficial. I was told that until they can complete final analysis of the reports, it would be called "unofficial".

[skysummit]

For those who are still skeptics, thought I'd relay this information to you.
I just spoke to an employee at Stennis Space Center. The unofficial report from Marine Government Science's instruments located close to the Pearl River in Hancock, County, MS (about 10 miles inland) shows sustained winds of 135 mph with gusts to 140 mph BEFORE the instuments failed. According to this employee, this occured BEFORE the eyewall reached that area.

I questioned why this was unofficial. I was told that until they can complete final analysis of the reports, it would be called "unofficial".

In other words tim, the pro's that believe otherwise b/c of their equipment telling thim that Kat was a "marginal 3" will say the Marine Govt. Science Instruments was faulty.

[senorpepr]

For those who are still skeptics, thought I'd relay this information to you.
I just spoke to an employee at Stennis Space Center. The unofficial report from Marine Government Science's instruments located close to the Pearl River in Hancock, County, MS (about 10 miles inland) shows sustained winds of 135 mph with gusts to 140 mph BEFORE the instuments failed. According to this employee, this occured BEFORE the eyewall reached that area.

I questioned why this was unofficial. I was told that until they can complete final analysis of the reports, it would be called "unofficial".

In other words tim, the pro's that believe otherwise b/c of their equipment telling thim that Kat was a "marginal 3" will say the Marine Govt. Science Instruments was faulty.

...or maybe because the equipment used at that location tends to read high during high wind/high precip events. That is why it is considered unofficial. Research on that type of anemometer shows that data above 100kt tend to be 85-90% of what is displayed. Not an excuse, but an known problem.

[Brent]

For those who are still skeptics, thought I'd relay this information to you.
I just spoke to an employee at Stennis Space Center. The unofficial report from Marine Government Science's instruments located close to the Pearl River in Hancock, County, MS (about 10 miles inland) shows sustained winds of 135 mph with gusts to 140 mph BEFORE the instuments failed. According to this employee, this occured BEFORE the eyewall reached that area.

I questioned why this was unofficial. I was told that until they can complete final analysis of the reports, it would be called "unofficial".

I can say with certainty the winds weren't that strong. Sorry. Strongest it was on the MS coast IMO is a Strong 3 which is what the NHC said in the advisories.

[timNms]

For those who are still skeptics, thought I'd relay this information to you.
I just spoke to an employee at Stennis Space Center. The unofficial report from Marine Government Science's instruments located close to the Pearl River in Hancock, County, MS (about 10 miles inland) shows sustained winds of 135 mph with gusts to 140 mph BEFORE the instuments failed. According to this employee, this occured BEFORE the eyewall reached that area.

I questioned why this was unofficial. I was told that until they can complete final analysis of the reports, it would be called "unofficial".

In other words tim, the pro's that believe otherwise b/c of their equipment telling thim that Kat was a "marginal 3" will say the Marine Govt. Science Instruments was faulty.

...or maybe because the equipment used at that location tends to read high during high wind/high precip events. That is why it is considered unofficial. Research on that type of anemometer shows that data above 100kt tend to be 85-90% of what is displayed. Not an excuse, but an known problem.

I was not told that there was a problem with the instruments reading high during high wind/high precip events. I was not told that there was any problem with the instruments other than they failed before the height of the storm reached them. The person with whom I spoke to knew what he was talking about, so I have no doubt that his report is true. I assume that it is normal protocol for them not to call it official until all of the data is in and is assessed.

Not questioning your knowledge on this subject, Senorpepr, but I'm curious to know where your information on this type of instrument comes from and why, if that is the case, the instruments are still in use...well were still in use lol.

[timNms]

For those who are still skeptics, thought I'd relay this information to you.
I just spoke to an employee at Stennis Space Center. The unofficial report from Marine Government Science's instruments located close to the Pearl River in Hancock, County, MS (about 10 miles inland) shows sustained winds of 135 mph with gusts to 140 mph BEFORE the instuments failed. According to this employee, this occured BEFORE the eyewall reached that area.

I questioned why this was unofficial. I was told that until they can complete final analysis of the reports, it would be called "unofficial".

I can say with certainty the winds weren't that strong. Sorry. Strongest it was on the MS coast IMO is a Strong 3 which is what the NHC said in the advisories.

And you are basing your certainty on what? What was it Derek said about the NHC advisories in an earlier post? I'll have to look that up and post it for us again.

[f5]

the pros think beacuse they got that professional meterologist badge under their name they think they are 100% right

[senorpepr]

For those who are still skeptics, thought I'd relay this information to you.
I just spoke to an employee at Stennis Space Center. The unofficial report from Marine Government Science's instruments located close to the Pearl River in Hancock, County, MS (about 10 miles inland) shows sustained winds of 135 mph with gusts to 140 mph BEFORE the instuments failed. According to this employee, this occured BEFORE the eyewall reached that area.

