Met Dr. Steve Lyons: his thoughts on Katrina, etc.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Ummm.. those remarks are certainly no more disparaging than the rolling eyes we are incessantly given from some, and if one truly understands what a "straw man" argument is, it is quite inocuous. All it means is that you are trying to put words into another's statements. Do you like that sort of tactic? You know it's kind of sad, but up to this point this was a very civil thread with cerebral and thought provoking comment. Then came the "straw-man" comments. And that is NOT meant to offend, because that is exactly what mischaracterizing what one is trying to say amonts to being. I ask you... do you like that tactic?

A2K

I'm not going to say what the problem is; however, can't we have a nicer thread?

Couldn't agree with you more, CVW. Would it make you feel better if I used "mischaracterize" instead of "strawman"... essentially they mean one and the same; and when no one employs it, there is no need to even refer to it! I too want a friendly discussion here, as this has been a truly informative and interesting thread IMHO, and would like to see it stay that way. Hey, if you disagree--disagree! But we should equally agree to eschew the snide mischaracterizations that threaten to kill what has been a very civil discourse.

A2K

[MiamiensisWx]

Couldn't agree with you more, CVW. Would it make you feel better if I used "mischaracterize" instead of "strawman"... essentially they mean one and the same; and when no one employs it, there is no need to even refer to it! I too want a friendly discussion here, as this has been a truly informative and interesting thread IMHO, and would like to see it stay that way. Hey, if you disagree--disagree! But we should equally agree to eschew the snide mischaracterizations that threaten to kill what has been a very civil discourse.

A2K

Thanks! Yep... I will feel better if you use "mischaracterize" instead. Thanks, once again! I agree!

[Audrey2Katrina]

I can agree mostly. Even though it's "unofficial", Michoud had a peak one minute wind of 107 knots. CAT 3.

Whoa... may I ask where you are getting that? I believe you are confusing gusts with sustained. Remember, "one-minute wind" is a unit of measurement. Any wind measurement is based off of a divisible unit of one-minute rather than WMO-standard ten-minute. A wind speed at any given second is based off of a one-minute measurement. That makes me believe the "107" you are quoting is actually a gust. Furthermore, the NOAA report and the Michoud data set shows a maximum sustained wind of 84KT.

He is referring to an addendum to that very same Michoud data from another guage, using the very identical term describing a 107 KT reading from Guage 2.

A2K

[senorpepr]

I can agree mostly. Even though it's "unofficial", Michoud had a peak one minute wind of 107 knots. CAT 3.

Whoa... may I ask where you are getting that? I believe you are confusing gusts with sustained. Remember, "one-minute wind" is a unit of measurement. Any wind measurement is based off of a divisible unit of one-minute rather than WMO-standard ten-minute. A wind speed at any given second is based off of a one-minute measurement. That makes me believe the "107" you are quoting is actually a gust. Furthermore, the NOAA report and the Michoud data set shows a maximum sustained wind of 84KT.

He is referring to an addendum to that very same Michoud data from another guage, using the very identical term describing a 107 KT reading from Guage 2.

A2K

To you have a link? Is this in the Katrina report? If so... where? All I have see is "However, the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans measured a 1-minute sustained wind of 84 kt (at an elevation of about 12 m) near 1100 UTC 29 August."

[Audrey2Katrina]

Actually I think that map has it a little too far east but not far off. Michoud is about 7 mi. as the crow flies, NE of Downtown New Orleans and any quick look at a Google Map will show you it's a little closer in than that.

A2K

[senorpepr]

To you have a link? Is this in the Katrina report? If so... where? All I have see is "However, the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans measured a 1-minute sustained wind of 84 kt (at an elevation of about 12 m) near 1100 UTC 29 August."

One quick thing to point out... note that the elevation of the sensor is at 12m. Standard is at 10m. Therefore, if you do the conversion, that 84kt is actually a little bit less.

[Audrey2Katrina]

In essence, yes, I do, CVW. I also agree with your "pockets" statement. As Pearl River stated, there is a 1 minute reading of 123 mph at Michoud which could well have been one of those "pockets". It IS in Eastern New Orleans, and could well be why Dr. Mayfield made his comment... dunno, and won't presume to say with any certainty. Getting back to the original question, in overall essence, yes, it seems a very probable scenario--with those "pocket" exceptions .

A2K

Once again, referring back to my comments regarding this "one minute" reading... The thing to keep in mind is gusts (including microbursts) don't qualify as a sustained wind. According to the US-NWS and WMO guidelines... for a location to experience category three conditions... that location has to see winds at or greater than 100KT (using the one-minute unit or 88KT using the ten-minute unit) for two full minutes or longer.

"One-minute" is a unit of measurement. 107KT (one-minute average) can be over a one-second timeframe or a one-year timeframe.

