Downgrading/Reclass--Insult to New Orleans!!!!

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

#61 Postby Pearl River » Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:20 pm

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/html/psh_katrina.htm

THIS IS THE POST STORM REPORT last updated on Dec.12 and is still being updated as information comes in. If read, you will notice several incomplete readings due to damage or power failure There are several experimental towers that reported winds, but notice the word experimental.

As far as opinions go, some opinions are accepted as fact. That's how facts are created. When several people agree on an opinion, it becomes fact. Science itself is not exact, because as things are studied over years, they change. Just look at the medical community and things that were hard fact 10 years ago have changed today.
0 likes   

MiamiensisWx

#62 Postby MiamiensisWx » Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:29 pm

Parts of New Orleans could have received several brief periods of sustained Category Two winds with Category Three gusts. I don't think much higher, however.

Sorry if I sounded rude in this thread, but the tone of your voice, Audrey2Katrina, sounded rather obstinate. Sorry if I raised mine. I just felt that, after going through Wilma and experiencing Category One sustained winds with several periods of Category Two winds, that you considered such winds "weak". Guess what? THEY ARE NOT! Many people had to go through awful Wilma (including myself!) in southern Florida are now honestly acknowledging that, despite the destruction, that we predominantly received Category One sustained winds, with several brief periods of Category Two winds, and gusts to Category Three strength in the 120MPH to 125MPH range or slightly higher.

Also, I know I am no expert, but the high winds in New Orleans may not have been "authentic" winds from Katrina. Buildings (such as high buildings), alignment of objects (such as homes, trees, power poles, etc.), and nearby open spaces (such as airports, fields, etc.) may have helped to highten Katrina's winds in New Orleans, just like similar situations enhanced Wilma's winds in southern Florida. Again, not an expert's opinion, just my own. Can you tell the difference between gusts and sustained winds?

There is much we do not know about other factors that affect a storm's windspeeds that we are only beginning to acknowledge. Also, take the fact that I "bombarded" you to take Category One and Category Two winds seriously not as a bad thing, but a compliment. I don't want to see the destruction and deaths of Katrina that happened; nor do I want to see public ignorance. In order to be better prepared next year, we must realize that every storm is different and, depending on circumstances, Category One and Category Two winds very often truly pack a massive punch. I learned this after Wilma, and is, to me, a very important lesson. I have also learned how surrounding structures and spaces may significantly reduce - or likely raise - both sustained winds and gusts. Also, in New Orlean's case, some of the strong winds observed may have been from microbursts or mesoscale vortices. Wilma had these in her trek across my area, and this greatly enhanced destruction, combined with the fact that Category One and Category Two sustained winds are already quite potent. All these factors enhance destruction. So it is both true and untrue what you say on windspeeds in and around New Orleans. I admit that I am not perfect, this is just my opinion, and it is only an observation. However, I really want others to be safe next season. Therefore, I want others to have better knowledge of hurricanes, the destruction that so-called "minor" winds can bring, the many factors in a storm's destruction, and many, many other things. Therefore, do not take my lowering estimation of winds in New Orleans as a political blasphemy and purposeful exaggeration statement; take it as that I want others to truly know what storms are and to not underestimate them, regardless of so-called "strength" and "weakenings before landfall".

This is just my opinion, and you can agree or disagree. However, this is my opinion and I am sticking to it. Besides, we are all learning!
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#63 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:51 pm

jazzfan1247 wrote: I guess nobody will change your mind on this, because the BEST evidence we have right now indicates a conclusion contrary to what you believe.


Have to disagree. Not even all who belong to the much heralded meteorological community agree with the Katrina Report. I've read many who find the report very lacking in substantial data and rife with weak defense of their conclusion. Now sure as I'm writing this, someone will certainly demand I provide the documentation--in time, all in due time. For those who wish to believe this is because I can't, I grant them to relish in their perception however ill-conceived it be. Any cursory search of the net can provide "meteorologists" who take issue with this report.

jazzfan1247 wrote: If you want more convincing evidence, then you aren't gonna get it because this is the best we've got right now.


