2005 Atl Reports=Unnamed Subtropical Storm Report Posted

[Pearl River]

I guess we will have to wait until all high water marks are read, since all the gauges were lost, to see what the final surge values were.

[Pearl River]

Katrina Storm Tide Quick Look

http://140.90.121.76/katrina.html

[cycloneye]

Tropical Storm Arlene= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL012005_Arlene.doc

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL012005_Arlene.pdf


Tropical Storm Bret

Tropical Storm Cindy

Hurricane Dennis= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL042005_Dennis.doc

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL042005_Dennis.pdf


Hurricane Emily

Tropical Storm Franklin

Tropical Storm Gert= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL072005_Gert.doc

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL072005_Gert.pdf


Tropical Storm Harvey

Hurricane Irene

Tropical Depression Ten

Tropical Storm Jose

Hurricane Katrina= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL1 ... atrina.doc


Tropical Storm Lee = http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL132005_Lee.doc

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL132005_Lee.pdf


Hurricane Maria

Hurricane Nate

Hurricane Ophelia

Hurricane Philippe

Hurricane Rita

Tropical Depression Nineteen

Hurricane Stan

Tropical Storm Tammy

Sub-Tropical Depression Twenty-Two

Hurricane Vince

Hurricane Wilma

Tropical Storm Alpha

Hurricane Beta

Tropical Storm Gamma

Tropical Storm Delta

Hurricane Epsilon= http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL292005_Epsilon.pdf

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL2 ... psilon.doc


New page so the list is posted.6 reports are available for the members to read with 23 left.

[MiamiensisWx]

I am looking forward to the reports on Beta, Emily, Cindy, Wilma, Irene, and Rita very much. I am also eager to see the rest as well.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I'm waiting anxiously for the Cindy report as well, as it came directly over New Orleans, and if even minimal cat 1 the comparison of damage to trees, signs, and billboards after Katrina is beyond the pale. Frankly all the technospeak aside, having gone through many of these storms you'll never convince me that Katrina's winds in this area were cat 1 or barely cat 2. I walk past miles of completely uprooted huge trees with pavement buckled up around them. They still haven't cleared them all up (Cindy's wind damage was pretty much cleared up in less than a week.) This did not ever happen with winds in that range before. There's no question about the damage Katrina has caused; but as for me I still have serious reservations about the wind speeds.

[Derek Ortt]

the wind damage in new orleans is unprecedented because cat 1 or 2 winds have not occurred in NO in recent memory.

Cindy only brought can conditions to the Grand Isle area. By the time it reached NO, it was a 50KT TS as it weakened while moving inland.

This seems to be where the confusion lies. Everyone affected by a storm thinks they went through the maximum winds of the storm, when less than 1% of the affected area did. Then, when real cat 1 or 2 conditions come through, they are very surprised at the devastation

[Audrey2Katrina]

This seems to be where the confusion lies. Everyone affected by a storm thinks they went through the maximum winds of the storm, when less than 1% of the affected area did. Then, when real cat 1 or 2 conditions come through, they are very surprised at the devastation

That may well be true for some folks; but I make no such pretense. I didn't and have no desire to go through the "maximum winds"--ever. I rode out Hurricane Betsy which had measurable sustained winds here easily within those figures even though it was 50 miles or more west of the city. (In fact I was in the 9th ward at the time.) I travelled the area and can assure you that the damage to foliage and uprooted trees, downed walls and fences didn't approach what I saw after Katrina from the Metairie area. Actually, I rode out several hurricanes here, Edith, Georges, and slept through Cindy; and it is well within my memory if not "recent". Vast numbers of trees old enough to have been here since the 1947 storm which truly took a "worst case" track directly over New Orleans, as well as Betsy, Hilda, Camille, Edith, Georges, Cindy, were left standing quite tall after each event. I stand on my opinion that the same agency that took TEN YEARS to decide that Andrew was not a 4, will re-visit Katrina, and the winds here while nowhere near maximum, were well over the preposterous cat 1 listing as it currently stands.

