Katrina H-Wind Analysis, marginal 3 at landfall

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Katrina about 3 hours. Rita about 12 hours. Rita was stronger the Katrina...

[f5]

just imagine if that surge went into Galveston Bay

[dhweather]

simple,

Camielle likely was not a 5. HRD's reanalysis will get to Camielle in a couple of years

How can the reanalyse it? Katrina destroyed the "benchmarks" left
behind from Camille.

[dhweather]

Woah wait a minute. Did Derek actually say Katrina never got to a category 5????

Um, hello, earth to Derek, the recon found winds to support it when they upgraded it, they wouldn't upgrade it unless they did. It may not have gotten to 175mph, but it was at least 165mph at its maximum intensity.

As to it being a marginal 3, I think it was a strong 3. 125mph is pretty darned closer to 131mph than it is to 111mph.

And, take a look at this graphic:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mob/cgi-bin/imageview.php?dir=/0805Katrina&file=vel_2_mob_1359Z.GIF

Its at 4,000 feet, if you reduce it by about 5% you get strong category 3 winds well indland, which indicates to me that it was possibly a 4 in terms of wind speeds - considering mobiles radar was a good distance away.

Derek, we did get sustained winds of 100mph in Hattiesburg 90 miles inland, and even a report of 110mph in Laurel, NORTH of us.

So, I'm not sure what you're point is.

I drove down I-59 today from Hattiesburg - the damage in Pearl River
County is remarkable. You'll see large areas of trees snapped clean
off. Unbelieveable.

[dhweather]

Pensacola likely only got Cat 1 winds. The wind damage was mostly superficial. Haven't seen any pictures of structures destroyed by wind.

With Katrina, I do know Hattiesburg had many structures severly damaged by wind alone.

I saw this first hand today - the damage that far inland was unbelieveable.

[dhweather]

Again, dropsondes, which I HAVE looked at and you probably have not, and doppler radar indicates the same thing

That map has both the analyzed and OBSERVED maximum winds, and the maximum observed wind from dropsonde was 101KT

sorry if some are upset that they did not go through or witness a cat 4 Katrina

From this thread:
http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=76367


Dropwindsondes, released from hurricane hunter planes to peer inside
the depths of storms, fail at least half the time in strong winds -- the very
thing they are supposed to measure. With dropwindsondes costing
$600 apiece, the government has been losing an estimated $180,000 on
bad ones every hurricane season even though the technology to fix the
problem has been available for years.



What would a logical person believe - equipment that fails more than half
of the time in strong winds, or witness destruction that left more than half
of Mississippi without electricity for over a week and damaged 1/3 of all the homes in Mississippi?

"A picture is worth a thousand words, but they do not do it justice until
you see what Katrina did here in person" - George H.W. Bush, Saturday,
October 8, 2005, as he toured Waveland and Bay St. Louis Mississippi, WLOX TV.

From the Sun Herald

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/12855910.htm

With all the debate, I'm surprised nobody commented on this.
The sondes said X, but they are inaccurate more than half of the time,
particularly in high winds.

Which goes to my point. People that want to speculate on the strength
of Katrina need to come here and see it first hand. Even after six weeks,
it still looks like hell on earth.

[terstorm1012]

I agree DH, haven't commented on this particular thread. . . but I recall half the radar sites in LA and MS had power failures as Katrina came ashore.

I'm thinking I'd rather defer to those who are there...and are living it...then some equipment that seems to malfunction.

[Anonymous]

I think Camille will be downgraded from 190 mph to 175 mph.

[Normandy]

I think Camille will be downgraded from 190 mph to 175 mph.

I still think thats too high.
The damage pics from Camille and Katrina are pretty similar.

[oneness]

I agree DH, haven't commented on this particular thread. . . but I recall half the radar sites in LA and MS had power failures as Katrina came ashore.

I'm thinking I'd rather defer to those who are there...and are living it...then some equipment that seems to malfunction.

The NO radar went down as Katrina's eye was passing over Slidel. The NW eye-wall bands impacted the radar installation and it then failed. Up to that moment the radar velocity data should provide an excellent detailed record of the wind field and structure north and north west of the storm's inner core. Mobile provided continuous coverage of the NE quadrant throughout.

[Anonymous]

I think Camille will be downgraded from 190 mph to 175 mph.

I still think thats too high.
The damage pics from Camille and Katrina are pretty similar.

But...the damage is from WATER....THE STORM SURGE.

Camille was atleast 175 mph = 20-25 foot surge
Katrina was 175 mph = 20-30 foot surge (KATRINA WAS LARGER)

[Normandy]

I think Camille will be downgraded from 190 mph to 175 mph.

I still think thats too high.
The damage pics from Camille and Katrina are pretty similar.

But...the damage is from WATER....THE STORM SURGE.

Camille was atleast 175 mph = 20-25 foot surge
Katrina was 175 mph = 20-30 foot surge (KATRINA WAS LARGER)

Well show me wind damage from Camille and Ill shut up. All trees are standing, most have their foilage, and like Katrina most of the damage appeared to be from surge. Id venture to say Katrina was the Camille of this century, only larger and somewhat weaker. And I think Katrina's surge was between 25-35 feet....the waterlines on the MS coast are awfully high (in the 30 foot range).

[Anonymous]

I think Camille will be downgraded from 190 mph to 175 mph.

I still think thats too high.
The damage pics from Camille and Katrina are pretty similar.

But...the damage is from WATER....THE STORM SURGE.

Camille was atleast 175 mph = 20-25 foot surge
Katrina was 175 mph = 20-30 foot surge (KATRINA WAS LARGER)

Well show me wind damage from Camille and Ill shut up. All trees are standing, most have their foilage, and like Katrina most of the damage appeared to be from surge. Id venture to say Katrina was the Camille of this century, only larger and somewhat weaker. And I think Katrina's surge was between 25-35 feet....the waterlines on the MS coast are awfully high (in the 30 foot range).