Already wrong IMO. but before I quote the meteorologist who has data of higher recorded windspeeds, I will confirm from him his data and get written permission to cite, or link to his own blog. I will say that a recorded 134 mph "gust" was recorded at Poplarville a full 50 miles INLAND, hours before the peak winds, and at which time the instrument failed. All this citing of this or that college's trial anemometers at differeing locations proves nothing. As far as that Michoud reading, I might remind you that Michoud is IN New Orleans East, (a fact of which I'm certain you are aware.) and that the reading of 84 kt. "sustained wind" was recorded by their own records at 1100 UTC, which makes it a failure of wind speeds, clocking sustained winds right at Cat 2 standing, some THREE HOURS before the closest approach of the storm, which the report places around 1445 UTC near the mouth of the Pearl River--not too very far from that Michoud assembly; of course by which time it's anemometer had long since failed to record data. Just using some logic here.


jazzfan1247 wrote: This is a good illustriation of how science is supposed to work.


Please spare me the "this is... how science work(s)" line. After some 30 years of teaching it, I'm quite aware of how science works; but GOOD science considers ALL the possibilities and acknowledges room for doubt. This thing does not, and to make what is tantamount to a dogmatic declaration, which in fact does NOT include "all" pertinent data, is NOT, IMHO "good" science.

jazzfan1247 wrote:If this data isn't enough to convince you, I don't know what will.


Indeed you don't. I still stand behind my respectful skepticism.


jazzfan1247 wrote:...it is my belief that those who seem to act condescendingly towards those who believe that Katrina was stronger...have the right idea in mind, however mean or cold-hearted it may seem. People need to know the truth about storms, and not have their views clouded up by scientifically-unsupported opinions.


I agree with the latter premise, and strongly disagree with the first. In the first place I don't believe anyone is trying to be "mean," or "cold-hearted," at all. Some are quite sincere and have data to back up their contentions, others are more accurately described as insufferably arrogant as opposed to "cold-hearted," in a rather "How dare you question our findings!" sort of way. To quote another analogy someone used, the reason many are "offended" is because it's like having survived a severe case of pneumonia and having some know-it-all later tell you all you had was a cold. I simply disagree. As to "scientifically unsupported opinions,"... well, let's say I disagree again and leave it at that for now.

jazzfan1247 wrote:I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but these are my beliefs and I intend to convey them as best as I can.


No offense taken at all, and you've done a very good job at articulating your points--I simply disagree.

PAX

A2K
0 likes   

jazzfan1247
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:02 pm

#64 Postby jazzfan1247 » Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:54 pm

Pearl River wrote:THIS IS THE POST STORM REPORT last updated on Dec.12 and is still being updated as information comes in. If read, you will notice several incomplete readings due to damage or power failure There are several experimental towers that reported winds, but notice the word experimental.

As far as opinions go, some opinions are accepted as fact. That's how facts are created. When several people agree on an opinion, it becomes fact. Science itself is not exact, because as things are studied over years, they change. Just look at the medical community and things that were hard fact 10 years ago have changed today.


Ok, I wasn't aware of the fact that they were experimental, so they can be questioned somehwat. But by no means does "experimental" = completely unreliable. Experimental does not mean scientists just jack up some random towers with some random instruments; they do still have some credibility.

As far as the second part goes...this is NOT how facts are created. Facts aren't created when several people just agree with each other on a whim. Facts are created when a set of hard factual data is collected and has had its credibility tested over and over again...to make sure that it is true, and then conclusions are drawn based on this determined-factual data. It has NOTHING to do with people agreeing with each other and what not.

The problem with your beliefs is that...there is absolutely no data whatsoever to back it up. There are NO observations, no recon data, no dropsonde data, no nothing to back up the fact that NO received anything more than Cat 2 winds. That could theoretically change (although it is very unlikely), but the data that has been presented indicates that NO experienced mostly Cat 1, perhaps eastern parts Cat 2 winds.
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#65 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:58 pm

jazzfan1247 wrote:
Audrey2Katrina wrote:Well even the report mentions that the Southeastern tip of Louisiana "possibly" experienced sustained winds of Cat. 4 intensity--before the center made landfall.

