2005 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Reports Discussion Thread

[Pearl River]

Basically the way the reports are written, would tend to lead one to believe that the radar data from Katrina and from Cindy would cause one to think that the same basic radar information was dismissed for Katrina and not Cindy.

[jazzfan1247]

Actually, I do not. Look we've beaten this dead horse over and over, and no matter what spin you put on it, I'm going to maintain there is an inconsistency, and you're going to counter that there isn't. We will simply have to agree to disagree. I'm not budging an inch, er mm, and it is quite apparent neither are you. So be it.

A2K

Sometimes I wonder if you actually read the entirety of my posts, cuz I thought I made myself pretty clear. But oh well, I guess that's that.

I will say though that the type of "reasoning" that you, Pearl River, and some others here concerns me a lot. And quite frankly I sympathize greatly with Derek and other prof mets and researchers, because they effectively are getting their work disrespected without any justification. Even if you say "I still respect their work as scientists, etc." it still doesn't change anything, because you are still disrespecting their hard work and expertise. This is quite unfortunate, and I'm sure quite a few lives have been lost due to this type of baseless discrediting and false reasoning, I only hope that less of this will occur in the future.

I sincerely do not mean to offend anyone here, but I am concerned about the presence of this kind of reasoning among coastal residents and what impact it might have on their lives...and this is what inspired me to post in the first place.

[Audrey2Katrina]

then dont come crying to me when a real cat 4 hurricane hits you

Unless I'm comatose or already interred in the path, that will never happen; albeit I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.

because you will not grasp the data that beyond a reasonable doubt indicates Katrina was a 3.

It's not a matter of "grasping" it's a matter of credibility. I have respect for a Cat 1, my only contention here is that I am of the opinion that the NHC blew it on this one... no more, no less. Let's not write between the lines.

Please, everyone on the hurricane coast know, Katrina showed just how bad a category 3 hurricane is.

And possibly a Cat 4...

Please do not take a cat 3 lightly. It does not take a 4 or a 5 to level a region, as Cat 2 Isabel showed at Cape Hatteras

Absolutely, take NO hurricane for granted... they're killers.

Based upon some of the comments here, I am going to be posting much less,

Sorry to hear that Derek; when you're not talking to walls I find your posts generally informative. I hope you reconsider, I bear no personal animus and I mean that sincerely, I simply disagreed on some points it appears you took rather personal.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Extremeweatherguy said:
all the evidence

"All of the evidence" is the one thing NO hurricane report has, and I really have no problem with what a storm is classified as. The NHC blew it in 1992 by all current accounts, and it is just as possible that it may have to reconsider this one--this is my only point.

A2K

[Pearl River]

I am offended. First of all, I have lived here for 46 yrs and have been through a lot of hurricanes and tropical storms. Second, my father lives no where near the coast and 4 miles from Lake Pontchartrain and wound up with 6 ft of water in his house, losing everything he owned. In previous storms, the ditches never flooded.

People have opinions and when someone disagrees with the findings, they are being trounced upon as basically being "stupid". Don't you have the audacity to tell me what I mean when I say something. I can have all the respect in the world for someone . That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

I was merely making a statement about the 2 reports when I get slammed and then all this need this proof and that proof. Then someone several hundred miles away is going to tell me what I experienced, I don't think so.

I have concerns too. I have concerns on people passing judgement on something they have not experienced, basing their opinions on others who are not even in this area. I don't pass judgement on someone who went thru Wilma and the damage they may have recieved, because I'm not there nor will I criticize them for telling their stories or experiences or disagreements. IFf someone wants to disagree with me, thats fine. Don't be condescending about it.

[jazzfan1247]

People have opinions and when someone disagrees with the findings, they are being trounced upon as basically being "stupid". Don't you have the audacity to tell me what I mean when I say something. I can have all the respect in the world for someone . That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

The issue for me isn't the disagreement itself. It's the disagreement without proper basis behind it that bothers me. It's perfectly ok for people to disagree with something if they have the proper evidence to back it up. It is not ok, however, to just disagree without objective evidence.

The objective evidence available right now points to a Cat 3 at landfall. I said in another thread that I would be perfectly willing to go the Cat 4 Katrina route IF there were objective evidence found in support of that conclusion. Apparently you refuse to do the same for the Cat 3 Katrina conclusion; you believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of the objective evidence. And this is fine and dandy, but this opinion should NOT be viewed with the same respect and esteem as one that includes objective evidence and that has been researched thoroughly.

