National Climate Data Center Katrina Report

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
wxmann_91
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8013
Age: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:49 pm
Location: Southern California
Contact:

#41 Postby wxmann_91 » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:40 pm

I have radar and satellite images of Katrina at landfall, and just looking at them, I could tell Katrina was weakening as it made landfall in Plaquemines, but strengthening as it made landfall near the LA/MS border. I'd estimate the strongest winds (major hurricane force) were only felt in regions from Slidell to Biloxi. The 174 mph sustained - probably measured from a roof or a false reading. All I can say is that extra oomph of energy, the last convection flareup of Katrina - allowed her to pack quite a punch as she moved onshore and well inland.
0 likes   

f5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: Waco,tx

#42 Postby f5 » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:44 pm

Katrina was weakening .her west side just vanished into thin air
0 likes   

User avatar
wxmann_91
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8013
Age: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:49 pm
Location: Southern California
Contact:

#43 Postby wxmann_91 » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:47 pm

f5 wrote:Katrina was weakening .her west side just vanished into thin air


The statement above is not true. The sats and radar prove my point.

If anybody wants satellite and radar images feel free to PM me.
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#44 Postby Derek Ortt » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:48 pm

flight level winds were lower at MS landfall and the pressure was rising. There is no evidence that it was intensifying. All evidence suggests weakening.

Do not go on convection alone. Increasing shear also increased convection temporarily. This is likely what happened with Katrina's last minute convective flare-up
0 likes   

f5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: Waco,tx

#45 Postby f5 » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:56 pm

i looked over Katrina's satallite loop many time yes there was some slight decrease in convection on the far western side but just after midnight on the 29 the overall convection on the west side just dissappeared
0 likes   

User avatar
EDR1222
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Melbourne, FL

#46 Postby EDR1222 » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:06 pm

Maybe, it is just the fact that landfalling category 5 hurricanes are extremely rare events and Camille was one of them. And there are only two others that are known to have hit the U.S.

Maybe it is one of those things where everything has to come together perfectly at just the right time. If Camille or Rita had begun their rapid intensification a day later perhapes they make landfall as category 5's. I guess this is subject to argument, but just thought I would throw it out there.
0 likes   

f5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: Waco,tx

#47 Postby f5 » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:13 pm

Her west side just vanished as you can see

Image
0 likes   

User avatar
Pearl River
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 825
Age: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: SELa

#48 Postby Pearl River » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:18 pm

I don't know how anyone can look at 1 satellite picture of Camille and say it's west side was just as weak as Katrina. I don't know what anyone is looking at. I have lived thru both of them. There has been a large population boom on the Coast, thats why there is more damage by Katrina, then Camille. I have seen the damage caused by Camille and I see the damage everyday that was caused by Katrina.

Katrina was not a cat 3 during it's 2nd landfall as what many weather people are saying. Try telling the people of Waveland, MS which basically no longer exists or the 10,000 to 15,000 homeless in Slidell,LA which is a city of 30,000. Most structures in this area are built to cat 4 standards, thats why there was very little wind damage to buildings in Slidell. The destruction was caused by storm surge, but If you look at the forestry destruction, that is where you can really tell the strenght.

It's easy for someone who does not live in this area to look at a satellite picture or radar and say oh it wasn't that strong. But try living it each day for the past 90 days. Come to Slidell or the MS coast and see it first hand and I guarantee your opinion will change immediately.
0 likes   

Matt-hurricanewatcher

#49 Postby Matt-hurricanewatcher » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:21 pm

I was thinking the goverment did something to Katrina. But they would have to have some heavy stuff that we can not see if true. I thought then how on earth can they do it that fast in that large of a area.

I think it has to do with shear/cool SST's...
0 likes   

User avatar
wxmann_91
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8013
Age: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:49 pm
Location: Southern California
Contact:

#50 Postby wxmann_91 » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:29 pm

f5, what I meant was that there's a huge difference between "vanished" and "lost a little convection". The latter one is true. In addition, after that image you posted the western side began to build back again.

Derek, I know convection is a poor indicator of a storm's intensity (and to aid your argument, sat and radar presentation), but any convection (even shear-enhanced) would likely at least bring some of that flight-level wind closer to the surface. At the least Katrina was maintaining itself as she made her last landfall.

IMHO had Katrina been given more time over water, it could've reintensified a bit. The eye actually held itself very well across land, which meant that all other factors were actually very favorable - after she made landfall.

Also notice on sats the huge outflow channel caused by the trough - this could've kept Katrina's pressure low even as she was weakening.

I'll analyze my saved images more carefully in the days to come as tomorrow will be the last day of school this year.
0 likes   

Brent
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 38118
Age: 37
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
Contact:

#51 Postby Brent » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:38 pm

Once again... Katrina had Cat 3 winds with a Cat 5 surge. Ultimately, winds determines what it goes in the book as. I've seen the pictures on the TV and internet... and all of the catastrophic damage I see(and there is a lot, I'm not downplaying it) is from WATER. I see very little evidence of significant structural damage from wind.

It may have been a Cat 4 in LA... but it was a 3 in MS.
0 likes   
#neversummer

User avatar
Normandy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Houston, TX

#52 Postby Normandy » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:47 pm

Brent wrote:Once again... Katrina had Cat 3 winds with a Cat 5 surge. Ultimately, winds determines what it goes in the book as. I've seen the pictures on the TV and internet... and all of the catastrophic damage I see(and there is a lot, I'm not downplaying it) is from WATER. I see very little evidence of significant structural damage from wind.

It may have been a Cat 4 in LA... but it was a 3 in MS.


And the same can be said about Camille. Every picture I have seen is due to surge....which makes it VERY hard for me to understand why people truly believe Camille had 200 mph winds (when gusts where estimated to be 190 mph, something a high end 4 could have).
0 likes   

User avatar
Pearl River
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 825
Age: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: SELa

#53 Postby Pearl River » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:49 pm

Unfortunately I don't believe we will ever know Katrina's true wind speed because all official reporting guages broke before the strongest winds ever got close. Also, structures are built better these days to withstand the stronger wind of a hurricane.
0 likes   

Scorpion

#54 Postby Scorpion » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:52 pm

I saw the satellite of Katrina coming in and the west side opened up at LA landfall but seemed to close off at MS landfall. So at the least it didn't seem to be weakening rapidly. Also Katrina kept a good circulation well inland, unlike Dennis which looked to be almost dead at landfall compared to Katrina. There is now way Katrina and Dennis had similar winds at landfall.
0 likes   

User avatar
Pearl River
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 825
Age: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: SELa

#55 Postby Pearl River » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:54 pm

Normandy. I don't know where you are getting the wind gust of 190 mph. The recon estimated sustained winds of 190 mph. Special Advisory 16 on Camille in the NHC archives. Besides were you living in MS in 1969. Everyone wants to put emphasis on pictures. Try actually seeing the damage first hand.
0 likes   

Margie

#56 Postby Margie » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:00 pm

Brent wrote:Once again... Katrina had Cat 3 winds with a Cat 5 surge.


There is no evidence of a Cat 5 surge. There was a Cat 4 surge on both sides of St Louis Bay as well as the shoreline on the north of the bay...Diamondhead south of I-10.

The SLOSH results were put into an evac tool and the maps are very detailed and accurate...compare these with the FEMA flood assessment which seems to be pretty good:

http://ekman.csc.noaa.gov/website/FEMA_ ... ississippi

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods/reco ... erview.pdf

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods/reco ... index.shtm

On the last link, the flood info is also combined with future FIRMs on the maps (don't know why they did that). The only info pertaining to the flood is the "aqua" colored land and the high water marks.

I have an issue with the overview map...I believe the Cat 4 went further west than Lakeshore and more towards the mouth of the river, all the curves are cut in too quickly there. They definitely drew the lines wrong in lower left Hancock Cty because all three high water marks (in C3, D4, and E5) are at around 20 ft and they should have had the 20 ft line running more to the west to cut through those marks. Similarly the high water mark in E7 is almost 24 ft and they have the 22 and 23 ft lines running on either side of that mark.
0 likes   

User avatar
Normandy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Houston, TX

#57 Postby Normandy » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:04 pm

Margie wrote:
Brent wrote:Once again... Katrina had Cat 3 winds with a Cat 5 surge.


There is no evidence of a Cat 5 surge. There was a Cat 4 surge on both sides of St Louis Bay as well as the shoreline on the north of the bay...Diamondhead south of I-10.

The SLOSH results were put into an evac tool and the maps are very detailed and accurate...compare these with the FEMA flood assessment which seems to be pretty good:

http://ekman.csc.noaa.gov/website/FEMA_ ... ississippi

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods/reco ... erview.pdf

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods/reco ... index.shtm

On the last link, the flood info is also combined with future FIRMs on the maps (don't know why they did that). The only info pertaining to the flood is the "aqua" colored land and the high water marks.

I have an issue with the overview map...I believe the Cat 4 went further west than Lakeshore and more towards the mouth of the river, all the curves are cut in too quickly there. They definitely drew the lines wrong in lower left Hancock Cty because all three high water marks (in C3, D4, and E5) are at around 20 ft and they should have had the 20 ft line running more to the west to cut through those marks. Similarly the high water mark in E7 is almost 24 ft and they have the 22 and 23 ft lines running on either side of that mark.


Youre kidding right? There were waterlines up to 35 feet above sea level. Add that to the fact that Katrina flooded areas of MS that Camille never touched, and u have an easy Cat 5 surge.
0 likes   

User avatar
wxmann_91
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8013
Age: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:49 pm
Location: Southern California
Contact:

#58 Postby wxmann_91 » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:05 pm

Margie wrote:
Brent wrote:Once again... Katrina had Cat 3 winds with a Cat 5 surge.


There is no evidence of a Cat 5 surge. There was a Cat 4 surge on both sides of St Louis Bay as well as the shoreline on the north of the bay...Diamondhead south of I-10.

The SLOSH results were put into an evac tool and the maps are very detailed and accurate...compare these with the FEMA flood assessment which seems to be pretty good:

http://ekman.csc.noaa.gov/website/FEMA_ ... ississippi

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods/reco ... erview.pdf

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods/reco ... index.shtm

On the last link, the flood info is also combined with future FIRMs on the maps (don't know why they did that). The only info pertaining to the flood is the "aqua" colored land and the high water marks.

I have an issue with the overview map...I believe the Cat 4 went further west than Lakeshore and more towards the mouth of the river, all the curves are cut in too quickly there. They definitely drew the lines wrong in lower left Hancock Cty because all three high water marks (in C3, D4, and E5) are at around 20 ft and they should have had the 20 ft line running more to the west to cut through those marks. Similarly the high water mark in E7 is almost 24 ft and they have the 22 and 23 ft lines running on either side of that mark.


Cat 4 surge is surge below 18 ft, so you mean that Bay St. Louis area didn't get any surge higher than 18 ft?
0 likes   

f5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: Waco,tx

#59 Postby f5 » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:29 pm

those SLOSH models are out of date as Katrina proved the NHC forecasted a 15-20 ft storm surge on the MS coastline boy were they wrong
0 likes   

Matt-hurricanewatcher

#60 Postby Matt-hurricanewatcher » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:35 pm

Pearl River wrote:Normandy. I don't know where you are getting the wind gust of 190 mph. The recon estimated sustained winds of 190 mph. Special Advisory 16 on Camille in the NHC archives. Besides were you living in MS in 1969. Everyone wants to put emphasis on pictures. Try actually seeing the damage first hand.



I thought back in those days they used the wrong thing for many a hurricane. So now they are all going to be down graded.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FLCrackerGirl, johngaltfla, MetroMike and 85 guests