2005 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Reports Discussion Thread

[ROCK]

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

earlier it was getting good in here.. You missed it. It actually spilled over in a Cindy thread. How great is that.....

Oh the glory of free speech....

[Extremeweatherguy]

yeah...great debate started up in here (and cindy thread) for a few hours. It even got exciting at times. lol

[senorpepr]

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

earlier it was getting good in here.. You missed it. It actually spilled over in a Cindy thread. How great is that.....

Oh the glory of free speech....

Oh, I didn't miss anything. I may not have been present for it, but I wasn't missing it.

[Pearl River]

jazzfan wrote

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 are you an expert? I am not claiming to be one. I do know science is not exact, it changes daily or every 10 years-Andrew.

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?

And those instruments you have stated do not give an exact measurement of surface winds that the anemometer would. Not to mention that the NHC in the Katrina report states that cat 4 winds may have touched the La coast prior to landfall. Those winds would have been close to the center, just minutes before landfall.

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

Wrong buster. No one has the right to be condescending to anyone. That is a slap in the face and it's wrong. First of all I have never criticized Derek or anyone for what they have posted, and I can have an opinion and disagree without being disrespectful.

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.

First of all, it was your buddy ROCK that brought up law. Second, I was talking about opinions only. I did not mention meteorology.

[jazzfan1247]

First of all are you an expert? I am not claiming to be one. I do know science is not exact, it changes daily or every 10 years-Andrew.

No I'm not an expert. Though ask me in 5-10 years and I probably will be...

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?

And those instruments you have stated do not give an exact measurement of surface winds that the anemometer would. Not to mention that the NHC in the Katrina report states that cat 4 winds may have touched the La coast prior to landfall. Those winds would have been close to the center, just minutes before landfall.

They don't?! Wow that's news to me. Perhaps they don't give out a digital "153 knots", but they all measure the same thing. And land-based anemometers aren't always perfect too, there are some types (hot-wire) that malfunction under certain conditions. The instruments NHC uses, however, have been researched and recallibrated over and over to minimize the number of malfunctions.

I'll give you the Cat 4 winds touching LA prior to landfall. This is possible.

Wrong buster. No one has the right to be condescending to anyone. That is a slap in the face and it's wrong. First of all I have never criticized Derek or anyone for what they have posted, and I can have an opinion and disagree without being disrespectful.

Personally, I think it's disrespectful to disagree without sound reasoning or evidence, especially when the scientists have devoted a lot of time and energy to their work. I'll agree to disagree on this one though.

First of all, it was your buddy ROCK that brought up law. Second, I was talking about opinions only. I did not mention meteorology.

My bad, I probably just got caught up, that's all...

[Pearl River]

jazzfan wrote

They don't?! Wow that's news to me. Perhaps they don't give out a digital "153 knots", but they all measure the same thing. And land-based anemometers aren't always perfect too, there are some types (hot-wire) that malfunction under certain conditions. The instruments NHC uses, however, have been researched and recallibrated over and over to minimize the number of malfunctions.

If the NHC instruments measured exact windspeed, then in the report, they would state that. It's all estimated and they wouldn't have had issues with what the true windspeed was at landfall. Even with these instruments, they have to use the reduction. Yes, anemometers aren't perfect, but they record surface windspeed. That's why land recording of the windspeed is always brought up. I'll give you the anemometer one.

Personally, I think it's disrespectful to disagree without sound reasoning or evidence, especially when the scientists have devoted a lot of time and energy to their work. I'll agree to disagree on this one though.

I'll agree to disagree, just by stating the cat 4 winds possible prior to landfall. They have all the scientific evidence, but are not quite sure. That's why I disagree. It's like, well maybe, it could have, but, nah it didn't. If they would have said no evidence. I'll have accepted that.

[jazzfan1247]

If the NHC instruments measured exact windspeed, then in the report, they would state that. It's all estimated and they wouldn't have had issues with what the true windspeed was at landfall. Even with these instruments, they have to use the reduction. Yes, anemometers aren't perfect, but they record surface windspeed. That's why land recording of the windspeed is always brought up. I'll give you the anemometer one.

