2005 Atl Reports=Unnamed Subtropical Storm Report Posted

[cycloneye]

Tropical Storm Arlene= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL012005_Arlene.doc

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL012005_Arlene.pdf


Tropical Storm Bret

Tropical Storm Cindy

Hurricane Dennis= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL042005_Dennis.doc

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL042005_Dennis.pdf


Hurricane Emily

Tropical Storm Franklin

Tropical Storm Gert= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL072005_Gert.doc

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL072005_Gert.pdf


Tropical Storm Harvey

Hurricane Irene

Tropical Depression Ten

Tropical Storm Jose

Hurricane Katrina= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL1 ... atrina.doc


Tropical Storm Lee = http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL132005_Lee.doc

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL132005_Lee.pdf


Hurricane Maria

Hurricane Nate

Hurricane Ophelia

Hurricane Philippe

Hurricane Rita

Tropical Depression Nineteen

Hurricane Stan

Tropical Storm Tammy

Sub-Tropical Depression Twenty-Two

Hurricane Vince

Hurricane Wilma

Tropical Storm Alpha

Hurricane Beta

Tropical Storm Gamma

Tropical Storm Delta

Hurricane Epsilon= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL292005_Epsilon.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL2 ... psilon.doc

Tropical Storm Zeta


New page so the list is posted.6 reports are available for the members to read with 23 left.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well, based on these sources, that 125 mph wind was a gust and not a sustained wind...

"Winds gusted to 125 mph in New Orleans with a 3.0 m (9.8 ft) storm surge that caused the worst flooding in decades..." (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hurricane-risk-new-orleans.htm)

"Winds gusted to 125 mph and the pressure fell to 28.75" at New Orleans. The sea level pressure there dropped to 28.00" at Grand Isle and Houma. Port Eads gauged winds to 136 mph." (http://www.thecajuns.com/lahurricanes.htm#September_9-10th,_1965_)

Well, for whatever it's worth, all of those sources are indirect. The source I cited was the actual Betsy report as can be viewed on the NOAA site, and is from an official NHC document. David Roth can "opine" all he wants to from the nice confines of his Maryland office some 30+ year after the fact--but this in no way detracts from the wording of the actual document which I will cite, once again, here:

"As the storm approached the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi, highest winds were estimated at 150 miles an hour, tides were expected to reach 6 to 12 feet from the mouth of the mississippi River, eastward to Pensacola, and heavy rains with local accumulations of 4 to 8 inches were forecasted for southeast Misssissippi and Louisiana. Tornadoes were forecast for the area within 100 miles of the coast from Biloxi, Mississippi to Apalachicola, Florida on the advisory for 5 PM EST Septembeer 9. The possibility of a tornado or two in Souther Mississippi and Southwest Alabama was also included in the advisory for 3 AM EST September 10.

"By 6 PM EST the Grand Isle Coast Guard station reported WINDS of 70 to 105 mph with GUSTS to 160 miles an hour. The eye of the storm passed 30 miles to the west of Burwood, Louisiana at the mouth of the Mississippi River at 9 PM EST on September 9. At that time, Pilottown, Louisiana reported that winds were GUSTING to over 100 miles an hour. Landfall took place at 11 PM EST near Grand Isle on th Louisiana coast with the barometer reading 28.00 inches and tides 8.9 feet above mean sea level. By 11:20 PM EST the WINDS at New Orleans had exceeded 100 miles an hour and by midnight the storm was 35 miles southwest of New Orleans. The WINDS reached 125 miles an hour at 11:46 PM at which time power failed at the New Orleans Weather bureau office and advsory responsibility was transferred back to Miami."

Now how do you want to have it? Shall we take the words of the weather experts who compiled this report, or shall we take the words of speculation from numerous websites that will say everything from it being a high end Cat 2, to within 1 mph of a Cat 5 just before landfall? Speculation is all over the place.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hurricane-betsy

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resourc ... etsy_x.htm

Most importantly is the report itself which you can view (sorry the reports are only available from the 1950's to 1995 in JPEG format which is why I typed them, but you can view all the data from the NHC archives at:

ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/storm_archiv ... 965/betsy/

The earliest images are the cover, and maps/charts, the actual typed report summary is on the last image titled prelim08.gif Additionally, you'll find the previous image refers to Miami being buffeted by Betsy for 12 straight hours, citing WINDS of around 83 mph, and "PEAK GUSTS" of 105--seems they knew the difference doesn't it?

Bottom line: The actual REPORT used terms we no longer use now, such as the time not in UTC, and obviously WINDS meant sustained while they clearly didn't avoid the term "GUST" when referring to those. Now I grant you, either one of us can go to this site, or that one, and find winds anywhere from 105-125 (that's the spectrum I found) for New Orleans' sustained winds--in ANY of those cases you can throw out your Cat 1 possibility right out of the window. In addition, consider these facts:

1.) Now I don't know, (and don't believe the report cites) the exact location of NWS instrumentation from the NOWB, but Kenner and Metairie are WEST of New Orleans and would be closer to the center of the storm as it moved from SW, to W of the actual city.

