Katrina H-Wind Analysis, marginal 3 at landfall

[oneness]

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

Not at the 1st landfall at Buras Lousiana.

It was a Cat 4.

And if the wind speed doesn't reflect it then the damage does. There is a zero chance of you being right. Accept it.

Because you know, damage IS a factor in determining damage with hurricanes, (ANDREW)

Dude x again says, “t’was cat 4 damage levels!!", at an initial landfall over the delta ... and yet again it has to be reiterated that those damage levels there were ~95% storm surge related, upon extremely flat terrain which barely pokes above sea level during high tide to begin with.

[jasons2k]

what difference does it make when your house is nothing but a Concrete slab?

It makes a huge difference if you don't think a Cat. 3 would cause that to happen and you stay in it.

[Derek Ortt]

if any of you watched CNN during Rita, you'd have a good understanding of what I am saying.

What Anderson Cooper went through was a very strong tropical storm. Not a major hurricane. The conditions in Miami were actually worse than what he went through. The damage difference is in building construction, which is another reason as to why damage is not considered

[oneness]

There's that tricky little dropsonde again. We have NHC telling us they are in desperate need of more equipment, we have a report that the dropsondes fail more than half of the time, particularly at high wind speeds, and that leaves us with lots of question marks of what really happened down here.

If anyone sees the damage first hand, they'll have a much better understanding of how strong the winds were. I've said all along that in Mississippi, the winds were a 4, the surge was a 5+. I don't think we had sustained 5 winds, but had gusts above 155.

Come here, listen to stories of people that rode it out. Hear that "Things were going pretty rough, then as the eye approached, all hell broke loose. We had a period of 20-30 minutes where trees broke like toothpicks. Roofs came flying off - it was frightening" as one Diamondhead resident that rode it out told me.

Indeed, a large genuine sustained Cat 3 is a very powerful storm and much under-rated. They are far more damaging and dangerous than people give credit. To make things worse, they are all very different to each other as well.

[JtSmarts]

if any of you watched CNN during Rita, you'd have a good understanding of what I am saying.

What Anderson Cooper went through was a very strong tropical storm. Not a major hurricane. The conditions in Miami were actually worse than what he went through. The damage difference is in building construction, which is another reason as to why damage is not considered

Derek I know exactly what you were talking about, it looked horrible where he was. I was shocked when the CNN meterologist kept telling him that the strongest winds hadn't hit yet and he was having winds around 65-70.

[stormcrow]

The wind damage i am seeing is Se Lousiana (Covington, Kenner and NO) is not as bad as areas near where Charleys eye went through, More like what i saw in Jeanne and Frances. number of trees broken 10 to 20 up is amazing. Seems like occasional pockets of heavier damage. I my mind this was a cat 3.

[Valkhorn]

Cat 3. winds would cause almost anyone to think they just rode through an F5 tornado.

Not exactly. I know what F5 winds can do and what they'd look like and how I would not have a house or apartment if those happened.

I wish I had an anemometer but honestly I wouldn't have stepped outside during the peak of the storm. I couldn't have anyways. About 3 hours before the eye hit you couldn't even stand up outside.

[vbhoutex]

Indeed, a large genuine sustained Cat 3 is a very powerful storm and much under-rated. They are far more damaging and dangerous than people give credit. To make things worse, they are all very different to each other as well.

This is where I think a lot of the perception problems come in. Most hurricanes do not have the size of windfield that Katrina had. This windfield produced hours and hours of sustained CAT3 winds(or more pending BT, etc.)over the same areas as opposed to maybe a a few hours of Cat3 or whatever, in a small area such as Dennis. I am not about to discount others observations and experiences. I have been there myself. But one thing we all need to understand here, and I mean both sides of this discussion, is that Katrina was(HOPEFULLY!!!!!)a very unique Hurricane. It is difficult to compare her to others, just as it is difficult to compare Andrew to others, etc. Each of these storms is very unique in and of themselves(all TC's) but when we get into the major Hurricanes it becomes even moreso IMO. We will not "solve" anything with these discussion, but hopefully both sides can learn from them. I have seen many good points brought up and discussed from both sides and I have personally learned from them. I hope everyone else will too.

[NastyCat4]

It is obvious from the Miami Herald articles that an accurate reading of the winds of ANY hurricane is suspect. The series of articles has affirmed what I have thought for years--the NHC does the best job, given the severe limitations under which they must operate.

Even if only 20% of the dropsondes failed (as opposed to the 50% as quoted in the article), there is certainly a considerable margin for error in wind intensity measurements. Also, as was pointed out by the article, and reiterated by me many times is the inadequacy of their software--they are using computers and software that is years old--obsolete by anyone's standard, let alone a "first line" emergency management agency.

Problems with ground radar, speed measuring equipment, and rainfall observational mechanisms is obviously apparent--it is clear that the forecasters have been functioning under extremely adverse conditions.
Thus, we may never really know what Katrina was scientifically--the lack of precision in the equipment due to obsolescence makes it virtually impossible to verify the situation with any degree of accuracy.

So much is the shame, as the NHC deserves the best--and our government has handcuffed them from doing their job.

