National Climate Data Center Katrina Report

[Lindaloo]

It has nothing to do with my emotions. Ask anyone that could afford to come here and even those who couldn't. You are right, you have no clue.

So basically you're saying that you are more qualified to judge a storm's intensity than mets such as Derek, who has done tons of research on this very topic...but does any of that matter? Nope, cuz he *wasn't there*

Oh do not even try to twist my words. I am just telling YOU that you have to see the damage down here to understand it.

[jazzfan1247]

If Katrina was a cat 2 or cat 3. Then heaven help us if we do get a true cat 5 in this area.

EXACTLY, which is the lesson that everyone should learn with Katrina, but apparently some here have not.

[Derek Ortt]

the NOAA GPS dropsondes were processed a couple of months ago and the peak wind they found was 101KT at the surface at the time of Louisiana landfall

[Pearl River]

Damage would not be useful for an approaching hurricane, just assist after the fact for up or down re-classification.

We never had the SS scale for Betsy or Camille or Carla or Beulah and we did fine without it back then. Just give an advisory wind speed and surge forecast and let it go from there.

[jazzfan1247]

It has nothing to do with my emotions. Ask anyone that could afford to come here and even those who couldn't. You are right, you have no clue.

So basically you're saying that you are more qualified to judge a storm's intensity than mets such as Derek, who has done tons of research on this very topic...but does any of that matter? Nope, cuz he *wasn't there*

Oh do not even try to twist my words. I am just telling YOU that you have to see the damage down here to understand it.

Ok I understand you were just talking to me. But the ONLY reason you stated that I "don't have any clue" was because I've never been there first-hand. Well, guess what? Derek is in the same position, so you could say the same thing to him.

I already said I don't understand it from an emotional standpoint, but I do understand it enough to call it the most destructive hurricane in history.

[Lindaloo]

Derek knows the damage when he sees it. YOU stated you had no clue, I just agreed with what you said.

I do agree with you about the damage. It is unbelievable. Not only that, but the stories that are being told everyday about how people survived.

[Pearl River]

Derek. What of the chasers that were here that measured sustained winds over 130 mph. Granted they may not have the tweaked instruments the NWS has, but still, they have reported those winds. Similarly, the EOC in Picayune, MS lost there wind gauge at @ 118 mph. I'm just asking, and again the dropsonde may not have been in the area of highest wind.

[jazzfan1247]

I'm not sure exactly what I said, but what I meant was that I have no clue as to what kind of impact to people's personal lives that this had, emotionally, etc. I DO have a general clue as to the scope of the damage, from the pics and aerial views that I have looked at...obviously these don't do justice, but they are sufficient enough for me to be in awe.

[jazzfan1247]

Damage would not be useful for an approaching hurricane, just assist after the fact for up or down re-classification.

We never had the SS scale for Betsy or Camille or Carla or Beulah and we did fine without it back then. Just give an advisory wind speed and surge forecast and let it go from there.

First off, damage isn't as useful as it may seem in terms of re-classification. After all, many believed that damage sparked the Andrew re-class, but it was in fact recorded wind speeds and the changed reduction factor, NOT damage.

As far as the second part...I can understand that. My understanding though is that by having categories, the general public can kinda swallow information easier.

[Derek Ortt]

I have not heard of any chasers with sustained winds of 130+. I know Mark Sudduth had gusts in Gulfport of 139 m.p.h. I tend to put more credit in his readings, since he makes every effort to get to an exposed location, where the effects of the buildings are minimal.

One AF drop had 127KT at about 70m, when it failed. The winds do decrease significantly in the lower 70m of the atmosphere. My best estimate of this sonde would be 105-110KT at Louisiana landfall


what I need to know is precisely how intense this thing is, so that in the future, I can cite this storm as the benchmark as to what can occur. I'll admit, I screwed up Katrina big time and take full responsibility for writing on nwhhc.com and the pensacola news journal site that Katrina would be as bad for MS as was Camielle, when it was in fact worse. I intend to NEVER make that mistake again

[Lindaloo]

We all made that mistake Derek.

[Derek Ortt]

still have to be very hard on myself, since I told thousands what to expect, and I busted big time. Doesn't matter than I was saying as bad as Camielle, because it didn't occur

at least I got the Alabama and Panhandle effects about right... (no consolation though, half right does not equal right)

[MGC]

Was it not the intent of the SS scale as originally developed an effort to assign a hurricanes intensity at landfall to the damage observed? As I recall, one of the guys that developed the SS scale had a background in structral engineering or a related field. We can't assign a hurricane a SS rating on its observed surge as it varies depending on the coastal region it strikes. The only other way is by central pressure and that is debatable because of the background pressure the storm is imbedded in. The NHC lists most intense hurricanes by central pressure though.....MGC

[MGC]

And Dereck, just because they only found 101KT winds at the time of landfall does not mean they sampled the highest winds. Like I said earlier, the needle in the haystack analogy. I doubt on any mission the hurricane hunters are on they find the strongest winds. 101KTS in a 918mb hurricane? Please! I know when you flew Rita that the winds we low compared to the CP, but I would bet the highest winds were missed. Don't be hard on yourself. Nobody though it would be worst than Camille including those that lost their lives......MGC

[Pearl River]

Derek. I do have another question. We know when the pressure drops it takes tiem for the winds to catch up. When the winds weaken, does it take time for the pressure to rise?

[Derek Ortt]

when I flew, Rita was being investigated by 4 aircraft simultaneously

I was on NOAA 43. NOAA 42 also was investigating at the same time. The Navy was flying between the primary and secondary eye wall, and the AF was also flying. Not one aircraft recorded above 110KT, despite the pressure of about 911mb

[Derek Ortt]

when a hurricane weakens, it can take some time for the pressure to catch up, especially over water with a lower heat content. over places like the Caribbean, often, the pressure rises before the winds do. Depends upon where one is located

[Pearl River]

The reason I asked about the pressure is the in Buras, LA where the center crossed was 920.17 mb. In Slidell, as it was in the western part of the eye, pressure report by the NWS was 934.1 mb. This information comes from the Preliminary Post Katrina report on the Slidell NWS site.

[Derek Ortt]

the Slidell reading suggests that it may not have been completely in the eye (on the inside edge of the eye wall, where the winds are the highest)

[Pearl River]

Slidell got into the calm briefly, but it wasn't for very long. i don't know if that was the exact time the pressure was. I do know a chaser measured a pressure of 931.0 mb in the eye in east Slidell closer to the Pearl River where the center crossed.