I questioned why this was unofficial. I was told that until they can complete final analysis of the reports, it would be called "unofficial".

In other words tim, the pro's that believe otherwise b/c of their equipment telling thim that Kat was a "marginal 3" will say the Marine Govt. Science Instruments was faulty.

...or maybe because the equipment used at that location tends to read high during high wind/high precip events. That is why it is considered unofficial. Research on that type of anemometer shows that data above 100kt tend to be 85-90% of what is displayed. Not an excuse, but an known problem.

I was not told that there was a problem with the instruments reading high during high wind/high precip events. I was not told that there was any problem with the instruments other than they failed before the height of the storm reached them. The person with whom I spoke to knew what he was talking about, so I have no doubt that his report is true. I assume that it is normal protocol for them not to call it official until all of the data is in and is assessed.

Not questioning your knowledge on this subject, Senorpepr, but I'm curious to know where your information on this type of instrument comes from and why, if that is the case, the instruments are still in use...well were still in use lol.

Many reports have been published regarding the accuracy of that type and similar anemometers. It was best researched during Super Typhoon Paka.

According to information from the NSSL, the FMQ-13 hot-wire anemometer has a "speed accuracy in the 99-150 knot range[of] +/- 15% and no accuracy is listed for speeds above 150 knots."

Thereafter, wind tunnel tests have been performed and it's been noted that the speed accuracy listed above was true. Since then, all gov't agencies have been notified of the accuracy problem and even military venues have to add a remark concering the accuracy. These instruments are still in use because the equipment is still very accurate in day-to-day operation. Only during the rare times (>100kt) is it considerably off. Therefore, it does not warrent the cost to replace all of the instruments because the appropriate conversions can be done to get a "good" idea of the real wind speeds.

[senorpepr]

the pros think beacuse they got that professional meterologist badge under their name they think they are 100% right

What brings you to that conclusion?

[timNms]

For those who are still skeptics, thought I'd relay this information to you.
I just spoke to an employee at Stennis Space Center. The unofficial report from Marine Government Science's instruments located close to the Pearl River in Hancock, County, MS (about 10 miles inland) shows sustained winds of 135 mph with gusts to 140 mph BEFORE the instuments failed. According to this employee, this occured BEFORE the eyewall reached that area.

I questioned why this was unofficial. I was told that until they can complete final analysis of the reports, it would be called "unofficial".

I can say with certainty the winds weren't that strong. Sorry. Strongest it was on the MS coast IMO is a Strong 3 which is what the NHC said in the advisories.

And you are basing your certainty on what? What was it Derek said about the NHC advisories in an earlier post? I'll have to look that up and post it for us again.

Here you go, Brent:

Derek Ortt
Professional-Met



Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 6083
Location: South Miami, Florida
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:17 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

918mb has absolutely no bearing on the damage. Not sure where that belief came from to be honest, as the laws of physics dictate otherwise

The NHC advisories typically are subject to revisions of as much as 20%; thus, they do not provide much value to the debate. The NHC advisory said Floyd hit Eleuthra with winds of 155m.p.h., but best track had it hitting with 120 m.p.h. winds

[LSU2001]

I dont know where NOAA gets it's surge values from...because according to them...Pascagoula only had like a 12 or 13 foot surge...yet we had water in our home, which is 18 ft elevation, and protected by a forrest from any wave acction. They actually said the same thing of hurricane Georges, and this water was easily 4-5 ft higher than Georges water was at my house. So I dont know where NOAA took their readings but at my parents house, near the AL/MS state line, the water was probably about 17-18 ft.

Do you live near Franklin Creek or Bayou Herring by chance?
Tim

[Javlin]

the pros think beacuse they got that professional meterologist badge under their name they think they are 100% right

I don't think that is quite so f5.I for one like the debate one learns much if he/she pays attention.I for one the possibilty that the data Derek might be right.I went out myself in the middle of the storm at 11:00 AM.I watched for a few minutes on the front porch(faces N) and remember thinking myself maybe 110-120mph.Now in hindsight I may have been basing part of that thought on the fact I knew roughly where the storm was at and possible intensity just 30 miles to my W and doing a little deduction for my location.But it was not as bad as I thought it would be or expected it just would not end.I will have to say the damage was by far worst than any storm prior and I was here in Camille.The beach has had it bad,pictures literally only give 1/2 the gravity of the damage as seeing it in person.So when look at a picture try to imagine it twice as bad on the beachfront.