[Pearl River]

Audrey2Katrina said:

Vast numbers of trees old enough to have been here since the 1947 storm which truly took a "worst case" track directly over New Orleans, as well as Betsy, Hilda, Camille, Edith, Georges, Cindy, were left standing quite tall after each event. I stand on my opinion that the same agency that took TEN YEARS to decide that Andrew was not a 4, will re-visit Katrina, and the winds here while nowhere near maximum, were well over the preposterous cat 1 listing as it currently stands

I totally agree with you about Katrina. Have you seen the tree damage on the northshore? It looks like bombs were dropped everywhere. Take a look at the surge video of Kennard Jackley from Slidell and you'll see why the levees breached in New Orleans. I'm sure you're familiar with Slidell. That storm surge went as far as old towne and Fremaux Ave.

[Audrey2Katrina]

As a native of this area for over half a century, yes, I certainly am familiar with those areas, and came back to Baton Rouge down 55, and later saw the complete devastation the "wind" did on the Northshore. It was appalling! Here is a website from the USGS using NHC data itself showing that New Orleans had indeed experienced full-blown cat1 and cat2 storms within memory, ("recent" is like beauty--in the eyes of the beholder)--and as a first hand eyewitness to all of these storms, not a ONE of them compares to Katrina--not even remotely in wind damage much less in water surge devastation. This may be the report for now; but I am convinced that the storm had winds well in excess of the absurd numbers currently being presented.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-206/p ... canes.html

[Pearl River]

Audrey2Katrina, I absolutely agree with you. To me, this has to be looked upon with ones own eyes, not tv or internet pictures to see the full extent.

My father, who is 83yo, told me he has never seen anything like this. He said the only time Slidell had water in it caused by a hurricane, but apparently not quite like this, was caused by the 1915 storm. His parents always told him stories about that one. I can remember from Hilda on to today and nothing was like Katrina, water or no water. Too many people want to look at the surge damage or to structure damage. Houses have been built better in this area since Camille and modified since Andrew. Take a look at the forestry damage, to huge pine trees and oaks and to me, that is really where you can tell the true story of the storms strenght.

[cycloneye]

Being this Christmas weekend a long one including monday a Christmas extension day because Christmas day is at sunday and I know that some members haved been traveling in recent days and may not know that the Katrina Report is posted here I edited the title of thread to reflect the very important Katrina Report.I will leave it this way until monday night as next week (Maybe) new reports may be released.

[Derek Ortt]

All of the storms you mentioned, A2K, except maybe the 47 huricane, did not produce winds anywhere close to those from Katrina. Camielle levelled the mouth of the Mississippi area; however, NO did not receive cane winds from it.

Also, the flooding was so bad due to the horrible levees

[Audrey2Katrina]

All of the storms you mentioned, A2K, except maybe the 47 huricane, did not produce winds anywhere close to those from Katrina. Camielle levelled the mouth of the Mississippi area; however, NO did not receive cane winds from it.

Also, the flooding was so bad due to the horrible levees

Hate to disagree with you, Derek; but even the NHC doesn't agree with you on that assessment. Oh, the Camille comment is pretty spot on, but the NHC report does state that because of Camille's small size and radius of hurricane force winds, the largest part of NO only had 50-60 mph winds, it adds that the eastern parts of the city may have had winds up to 100 mph... I lived well to the east by St. Bernard Parish; but Camille's not the point as to what I remember. I DO remember vividly, Hurricane Betsy, where the NHC report states, and I quote:

"By 11:20 PM EST the winds at New Orleans had exceeded 100 mph, and by midnight the storm was 35 milesSW of New Orleans. The winds reached 125 mph at 11:46 PM at which time the power failed at the NewOrleans Weather Bureau Office and advisory responsibility was transferred back to Miami" (end of quote)

From everything I'm reading in the report on Katrina, those winds do more than "approach" her wind speeds, certainly in New Orleans, they exceeded them. And Betsy was no slouch on size either. Despite all that, I'm telling you the damage here from Katrina was worse than Betsy's and I reiterate that while the worst damage from Katrina came from poor levee structure for New Orleans, that is NOT the case for the Northshore, or the vast majority of Metairie which had little to no flooding--but massive wind damage.

We're both probably spinning our wheels; there are those who will accept the NHC report on Katrina lock stock and barrel; and there are those who won't. Just one of those aspects that make life interesting.

PAX

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Personally, I'm very anxious to see the reports on Cindy and Wilma.