This is all true, except for dropsondes. These measure exact wind values not only at the surface, but throughout the atmosphere to get a complete wind profile of the hurricane. Admittedly there is the areal coverage issue, but they do drop a lot of these, and they account for the coverage issue in the report by assuming the maximum winds to be slightly higher than maximum RECORDED winds.

It would be really nice though if we could get anemometers on land that actually work when it really counts.

[Pearl River]

One Pro Met thought Wilma's downgrade was questionable. He doesn't agree with the NHC. So its ok for him to disagree, even when evidence is there to prove it wasn't a cat 4. So heres an expert disagreeing with the experts and thats not disrespecting the NHC's findings. But if I disagree, then I'm disrespecting the experts. I agree that Wilma should have been stronger at landfall. So, now that I agree with this expert, does this make me disrespectful to the NHC? HMMMM

[senorpepr]

One Pro Met thought Wilma's downgrade was questionable. He doesn't agree with the NHC. So its ok for him to disagree, even when evidence is there to prove it wasn't a cat 4. So heres an expert disagreeing with the experts and thats not disrespecting the NHC's findings. But if I disagree, then I'm disrespecting the experts. I agree that Wilma should have been stronger at landfall. So, now that I agree with this expert, does this make me disrespectful to the NHC? HMMMM

A doctor can question another doctor's studies and/or opinions, but is it fair for a non-meteorologist to question a meteorologist's studies and/or opinions?

A Chinese-speaking person can question another Chinese-speaking person's grammar, but is it fair for an English-speaking person to question a Chinese-speaking person's grammar?

Just thoughts...

[wxmann_91]

One Pro Met thought Wilma's downgrade was questionable. He doesn't agree with the NHC. So its ok for him to disagree, even when evidence is there to prove it wasn't a cat 4. So heres an expert disagreeing with the experts and thats not disrespecting the NHC's findings. But if I disagree, then I'm disrespecting the experts. I agree that Wilma should have been stronger at landfall. So, now that I agree with this expert, does this make me disrespectful to the NHC? HMMMM

A doctor can question another doctor's studies and/or opinions, but is it fair for a non-meteorologist to question a meteorologist's studies and/or opinions?

A Chinese-speaking person can question another Chinese-speaking person's grammar, but is it fair for an English-speaking person to question a Chinese-speaking person's grammar?

Just thoughts...

The second example in comparison to the current predicament is like comparing apples to oranges, it's not like we don't know anything about the weather.

Questioning is okay... flaming is not. Healthy debate is encouraged here, but anything beyond that is not good (e.g. I think <insert person's name> is stupid).

Personally I believe if the NHC says it was Cat 3 then it was. But we will never know for sure. I mean, who really can calculate the max 1-min wind speed?

[senorpepr]

One Pro Met thought Wilma's downgrade was questionable. He doesn't agree with the NHC. So its ok for him to disagree, even when evidence is there to prove it wasn't a cat 4. So heres an expert disagreeing with the experts and thats not disrespecting the NHC's findings. But if I disagree, then I'm disrespecting the experts. I agree that Wilma should have been stronger at landfall. So, now that I agree with this expert, does this make me disrespectful to the NHC? HMMMM

A doctor can question another doctor's studies and/or opinions, but is it fair for a non-meteorologist to question a meteorologist's studies and/or opinions?

A Chinese-speaking person can question another Chinese-speaking person's grammar, but is it fair for an English-speaking person to question a Chinese-speaking person's grammar?

Just thoughts...

The second example in comparison to the current predicament is like comparing apples to oranges, it's not like we don't know anything about the weather.

Questioning is okay... flaming is not. Healthy debate is encouraged here, but anything beyond that is not good (e.g. I think <insert person's name> is stupid).

Personally I believe if the NHC says it was Cat 3 then it was. But we will never know for sure. I mean, who really can calculate the max 1-min wind speed?

First... my post was not to be a "slap" toward non-meteorologists. My point is that there are different levels of experience. The first example shown a comparison between two professionals of great experience verses a comparison between a professional of great experience and someone with no experience. (Saying you lived through a medical event does not give you the proper experience that a doctor has nor does living through a hurricane give you the proper experience to say such and such storm was this intensity.) My second example shown a comparison between two individuals of the same langauge verses a comparison between two individuals of different languages. (Saying that you ate Chinese food before doesn't make you an expert in Chinese culture.)

