2005 Atl Reports=Unnamed Subtropical Storm Report Posted

[cycloneye]

Tropical Storm Arlene= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL012005_Arlene.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/AR ... hics.shtml






Tropical Storm Bret= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/BR ... hics.shtml






Tropical Storm Cindy= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/CI ... hics.shtml






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

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/DE ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Emily= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/EM ... hics.shtml






Tropical Storm Franklin= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/FR ... hics.shtml






Tropical Storm Gert= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL072005_Gert.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/GE ... hics.shtml






Tropical Storm Harvey= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/HA ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Irene= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/IR ... hics.shtml






Tropical Depression Ten= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL102005_Ten.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/TEN_graphics.shtml






Tropical Storm Jose= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL112005_Jose.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/JO ... hics.shtml







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

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/KA ... hics.shtml





Tropical Storm Lee = http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL132005_Lee.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/LEE_graphics.shtml






Hurricane Maria= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/MA ... hics.shtml







Hurricane Nate= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/NA ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Ophelia= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/OP ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Philippe= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/PH ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Rita= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/RI ... hics.shtml







Tropical Depression Nineteen= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL192005_Nineteen.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/NI ... hics.shtml






Hurricane Stan= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/ST ... hics.shtml







Tropical Storm Tammy= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/TA ... hics.shtml







Sub-Tropical Depression Twenty-Two= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL222005_Twenty-two.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/TW ... hics.shtml







Hurricane Vince= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/VI ... hics.shtml







Hurricane Wilma= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL242005_Wilma.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/WI ... hics.shtml









Tropical Storm Alpha= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL252005_Alpha.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/AL ... hics.shtml







Hurricane Beta= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/BE ... hics.shtml








Tropical Storm Gamma= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/GA ... hics.shtml







Tropical Storm Delta= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/DE ... hics.shtml







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

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/EP ... hics.shtml







Tropical Storm Zeta= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/ZE ... hics.shtml




A new page for the list of reports for the 2005 atlantic cyclones is posted.TD 10 and subtropical Depression 22 are at the list.Now there are 12 reports posted with 18 that are left.

[Audrey2Katrina]

If one goes by windspeeds "as" it was making landfall, one might note that as per adv. # 26 Katrina's max sustained winds were reported as 150mph only 5-10 nm from the mouth of the Mississippi River. The key is that they don't calculate "landfall" speeds, from what I've read, until the "center of circulation" actually crosses landfall point... this happened to Katrina, and apparently to Wilma as well.
Reading all these posts has been interesting; but nothing unexpected. This was the one I'd been waiting for, and it hasn't disappointed me at all.

A2K

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

It has something to with the Goverment at the last second.

[mike815]

They sure disappointed me especially katrina

[Audrey2Katrina]

I was referring mostly to what I'd read here; but roger that Mike!

A2K

[mike815]

oh lol ok

[Derek Ortt]

wind speeds were not 150 m.p.h. anywher enear the mouth of the Mississippi.

The report clearly states that the system weakened to 145 m.p.h. about 100 miles south of LA and further weakened to 135 m.p.h. at 30 miles away

[wxman57]

They sure disappointed me especially katrina

I'm curious as to what disappointed you about Katrina. I have no problems with the wind speeds estimated, as I've been to the MS coast a number of times in the past 3 months and see what looks like minimal wind damage for the most part. It's the surge that produced all the damage, and that's not how a hurricane gets its SS rating.

However, I do have a problem with the estimated damage costs. $40-$60 billion for New Orleans AND Mississippi? The Mississippi Sun Herald reported that over 65,000 homes were destroyed in Mississippi alone. They estimated damage in Mississippi to be $125 billion. I think that the total damage estimates are way too low.

[mike815]

yes they were too low. im sry but i just disagree. and thats just the thing there estimites. im not saying it was a 4 at landfall but it was stronger than but by only 5 mph or so. so i guess it doesnt really matter.

[DoctorHurricane2003]

okay we are NOT going to go down this road again....

[cycloneye]

I'm surprised no mention was made of the surge in the northern Bahamas. Didn't they get a large surge?

The biggest surge was in Havana where the city was flooded.At videos taken at that time you can see how those waves crashed into el Malecon area.

[Pearl River]

If you want to get techical about Katrina adv #26, with winds 150 mph, it was 90 miles sse of N.O. or about 30 miles from the coast and #26a winds 145 mph was about 10-15 miles off the coast.