[jasons2k]

Cat 3. winds would cause almost anyone to think they just rode through an F5 tornado.

Not exactly. I know what F5 winds can do and what they'd look like and how I would not have a house or apartment if those happened.

I wish I had an anemometer but honestly I wouldn't have stepped outside during the peak of the storm. I couldn't have anyways. About 3 hours before the eye hit you couldn't even stand up outside.

I'd wager that'd most definitely be the case with the general population. Really, anything over 100 mph sustained is hard to comprehend unless you are one of the rare souls who has actually endured more.

[jazzfan1247]

He's exactly right. And, I'd hate to bring this up, but if Derek had rode it out like I did and many others me might not be so eager to downplay it.

I was the only apartment left to have power and that lasted until about 11 when the eye wall hit. And he's right, all hell did break loose. As if the storm wasn't bad enough, the 30-40 minutes of the eye wall hitting was just about as bad as I'll ever see it. The winds were much stronger, gusts were a lot higher, and I have seen video of 130mph wind gusts and I would equate it to that.

The peak gust I remember seeing was just like video I had seen of sustained 120-135mph winds. Sustained I would guess that it was over 90mph for at least an hour.

Mind you this is 90 miles inland from gulfport.

Derek is not downplaying this at all. He and other profs just look at the objective facts, and base their conclusions off of them...and it just so happens that those facts indicate Cat 3. Like I've said before, nobody's questioning or downplaying the damage. We all know it was horrible.

This has been an excellent debate. Something to think about is that if people on this board, which follow the weather and tropical systems more than the average joe, can't accept at all that there's a solid chance of Katrina being a Cat 3 at both landfalls, then how much of the general public is going to believe this?

[f5]

Katrina wasn't your average CAT 3/4 she was more of a strong Cat 5 weak CAT 6 if there was ever a CAT 6 based on the destruction

[Scorpion]

What is strange was during Frances, I thought I was getting bonafide strong Cat 1/weak 2 conditions when I was outside in it. I estimated the winds to be about 90 mph or so. But then I see actual footage of 75 mph and it looked ten times stronger than what I experienced in Frances. And this was in the eyewall as well. So it seems like all this area recieved was a strong tropical storm. Lesson is people tend to overestimate windspeeds too much.

[john potter]

Derek, you are referring to cat 3 intensity on the MS landfall, right?. Also, isn't it likely that MS area-wide structural analysis will be a factor in the NHC final Katrina report? Or do you believe only recon data will be used -- viz. the last flight before the LA landfall (reported at the time 145 bmph, 918 mb- surface)?

[Derek Ortt]

there was recon data right at the time of MS landfall, and it did not come close to justifying a cat 4 since the 90% reduction did not apply.

Aloft this was a cat 4 at both landfalls, but it appears as if these winds were only transported to the ground in gusts, not sustained winds, as often occurs in weakening hurricanes

[Derek Ortt]

structural analysis will not factor into the final determination of either landfall, in all liklihood

the debate is cat 3 at Louisiana landfall. Cat 3 at Mississippi is basically a given and there is little debate regarding that landfall in the scientific community

[Weatherfreak000]

there was recon data right at the time of MS landfall, and it did not come close to justifying a cat 4 since the 90% reduction did not apply.

Aloft this was a cat 4 at both landfalls, but it appears as if these winds were only transported to the ground in gusts, not sustained winds, as often occurs in weakening hurricanes

I still don't understand what are you trying to justify, Cat 3 in Miss or Cat 3 in Buras?

[HurryKane]

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

Not at the 1st landfall at Buras Lousiana.

It was a Cat 4.

And if the wind speed doesn't reflect it then the damage does. There is a zero chance of you being right. Accept it.

Because you know, damage IS a factor in determining damage with hurricanes, (ANDREW)

Dude x again says, “t’was cat 4 damage levels!!", at an initial landfall over the delta ... and yet again it has to be reiterated that those damage levels there were ~95% storm surge related, upon extremely flat terrain which barely pokes above sea level during high tide to begin with.

You should check out the non-surge damage in higher coastal areas like north Diamondhead, and Slidell/Stennis Space Center/Picayune, which were in the western and eastern eyewall, respectively. That damage is hardly insignificant. In addition, these damaging effects were felt well inland past the short amount of "extremely flat terrain" that "barely pokes above sea level."

I would estimate that in my part of the the neighborhood (70-100 feet above sea level) that 80-85% of the trees were lost in Katrina.

[Derek Ortt]

the only landfall up for debate is the Louisiana landfall.

It is an accepted fact by the scientific community that MS was hit by a category 3 hurricane.

The debate is did Louisiana receive a cat 3 or a cat 4

[Weatherfreak000]

the only landfall up for debate is the Louisiana landfall.

It is an accepted fact by the scientific community that MS was hit by a category 3 hurricane.

The debate is did Louisiana receive a cat 3 or a cat 4

If you posted some factual information instead of saying "Well I just read something and blah blah blah" i'd be more inclined to believe you.


"Pro Met" or not at this point the only way to progress this debate is with factual proof.


Agreed?