Moderator: S2k Moderators
The storm made landfall on September 17 near Fort Lauderdale, Florida as a minimal Category 4 hurricane. Wind gusts of up to 155 mph, with sustained winds in excess of 120 mph, were reported from Hillsboro Lighthouse near Pompano Beach
senorpepr wrote:Audrey2Katrina wrote:senorpepr wrote:Second... Michoud instruments are not certified/initialized and... therefore... considered unofficial. Therefore, they will not appear on the map. That is pointed out on NOAA's report.
Point taken; albeit it also doesn't assert that those winds didn't happen. Look, I respect your/their opinion, I just don't happen to agree with it.
Incidentally the chart doesn't show where any Cat 4 winds were at all, just curious if you left those off because they'd be well offshore before landfall, or if that map doesn't show any Cat 4 winds in that particular grid?
A2K
On that chart there weren't any. Adjust the chart southward a bit and you'll see the category four and five.
Extremeweatherguy wrote:A2K...you keep referring to the idea that the people who live there and see the damage automatically can tell what Cat. 3 damage looks like. Really, though, this seems to just be your "opinion" of what Cat. 3 damage is. Now I know you may want to refer back to previous storms that you have gone through, but how do you know for sure that you saw Cat. 3 damage from those storms? What you might have considered Cat. 2 or 3 damage in the past may have actually just been Cat. 1 damage, and now when Katrina hit and the damage was to the same level or worse...you automatically assume it was just as bad or worse than the Cat. 2 or 3 winds you thought you had seen before.
) And frankly, there is much to much "what if" scenaria in there for me to do any reply justice. If one has, in fact, experienced Cat 3 winds/damage, according to "official" reports, and makes assertions of comparisons there are a LOT of variables that could equally account for the differentiation. Speculation can make for interesting dialogue/discussion; but is hardly unassailable truth.
wxman57 wrote:Audrey2Katrina wrote:CapeVerdeWave wrote:Audrey2Katrina wrote:Absolutely!
A2K
Yep... I think it's a reasonable answer.Audrey2Katrina wrote:Yup... found a good site with info on the '47 storm, also called the "Fort Lauderdale Storm" of Sept 4, 1947.
http://today.answers.com/topic/1947-fort-lauderdale-hurricane
And yes, it also mentions Cat 3 in Louisiana with gusts of 125 in New Orleans as the eye passed directly over the city--from the east... this would be a truly frightening scenario for a Katrina-like storm. Pearl River, I bet your dad could say a lot about that one!
A2K
Thanks... however, the link mentions the 155MPH reading as a gust, when it really was a sustained wind like the 160MPH sustained reading recorded in the Bahamas on Abaco Island during the same storm. This is the quandary I was mentioning before. I truly think the storm was still a high-end Category Four at southeast Florida landfall.
yeah, I noticed that too... but thought I'd post the link for informative purposes. Funny how this "gust-vs-sustained" keeps cropping up
and while it was before I was born, I agree the data is quite inadequate to make any unequivocal assertions one-way or the other. But if what you cite is accurate, (about the 160 mph) it certainly had to be at least a high-end 4 when it hit Florida...JMHO.
A2K
You're discussing the '47 storm at two different time periods.:
By September 16 the hurricane peaked at Category 5 status north of Grand Bahama. The storm skirted over the northern portion of Abaco Island, where a weather station claimed a wind reading of 160 mph (260 km/h) (but note all such wind measurements are suspect). As the storm passed over the Gulf Stream, it lost some strength before landfall.
