What intensity was Katrina at LA landfall?

fasterdisaster · #1 Postby **fasterdisaster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:23 pm

A poll.

Derek Ortt · #2 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:27 pm

need to add 120-125

fasterdisaster · #3 Postby **fasterdisaster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:29 pm

I'm using the 5 mph increments that the NHC uses.

mtm4319 · #4 Postby **mtm4319** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:46 pm

Set numbers should be used, not intervals. If one believes the intensity was 125mph, then what would you choose, 120-125 or 125-130?

Anonymous · #5 Postby **Anonymous** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:51 pm

135-140 mph

fasterdisaster · #6 Postby **fasterdisaster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:54 pm

mtm4319 wrote:Set numbers should be used, not intervals. If one believes the intensity was 125mph, then what would you choose, 120-125 or 125-130?

I did it with set numbers originally, using the 5 mph increments the NHC uses(i.e. 115-120, 125-130) but someone made it that way.

#7 Postby **Stormcenter** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:51 pm

135-140 easily.

NastyCat4 · #8 Postby **NastyCat4** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:53 pm

Strong Cat 4

#9 Postby **skysummit** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:19 pm

135-140...no doubt about it.

djtil · #10 Postby **djtil** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:26 pm

science says around 115.....ill go with it.

Matt-hurricanewatcher · #11 Postby **Matt-hurricanewatcher** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:42 pm

120 mph is looking more likely...

fasterdisaster · #12 Postby **fasterdisaster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:45 pm

This is Louisiana landfall, in case someone didn't know.

Matt-hurricanewatcher · #13 Postby **Matt-hurricanewatcher** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:47 pm

ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2 ... l08deg.png

ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2 ... l08deg.png

About 100 knots=115 mph. That should end the story...She was hardly a cat3!!!

What caused the damage was the cat5 surge. She was a very big storm...With a large area of cat2 or 3 winds. Katrina is looking like a cat3 with cat5 surge.

Scorpion · #14 Postby **Scorpion** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:15 pm

Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote:ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2005/al12.2005/0829/1442/col08deg.png

ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2 ... l08deg.png

About 100 knots=115 mph. That should end the story...She was hardly a cat3!!!

What caused the damage was the cat5 surge. She was a very big storm...With a large area of cat2 or 3 winds. Katrina is looking like a cat3 with cat5 surge.

And it was so right in the fact that it peaked Katrina at 135 knots. I go with 125-130 mph.

krysof · #15 Postby **krysof** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:16 pm

Katrina also had very low pressure for a landfalling hurricane

fasterdisaster · #16 Postby **fasterdisaster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:26 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote:ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2005/al12.2005/0829/1442/col08deg.png

ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2 ... l08deg.png

About 100 knots=115 mph. That should end the story...She was hardly a cat3!!!

What caused the damage was the cat5 surge. She was a very big storm...With a large area of cat2 or 3 winds. Katrina is looking like a cat3 with cat5 surge.

And it was so right in the fact that it peaked Katrina at 135 knots. I go with 125-130 mph.

Seriously, this wasn't 115 mph. That data is inaccurate, since when did Katrina never reach Category 5? :?:

Matt-hurricanewatcher · #17 Postby **Matt-hurricanewatcher** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:40 am

fasterdisaster wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote:ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2005/al12.2005/0829/1442/col08deg.png

ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2 ... l08deg.png

About 100 knots=115 mph. That should end the story...She was hardly a cat3!!!

What caused the damage was the cat5 surge. She was a very big storm...With a large area of cat2 or 3 winds. Katrina is looking like a cat3 with cat5 surge.

And it was so right in the fact that it peaked Katrina at 135 knots. I go with 125-130 mph.

Seriously, this wasn't 115 mph. That data is inaccurate, since when did Katrina never reach Category 5?

I heard that the the SFMR data was taken more seriously then the normal recon reduce from 850 or 700 millibars. So yes there is a chance that the nhc could down grade her to a strong cat4=155 mph. Emily also had data supporting her 153 knots but she had(Hrd) 156 mph which is cat5. Derek said when Katrina was first upgraded to a hurricane. That data is suppose to be taken much more seriously then the normal data. So I would not be suprized to see Katrina lost its title as a cat5.

But Rita was with out quastion a cat5.

Also this go's for landfall they will take this data seriously.

Website · #18 Postby **Brent** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:51 am

135 mph in LA... 115-120 mph in MS.

#19 Postby **terstorm1012** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:03 am

Due to the reports that NOAA has faulty equipment due to underfunding from Congress which could have caused errors, I'm going to go with 140 at LA landfall and 125 at MS landfall.

Scorpion · #20 Postby **Scorpion** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:10 am

A mature hurricane will not have problems with taking its winds down the the surface. Emily was 153 at max Fl, Katrina was 166. Totally different beast.