But we're still calling it a Cat 3 landfall. I know, I know what some will say; but it just doesn't jive at all. I stand behind my skepticism of the report's findings.

People have said it is futile to argue politics or religion; perhaps hurricanes should be added to that addage.

A2K


I acknowledge the possibility that the SE tip could've briefly experienced Cat 4 winds, but yes we still call it a Cat 3 when the eye made landfall.

You have the right to be skeptical. I'm just puzzled as to how anyone can believe that NO experienced Cat 2/3 winds, without any real sound basis whatsoever. The several available observations in the NO area recorded strong TS/Cat 1 conditions, with the only exception being weak Cat 2 in East NO. Granted these obs could've missed the highest winds... but from 61-68 kts to around 90-100 kts sustained is quite a leap of faith.


I appreciate the turn back to a less "hostile" tone in the dialogue and say that in all sincerity. If you don't mind my asking, when you say "we", are you speaking as a meteorologist pro or amateur? I sincerely would like to know. As to the leap of faith... well, I have always been a man of faith! :D

Have a Great New Year!

PAX

A2K
0 likes   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#66 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:02 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
Oh Really?

Well let's take the water and surge out of the picture for long enough to look at "winds" and the NHC's own definitions of Category status and wind damage:

Category One Hurricane:
Winds 74-95 mph (64-82 kt or 119-153 km/hr). Storm surge generally 4-5 ft above normal. No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Some damage to poorly constructed signs. Also, some coastal road flooding and minor pier damage. (Okay so there was "no real damage" to the Superdome... yeah right!)

To be just as honest some people just won't accept that the so-called "experts" for all their techno-babble just might be wrong. Or do we even remember that these same "experts" took TEN YEARS to realize they blew it on Hurricane Andrew (pun intended).
A2K


OK...first of all...let's look at wind damage. I haven't read all the posts and maybe somebody did address this to you...so if they did...well you just need to here it again. These category winds winds are SUSTAINED. Gusts can be 50% higher on land and are the winds that uproot trees and snap them in half. Your can have a large tree uprooted with 70 mph sustained winds if you get a gust to 120....but guess what...you STILL only got TS sustained winds. Is that some esperts fault? No. It's nature's fault for making wind gusty over land. So blame nature instead of slitting hairs.

Second. You are trying to make another falicy in your arguement by citing the superdome. You can't say Cat 1 winds exist 200' in the air. Cat 1 winds at based on 10M winds...not those that exist at the TOP of the superdome. Please. Do you REALLY believe that if the roof of the superdome had been at ground level that it would have peeled of? OK...dumb thought but the answer is no. To PROVE this to you I will give you an example that you might have actually SEEN on TV. During a helicopter rescue in eastern NO...a helicopter was rescuing an older man off the roof of his house and was knocking the shigles off of it left and right.

Now tell me A2K...how did the stronger than Cat 1 winds in eastern NOLA NOT take the shingles off the top of that house when helicopter wash did? I've been in the military for about 19 years and have been underneath my share of Blackhawks (the helicopter in question) and it puts out a good rotor wash...50 kts or so)...and it took of those shingles but the hurricane didn't...and given the location...the winds would have hit it head on either before or after the eye passed.

Third. The SS scale does NOT take into account the AMOUNT of time an area is exposed to winds. A house...TREE...SUPERDOME...BILLBOARD...anything can withstand CAT 1 or CAT 2 winds for an hour or so which is what happens in a normal size hurricane. When you have a KAtrina size storm...that time period lengthens and the damage done is increased by weaker winds. Something built to withstand Cat 3 winds will not withstand Cat 3 winds if it was subjected to Cat 3 winds for 6 hours, for example.