[Pearl River]

I just don't know if we will ever find that objective evidence. Cat 3 or whatever, Ill never forget what I have seen, nor will my 3 children. I think we can agree on that.

[Brent]

The objective evidence available right now points to a Cat 3 at landfall. I said in another thread that I would be perfectly willing to go the Cat 4 Katrina route IF there were objective evidence found in support of that conclusion. Apparently you refuse to do the same for the Cat 3 Katrina conclusion; you believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of the objective evidence. And this is fine and dandy, but this opinion should NOT be viewed with the same respect and esteem as one that includes objective evidence and that has been researched thoroughly.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Jazzfan wrote:
because they effectively are getting their work disrespected without any justification. Even if you say "I still respect their work as scientists, etc." it still doesn't change anything, because you are still disrespecting their hard work and expertise. This is quite unfortunate, and I'm sure quite a few lives have been lost due to this type of baseless discrediting and false reasoning,

Spare me the lecture, as with all due respect; I just recently found out that I LOST a family member in this storm and don't care to hear speculation that people are losing their lives simply because they feel "disrespected". This is still America and one can "respectfully" disagree with the findings of a Tropical Cyclone Report without being accused of "dissing" someone to the point of it costing a life. The fact IS that they have erred before and some in here are sanctimoniously acting as if it could NEVER occur again. That kind of pomposity is what I have problems with. I have respect for anyone in their chosen profession whether I agree with their findings or not.

A2K

[mike815]

i completly agree and im sry for your losse

[Audrey2Katrina]

Thanks, Mike. It's something I've never mentioned before and don't like going into at all; suffice it to say that comparing the real life loss of a loved one to people losing lives simply because they've been "dissed" by a genuine disagreement over findings pushed me a little over the edge.

A2K

[ROCK]

Here we go again......I can understand you discrediting a non-MET like me but Derek?

This pointless crusade of yours has clouded your judgement. Kat was a cat 3 at landfall plain and simple. There is not enough evidence to support an upgrade, bottom line, final answer....geezz.....We appreciate your input but to keep on and on about how the NHC is involved in some sort of conspiracy to keep Kat a 3 is absurd. As posted earlier, it seems like you have a hurricane status issue....(my TS can beat up your TS problem)

Until you have concrete evidence that cat 4 winds were felt on land,I wouldnt be discrediting anyone MET, NHC ect

Oh, with all due respect, I do appreciate your $10 dollar words....you write/ type well.....

[Audrey2Katrina]

That is exactly the problem. It seems that when the gods speak the peons MUST grovel. Well I don't grovel well. I am neither trying to discredit you, OR the estimable Mr. D. I am simply disagreeing with you and since I doubt either of you have the status of a true "God" and being Catholic doubt you're the Pope, I will reserve the respect for infallibility only to the former. There IS no "final" answer, unless you have some time machine and already know that it is beyond future debate or discussion. The bottom line is simply they may be right, and they may be wrong, but the one thing they AREN'T is infallible, and the room for error exists however much we might rhetorically attempt to argue otherwise.

And as stated earlier, you are propping up a straw man inasmuch as it is not my intent to discredit anyone beyond my God given right to disagree with what they may be claiming. The My TS can beat up your TS is an appeal to ridicule that doesn't pan out very well either as I've brought it up many times before; it does make for a nice break in the action tho'.

I'll wait for that evidence as I'm certain one day it will out; meanwhile, we'll live with the one we have--the folks in Homestead did for 10 years.

A2K

[Pearl River]

No one is discrediting any MET. If people can't disagree, then somethings wrong. There are no hurricane status issues.

You can sit in Pearland, Texas and based upon a report and a Pro-Met, you can tell me what kind of damage we received here. Idon't think so. I know what 50 mph winds can do and I know what 150 mph winds can do, I went thru Camille.

First of all, the surface wind speeds in Katrina are incomplete due to power loss or complete failure long before the eye of the hurricane came ashore. An anemometer tower placed in one spot will not measure ths strongest wind if it doesn't pass over it. Science is not exact and never will be. Things change constantly.

The same people who say Katrina was a cat 3, because the NHC said so, do not want to accept the Wilma report. You can't have it both ways.

When someone makes a statement or comment and the "experts" don't agree with it, the "experts" get very condescending and treat people like they are stupid, and then the war of words starts.

We can have opinions and you as a law student should appreciate that since law is made up of opinions.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Oh, with all due respect, I do appreciate your $10 dollar words....you write/ type well.....