2.) New Orleans WAS in the NORTHEAST quadrant, which none would deny tends to be the worst part of a landfalling hurricane to be on, and would have gotten the strongest winds from the storm.

Finally, I'd like to know (and I KNOW this isn't scientific--I've already cited enough of that data) if you were here to ride out Betsy? To actually feel your house shaking in a howling wind that roared like a freight train ceaselessly for several consecutive HOURS, watching signs, buildings, and trees collapse all around you, hearing the wind shriek like a banshee all night outside your window? Perhaps you did, I know I did; and this time the science/data of the "official" source backs up my claim. And before any prepare to jump in with retorts of my disdain over the report for Katrina, I will say here as I have elsewhere, yes, these reports CAN be in error, and it's possible those winds weren't 125 mph sustained, albeit in this case I think they're closer to the mark. One thing's for certain, they were NOT Cat 1 however far you wish to stretch it. If anyone wishes to accuse me of cherry-picking reports, let it be known I have only found ONE I take "some" issue with at this time, and that if they dispute the one on Betsy--well, what's good for the goose!

I'm sure some prof met can back me up on this too, as there is absolutely no way NO experienced Cat 3 sustained winds during Betsy

Perhaps there is; but I'd wager they don't have the experience of Nash Roberts who is a legend in this area, and whom I recall citing those sustained winds. If I can find a way to contact the man I will; but I make no promises as he's been in retirement for some time. There is no meteorologist around here who's garnered more respect than Nash. Again, I'm not going to play the "I'll pit my meteorologist against your meteorologist" game. It's sort of like spitting into the wind. And yes, Betsy was a HUGE hurricane, given the size, the intensity, and the quadrant New Orleans received, those numbers ARE, in fact, entirely possible--anyone's declaration to the contrary notwithstanding--and the current data support that claim.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

23A 16.40 -78.00 07/16/18Z 135 937 HURRICANE-4
24 16.80 -78.80 07/16/21Z 135 937 HURRICANE-4
24A 17.10 -79.50 07/17/00Z 135 929 HURRICANE-4
25 17.50 -80.30 07/17/03Z 135 930 HURRICANE-4


First for information the 135 you see there four times are in knots so that is 155 mph.

As you can see the pressure data is not too low to be a cat 5 however being the winds so close to cat 5 which starts at 156 mph there is a chance that when the Emily report is out they may upgrade to cat 5.

What do you think they will do with the intensity of Hurricane Emily?

Well, the four instances of being only 1 mph under the Cat 5 readings might make for a legitimate claim of it at least attaining 5 status; but based on the NHC's penchant for conservative estimates, and the aforementoned higher barometric reading, I'd have to agree that it'll remain a 4--

But we shall see... I'm still waiting for Cindy and Wilma..

A2K

[Derek Ortt]

want to place a wager on Katrina only bringing cat 1 winds to New Orleans? I'll put up 5K

[Audrey2Katrina]

want to place a wager on Katrina only bringing cat 1 winds to New Orleans? I'll put up 5K

Okay, let's put 1 and 1 together and see what we come up with. On the one hand, you say that NO didn't receive any greater than Cat 1 status winds from Katrina. On the other, you claim that no storm (including Betsy) brought any winds to New Orleans even close to those of Katrina. Now, you can't have it both ways, if you wish to take issue with the NHC's own documentation on both storms, that is certainly your prerogative. But I digress, any such "bet" would be a moot point as neither science/data, nor opinion substantiates both your claims (in fact they are rendered quite contradictory), and I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the point is one which could never be proven beyond any doubt.

As for me, I think we're beating a dead horse, and it has been requested that we eschew the endless debate over Katrina--at least unless/until further notified, so I will simply return to the topic of this thread, being the 2005 reports.

As stated, I anxiously await those on Cindy and Wilma.

A2K

[jazzfan1247]

Well NWS Lake Charles has a snippet saying it was a 125 mph gust:

"September 9-10th, 1965 (Betsy): Hurricane Betsy, moving unusually fast through the Gulf at forward speeds of 22 mph, came ashore Grand Isle as a major hurricane. Winds gusted to 125 mph and the pressure fell to 28.75" at New Orleans. The sea level pressure there dropped to 28.00" at Grand Isle and Houma. Port Eads gauged winds to 136 mph." http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/research/lalate20hur2.php

Also, I find it strange that there is no mention of higher gusts in New Orleans, which must have been VERY impressive if the sustained winds were 125 mph. I mean just take a look at Grand Isle, where gusts ran up to 160 mph while sustained where only 105.

Anyways, I think it's highly doubtful the 125 mph reading in NO was sustained...unless someone can give me a much more conclusive report saying that. I've seen that reading referred to as both gust and sustained on the internet, and I would have to believe that it was a gust considering the difficulty in measuring such a high sustained wind, the lack of any mention of higher gusts, and the distance from the center coupled with ambiguity about the actual landfall intensity. I've seen landfall intensity estimates anywhere from weak Cat 3 to strong 4 on the net, and also mentions of "105 mph on closest approach to NO" so if anyone can clear up exactly what Betsy's intensity was, that would be greatly appreciated.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well NWS Lake Charles has a snippet saying it was a 125 mph gust:

And of course since Slidell was "too far" to measure Katrina's wind strength being perhaps all of what--30-60 miles away, we're supposed to give credence to a report from Lake Charles which is only about 200 miles away from New Orleans. That sounds logical.