Bottom line is...you cannot point to damage to say this is ___ mph because that is not an exact measurement for all the above reasons. We do, however, have lot's of wind measurements that prove what the winds were. It's only human nature that doesn't want to admit that their area got busted up by a weaker storm....instead of a Cat 4 or 5.
0 likes   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#67 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:03 pm

Aslkahuna wrote:Of course, unless I'm mistaken the duration of hurricane force winds with Katrina was much longer than the similar winds with Camille due to the former's larger size. Wind damage is a cumulative effect so the longer you have sustained hurricane force the more damage you will receive. You are right, I haven't seen the damage there, but I saw enough typhoon wind damage in the Philippines to be aware of what storms can do to vegetation.

Steve


And that is the exact point I made to another poster in my previous post. Cat 3 damage isn't as bad as Cat 2 damage id that Cat 2 wind lasts 3 times longer.
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#68 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:05 pm

CapeVerdeWave wrote: This is just my opinion, and you can agree or disagree. However, this is my opinion and I am sticking to it. Besides, we are all learning!


Thanks for all that, CapeVerdeWave (I believe Betsy began as a Cape Verde Wave :) . Your sincerity is obvious and I appreciate it. I never intended to trivialize what Cat 1 or Cat 2 winds could do, only emphasize my point that I felt, (and still feel) the report understates what actually happened here. Just as yourself, I make no claims to infallibility, and just as yourself, I certainly would wish this kind of destruction on no one.

Indeed, we are all learning.... may it continue to be the case!

Pax

A2K
0 likes   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#69 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:15 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:

http://www.storynet.org/don/katrina/kat ... ctures.htm

Seems another station in Poplarville measured a windspeed of 117 kt. which would be awfully close to cat 4.

A2K


117 Kt GUST. Gusts over land. With the 1.4 rule that is 84 kts. At 50% it's 78 kts. Guess what...Cat 1-2 winds.

Do you have any other evidence? The pics you posted support nothing. You cannot verify the construction of these buildings. Can you verify they were not infested with the termites down there and were structurally sound and were up to code to WISTAND cat 3? Can yo verify that? Can you verify those signs could wistand those types of winds? Fromthe looks of the onstruction...that's something that lengthy Cat 1 winds with good gusts to Cat 2-3 could easily do. Do you have any other wind data to support you or any other ground level pics with verified coded construction? Again..remember...GUSTS do mucho damage and are easily 1-2 cats higher.
0 likes   

User avatar
Aslkahuna
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 4550
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:00 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

#70 Postby Aslkahuna » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:17 pm

Incidentally, for S's and G's I figured out the peak gusts using the referenced windspeeds in the NOLA area using the 1.4-1.6 gust ratio derived by JTWC for storms overland. For 61 kt the lowest referenced recorded windspeed, the gusts range from 85-97kt (100-112 mph) and for 84kt they ranged from 118-134kt (134-154 mph). Exposure of wind sensors is very important and they should be at 10m and no close than 10 times the height of the nearest obstruction to that obstruction. Experimental may mean that the sensors differed from the standard ones approved for NWS use (though my experience with instrumentation is that such sensors may often be more accurate and sensitive than the NWS ones). In an urban environment, it's important to note that the winds that may be observed may not be truly representative of the general windfield of the storm in the area due to localized effects due to buildings etc. Mesoscale storm structures within hurricanes and particularly in the eyewall are not well understood or characterized because we know too little about them but until we do, we must go with what we have in classifying storms. Finally, about the Slidell Radar-actually it's immaterial whether it was up or not at time of CPA since the eastern eyewall was never close enough to get a near surface wind if it had been.

Steve
0 likes   

User avatar
TS Zack
Category 4
Category 4
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:23 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

#71 Postby TS Zack » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:21 pm

All of Jeff Parish & Orleans Parish got Cat 2 Sustained Winds at some point.

Unless the definitions are wrong.

I would say a good 75% of Jeff/Orleans Parish need new roofs. 50% of Sings are down. 40% of our trees were lost.

I am most certainly sure we got Cat 3 Gusts. If you look at the last report out of Belle Chasse Naval Air Station, they had a wind Gusts to 105mph. Only 6mph away from Cat 3 Gusts. This was at 1132UTC. The closest they got to the eye was around 1300UTC.

