Will there be a debate on Katrinas intensity at landfall?

[Jim Cantore]

Call me crazy but it seems to me the wind and pressure just dont match up at Katrinas final two landfalls

140mph and 915mb (or close to it I forget the exact pressure)

Then 125 and about 927mb (I forget that too

Could this be another Andrew and be pushed to cat 5 or just to maybe 145-150-155?

it had a cat 5 surge to go along with it too

it just dont match up

Or was the ERC it was starting enough to misplace the pressure and wind like that?

if you think the Mississipi strike strength will change just mention it the poll would be too confusing if I had both on there

[no advance]

No way was it a cat 3 at landfall in Miss. 30ft storm surge plus.??

[Jim Cantore]

Heres my thought

FL landfall 85-90 (I'm sorry this is like Claudette reports show it stronger then 80)

LA landfall 150 at least (Cat 5 pressure and damage in areas but wind reports will be diffcult to come by)

MS landfall 140-150 at least (the damage speaks for itself)

[cjrciadt]

Heres my thought

FL landfall 85-90 (I'm sorry this is like Claudette reports show it stronger then 80)

LA landfall 150 at least (Cat 5 pressure and damage in areas but wind reports will be diffcult to come by)

MS landfall 140-150 at least (the damage speaks for itself)

Seems resonable your estimates, remember Katrina had sub 930mb pressure six hours after first landfall!!!!!!!

[Jim Cantore]

I've never seen a 950mb storm 250 inland in central Mississipi thats just insane

[WeatherEmperor]

Ill leave the debates up to the officials.

<RICKY>

[Jim Cantore]

I think it will be intresting what the post analysis says

[Brent]

I don't really... a lot of the catastrophic damage you've seen is from surge NOT wind.

[Jim Cantore]

I realize that one believe me

that was a cat 5 surge though

30 feet???? higher then a 190-200mph storm named Camille

[x-y-no]

Surge is dependent upon much more than the maximum wind. Katrina had a far larger windfield than Camille, which allowed for more water to be piled in on the MS coast.

[vbhoutex]

Heres my thought

FL landfall 85-90 (I'm sorry this is like Claudette reports show it stronger then 80)

LA landfall 150 at least (Cat 5 pressure and damage in areas but wind reports will be diffcult to come by)

MS landfall 140-150 at least (the damage speaks for itself)

And some reports from knowledgeable members who were in the thick of it that say the same and they were not at landfall, they were East. Katrina's windfield and Camille's windfield were about the same size from the reports I have seen. Winds over 80 mph have been confirmed in FL. from Katrina. With Camille the winds in the P'cola area were in that same range with gusts to 100 and just about the same storm surge too. I think they were very similar except that Camille's winds were probably about 35-40 mph than Katina's at landfall. It will be very interesting to see what post analysis shows.

[nequad]

The category of the storm at landfall does not always dictate the height of the surge.

Isabels surge on parts of the NC coast were more consistent with a CAT 3...as oppposed to a weak CAT 2.

The very shallow waters of the Gulf coast make that area much more vulnerable to higher surges relative to the intensity of the landfalling system.

The water was piled high on the NE quad of Katrina while she was a CAT 5 and approaching the coast. Once the storm reached the very shallow waters near the coast that wall of water jacked up even more.

As I recall...Katrina made landfall with an open eye wall on the south side...not indicative of a CAT 5.

[Derek Ortt]

the debate is cat 3 or cat 4, as I explained in a previous post. NOAA planes have a very marginal cat 3 at LA, while AF, which I tend to believe, has cat 4 at LA landfall

Some need to stop going on the myth that pressure alone decides the wind, but instead the change in pressure. That is JB horse you know what

[tronbunny]

I believe the Saffir-Simpson scale is not broad enough to accurately describe any storm.
It was developed before we had our current technology.
There is no way to effectively define all of the variables that we now measure to a finite number.
A storm cannot be defined by a single flat number category.
We need a better language to communicate about such a phenomenon.
Heck even the most simplistic weather reports use a scale of 1-10 to describe how "good" the weather will be that day..
(good for what? picnics, crops, house painters, construction workers, surfers???)

[cinlfla]

MS landfall 140-150 at least (the damage speaks for itself)

No debate from me, Katrina was an extremely strong storm that did masive damage. I agree the damage does speak for itself.

[NastyCat4]

UNQUESTIONABLY a Cat 5. Damage speaks for itself.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Data wise it made landfall at 145 mph. Then its second landfall of 130 mph. The surge was that of 175 mph cat5.

[M_0331]

CAT 5 La landfall with 160+ winds, what happen to 190 kt & 234 kt winds (flight level NE quad @ 3000 meters) just before La landfall, on vortex data stream, then data were explained away. Recon data then removed from data stream @ ~0400 CDT. Measurement vortex equipment error ; get real! It must be nice to edit raw data, raw data is raw data, do not delete data once it is transmitted. I majored in Math & Mechanical Engineering for a dual Degree from U.S.C. We were told to not pick thru raw data. Enough said.

Eddie

[Stormcenter]

Plain and simple based on the damage I have seen she was EASILY
a cat 5 at landfall. You can take that to the bank.

[Stormcenter]

I don't really... a lot of the catastrophic damage you've seen is from surge NOT wind.

Yes from a Cat 5 25-30 foot storn surge.