Florida
The storm made landfall on September 17 near Fort Lauderdale, Florida as a minimal Category 4 hurricane. Wind gusts of up to 155 mph, with sustained winds in excess of 120 mph, were reported from Hillsboro Lighthouse near Pompano Beach
Hurricane wind fields are quite dymanic, you cannot assume that a wind reported in the Bahamas means that the same wind will be observed a day later in Florida.
artist wrote:it is thinking such as those posted above that raises the danger level of what may happen next time. Thinking they went thru a higher cat than they did will give them more confidence in a cat coming thru that is actually lower but will actually be even stronger possibly than what they TRULY went thru. Thus why those that stayed saying they got thru Camille. I have been thru 4 in the last 2 years and understand it is what it is - not what I think it was! There will be bursts in every storm that someone somewhere might get much worse but over all the readings are as the are. A cat 1 or 2 can be very dangerous if not properly prepared for.
it is thinking such as those posted above that raises the danger level of what may happen next time. Thinking they went thru a higher cat than they did will give them more confidence in a cat coming thru that is actually lower but will actually be even stronger possibly than what they TRULY went thru. Thus why those that stayed saying they got thru Camille. I have been thru 4 in the last 2 years and understand it is what it is - not what I think it was! There will be bursts in every storm that someone somewhere might get much worse but over all the readings are as the are. A cat 1 or 2 can be very dangerous if not properly prepared for.
Ixolib wrote:wxman57 wrote:...If anything, I suspect that HRD analysis may be a little generous with the Cat 1-2 winds inland across SE LA and southern MS. By that I mean that not all areas within the Cat 1 or Cat 2 radius received such winds.
According to the HRD map, CAT 3 winds were taking place in my neighborhood. Based on my experience, I tend to agree with your suspision of the product being over-generous.
At my home here in Biloxi, I maintained throughout Katrina's landfall that the winds just simply did not "seem" very intense. As I've stated in other threads, I recall more extreme winds in both Elena and Georges - and certainly in Camille and Fredrick.
I will concede, however, that it's possible my judgement and/or perception was clouded (or at least diverted) at the time as a result of sea water swirling through our living room.
ivanhater wrote:I think some mets are putting to much faith in these maps, yes they may be the best tool to use, but they may not be total fact, i can tell you we had SUSTAINED cat 1 winds in Dennis, as for Ivan it was total darkness but scary as hell and the WORST storm i have ever been through and caused massive destruction in Pensacola as many of you know...I have seen many comments from pro mets saying "there is no evidence of higher winds speeds" well in Ivans case, the anemometers broke! and they were not in the area where the worst winds where, same situation for katrina. I feel some mets need to step back and make room for the POSSIBILITY that in some storms all the data is not available and stop making the maps out to be gospel, just my 2 cents of how I feel
vbhoutex wrote:Much of the severe wind damage in any hurricane is caused by the gusts. The sustained winds "weaken" the structures and along comes a gust and bam it is all down!!! Perhaps, the reporting of the wind speeds needs to be changed? I don't know of a simple resolution to the "controversy" of how strong the winds were in any particular storm until there is an array of land based stations that do not fail that can be combined with all the technology based wind reports.
What I believe to be dangerous is those spouting that no cat 5 can ever hit the NGOM.
Much of the severe wind damage in any hurricane is caused by the gusts. The sustained winds "weaken" the structures and along comes a gust and bam it is all down!!! Perhaps, the reporting of the wind speeds needs to be changed? I don't know of a simple resolution to the "controversy" of how strong the winds were in any particular storm until there is an array of land based stations that do not fail that can be combined with all the technology based wind reports.
Extremeweatherguy wrote:
A2K...you keep referring to the idea that the people who live there and see the damage automatically can tell what Cat. 3 damage looks like. Really, though, this seems to just be your "opinion" of what Cat. 3 damage is. Now I know you may want to refer back to previous storms that you have gone through, but how do you know for sure that you saw Cat. 3 damage from those storms? What you might have considered Cat. 2 or 3 damage in the past may have actually just been Cat. 1 damage, and now when Katrina hit and the damage was to the same level or worse...you automatically assume it was just as bad or worse than the Cat. 2 or 3 winds you thought you had seen before.
That's a huge leap of faith there, EWG, (sorry for the late reply but things have been moving fast this AM ) And frankly, there is much to much "what if" scenaria in there for me to do any reply justice. If one has, in fact, experienced Cat 3 winds/damage, according to "official" reports, and makes assertions of comparisons there are a LOT of variables that could equally account for the differentiation. Speculation can make for interesting dialogue/discussion; but is hardly unassailable truth.