I'd wait and see what the next 95 years do

[Normandy]

I think Camille will be downgraded from 190 mph to 175 mph.

I still think thats too high.
The damage pics from Camille and Katrina are pretty similar.

But...the damage is from WATER....THE STORM SURGE.

Camille was atleast 175 mph = 20-25 foot surge
Katrina was 175 mph = 20-30 foot surge (KATRINA WAS LARGER)

Well show me wind damage from Camille and Ill shut up. All trees are standing, most have their foilage, and like Katrina most of the damage appeared to be from surge. Id venture to say Katrina was the Camille of this century, only larger and somewhat weaker. And I think Katrina's surge was between 25-35 feet....the waterlines on the MS coast are awfully high (in the 30 foot range).

I'd wait and see what the next 95 years do

Good point.

[HurryKane]

I think Camille will be downgraded from 190 mph to 175 mph.

I still think thats too high.
The damage pics from Camille and Katrina are pretty similar.

But...the damage is from WATER....THE STORM SURGE.

Camille was atleast 175 mph = 20-25 foot surge
Katrina was 175 mph = 20-30 foot surge (KATRINA WAS LARGER)

Well show me wind damage from Camille and Ill shut up. All trees are standing, most have their foilage, and like Katrina most of the damage appeared to be from surge. Id venture to say Katrina was the Camille of this century, only larger and somewhat weaker. And I think Katrina's surge was between 25-35 feet....the waterlines on the MS coast are awfully high (in the 30 foot range).

Most have their foliage? All trees are standing? Say what? Are you talking about Camille or Katrina?

For Katrina, nearly every non-pine was denuded in Hancock, Pearl River, and Harrison counties on the coast, to points well inland and not harmed by surge. The standing trees are usually live oaks, or smaller, more flexible pines. Since the storm a lot of the non-pine trees have had a winter bloom of sorts and have leafed out like mad (it's a crazy sight).

For Camille--most of the standing trees again were live oaks or the smaller pines.

And regarding inland damage in general and only in reference to Katrina: the tree and home damage due to wind all the way up to Laurel, MS is impressive...we're talking wind-abraded roofs and probably 30-40% of trees downed. Laurel is 90-100 miles inland. For instance, look at central Diamondhead (where elevation peaks on the coast) and more than half the trees are snapped in half or uprooted due to the wind, not the surge.

[skysummit]

Again, dropsondes, which I HAVE looked at and you probably have not, and doppler radar indicates the same thing

That map has both the analyzed and OBSERVED maximum winds, and the maximum observed wind from dropsonde was 101KT

sorry if some are upset that they did not go through or witness a cat 4 Katrina

From this thread:
http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=76367


Dropwindsondes, released from hurricane hunter planes to peer inside
the depths of storms, fail at least half the time in strong winds -- the very
thing they are supposed to measure. With dropwindsondes costing
$600 apiece, the government has been losing an estimated $180,000 on
bad ones every hurricane season even though the technology to fix the
problem has been available for years.



What would a logical person believe - equipment that fails more than half
of the time in strong winds, or witness destruction that left more than half
of Mississippi without electricity for over a week and damaged 1/3 of all the homes in Mississippi?

"A picture is worth a thousand words, but they do not do it justice until
you see what Katrina did here in person" - George H.W. Bush, Saturday,
October 8, 2005, as he toured Waveland and Bay St. Louis Mississippi, WLOX TV.

From the Sun Herald

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/12855910.htm

With all the debate, I'm surprised nobody commented on this.
The sondes said X, but they are inaccurate more than half of the time,
particularly in high winds.

Which goes to my point. People that want to speculate on the strength
of Katrina need to come here and see it first hand. Even after six weeks,
it still looks like hell on earth.

I can't believe this debate is still going on. Good point DH...the only way to tell the strength of Katrina is to see for yourself. In this case, all this scientific BS is Junk. I know what Cat 1, 2, 3, and 4 damage looks like, and this is seriously Cat 5 damage. It's Cat 3 and 4 damage 40 miles INLAND!

[Derek Ortt]

science is bunk? You really need to live in the middle ages then when you could just burn the scientists at the stake for presenting evidence that contradicts your incorrect beliefs

There is ZERO chance of Katrina being anything higher than a 3 at landfall

[Charles-KD5ZSM]

i agree with everybody that is saying that you have to see the damage first hand to actually see what happened. after katrina hit i helped out with recovery efforts along the gulf coast as a amateur radio operator and the damage is outrageous. i know alot of the damage is from the storm surge, but if you go just a little north of the water there is extensive wind damage. don't believe me, just come down here. and with camille, i am still sticking with 190 mph at land fall. instuments usually don't lie unless they are malfunctioning. if that is the case, there were a lot. we still won't know what the max. gusts were because the anemometers broke at 220 mph. the reason there wasn't alot of damage wide spread with camille is that camille was a very, very compact storm with an eye only 6 miles wide. also, during the last if not next to last recons into camille, she ripped the engine off of the recon plane.

[Charles-KD5ZSM]

science is bunk? You really need to live in the middle ages then when you could just burn the scientists at the stake for presenting evidence that contradicts your incorrect beliefs

There is ZERO chance of Katrina being anything higher than a 3 at landfall

i can say that i can believe that katrina could be a very strong cat 3 from the readings at the costal countys' civil defense wind speed readings that we monitored constantly.

[Valkhorn]

There is ZERO chance of Katrina being anything higher than a 3 at landfall

Landfall where?

It was around 145mph on its first landfall in LA according to the NHC, right?... so either they're wrong or you are.

Which one is it?