(Not trying to put words in your mouth or anything... I just want everyone to understand this. Many confuse this in the typhoon and cyclone threads)

I appreciate your trying to clarify the issue; but then just tell me: Do you feel the 84 KT "sustained" referred to in the NHC report was, in fact, "sustained" winds at that magnitude? Because this is the same facility that reported the 107 KT winds at another guage using exactly the same terminology. Not trying to be contentious--just wish to clarify it.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Once again, referring back to my comments regarding this "one minute" reading... The thing to keep in mind is gusts (including microbursts) don't qualify as a sustained wind. According to the US-NWS and WMO guidelines... for a location to experience category three conditions... that location has to see winds at or greater than 100KT (using the one-minute unit or 88KT using the ten-minute unit) for two full minutes or longer.

"One-minute" is a unit of measurement. 107KT (one-minute average) can be over a one-second timeframe or a one-year timeframe.

(Not trying to put words in your mouth or anything... I just want everyone to understand this. Many confuse this in the typhoon and cyclone threads)

Remember the bold words, everyone!

I think we've gotten past that dead horse a looong time ago

But thanks for the reminder anyway... and just fr the record, it's whether or not that second guage was a 1 minute sustained is what we're attempting to clarify --see bold print! ...

Point taken!

A2K

[MGC]

My, why are many of you so argumentive over Katrina's winds? The winds didn't do Jack compared to the water. I have not heard of one death in Katrina that was caused by wind in La or Miss. The only wind related deaths were in S. Fla by the dummies out driving around and getting crushed by falling trees.

I could care less if Katrina was a tropical storm or Cat -5 at landfall here. I personally don't agree with HRD's graphic of Katrina's wind field. Sorry, but in my opinion, what wind damaged I seen on the ground don't quite jive with the HRD graphic. I guess my logic of more damage equal stronger winds is defective. Strongest wind IMO were futher west than the graphic. Just an observation though, which I reinforce every day by driving around the coast. We could use a couple more professional opinions (reports) on Katrina though. Happy Mardi Gras......MGC

[f5]

this thread is a dead horse we keep debating a bush that has been beat up over and over again.what i mean is were deabting wind speed when it was the surge that wiped waveland,ms off the map

[Audrey2Katrina]

I can agree mostly. Even though it's "unofficial", Michoud had a peak one minute wind of 107 knots. CAT 3.

Whoa... may I ask where you are getting that? I believe you are confusing gusts with sustained. Remember, "one-minute wind" is a unit of measurement. Any wind measurement is based off of a divisible unit of one-minute rather than WMO-standard ten-minute. A wind speed at any given second is based off of a one-minute measurement. That makes me believe the "107" you are quoting is actually a gust. Furthermore, the NOAA report and the Michoud data set shows a maximum sustained wind of 84KT.

He is referring to an addendum to that very same Michoud data from another guage, using the very identical term describing a 107 KT reading from Guage 2.

A2K

To you have a link? Is this in the Katrina report? If so... where? All I have see is "However, the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans measured a 1-minute sustained wind of 84 kt (at an elevation of about 12 m) near 1100 UTC 29 August."

Can't find the actual NWS site at hand; but I'm sure someone else could, perhaps Pearl River. But here is a basic copy of the NWS update on another site, showing both "gages" at Michoud, including the 84 KT that was in the Katrina Report, and the 107 KT which was NOT, as this data came in AFTER the report was issued.

http://twister.sbs.ohio-state.edu/text/tropical/atlantic/statements/02172023.KLIX

I know I saw it on an official NWS site but right now don't want to spend a lot of time digging it out. But this might suffice.

A2K

[whereverwx]

Bottom Line: Katrina was a hurricane at landfall.

hurricane: A severe tropical cyclone in the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, or in the eastern North Pacific off the west coast of Mexico with winds of 75 miles per hour or greater.

[Frank P]

My, why are many of you so argumentive over Katrina's winds? The winds didn't do Jack compared to the water. I have not heard of one death in Katrina that was caused by wind in La or Miss. The only wind related deaths were in S. Fla by the dummies out driving around and getting crushed by falling trees.

I could care less if Katrina was a tropical storm or Cat -5 at landfall here. I personally don't agree with HRD's graphic of Katrina's wind field. Sorry, but in my opinion, what wind damaged I seen on the ground don't quite jive with the HRD graphic. I guess my logic of more damage equal stronger winds is defective. Strongest wind IMO were futher west than the graphic. Just an observation though, which I reinforce every day by driving around the coast. We could use a couple more professional opinions (reports) on Katrina though. Happy Mardi Gras......MGC

MGC... I couldn't agree with you more....

[Audrey2Katrina]

My, why are many of you so argumentive over Katrina's winds? The winds didn't do Jack compared to the water. I have not heard of one death in Katrina that was caused by wind in La or Miss. The only wind related deaths were in S. Fla by the dummies out driving around and getting crushed by falling trees.

