Katrina H-Wind Analysis, marginal 3 at landfall

[Derek Ortt]

Have you even looked at the Jeanne SFMR data Scorpion? It showed 112KT in a very narrow area


You do not know science, Scorpion. I suggest you learn as it comes in handy in life

[Scorpion]

Have you even looked at the Jeanne SFMR data Scorpion? It showed 112KT in a very narrow area


You do not know science, Scorpion. I suggest you learn as it comes in handy in life

Ok and it shows Katrina as 112 kt near LA, even with the 908 pressure while Jeanne had a 950 pressure with 112 kt. Doesn't make sense.

[senorpepr]

Have you even looked at the Jeanne SFMR data Scorpion? It showed 112KT in a very narrow area


You do not know science, Scorpion. I suggest you learn as it comes in handy in life

Ok and it shows Katrina as 112 kt near LA, even with the 908 pressure while Jeanne had a 950 pressure with 112 kt. Doesn't make sense.

Remember pressure gradient...

Huge storms like Katrina can have a very low pressure w/out the very high winds.

[Scorpion]

Is it really significant enough for a 42 mb difference? Jeanne wasn't tiny either.

[senorpepr]

Is it really significant enough for a 42 mb difference? Jeanne wasn't tiny either.

It can be. It depends on several factors such as the background pressure and the extent of the storm. Plus, Katrina was much bigger than Jeanne.

[Anonymous]

Zack,

my advice to you is not to so quickly dismiss the finding of others based upon science as stupid. You will not make your quest to enter the field any easier, regardless as to how many TV appearances you have had in New Orleans

COLD.

[Valkhorn]

I don't think changing it from a 3 to a 5 will really fix all the damage it caused. I for one haven't a clue how bad the winds were here. I do know the following though:

- There was plenty of wind damage as far north as Meridian (where a 90mph gust was reported).
- In Hattiesburg I believe the last report that went out reported 44mph sustained winds at 9 in the morning, which was about 5 hours from when the worst of it finally hit us
- Mobile radar consistently showed 64kt winds in our area for a very long period of time. I haven't seen any greater detailed images about it but I do know we did have hurricane force winds sustained in the greater Hattiesburg area
- My barometer finally dropped to 27.92 inches of mercury at 2pm so I assume thats when the center came the closest to us. I had no way to measure the wind but I do know trees were snapped halfway up due to the wind. And yes, I was witness to this first hand.
- On the coast most damage was caused by fierce storm surge which gutted out most first to third floors on many coastal homes and buildings. The fact that wind damage is definately not as bad as the water damage there means the winds were possibly not category 5 strength.
- However, the winds inland were definately around 120mph sustained in Poplarville and Picayune from the data I can find and were as high as 100mph here in Hattiesburg. Gusts were probably higher than that.

So whatever you call this storm, whatever category, you cannot change the facts. It was a terrible monster, and an uprecedented event. I lived through it in Hattiesburg and really dont ever wish to go through it again.[/list]

[senorpepr]

I don't think changing it from a 3 to a 5 will really fix all the damage it caused. I for one haven't a clue how bad the winds were here. I do know the following though:

- There was plenty of wind damage as far north as Meridian (where a 90mph gust was reported).
- In Hattiesburg I believe the last report that went out reported 44mph sustained winds at 9 in the morning, which was about 5 hours from when the worst of it finally hit us
- Mobile radar consistently showed 64kt winds in our area for a very long period of time. I haven't seen any greater detailed images about it but I do know we did have hurricane force winds sustained in the greater Hattiesburg area
- My barometer finally dropped to 27.92 inches of mercury at 2pm so I assume thats when the center came the closest to us. I had no way to measure the wind but I do know trees were snapped halfway up due to the wind. And yes, I was witness to this first hand.
- On the coast most damage was caused by fierce storm surge which gutted out most first to third floors on many coastal homes and buildings. The fact that wind damage is definately not as bad as the water damage there means the winds were possibly not category 5 strength.
- However, the winds inland were definately around 120mph sustained in Poplarville and Picayune from the data I can find and were as high as 100mph here in Hattiesburg. Gusts were probably higher than that.

So whatever you call this storm, whatever category, you cannot change the facts. It was a terrible monster, and an uprecedented event. I lived through it in Hattiesburg and really dont ever wish to go through it again.[/list]

Good post. I agree... while the surge was of cat 5 power... the winds were of either 3 or 4 power (depending on further analysis)... it was a 5 in the book that counts the most: the pocketbook. But... it's for the best we know the true category of Katrina so we can better perpare in the future. Underestimating future storms because of overestimated old storms is a horrible practice.