In my post I never flamed--your comment I do take offense to. (If your statement wasn't directed toward me... then I retract that last comment.) I simply brought up a point. When people don't have true experience in something, do they really have a leg to stand on when judging those who do have the experience? Because I have my own family, does that make it right to judge your family and the beliefs your family holds?

Did I ever say at any point any person was stupid? Did I say anything of that nature? No. I simply stated some thoughts. I wasn't judging any side. See, you mention a "healthy debate". I have yet to see a healthy debate. What I have seen are two sides of an arguement getting nowhere fast. I've seen these posts throughout the season and they end up the same way... nowhere. Side A won't budge from their beliefs nor will side B.

As for my personal opinion, I concur with the NHC. From my own professional experience coupled with the respect of their combined professional experiences, I feel Katrina was a category three. Does that make a difference to the lives lost? Does that make a difference to the damage done? I don't believe so, but apparently some people feel that way.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Frankly this is all getting beyond absurd in my opinion. Healthy debate is healthy debate, and I don't believe anyone in here has "flamed" a soul; albeit some have come pretty close to all but stating in so many words that others' opinions just don't merit any consideration since they're not the "pros".

I also wouldn't presume to step into wxmann's mind; but in reading his post it seems to me he was merely providing an example of flaming. The e.g. I'm sure you realize simply stands for exempli gratia or in the vernacular: "for example," which, as I see it was nothing more than an illustration of what, in his opinion would constitute "flaming". I feel quite confident it wasn't aimed at anyone.

With regard to all the faulty analogies about doctor's and professionals vs. the guy on the street I seem to detect an aire of "How dare you question us," in that tone. If I've read it wrongly, accept my apologies; but that is plainly how it reads to me. No, just because I've eaten Chinese doesn't make me an "expert" in Chinese; but I certainly can become well enough acquainted with what the dish I'm eating is called to argue its name with anyone who does speak Chinese. I can become familiar enough with the ingredients that go into its making to argue the point with any chef! Now which example is more faulty? None constitue a good analogy; but I'd wager the latter ones are closer to the point.

Equally it is patently absurd to contend that just because I experienced a medical condition or illness that I'm qualified to argue every point in the field of medicine with a doctor. But is that a fair analogy? No it isn't. I know that if I personally have experienced a set of symptoms that always seem to precede the onset of a malady I am eminently more qualified to recognize the onset of a relapse than some "doctor" who merely reads a thermometer, takes a BP reading and taps my knees a few times and tells me it's not what I know it to be. This HAS happened before. If you want to go down the medical route, it has been estimated that something like 100,000 people die per year in hospitals because of mistakes made by those "experts" when it is quite possible that had they listened a little more to the patient a more proper diagnosis might have been made and a life saved. At the very least I'll be the first to know if I'm experiencing a malady before the professional will. They can prod and probe all they want, they can take all the CAT-scans and MRI's they wish, and you know what? They can still misdiagnose. And THAT is the point some in here are trying to make. It is NOT a matter of challenging one's professional qualifications that is the paramount issue at all. It seems to me that we have some rather thin-skinned "experts" if they have to resort to throwing the "I'm the expert and your not" line every time their opinions are challenged.

The opinion of a professional is just that, an opinion. Granted, it is based on a foundation of solid educational background and that lends it more than just a modicum of credibility; but it in no way renders it beyond question. And therein, lay the rub. With all due respect!

A2K

[wxmann_91]

One Pro Met thought Wilma's downgrade was questionable. He doesn't agree with the NHC. So its ok for him to disagree, even when evidence is there to prove it wasn't a cat 4. So heres an expert disagreeing with the experts and thats not disrespecting the NHC's findings. But if I disagree, then I'm disrespecting the experts. I agree that Wilma should have been stronger at landfall. So, now that I agree with this expert, does this make me disrespectful to the NHC? HMMMM

A doctor can question another doctor's studies and/or opinions, but is it fair for a non-meteorologist to question a meteorologist's studies and/or opinions?

A Chinese-speaking person can question another Chinese-speaking person's grammar, but is it fair for an English-speaking person to question a Chinese-speaking person's grammar?

Just thoughts...

The second example in comparison to the current predicament is like comparing apples to oranges, it's not like we don't know anything about the weather.