Then at 1059UTC.. In New Orleans East at Michoud. This occured.
ONE MINUTE WIND 84 KT 1059UTC
Which is rougly 97mph well before the eye was close. I think these times might be a little off though.
0 likes   

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

#72 Postby Pearl River » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:30 pm

jazzfan..I did not say people got together on a whim as you have so stated, to create a fact. I did not say experimental meant unreliable. As I stated about facts, take a look at the medical community. Those facts about health issues change often. One persons opinion does not make a fact and yes hard data is needed, but its the opinion of several that that data has to be correct, as is the several hurricane forecasters in the report on Katrina.

As I have stated in other posts, it's like finding the needle in a haystack. The recon cannot be in every inch of the storm, so they will miss the strongest winds sometimes. And did I say New Orleans, no I did not. I am speaking of SE LA in general.

Just like Andrew could be re-classified to a cat 5 10 years later based on new technology, so could Katrina, with new technology 10 years from now. I don't have to like or accept the report like others have. I live it and see it every day, thats why I don't accept it.

I am not an expert nor have I ever claimed to be one. I do believe in Life Experience, whether people believe in that or not. I have lived every storm to affect SE LA and So MS since Hilda of 64. We had 160mph wind gusts here in Camille in 69 and the damage does not compare to what Katrina did.
0 likes   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#73 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:37 pm

TSmith274 wrote:People, it's Christmas. Be nice. No need for talk of anemometers. Come to New Orleans. Look at the trees. Look at people's houses. Look at buildings downtown. If that was a cat 1, then I'm the tooth fairy. Like I said before, a cat 1 hurricane has stuck N.O. directly before. Look it up. 1988... Hurricane Florence. No windows blown out, no blue roofs, and no trees uprooted. I don't care what instruments say what... Katrina, in no way, was a cat 1.


You need to stop using that analogy. I chased Florence in 1988 into NOLA. You need to not compair HER cat one winds to Katrina's Cat 1 winds...she HAD no Cat 1 winds in NOLA. I was there with a chase team. We skipped Friday afternoon classes at A&M to do it. There is a BIG difference b/w a storm with Cat 1 winds at landfall in a small area over water and when the entire area GETS cat 1 sustained wind with gusts into the Cat 2-3 range for an extended period of time.

Flo lost ALL deep convection as it passed over NOLA and it was sprinkling as we sat in the Motel 6 wondering how we could have wasted our gas money on this. So...NOLA was NOT struck directly by a CAT 1 in 1988. I was there. It did not happen

That was NOT cat 1 winds. Matter of fact, by the time Flo was 30 miles SE of NOLA, she was downgraded to a 60KT TS...she was not a TS. She was further downgraded to a TD on the next advisory.

No comparison at ALL. The reason there was little damage is there were NO winds.

KNEW 35G53
KNBG 29G43
KMSY 34G56
Midlake Causeway - 37G50

That doesn't sound like a Cat 1 sustained winds at all..and is certainly not CLOSE to the winds reported in those places by Katrina. Remember...Strong Cat 1-2 winds with gusts to Cat 3-4 lasting for a LONG period of time can do LOTS of damage.
Last edited by Air Force Met on Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#74 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:38 pm

Air Force Met wrote: Bottom line is...you cannot point to damage to say this is ___ mph because that is not an exact measurement for all the above reasons. We do, however, have lot's of wind measurements that prove what the winds were. It's only human nature that doesn't want to admit that their area got busted up by a weaker storm....instead of a Cat 4 or 5.


Appreciate the insights; and yes, we've been over all that already. Nobody is trying to say that "because of this damage the winds are ___ mph." What, at least I am trying to say, is that I believe, (and continue to do so) that the estimates are wrong--understated, and there is just not enough readily available as well as fully reliable data to make any dogmatic declarations about what the windspeeds "had" to have been.

All that said, I respect your contribution and insight into the matter. Have a great New Year for you and yours!