Also, I find it strange that there is no mention of higher gusts in New Orleans, which must have been VERY impressive if the sustained winds were 125 mph. I mean just take a look at Grand Isle, where gusts ran up to 160 mph while sustained where only 105.

Actually, the first part of your statement has a good deal of logic behind it, and I concede makes a good point, but this does not detract from the fact that the report does refer to gusts, peak gusts, and just winds, and this was simply reported as winds, and as you noted, remains ambiguous. Regarding the Grand Isle snippet, you fail to mention that those winds of 105, with the gust of 160 were reported at 6:00 EST, a full FIVE HOURS BEFORE landfall. Perhaps this would remove some of the "strangeness" from it. Then again, maybe not.

I would have to believe that it was a gust considering the difficulty in measuring such a high sustained wind, the lack of any mention of higher gusts, and the distance from the center coupled with ambiguity about the actual landfall intensity. I've seen landfall intensity estimates anywhere from weak Cat 3 to strong 4 on the net, and also mentions of "105 mph on closest approach to NO" so if anyone can clear up exactly what Betsy's intensity was, that would be greatly appreciated.

Well, what I believe or what you believe is both irrelevant and not going to change the facts. And while I would welcome comments about it further from anyone interested, not that it would change anyone's mind, perhaps it would be better suited to another thread as this one is not about Betsy, it's about the 2005 reports. Suffice it to say on closing it on this thread, that once again we will have to agree to disagree.

A2K

[Derek Ortt]

as has been stated many times here (something tells me that some are not reading what the mets are saying(, there is a 1.4 to 1.6 gust to sustained wind ratio over land. A gust to 125 is quite consistent with a cat 1 sustained wind, especially 50 miles inland

[Audrey2Katrina]

as has been stated many times here (something tells me that some are not reading what the mets are saying(, there is a 1.4 to 1.6 gust to sustained wind ratio over land. A gust to 125 is quite consistent with a cat 1 sustained wind, especially 50 miles inland

I'm well aware of that, and as has been stated many times, the "fact" that they were only gusts has NOT been unequivocally established. What a vast majority of meteorological sources I've checked seem to agree on tho' is that it was decidedly more than Cat 1.

I repeat--let's either take this discussion to another thread, or in deference to those who are here NOT to debate what Betsy was or wasn't, keep this one to the 2005 reports. Thanks!

A2K

[MiamiensisWx]

OK, everyone. Let's discuss windspeeds in my thread. Come on in, Audrey2Katrina, to my thread! Others should, too!

[cycloneye]

i'm willing to bet Katrina will be the most read report

I would agree.

The sooner its released the better, so it can end all this controvery and argument over what it really was...

Both quotes haved been right on target and were said well before the Katrina Report was posted here although the arguments about Katrina haved continued 2 weeks after the report was released.

I say that the Wilma report will be the most read and commented report after Katrina.

[HurricaneBill]

I say that the Wilma report will be the most read and commented report after Katrina.

I agree. Wilma seems to be a rather underrated storm.

[wxwatcher91]

yeah Wilma has been in the shadow of her sister Katrina. because Wilma didnt strike the US as hard as Katrina did, the fact that she was at one point the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic has been lost.

I think that there will be much discussion on what intensity she struck Florida at...

the two reports Im looking forward to are Cindy and Emily...

imagine if Emily is upgraded! that would be FOUR cat 5s!

[P.K.]

You need to add yet another storm to that list now Luis.

[cycloneye]

You need to add yet another storm to that list now Luis.

Wow Incredible adding another system to the list hours away from the ringing of the new year.

[WindRunner]

We also have to up it to 24 reports left, don't forget. (Unless the NHC can somehow put out the post-storm analysis with the first adivisory )

[MiamiensisWx]

yeah Wilma has been in the shadow of her sister Katrina. because Wilma didnt strike the US as hard as Katrina did, the fact that she was at one point the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic has been lost.

I think that there will be much discussion on what intensity she struck Florida at...

the two reports Im looking forward to are Cindy and Emily...

imagine if Emily is upgraded! that would be FOUR cat 5s!

I would NOT say Wilma did not strike the U.S. hard. She did! Of course, it is definately not as bad as Katrina on the northern Gulf coast, but it sounds like you're saying that Wilma did not strike the U.S. hard at all.

[wxwatcher91]

I said "Wilma didnt strike the US as hard as Katrina did"

I didnt say Wilma did not strike the US hard.

[MiamiensisWx]

I said "Wilma didnt strike the US as hard as Katrina did"

I didnt say Wilma did not strike the US hard.

Oh... sorry!

[cycloneye]

Ok guys let's wait for the Wilma report and then we can discuss about all of what they will say about the intensity.