$10 !!!! And here I was shooting for some "Benjamins"

ROFL... anyway, thanks and with all due respect the discussion/debate has been fun. Contrary to what some may claim, no animus or disrespect toward anyone was intended. Have a great day!

A2K

[jazzfan1247]

That is exactly the problem. It seems that when the gods speak the peons MUST grovel. Well I don't grovel well. I am neither trying to discredit you, OR the estimable Mr. D. I am simply disagreeing with you and since I doubt either of you have the status of a true "God" and being Catholic doubt you're the Pope, I will reserve the respect for infallibility only to the former. There IS no "final" answer, unless you have some time machine and already know that it is beyond future debate or discussion. The bottom line is simply they may be right, and they may be wrong, but the one thing they AREN'T is infallible, and the room for error exists however much we might rhetorically attempt to argue otherwise.

And as stated earlier, you are propping up a straw man inasmuch as it is not my intent to discredit anyone beyond my God given right to disagree with what they may be claiming. The My TS can beat up your TS is an appeal to ridicule that doesn't pan out very well either as I've brought it up many times before; it does make for a nice break in the action tho'.

I'll wait for that evidence as I'm certain one day it will out; meanwhile, we'll live with the one we have--the folks in Homestead did for 10 years.

A2K

First of all, I am sorry for your loss.

Secondly, it is perfectly fine to question the authority...if you have good reason to do so. There is copious evidence pointing to a Cat 3 katrina, but none pointing towards a Cat 4. Due to this, it is unreasonable to be utterly convinced of Katrina being a Cat 4, given the lack of evidence in support of this.

I am perfectly willing to go along with the Katrina Cat 4 conclusion and admit my mistake...IF there is good, objective evidence in support of it. The question is, are you willing to do the same? The objective evidence right now is all in favor of Cat 3, so much so that NHC downgraded it from a 4 to a 3.

The truth is, we will never know EXACTLY how strong any storm is, it's not possible for us. But this is NOT a valid or reasonable argument in support of your opinion of a Cat 4 Katrina. You're basically saying "since there is some doubt, I'll go ahead and believe whatever I want cuz there's a chance I'm right." To be honest, however, there seems to be very little doubt in this case, and thus this reasoning is ridiculous. I will acknowledge the small chance that the NHC's findings could be incorrect, however, but I will throw all of my support behind their findings, as it has a much higher probability of being closer to the truth.

[jazzfan1247]

No one is discrediting any MET. If people can't disagree, then somethings wrong. There are no hurricane status issues.

It is fine to disagree, if you have good evidence and reasons to do so. And since meteorology is in the field of science, this evidence must be objective and scientific, and done using the scientific method.

First of all, the surface wind speeds in Katrina are incomplete due to power loss or complete failure long before the eye of the hurricane came ashore. An anemometer tower placed in one spot will not measure ths strongest wind if it doesn't pass over it. Science is not exact and never will be. Things change constantly.

Yes, all of this is true. HOWEVER, I find it strange that you and others have pointed out countless times the failure of the wind instruments on LAND and trying to point out that "there's a lack of data." We HAVE a lot of data, but of course you refuse to acknowledge any of the findings of the NUMEROUS dropsonde, SFMR, doppler radar, and onboard doppler findings over water, which ALL indicate Katrina was a Cat 3 at landfall. How can you just ignore that?

When someone makes a statement or comment and the "experts" don't agree with it, the "experts" get very condescending and treat people like they are stupid, and then the war of words starts.

Quite honestly, they have every reason to be condescending, because they are the ones analyzing the data the right way, and with the right expertise.

We can have opinions and you as a law student should appreciate that since law is made up of opinions.

Meteorology is NOT the law. It is NOT based on opinions, but on objective evidence and the usage of the scientific method. Thus a comparison cannot be drawn.

[Pearl River]

Jazzfan wrote

Secondly, it is perfectly fine to question the authority...if you have good reason to do so. There is copious evidence pointing to a Cat 3 katrina, but none pointing towards a Cat 4. Due to this, it is unreasonable to be utterly convinced of Katrina being a Cat 4, given the lack of evidence in support of this.

I guess what drives us crazy is the fact that the NHC states in the report that cat 4 winds may have touched the La coast before landfall, so in a 15 to 30 mimute time period it dropped from a 4 to a 3. I guess it could happen.

[ROCK]

A2k, I have to give you credit your sticking to your guns despite overwelming odds. I admire that....You should go into law. You would be good in the court room....

[senorpepr]

Wow... yet another debate regarding Katrina... :grabs a six-pack: