National Climate Data Center Katrina Report

[Lindaloo]

Thanks, David!

[vbhoutex]

to get the type of data coverage that you are talking about, David, we would need to have the same surveillance that we had for Rita in the GOM, where the Airforce, NOAA, and Navy were all flying simultaneously (Rita at times had 4 different planes flying the storm)

That is exactly my point Derek. What I said wasn't directed at any one, but was a general statement of what would be required for the accuracy we all yearn for. You and I have discussed this before. It is most unfortunate that the very advanced technologies we have today cannot provide us with the data we really need for a THOROUGH DETAILED analysis. I'm not saying we can't get close, but that we aren't getting what IMO we really need and won't till there is even more advancement of the technology.

[Pearl River]

No one has yet to answer my question. Where does it say that a cat 5 storm surge for Miami is 10 ft and a cat 4 storm surge for the MS coast is 30 ft?

[Pearl River]

Derek. I think you are wrong about the SS surge values are discussed only on boards like these. As a matter of fact, I believe the Weather Channel uses them alot.

Let's just throw out the whole SS scale and base a storms strength on insured losses. If you want to use Andrew for an example, then you base it on the current years dollar value and rate a storm that way. The SS scale was never used for storms like Betsy, Camille or Carla because it wasn't created back then. It's just hard to believe that the greatest natural disaster in the history of the U.S. was caused by, what every weather person in this country wants to refer to Katrina as, a cat 3 hurricane. It's just mighty funny that many people who witnessed all 4 hurricanes in Florida last year, say the damage there, does not even compare to what has happened here in LA and MS.

[x-y-no]

No one has yet to answer my question. Where does it say that a cat 5 storm surge for Miami is 10 ft and a cat 4 storm surge for the MS coast is 30 ft?

Wikipedia is an iffy source at best - but this is one case where it has a pretty good explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_surge

[Normandy]

Derek. I think you are wrong about the SS surge values are discussed only on boards like these. As a matter of fact, I believe the Weather Channel uses them alot.

Let's just throw out the whole SS scale and base a storms strength on insured losses. If you want to use Andrew for an example, then you base it on the current years dollar value and rate a storm that way. The SS scale was never used for storms like Betsy, Camille or Carla because it wasn't created back then. It's just hard to believe that the greatest natural disaster in the history of the U.S. was caused by, what every weather person in this country wants to refer to Katrina as, a cat 3 hurricane. It's just mighty funny that many people who witnessed all 4 hurricanes in Florida last year, say the damage there, does not even compare to what has happened here in LA and MS.

Katrina wasnt statistically a cat 5, but in reality it might as well have been.

[Pearl River]

Take a look at this site. It's pretty interesting

http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/Katrina

[Derek Ortt]

take a look at the emergency management surge maps, or obs from past storms. There is absolutely no way that a surge was be above 10 feet off of Miami. many oceanographers have stated as such

also, why did Iniki, a cat 4, produce a whole 6 feet or surge in Hawaii, or Charley about 5 last year? Are those now cat 1 hurricanes? Even the NHC advisories have different surge values based upon the size of the storm, the location of landfall, the angle of impact, and the intensity. To say that the SS scale is what is expected is extremely ignorant of what cause4s surge, IMO

[Derek Ortt]

we could have the detailed data coverage that we had for Rita if we just had a plan in place to fly all 4 aircraft more often. Had Rita and Katrina been reversed, Katrina would have been the storm that had 4 aircraft investigating at once. That would have solved the problem of its intensity once and for all

[terstorm1012]

good point Derek.

More flights and sampling is needed when these storms threaten.

[Pearl River]

Derek said

To say that the SS scale is what is expected is extremely ignorant of what cause4s surge, IMO

I take offense to the ignorant statement. I know what causes surge. I've been following hurricanes since Hilda in 64. SS scale was originally intended to assess damage to structures because the WMO wanted something useful. Robert Simpson later added the surge information.

This has totally taken me from my original statement: You cannot judge the strength of a storm strictly by looking at satellite, radar and news photos. The destruction caused by the storm needs to be included. Lets take Alison and put her name back in rotation, it was only a TS. Why did they retire her name? Because of the aftermath flooding destruction caused by the storm.[/quote]

[Derek Ortt]

this is what could easily be done

1. The Navy determines the radius of hurricane and TS winds (since they are not SUPPOSED to penetrate the eye wall or eye)

2. NOAA 42, 43 and AF provide center fixes every 30 minutes flying in a rotating star-like pattern

[Normandy]

Derek said

To say that the SS scale is what is expected is extremely ignorant of what cause4s surge, IMO

I take offense to the ignorant statement. I know what causes surge. I've been following hurricanes since Hilda in 64. SS scale was originally intended to assess damage to structures because the WMO wanted something useful. Robert Simpson later added the surge information.

This has totally taken me from my original statement: You cannot judge the strength of a storm strictly by looking at satellite, radar and news photos. The destruction caused by the storm needs to be included. Lets take Alison and put her name back in rotation, it was only a TS. Why did they retire her name? Because of the aftermath flooding destruction caused by the storm.

[/quote]

Sorry but that is a bad example, because had Allison not meandered back towards the Texas coast Houston would have not been flooded. The floods were not caused by Allison at landfall, but occured days after.

[Pearl River]

Sorry Normandy I don't feel it was a bad example. It was still a trackable tropical system. Agnes was retired because it caused all the damage and death in the Pennsylvannia and Ohio areas from severe flooding.

Getting back to Camille. This is the reason why no specific wind measurements were given in the advisories, only estimated wind speeds.Dr Robert Simpson broke the Weather Bureau's rule against using specific wind speed or surge figures or wind speeds in forecasts - they were supposed to say things such as "strong winds and dangerously high water are expected."

[jazzfan1247]

Let's just throw out the whole SS scale and base a storms strength on insured losses. If you want to use Andrew for an example, then you base it on the current years dollar value and rate a storm that way. The SS scale was never used for storms like Betsy, Camille or Carla because it wasn't created back then. It's just hard to believe that the greatest natural disaster in the history of the U.S. was caused by, what every weather person in this country wants to refer to Katrina as, a cat 3 hurricane. It's just mighty funny that many people who witnessed all 4 hurricanes in Florida last year, say the damage there, does not even compare to what has happened here in LA and MS.

How would this be of any use for an approaching storm? Rate a 100 kt hurricane as a Cat 5, just because its forecast track is towards Miami? Never mind the fact that forecast tracks change constantly, and are hardly ever perfect in terms of track and intensity.

Now admittedly, the SS scale is not a perfect system. Obviously there is much more to damage potential than just the storm's current intensity, as we found out with Katrina. But at this point, we have to work with what we've got, and realize the fact that in some instances (such as Katrina), a Category 3 storm can indeed produce "Cat 5-like" damage...

[jazzfan1247]

I'm not going to get into a p***ing contest with anyone here. Lets throw out Andrew and Camille. This issue I have with anyone who does not live here or personally come down and see this area for themselves has no idea of the damage that has been done to SE LA and Coastal MS. Whether it be by storm surge or wind, this was catastrophic.

It has nothing to do with my storm was stronger than your storm. It has to do with fact, and as you said Derek, fact is fact. I have a problem with anyone who lives several hundred miles from here basing their opinion on snippets of news film, radar and satellite pictures that this was a cat 3 storm. Nowhere have I read about the SS scale does it state that storm surge is based on Biscayne Bay or cat 4 storm surge for the MS coast is 30 ft

Well sorry, but as much as I would love to see the damage myself first-hand, I can’t because I just don’t have the money. And for everyone who uses the argument “you just have to see for yourself, or you don’t have any idea”, yes it’s true that we don’t know what it FEELS like having your home destroyed, etc…emotionally speaking. But we’ve all seen the photos and we know how bad it looks like…well enough to say that this was the most destructive hurricane in history (and this fact has NEVER been questioned by anyone). What more do you want?

It seems a lot of people have trouble separating emotions from science…which is somewhat understandable considering what they’ve gone through. But they have to realize that emotions have no SCIENTIFIC value. Science is what we use to determine how intense a hurricane was at landfall, not how devastating it was to us emotionally.

[f5]

Katrina is one of the largest Hurricanes ever to form in the atlantic she was very huge in size.She was also one of the strongest she just happen to hit the most surge prone area in the country.Her massive size had alot to do with the surge

[Lindaloo]

No jazz, you are wrong. The statement of having to see it for yourself is more than truth. Too bad you can't afford to come see it, stand among the rubble. What an insensitive thing to say.

[Pearl River]

Jazzfan. You and everyone else want to keep saying Katrina was a cat 3 hurricane. Based on what? Satellite pictures, radar and news photos?

I have been able to separate my feelings from what has happened here. The only way you can get an absolute true picture of what has happened is to see it first hand. It has nothing to do with " seeing is believing" or " you have to see in person ". You can look at all the pictures you want and all you are going to see is a fraction of the total picture. That's what I'm saying. I don't believe cat 3 can cause this amount of damage. I have been through many hurricanes and have never seen this amount of damage.

It's mighty funny that several people who have engineering degrees and went through all 4 major hurricanes in Florida last year can say that the damage caused by those storms isn't even close to what has happened in this area with this one storm.

[jazzfan1247]

Jazzfan. You and everyone else want to keep saying Katrina was a cat 3 hurricane. Based on what? Satellite pictures, radar and news photos?[/url]

Based on the all the stuff in this topic: http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=75825&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

At least in my opinion, it is very convincing that Katrina was a Cat 3 at the MS landfall. The LA landfall is still up for debate...but there's a decent chance that it was a Cat 3 there as well.