Questioning is okay... flaming is not. Healthy debate is encouraged here, but anything beyond that is not good (e.g. I think <insert person's name> is stupid).

Personally I believe if the NHC says it was Cat 3 then it was. But we will never know for sure. I mean, who really can calculate the max 1-min wind speed?

First... my post was not to be a "slap" toward non-meteorologists. My point is that there are different levels of experience. The first example shown a comparison between two professionals of great experience verses a comparison between a professional of great experience and someone with no experience. (Saying you lived through a medical event does not give you the proper experience that a doctor has nor does living through a hurricane give you the proper experience to say such and such storm was this intensity.) My second example shown a comparison between two individuals of the same langauge verses a comparison between two individuals of different languages. (Saying that you ate Chinese food before doesn't make you an expert in Chinese culture.)

In my post I never flamed--your comment I do take offense to. (If your statement wasn't directed toward me... then I retract that last comment.) I simply brought up a point. When people don't have true experience in something, do they really have a leg to stand on when judging those who do have the experience? Because I have my own family, does that make it right to judge your family and the beliefs your family holds?

Did I ever say at any point any person was stupid? Did I say anything of that nature? No. I simply stated some thoughts. I wasn't judging any side. See, you mention a "healthy debate". I have yet to see a healthy debate. What I have seen are two sides of an arguement getting nowhere fast. I've seen these posts throughout the season and they end up the same way... nowhere. Side A won't budge from their beliefs nor will side B.

As for my personal opinion, I concur with the NHC. From my own professional experience coupled with the respect of their combined professional experiences, I feel Katrina was a category three. Does that make a difference to the lives lost? Does that make a difference to the damage done? I don't believe so, but apparently some people feel that way.

None of that was directed to you Senor. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The first paragraph of my post was quoting you. The last two were completely separate thoughts.

And yes though healthy debate is good this one's getting nowhere (the last sentence of my previous post acknowledges this) and in the end nobody will ever know.

[senorpepr]

None of that was directed to you Senor. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The first paragraph of my post was quoting you. The last two were completely separate thoughts.

And yes though healthy debate is good this one's getting nowhere (the last sentence of my previous post acknowledges this) and in the end nobody will ever know.

Fair enough.

[bob rulz]

First off, I do not agree with Pearl River or Audrey2Katrina. I believe in the most reasonable explanations of anything. I believe that Katrina was a category 3 at landfall because there is no concrete, solid evidence to suggest that it was a category 4. I am open to the possibility that it was category 4 at landfall, because there is not enough evidence to completely rule that out, but there is more evidence that it was a category 3 than there is a category 4, therefore I believe that it was a category 3. I don't know how people could think otherwise, but I respect their opinion and I know that they are entitled to their opinion as much as I am, because not everybody thinks like I do. Some people believe in stuff that there is less evidence for, which is not a bad thing, it just means that they think differently and they believe more in the possibilities that there is less evidence for. It's not something that I can really explain better than that. That's for the people who actually study the brain and thinking patterns. My point is is that not everybody thinks the same and many times there is simply nothing you can do about it except agree to disagree.

[cycloneye]

Wow what a debate I found this morning.This is what I wanted this thread to be in terms of the debates about Katrina (Again?) and the other important reports.So far so good as no personal attacks haved surfaced although sometimes it came a little close but in general the discussions are going good.Let's continue to debate about Cindy,Katrina,Wilma and the other reports that are out like we haved been doing and it will benefit all in terms of learning new things.

There is no limit to discuss and debate about Katrina or any of the other important reports so if the debate about them continues it can go for weeks and months without any limit. And some as senorpepr will get a six-pack and enjoy it.

[Pearl River]

bob rulz wrote

First off, I do not agree with Pearl River or Audrey2Katrina. I believe in the most reasonable explanations of anything. I believe that Katrina was a category 3 at landfall because there is no concrete, solid evidence to suggest that it was a category 4. I am open to the possibility that it was category 4 at landfall, because there is not enough evidence to completely rule that out, but there is more evidence that it was a category 3 than there is a category 4, therefore I believe that it was a category 3. I don't know how people could think otherwise, but I respect their opinion and I know that they are entitled to their opinion as much as I am, because not everybody thinks like I do. Some people believe in stuff that there is less evidence for, which is not a bad thing, it just means that they think differently and they believe more in the possibilities that there is less evidence for. It's not something that I can really explain better than that. That's for the people who actually study the brain and thinking patterns. My point is is that not everybody thinks the same and many times there is simply nothing you can do about it except agree to disagree.