I could care less if Katrina was a tropical storm or Cat -5 at landfall here. I personally don't agree with HRD's graphic of Katrina's wind field. Sorry, but in my opinion, what wind damaged I seen on the ground don't quite jive with the HRD graphic. I guess my logic of more damage equal stronger winds is defective. Strongest wind IMO were futher west than the graphic. Just an observation though, which I reinforce every day by driving around the coast. We could use a couple more professional opinions (reports) on Katrina though. Happy Mardi Gras......MGC

You have a Happy Mardi Gras too MGC. And for most of us it isn't really "argument" so much as simply sharing and exploring other viewpoints. It is an interesing topic (at least as evidenced by its rapid growth ) but certainly not one to get too worked up over.

And YES, this storm WAS a surge event.. just ask any of the flooded victims and the unprecedented water damage from Jefferson Parish Louisiana, all the way to the Florida Panhandle.

A2K

[Extremeweatherguy]

I can agree mostly. Even though it's "unofficial", Michoud had a peak one minute wind of 107 knots. CAT 3.

Whoa... may I ask where you are getting that? I believe you are confusing gusts with sustained. Remember, "one-minute wind" is a unit of measurement. Any wind measurement is based off of a divisible unit of one-minute rather than WMO-standard ten-minute. A wind speed at any given second is based off of a one-minute measurement. That makes me believe the "107" you are quoting is actually a gust. Furthermore, the NOAA report and the Michoud data set shows a maximum sustained wind of 84KT.

He is referring to an addendum to that very same Michoud data from another guage, using the very identical term describing a 107 KT reading from Guage 2.

A2K

To you have a link? Is this in the Katrina report? If so... where? All I have see is "However, the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans measured a 1-minute sustained wind of 84 kt (at an elevation of about 12 m) near 1100 UTC 29 August."

Can't find the actual NWS site at hand; but I'm sure someone else could, perhaps Pearl River. But here is a basic copy of the NWS update on another site, showing both "gages" at Michoud, including the 84 KT that was in the Katrina Report, and the 107 KT which was NOT, as this data came in AFTER the report was issued.

http://twister.sbs.ohio-state.edu/text/tropical/atlantic/statements/02172023.KLIX

I know I saw it on an official NWS site but right now don't want to spend a lot of time digging it out. But this might suffice.

A2K

Just to let everyone know...the Michoud data says "peak wind" which refers to a gust and not sustained.

[senorpepr]

I appreciate your trying to clarify the issue; but then just tell me: Do you feel the 84 KT "sustained" referred to in the NHC report was, in fact, "sustained" winds at that magnitude? Because this is the same facility that reported the 107 KT winds at another guage using exactly the same terminology. Not trying to be contentious--just wish to clarify it.

A2K

The 84KT would be what we normally refer to as a sustained wind. (Although maybe 1 or 2 knots less when adjusting for proper height.) The question is... is the other gauge at the same height? If so... why wasn't it included into the report? Something was some different with it that it was completely thrown out. If I could see an actual reference, then I could further clarify.

[senorpepr]

I guess my logic of more damage equal stronger winds is defective. Strongest wind IMO were futher west than the graphic. Just an observation though, which I reinforce every day by driving around the coast. We could use a couple more professional opinions (reports) on Katrina though. Happy Mardi Gras......MGC

One item to ponder (not saying it is correct or otherwise) is the terrain to the west more favorable for gusts than the east? If so... the west would see lower sustained winds, but higher gusts equally to more damage.

...all the things to consider when dealing with micrometeorology.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Just to let everyone know...the Michoud data says "peak wind" which refers to a gust and not sustained.

Just to let everyone know the very term "Peak Wind" was used for the 84 KT "sustained one-minute" cited in the NHC Katrina report which is exactly the point some of us were trying to make.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I appreciate your trying to clarify the issue; but then just tell me: Do you feel the 84 KT "sustained" referred to in the NHC report was, in fact, "sustained" winds at that magnitude? Because this is the same facility that reported the 107 KT winds at another guage using exactly the same terminology. Not trying to be contentious--just wish to clarify it.

A2K

The 84KT would be what we normally refer to as a sustained wind. (Although maybe 1 or 2 knots less when adjusting for proper height.) The question is... is the other gauge at the same height? If so... why wasn't it included into the report? Something was some different with it that it was completely thrown out. If I could see an actual reference, then I could further clarify.

I will try to get the actual NWS site for you, and appreciate your efforts.

A2K

[Ixolib]

Show me where a pro-met has bashed someone in this thread. Please. All I have seen are posts / charts to correct the false statements flying around in here about a storm that some people feel should put on a pedestal..,and BTW it never will be.

Uhmmmm.... BTW... it IS on a pedestal in my house, and most of my neighbors' houses as well.

It is interesting for a storm that "will never be on a pedestal", that it (Katrina) has been the daily focus of virtually every major medial outlet since about August 27? In my lifetime, I cannot recall ANY other US land-falling hurricane that has received this much attention - be it here in S2K or anywhere else... Every day since late August, anyone who has turned on the TV, read a newspaper, or looked at a magazine as read or heard the name Katrina.