[Stormcenter]

In Katrina (2005), landfall wind speeds at Grand Isle, Louisiana were approximately 140 mph with a central pressure of 920mb - the 3rd lowest on record for a landfalling Atlantic storm in the US. The above information is courtesy of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

Derek, where did I ever say anything about me being on TV. You have so much room to talk with the way you just responded. I have always had respect for you until your statement just now. You are beginning to sound like Joe Bastardi with this wise information.

We are debating the obvious. That is what I am saying. NWS says above 140mph in Grand Isle. In the Western Portion of the eyewall, therefore the East Side is stronger. I don't think this storm was anything below 140mph. No debating a Cat 3. They say CAT 4!

TS Zack don't waste your time.

[jazzfan1247]

In Katrina (2005), landfall wind speeds at Grand Isle, Louisiana were approximately 140 mph with a central pressure of 920mb - the 3rd lowest on record for a landfalling Atlantic storm in the US. The above information is courtesy of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

Derek, where did I ever say anything about me being on TV. You have so much room to talk with the way you just responded. I have always had respect for you until your statement just now. You are beginning to sound like Joe Bastardi with this wise information.

We are debating the obvious. That is what I am saying. NWS says above 140mph in Grand Isle. In the Western Portion of the eyewall, therefore the East Side is stronger. I don't think this storm was anything below 140mph. No debating a Cat 3. They say CAT 4!

TS Zack don't waste your time.

Did you read any of the other posts at all?

[jazzfan1247]

You know, it is really unfortunate when scientists spend hours upon hours of endless work researching tropical cyclones, only to have their results discounted by everyday people who have no clue how science is to be used or what it entitles. They do this work to save people's lives, not to deflate a storm's ego or legacy (which if Katrina is indeed a Cat 3, it does nothing to diminish its enormous impact). That said, I am very grateful that Derek, senorpepr, and others who devote so much time to studying these forces of nature, and possess an objective viewpoint while analyzing all of the data that is presented to them. I wanna thank you guys and make sure you know that there are still some people here who appreciate what science really stands for, and the work that you do.

[hurricanesurvivor]

I wonder if the way hurricanes are categorized will change after what we've witnessed with Katrina. I think in the future if a storm becomes a cat 5 in the Gulf and then weakens before landfall, and is as huge as Katrina was, people should be warned about how much damage the storm could still inflict, even with weaker winds. In 20 years, to just have it on the record that Katrina was a cat 3 at landfall in Mississippi, will not be enough. There should be some other categorization for a storm like that. I went through the eyes of both Camille and Elena and since Elena was a 3, we thought Katrina would be more like Elena was, and we rode out the storm because of it. To me, she was more like Camille, a cat 5-- I don't care what any scientific data says.

[Derek Ortt]

I'm starting to appreciate how tough scientists had it in the middle ages. Some here act the same way the science persecutors did when calling scientists whose findings questioned popular belief as witches, etc.

[Derek Ortt]

the angle of impact is just as important. Elena came in at a 10 degree angle, which negated its tidal surge. Had it have came in at the same angle as Katrina, the surge would have been at least 15 feet

[hurricanesurvivor]

That's what I mean- there should be a better categorization of storms to account for things like that.

I just know we'll NEVER stay for another one... the storm can have my house. At least I'll know we'll all be safe. One thing I've learned from all of this... every storm is different and every one can be deadly The aftermath sometimes even more so than the storm itself. I lost both my grandmother and a close friend in the week in the week after the storm, due to the heat and the stress. That's one thing no one can ever prepare for.

[timNms]

I wonder if the way hurricanes are categorized will change after what we've witnessed with Katrina. I think in the future if a storm becomes a cat 5 in the Gulf and then weakens before landfall, and is as huge as Katrina was, people should be warned about how much damage the storm could still inflict, even with weaker winds. In 20 years, to just have it on the record that Katrina was a cat 3 at landfall in Mississippi, will not be enough. There should be some other categorization for a storm like that. I went through the eyes of both Camille and Elena and since Elena was a 3, we thought Katrina would be more like Elena was, and we rode out the storm because of it. To me, she was more like Camille, a cat 5-- I don't care what any scientific data says.