Much of the severe wind damage in any hurricane is caused by the gusts. The sustained winds "weaken" the structures and along comes a gust and bam it is all down!!! Perhaps, the reporting of the wind speeds needs to be changed? I don't know of a simple resolution to the "controversy" of how strong the winds were in any particular storm until there is an array of land based stations that do not fail that can be combined with all the technology based wind reports.
Extremeweatherguy wrote:
A2K...you keep referring to the idea that the people who live there and see the damage automatically can tell what Cat. 3 damage looks like. Really, though, this seems to just be your "opinion" of what Cat. 3 damage is. Now I know you may want to refer back to previous storms that you have gone through, but how do you know for sure that you saw Cat. 3 damage from those storms? What you might have considered Cat. 2 or 3 damage in the past may have actually just been Cat. 1 damage, and now when Katrina hit and the damage was to the same level or worse...you automatically assume it was just as bad or worse than the Cat. 2 or 3 winds you thought you had seen before.
That's a huge leap of faith there, EWG, (sorry for the late reply but things have been moving fast this AM ) And frankly, there is much to much "what if" scenaria in there for me to do any reply justice. If one has, in fact, experienced Cat 3 winds/damage, according to "official" reports, and makes assertions of comparisons there are a LOT of variables that could equally account for the differentiation. Speculation can make for interesting dialogue/discussion; but is hardly unassailable truth.
Much of the severe wind damage in any hurricane is caused by the gusts. The sustained winds "weaken" the structures and along comes a gust and bam it is all down!!! Perhaps, the reporting of the wind speeds needs to be changed? I don't know of a simple resolution to the "controversy" of how strong the winds were in any particular storm until there is an array of land based stations that do not fail that can be combined with all the technology based wind reports.
Extremeweatherguy wrote:
A2K...you keep referring to the idea that the people who live there and see the damage automatically can tell what Cat. 3 damage looks like. Really, though, this seems to just be your "opinion" of what Cat. 3 damage is. Now I know you may want to refer back to previous storms that you have gone through, but how do you know for sure that you saw Cat. 3 damage from those storms? What you might have considered Cat. 2 or 3 damage in the past may have actually just been Cat. 1 damage, and now when Katrina hit and the damage was to the same level or worse...you automatically assume it was just as bad or worse than the Cat. 2 or 3 winds you thought you had seen before.
That's a huge leap of faith there, EWG, (sorry for the late reply but things have been moving fast this AM ) And frankly, there is much to much "what if" scenaria in there for me to do any reply justice. If one has, in fact, experienced Cat 3 winds/damage, according to "official" reports, and makes assertions of comparisons there are a LOT of variables that could equally account for the differentiation. Speculation can make for interesting dialogue/discussion; but is hardly unassailable truth.
vbhoutex wrote:Much of the severe wind damage in any hurricane is caused by the gusts. The sustained winds "weaken" the structures and along comes a gust and bam it is all down!!! Perhaps, the reporting of the wind speeds needs to be changed? I don't know of a simple resolution to the "controversy" of how strong the winds were in any particular storm until there is an array of land based stations that do not fail that can be combined with all the technology based wind reports.
Pearl River wrote:vbhoutex wroteMuch of the severe wind damage in any hurricane is caused by the gusts. The sustained winds "weaken" the structures and along comes a gust and bam it is all down!!! Perhaps, the reporting of the wind speeds needs to be changed? I don't know of a simple resolution to the "controversy" of how strong the winds were in any particular storm until there is an array of land based stations that do not fail that can be combined with all the technology based wind reports.
I couldn't agree with you more. I don't believe there is a simple solution to this because you can never be in the exact area of strong winds. I'm hearing more and more of wind gust from 130 to 145 in Slidell and from what I have seen, I can concur with that.