[Derek Ortt]

I dont care what any advisory says. We have been through this many times, ADVISORIES ARE NOT OFFICIAL FINAL STATISTICS

[Pearl River]

Derek wrote

I dont care what any advisory says. We have been through this many times, ADVISORIES ARE NOT OFFICIAL FINAL STATISTICS

First of all, I was trying to clarify the distance from the coast and did not mention windspeed, which your precious final report gives no mention of distance. While your statement The report clearly states that the system weakened to 145 m.p.h. about 100 miles south of LA and further weakened to 135 m.p.h. at 30 miles away was totally Wrong as far as distance from the coast. It was 90 miles sse of N.O. and it couldn't be 100 miles off the LA coast at the same time.

[Derek Ortt]

it was about 90 miles from the coast as landfall at Buras came 5.2 hours after the hurricane weakened to 125KT

[Audrey2Katrina]

wind speeds were not 150 m.p.h. anywher enear the mouth of the Mississippi.

The report clearly states that the system weakened to 145 m.p.h. about 100 miles south of LA and further weakened to 135 m.p.h. at 30 miles away

And you know what? I don't care WHAT the report "clearly states" personally I'm convinced that the report will be shown to be flawed and rife with very subjective assumptions--as was the Wilma report (not to mention the "report" on Andrew that it took 10 years to change). What are those "advisories" that you do not care about get their data from? Are those "measurements" automatically assumed to be any less reliable than the plethora of assumptions made from sketchy and remote data while virtually all land instruments failed, and those they cite can not possibly be certifiably as having recorded enough data to arrive at any definitive conclusion? Personally, I think this thing has reached the point where egos are beginning to be driven more than a quest for the honest truth.

Advisory # 26:
08/29 5:00 AM 28.8N 89.6W 150MPH 915mb North near 15 MPH H4 Katrina 08/29 4:52 AM Stewart

Those co-ordinates put the storm less than 10 nm from the mouth of the river AT THAT TIME, and that's a concrete FACT ascertainable by anyone whose taken Geography 101. Now unless you're willing to slough off as irrelevant all the data gathered to come with pre-landfall advisories, then it is not something I'm going to dismiss simply because of what I consider a seriously flawed conclusion of the so-called "final" report. Those figures weren't just grabbed out of nowhere now where they? If this is the attitude then I don't see any point in bothering to cite anything about Wilma, or any other storm while over any other point over water, because these are just "advisory" data. Of course if we want to, we can cherry-pick the ones we wish to prop up our contentions, and dismiss those which do not--and this is what is precisely going on by both sides of this dispute. It's, pardon the pun, spitting in the wind, but >I< choose to accept the findings of advisory #26 and frankly don't "care" who chooses to dismiss them.

A2K

[Brent]

Not this again...

Where's the "beating the dead horse" icon when you need it?

[cycloneye]

Not this again...

Where's the "beating the dead horse" icon when you need it?

I dont see anything wrong about continuing the discussions about Katrina and the other ones.Unless it gets out of hand with personal attacks I find it good to discuss all about the reports at this thread and I who made this reports thread promote the good discussions here.

[Audrey2Katrina]

The "estimated" weakening using the 80% adjustment instead of usual 90% decrease of 125 KTS came at 28.2 N 89.6 W on the "official" report, this is about 60-70 nm S of Buras. Now unless it was travelling slower than 15 mph (a possibility I acknowledge) it was then only a little over 4 hours away, as all times given are also admittedly "estimates."

Botom line, as far as I'm concerned: Nobody is going to come up with a scenario that everyone will accept. Hence, believe whatever you wish, and dismiss likewise. I feel confident in what I accept to be closer to reality, regardless of the mountain of "likely," "not likely,"perhaps," "assume" and "possibility" and other vaguaries in a report that acknowledges "sparse data" in what I consider critical areas. Have a nice day!

A2K

[WindRunner]

One thing that we need to remember is how many times the NHC bases advisory intensities (and tracks, but that's not pertinent right now) on "continuity." This fact will lead to advisories underestimating a strengthening storm and overestimating a weakening storm, especially when the intensity change is starting to become or actually is rapid, such as bombing out or approaching land. So while we may agree or disagree with some of the NHC's intensities in the advisories, the final reports, or both, we must realize that the final report is what is used in the history books, and is (practically) final.