I'll leave it at this. A person has the right to disagree with whomever or whatever they choose. If a person questions information, does it deserve a condescending or demeaning answer back? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that the person who disagrees is a fool or their stupid? No. It might indicate a lack of understanding on their part. There are statements made in Katrina's report I have issues with. Thats it.

[ROCK]

Wow! I woke up this morning thinking the whole Kat debate was over......I think I have made my case so I will stay out of it from here on out........

[ROCK]

jazzfan wrote

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 are you an expert? I am not claiming to be one. I do know science is not exact, it changes daily or every 10 years-Andrew.

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?

And those instruments you have stated do not give an exact measurement of surface winds that the anemometer would. Not to mention that the NHC in the Katrina report states that cat 4 winds may have touched the La coast prior to landfall. Those winds would have been close to the center, just minutes before landfall.

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

Wrong buster. No one has the right to be condescending to anyone. That is a slap in the face and it's wrong. First of all I have never criticized Derek or anyone for what they have posted, and I can have an opinion and disagree without being disrespectful.

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.

First of all, it was your buddy ROCK that brought up law. Second, I was talking about opinions only. I did not mention meteorology.

I have a buddy?

[Audrey2Katrina]

Jazzfan said:
Personally, I think it's disrespectful to disagree without sound reasoning or evidence, especially when the scientists have devoted a lot of time and energy to their work. I'll agree to disagree on this one though.

Everyone is entitled their "personal" opinion, yourself included; but the use of "sound reasoning" in your assessment of what is disrespectful is nothing more than using the tack known as "Victory by Definition" and the simple fact is that what you call sound reasoning might, and doubtless will, differ with what I or anyone with whom you disagree call "sound reasoning."

Personally, I think there is "sound reasoning" behind our disagreement and I do NOT consider it "disrespectful" to "respectfully disagree" with anyone, no matter what their title. In fact, such an assessment is a contradiction in terms.

No I'm not an expert. Though ask me in 5-10 years and I probably will be...

Well good luck in your pursuits; but that while making you more qualified in respect to knowledge of meteorology, it will render you no less fallible.

Finally, the dropwindsonde data to which you grant such esteem, while much improved over those originally employed in the 1970's using simple RF transmission data and, I believe, later LORAN, are still hardly enough to claim 100% accuracy--far from it--by their own admission! The report itself acknowledges that they did NOT have any such data from the actual point of landfall near Buras, hence their "estimation" and by your own admission, these things are constantly being "recalibrated" hence they are also subject to margin of error. The HRD even admits this bias in their analysis of SFMR and dropwindsonde data. Bottom line: what YOU consider adequate sound reasoning and what I consider it to be are obviously not the same. This does not make me right, or you wrong, OR vice-versa. What it states is that, for the time being, (and we KNOW those can change--and have) the plurality of what is present supports your position. Again, this does not signify that your position is THE most accurate one--only the one currently most widely accepted--as was the Cat 4 eval given Andrew in '92.

Bob Rulz said:
First off, I do not agree with Pearl River or Audrey2Katrina. I believe in the most reasonable explanations of anything. I believe that Katrina was a category 3 at landfall because there is no concrete, solid evidence to suggest that it was a category 4.

I am impressed with your creed; but it is little more than just another posted opinion to which you are entitled. I, likewise, reserve the right to disagree with your use of the phrase "reasonable explanations of anything," as besides being extremely subjective, it is patently inaccurate. Should you read more information on the many here who take issue with the Katrina report, I suspect a "reasonable" individual might find plenty "reasonable" doubt. I do find it strange that when one challenges the Katrina report a virtual onslaught of condescending effluvium follows, (personally I think it's rather defensive, and considering the sources I can appreciate that), but when others disagree with the Wilma report, INCLUDING some of the "pros" why, it just seems the following posts are utterly bereft of expressions of righteous indignation.

Like I said: Inconsitency seems to be the order of the day.

Everyone have a nice day.

A2K