PAX

A2K
0 likes   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#75 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:48 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:
All that said, I respect your contribution and insight into the matter. Have a great New Year for you and yours!

PAX

A2K


Thanks and you too.

You want to know what will REALLY come from all this?

We now have a lot more wind measuring devices EVERYWHERE (I even have one connected to the net at home)...instead of some scattered here and there that go off-line when the power goes out. We are going to finally realize the definitions are wrong and that all along winds that we thought were Cat 3 damage were probably in the Cat 2 category. We are also going to learn ...and hopefully the public will too...that we cannot make blanket statement like Cat 1 winds do this and Cat 2 winds do that. The damage is dependant on 1) How well the building is built. 2) How high the gusts are 3) How long the duration of the winds. 4) Location-How well sheltered from winds are you...lot's of trees and buildings around or are you out in the open? A well built house in the coast where the winds aren't as gusty (in spread from sustained) will do better than a house on a hill a little bit inland that has a termite problem....even though the sustained winds will lower.

We have to really change years of false information and concepts. It's not cookie=cutter...but most people think the S-S scale is.
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#76 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:50 pm

Air Force Met wrote:
Audrey2Katrina wrote:

http://www.storynet.org/don/katrina/kat ... ctures.htm

Seems another station in Poplarville measured a windspeed of 117 kt. which would be awfully close to cat 4.

A2K


117 Kt GUST. Gusts over land. With the 1.4 rule that is 84 kts. At 50% it's 78 kts. Guess what...Cat 1-2 winds.



Indeed... no argument; but these are over 50 miles INLAND and well before the eye passed at its closest. Again... proves nothing.

Air Force Met wrote:Do you have any other evidence? The pics you posted support nothing. You cannot verify the construction of these buildings. Can you verify they were not infested with the termites down there and were structurally sound and were up to code to WISTAND cat 3? Can yo verify that? Can you verify those signs could wistand those types of winds? Fromthe looks of the onstruction...that's something that lengthy Cat 1 winds with good gusts to Cat 2-3 could easily do. Do you have any other wind data to support you or any other ground level pics with verified coded construction? Again..remember...GUSTS do mucho damage and are easily 1-2 cats higher.


That's all what is called "appeal to ignorance"... or in other words, if you can't prove something--you're wrong and I'm right. Doesn't wash with me; but I certainly have only the highest regard for you and your occupation. I can see you're a meteorologist, are you still with the AF! I have had quite a few friends based in Texas. I have only the highest regard for anyone in uniform. Doesn't mean I won't disagree with 'em betimes though. Hey, you have a great New Year!

PAX

A2K
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#77 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:51 pm

TS Zack wrote:All of Jeff Parish & Orleans Parish got Cat 2 Sustained Winds at some point.

Unless the definitions are wrong.

I would say a good 75% of Jeff/Orleans Parish need new roofs. 50% of Sings are down. 40% of our trees were lost.

I am most certainly sure we got Cat 3 Gusts. If you look at the last report out of Belle Chasse Naval Air Station, they had a wind Gusts to 105mph. Only 6mph away from Cat 3 Gusts. This was at 1132UTC. The closest they got to the eye was around 1300UTC.

Then at 1059UTC.. In New Orleans East at Michoud. This occured.
ONE MINUTE WIND 84 KT 1059UTC
Which is rougly 97mph well before the eye was close. I think these times might be a little off though.


Exactly one of the points I was trying to make.

Have a Gr8 1 and PAX

A2K
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#78 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:58 pm

Air Force Met wrote:
Audrey2Katrina wrote:
All that said, I respect your contribution and insight into the matter. Have a great New Year for you and yours!

PAX

A2K


Thanks and you too.

You want to know what will REALLY come from all this?