I agree with you. There needs to be a way for NHC to include storm surge reading into the way storms are catagorized, if nothing else but to let the public know that winds aren't all that need to be worried about in a storm. Am wondering if there is a reliable way to predict such surges, though.

[senorpepr]

I wonder if the way hurricanes are categorized will change after what we've witnessed with Katrina. I think in the future if a storm becomes a cat 5 in the Gulf and then weakens before landfall, and is as huge as Katrina was, people should be warned about how much damage the storm could still inflict, even with weaker winds. In 20 years, to just have it on the record that Katrina was a cat 3 at landfall in Mississippi, will not be enough. There should be some other categorization for a storm like that. I went through the eyes of both Camille and Elena and since Elena was a 3, we thought Katrina would be more like Elena was, and we rode out the storm because of it. To me, she was more like Camille, a cat 5-- I don't care what any scientific data says.

See... this is why the field is trying to get as better understanding of how strong Katrina really was by using credible observations. That way, next time you see a three headed your way, you'll pay attention. I mean -- it's called a major hurricane for a reason.

I agree... we should have a more definative rating system for hurricanes. Obviously people didn't head NHC's wind forecasts or surge forecasts which were pretty close to the money with Katrina.

[senorpepr]

I wonder if the way hurricanes are categorized will change after what we've witnessed with Katrina. I think in the future if a storm becomes a cat 5 in the Gulf and then weakens before landfall, and is as huge as Katrina was, people should be warned about how much damage the storm could still inflict, even with weaker winds. In 20 years, to just have it on the record that Katrina was a cat 3 at landfall in Mississippi, will not be enough. There should be some other categorization for a storm like that. I went through the eyes of both Camille and Elena and since Elena was a 3, we thought Katrina would be more like Elena was, and we rode out the storm because of it. To me, she was more like Camille, a cat 5-- I don't care what any scientific data says.

I agree with you. There needs to be a way for NHC to include storm surge reading into the way storms are catagorized, if nothing else but to let the public know that winds aren't all that need to be worried about in a storm. Am wondering if there is a reliable way to predict such surges, though.

There is a pretty accurate way to forecast surge. It was used with Katrina. Their forecast was pretty close to accurate. 28 feet was forecast the night prior to landfall. Tell me that isn't a pretty good forecast.

See, the problem is the NHC does forecast everything the people need to be concerned with. However, people tend to focus too much on that "line of track" or that "category number" and they end up being blind-sighted. We went through this same debate last year with Ivan. People could not accept the fact that Ivan was not a category four. These people never came around and said, "Oops... I screwed up," when the NHC gave the best track as being a category three -- barely. (105kt)

[Derek Ortt]

and there was strong consideration for Ivan to have been lwoered to 100KT as well

[timNms]

From NWS Jackson, MS. You should read the whole report. It's very interesting. Wind gust in laurel, MS recorded at 110 mph. (instrument failed due to power outages, if I read correctly)

http://kamala.cod.edu/offs/KJAN/0510031623.wwus41.html

POST TROPICAL CYCLONE REPORT...HURRICANE KATRINA NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE JACKSON MS 1120 AM CDT MON OCT 3 2005 DESTRUCTION IN THE PATH OF HURRICANE KATRINA HAS BEEN WIDESPREAD AND OVERWHELMING. CATASTROPHIC DESTRUCTION WAS LEFT ACROSS THE GULF COAST AND PARTS OF SOUTHEAST MISSISSIPPI. SEVERAL VISUAL SURVEYS WERE MADE BY NWS PERSONNEL ACROSS PORTIONS OF CENTRAL...EAST-CENTRAL AND SOUTHEAST MISSISSIPPI. THESE SURVEYS INDICATED WIDESPREAD DAMAGE COMPARABLE TO F1 TO F2 TORNADOES...WITH AREAS BORDERING ON F3 TYPE DAMAGE. THE MOST EXTENSIVE DAMAGE...FROM THE SURVEYED AREAS...IS ROUGHLY LOCATED SOUTH AND EAST OF A PURVIS TO COLLINS TO NEWTON TO MERIDIAN LINE. AREAS NORTH OF I-20 DUE HAVE CONSIDERABLE TREE DAMAGE...COMPARABLE TO AN F1 TORNADO...BUT THE DAMAGE IS NOT AS WIDESPREAD LIKE ACROSS SOUTHEAST MISSISSIPPI.