A2K

[jazzfan1247]

"By 11:20 PM EST the winds at New Orleans had exceeded 100 mph, and by midnight the storm was 35 milesSW of New Orleans. The winds reached 125 mph at 11:46 PM at which time the power failed at the NewOrleans Weather Bureau Office and advisory responsibility was transferred back to Miami"

I almost almost certain they were talking about wind gusts rather than sustained wind speeds. So that would mean Cat 1-2 winds in NO during Betsy using the wind gust/sustained ratio.

[Audrey2Katrina]

"By 11:20 PM EST the winds at New Orleans had exceeded 100 mph, and by midnight the storm was 35 milesSW of New Orleans. The winds reached 125 mph at 11:46 PM at which time the power failed at the NewOrleans Weather Bureau Office and advisory responsibility was transferred back to Miami"

I almost almost certain they were talking about wind gusts rather than sustained wind speeds. So that would mean Cat 1-2 winds in NO during Betsy using the wind gust/sustained ratio.

Actually, the report simply states "winds" there is nothing whatsoever about peak gusts, although "gusts" are referred to in the report. If you're interested in a piece by the NO Times Picayune also referring to those as "sustained winds" you can check this link:

http://www.nola.com/washingaway/buildingbetter_2.html

Whatever you wish to believe, the winds in New Orleans recorded by "official" stations from Betsy was well above 110 mph, and every source I checked indicates they were sustained.

[jazzfan1247]

Actually, the report simply states "winds" there is nothing whatsoever about peak gusts, although "gusts" are referred to in the report. If you're interested in a piece by the NO Times Picayune also referring to those as "sustained winds" you can check this link:

http://www.nola.com/washingaway/buildingbetter_2.html

Well, based on these sources, that 125 mph wind was a gust and not a sustained wind...

"Winds gusted to 125 mph in New Orleans with a 3.0 m (9.8 ft) storm surge that caused the worst flooding in decades..." (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hurricane-risk-new-orleans.htm)

"Winds gusted to 125 mph and the pressure fell to 28.75" at New Orleans. The sea level pressure there dropped to 28.00" at Grand Isle and Houma. Port Eads gauged winds to 136 mph." (http://www.thecajuns.com/lahurricanes.htm#September_9-10th,_1965_)

I'm sure some prof met can back me up on this too, as there is absolutely no way NO experienced Cat 3 sustained winds during Betsy

[cycloneye]

23A 16.40 -78.00 07/16/18Z 135 937 HURRICANE-4
24 16.80 -78.80 07/16/21Z 135 937 HURRICANE-4
24A 17.10 -79.50 07/17/00Z 135 929 HURRICANE-4
25 17.50 -80.30 07/17/03Z 135 930 HURRICANE-4


First for information the 135 you see there four times are in knots so that is 155 mph.

As you can see the pressure data is not too low to be a cat 5 however being the winds so close to cat 5 which starts at 156 mph there is a chance that when the Emily report is out they may upgrade to cat 5.

What do you think they will do with the intensity of Hurricane Emily?

[wxmann_91]

Actually, the report simply states "winds" there is nothing whatsoever about peak gusts, although "gusts" are referred to in the report. If you're interested in a piece by the NO Times Picayune also referring to those as "sustained winds" you can check this link:

http://www.nola.com/washingaway/buildingbetter_2.html

Well, based on these sources, that 125 mph wind was a gust and not a sustained wind...

"Winds gusted to 125 mph in New Orleans with a 3.0 m (9.8 ft) storm surge that caused the worst flooding in decades..." (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hurricane-risk-new-orleans.htm)

"Winds gusted to 125 mph and the pressure fell to 28.75" at New Orleans. The sea level pressure there dropped to 28.00" at Grand Isle and Houma. Port Eads gauged winds to 136 mph." (http://www.thecajuns.com/lahurricanes.htm#September_9-10th,_1965_)

I'm sure some prof met can back me up on this too, as there is absolutely no way NO experienced Cat 3 sustained winds during Betsy

I'm by no way a pro met, but IIRC Betsy was a pretty large hurricane. New Orleans could've received sustained winds to Cat 3 level.

[Scorpion]

Pressure is way too high for a Cat 5 for Emily. 937 is usually low end Cat 4. 929 is usually mid Cat 4.