We now have a lot more wind measuring devices EVERYWHERE (I even have one connected to the net at home)...instead of some scattered here and there that go off-line when the power goes out. We are going to finally realize the definitions are wrong and that all along winds that we thought were Cat 3 damage were probably in the Cat 2 category. We are also going to learn ...and hopefully the public will too...that we cannot make blanket statement like Cat 1 winds do this and Cat 2 winds do that. The damage is dependant on 1) How well the building is built. 2) How high the gusts are 3) How long the duration of the winds. 4) Location-How well sheltered from winds are you...lot's of trees and buildings around or are you out in the open? A well built house in the coast where the winds aren't as gusty (in spread from sustained) will do better than a house on a hill a little bit inland that has a termite problem....even though the sustained winds will lower.

We have to really change years of false information and concepts. It's not cookie=cutter...but most people think the S-S scale is.


Great points. And I truly hope that all that future windscale measuring is everything you say it is--cuz THAT is what science is all about. I just hope this time it stays the heck away from New Orleans!

PAX

A2K
0 likes   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#79 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:03 pm

"Indeed... no argument; but these are over 50 miles INLAND and well before the eye passed at its closest. Again... proves nothing. "

But that is what you posted as proof. Also...it's unofficial and there is no time. How do you know it was well before the eye passed at it's closest? What was the exact time? It's not listed. You make the statement it is "well before" by what data? What was the exact time of this measurement?

As for the last...it's not an appeal to ignorance...it's a fact. At the time I just thought it odd that helicopter wash was knocking the guys shingles off when the winds didn't. It's not I'm right/you're wrong. It's a fact. Helicopter wash was blowing the shingles off his roof. I thought some of them were going to hit the loadmaster (or whatever the army calls their enlisted guy that rides along) as he was putting the guy in the cage. Then it struck me: If this guy is losing shingles this easy...how does he even still HAVE shingles? It was peeling them off like a fan blowing stacks of papers off a desk...which is what it looked like. I don' know what kind of shingles they were...but they kinda looked like flat ceramic sheets laying on top of each other.

It was just an observation...not an appeal to ignorance...but it stuck with me because I didn't undestand how something that flimsy could still be on a roof that had just been through the outer eyewall of that storm. Matter of fact I remember wondering how they were there BEFORE the storm...because they didn't look like they could have withstood a good thunderstorm.
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#80 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:12 pm

Air Force Met wrote:"Indeed... no argument; but these are over 50 miles INLAND and well before the eye passed at its closest. Again... proves nothing. "

But that is what you posted as proof. Also...it's unofficial and there is no time. How do you know it was well before the eye passed at it's closest? What was the exact time? It's not listed. You make the statement it is "well before" by what data? What was the exact time of this measurement?

As for the last...it's not an appeal to ignorance...it's a fact. At the time I just thought it odd that helicopter wash was knocking the guys shingles off when the winds didn't. It's not I'm right/you're wrong. It's a fact. Helicopter wash was blowing the shingles off his roof. I thought some of them were going to hit the loadmaster (or whatever the army calls their enlisted guy that rides along) as he was putting the guy in the cage. Then it struck me: If this guy is losing shingles this easy...how does he even still HAVE shingles? It was peeling them off like a fan blowing stacks of papers off a desk...which is what it looked like. I don' know what kind of shingles they were...but they kinda looked like flat ceramic sheets laying on top of each other.

It was just an observation...not an appeal to ignorance...but it stuck with me because I didn't undestand how something that flimsy could still be on a roof that had just been through the outer eyewall of that storm. Matter of fact I remember wondering how they were there BEFORE the storm...because they didn't look like they could have withstood a good thunderstorm.


You misunderstood my "appeal to ignorance" reference, AFM. It had nothing to do with the chopper and the shingles. I have a good friend who flies blackhawks (just got back from Iraq as a matter of fact), and don't argue the point. What I mean by appeal to ignorance is that when someone demands proof of something that the other, at the time, cannot provide, this is perceived AS proof that they are wrong--and that's just not always so.

As to those shingles... heck, your guess is as good as mine; it could well be that the roof had been so severely damaged by the battering it had already taken, that they were already on the verge of being ripped off, and a good TS might have done the same thing.

PAX

A2K
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jconsor, Ulf and 56 guests