[/b]A2K wrote[b]Extremeweatherguy wrote:
A2K...you keep referring to the idea that the people who live there and see the damage automatically can tell what Cat. 3 damage looks like. Really, though, this seems to just be your "opinion" of what Cat. 3 damage is. Now I know you may want to refer back to previous storms that you have gone through, but how do you know for sure that you saw Cat. 3 damage from those storms? What you might have considered Cat. 2 or 3 damage in the past may have actually just been Cat. 1 damage, and now when Katrina hit and the damage was to the same level or worse...you automatically assume it was just as bad or worse than the Cat. 2 or 3 winds you thought you had seen before.
That's a huge leap of faith there, EWG, (sorry for the late reply but things have been moving fast this AM ) And frankly, there is much to much "what if" scenaria in there for me to do any reply justice. If one has, in fact, experienced Cat 3 winds/damage, according to "official" reports, and makes assertions of comparisons there are a LOT of variables that could equally account for the differentiation. Speculation can make for interesting dialogue/discussion; but is hardly unassailable truth.
A2K I agree with what you have said. EWG you are also basing some of your opinions on what you have seen and heard from eyewitnesses. Having been in law enforcement, you can have 100 eyewitnesses and 100 different stories.
I agree that the gusts may have very well been much stronger than the sustained winds...but we rate hurricanes by the 1-minute sustained winds, not by the gusts. As for the eyewitness thing...if we can not believe what we hear from people and what we see in pictures than what are we to believe? I am basing my statements off of not just eyewitnesses, but also pictures, video, wind charts, etc. etc. I feel I have pretty good backing to my arguments. Those pictures from downtown N.O. showed some structures with little to no damage. It would be absurd to think that downtown N.O. got Cat. 3 force winds and yet have houses that receive no roofing damage, or have a stretch of road where only 1 power pole is bent, or have another stretch of road where there is no real damage to street signs. It just does not fit with what a Cat. 3 force wind would do. Now some places (along the immediate coast of SE Louisiana and Mississippi) may have seen Cat. 3 force winds...but I do not believe that N.O. westward saw above Cat. 1, and I do not believe that *most* areas east of N.O. and west of Mobile saw above Cat. 2 force winds. Yes, the gusts may have been much, much higher...but I am referring to sustained winds, and of course there may have been a few local pockets where the winds were a category higher as well, but those areas are few and far between.Pearl River wrote:vbhoutex wroteMuch of the severe wind damage in any hurricane is caused by the gusts. The sustained winds "weaken" the structures and along comes a gust and bam it is all down!!! Perhaps, the reporting of the wind speeds needs to be changed? I don't know of a simple resolution to the "controversy" of how strong the winds were in any particular storm until there is an array of land based stations that do not fail that can be combined with all the technology based wind reports.
I couldn't agree with you more. I don't believe there is a simple solution to this because you can never be in the exact area of strong winds. I'm hearing more and more of wind gust from 130 to 145 in Slidell and from what I have seen, I can concur with that.
[/b]A2K wrote[b]Extremeweatherguy wrote:
A2K...you keep referring to the idea that the people who live there and see the damage automatically can tell what Cat. 3 damage looks like. Really, though, this seems to just be your "opinion" of what Cat. 3 damage is. Now I know you may want to refer back to previous storms that you have gone through, but how do you know for sure that you saw Cat. 3 damage from those storms? What you might have considered Cat. 2 or 3 damage in the past may have actually just been Cat. 1 damage, and now when Katrina hit and the damage was to the same level or worse...you automatically assume it was just as bad or worse than the Cat. 2 or 3 winds you thought you had seen before.
That's a huge leap of faith there, EWG, (sorry for the late reply but things have been moving fast this AM ) And frankly, there is much to much "what if" scenaria in there for me to do any reply justice. If one has, in fact, experienced Cat 3 winds/damage, according to "official" reports, and makes assertions of comparisons there are a LOT of variables that could equally account for the differentiation. Speculation can make for interesting dialogue/discussion; but is hardly unassailable truth.
A2K I agree with what you have said. EWG you are also basing some of your opinions on what you have seen and heard from eyewitnesses. Having been in law enforcement, you can have 100 eyewitnesses and 100 different stories.
Users browsing this forum: jconsor, WeatherCat and 64 guests
