This arguement has gone on for 4 months to the day almost so

[Jim Cantore]

Lets vote on it, and please, keep it civilized

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

135 mph

[brunota2003]

125 MPH at most...IMO

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

The first landfall the inner core was still some what intacted. Also it was a cat5 less then 5 to 6 hours before that landfall...Once making landfall into Ms could of been 115 to 120 mph.

[Extremeweatherguy]

125mph at Buras, and 115mph in Missississippi. N.O. recieved Cat. 1 force winds, Biloxi saw Cat. 2 force, Mobile saw strong TS force. Surge was well over the normal Cat. 3 limit and resembled surge of a Cat. 5 storm. These are my opinions since this debate started (and actually the debate had ended for a good month now so far), and I am sticking to them.

[Ixolib]

Darn, do we really HAVE to keep it civil??? If so, this'll be the first time - at least on this particular topic...

Since I wasn't in Buras but rather in Biloxi at landfall, I'm going to also stick to my experienced opinion and say the winds - at least here - were in the lower end of CAT 2. Therefore, probably mid-level CAT 3 at Buras.

But, in my most civil tone possible, I gotta say again that the wind - no matter where it was blowing - was certainly not the issue in Katrina.

[StormScanWx]

In my opinion, Hurricane Katrina should have been recorded as a Category 4 at landfall. The surge/flooding was the main component of Katrina, and I think the National Hurricane Center should consider revising the Saffir-Simpson Scale to reflect surge values.

[Jim Cantore]

But, in my most civil tone possible, I gotta say again that the wind - no matter where it was blowing - was certainly not the issue in Katrina.

12 hours earlier that wind was going to be sailing washers and dryers through the air like missiles, you wouldn't be able to tell surge from wind damage, needless to say, the storm would have been 5 times worse, I know its hard to imagine.

[Ixolib]

But, in my most civil tone possible, I gotta say again that the wind - no matter where it was blowing - was certainly not the issue in Katrina.

12 hours earlier that wind was going to be sailing washers and dryers through the air like missiles, you wouldn't be able to tell surge from wind damage, needless to say, the storm would have been 5 times worse, I know its hard to imagine.

Oh yeah, with that I'll agree 100%. Me and mine continue to be VERY thankful that she peaked well off-shore.... Not only would the wind have become an issue otherwise, the surge would most probably been at least 5+ feet higher. That would have put me and my family (and thousands of others) in an extremely dire - and most probably a fatal - situation!!

[ROCK]

125mph at Buras, and 115mph in Missississippi. N.O. recieved Cat. 1 force winds, Biloxi saw Cat. 2 force, Mobile saw strong TS force. Surge was well over the normal Cat. 3 limit and resembled surge of a Cat. 5 storm. These are my opinions since this debate started (and actually the debate had ended for a good month now so far), and I am sticking to them.

nice call EWG...I agree....

[Jim Cantore]

But, in my most civil tone possible, I gotta say again that the wind - no matter where it was blowing - was certainly not the issue in Katrina.

12 hours earlier that wind was going to be sailing washers and dryers through the air like missiles, you wouldn't be able to tell surge from wind damage, needless to say, the storm would have been 5 times worse, I know its hard to imagine.

Oh yeah, with that I'll agree 100%. Me and mine continue to be VERY thankful that she peaked well off-shore.... Not only would the wind have become an issue otherwise, the surge would most probably been at least 5+ feet higher. That would have put me and my family (and thousands of others) in an extremely dire - and most probably a fatal - situation!!

add a few hundred more deaths and a few more feet of water in NOLA too

[HurricaneHunter914]

I still say cat-4! The surge was incredible and the wind damage extensive.

[Jim Cantore]

Her eye went over Southwest pass over an hour before Buras, if that was considered a landfall I'd say 150mph

However, Looking at satelitte combined with Katrinas trend in the previous 6 hours, I'm going with 140-145mph

[Lindaloo]

I still believe they received CAT5 winds when she made first landfall. Just did not look to weaken that much.

[Lindaloo]

I still say cat-4! The surge was incredible and the wind damage extensive.

The surge was definitely a CAT5 surge all over the coast.

[Pearl River]

Hurricane Floyd wrote

Her eye went over Southwest pass over an hour before Buras, if that was considered a landfall I'd say 150mph

However, Looking at satelitte combined with Katrinas trend in the previous 6 hours, I'm going with 140-145mph

You're absolutely correct about the eye passing over SW Pass first. There is land down there, but they don't see that as a landfall.

I'm going to say 140mph at Buras.

[CrazyC83]

I'm going to agree with the 140, and I think it was still 140 at the Mississippi landfall. Either that or Katrina did not weaken much at all (and very slowly) as she started over land. She clearly had Category 3 winds almost to Hattiesburg, Category 2 winds to Laurel and hurricane conditions well past Meridian. Those are where I made the 140 estimate for the Mississippi landfall.

However, Katrina was definitely falling apart on the radar in the several hours before landfall and was not well defined as it was approaching, so I think that all the weakening was in the 3-6 hours before landfall, and none at all happened while crossing Plaquemines and Breton Sound.

Winds in New Orleans, however, were still only Category 1 for the most part (Category 2 in the east end). Remember there wasn't a great deal of wind damage, apart from fallen trees and power lines and some weaker structures, in the area - the storm surge did everything.

[Derek Ortt]

how about adding an option of under 125, which is what the doppler radar, dropsondes, and SFMR indicated. The 125 was derived by assuming that the peak winds were not sampled

[CrazyC83]

Here is what I think really was the intensity of the storm at each point approaching and at landfall:

Table 1. Best track for Hurricane Katrina, 23-30 August 2005.

Date/Time
(UTC) Latitude
(°N) Longitude
(°W) Pressure
(mb) Wind Speed
(kt) Stage

28 / 0000 24.8 85.9 939 105 "
28 / 0600 25.2 86.7 927 130 "
28 / 1200 25.7 87.7 908 145 "
28 / 1800 26.3 88.6 902 150 "
29 / 0000 27.2 89.2 904 145 "
29 / 0600 28.2 89.6 916 125 "
29 / 1200 29.5 89.6 921 120 "
29 / 1800 31.1 89.6 945 95 "
30 / 0000 32.6 89.1 958 70 "
30 / 0600 34.1 88.6 973 55 tropical storm
30 / 1200 35.6 88.0 983 45 "
30 / 1800 37.0 87.0 990 45 "
31 / 0000 38.6 85.3 994 40 extratropical
31 / 0600 40.1 82.9 996 35 "
31 / 1200 merged with front

29 / 1110 29.3 89.6 920 120 Landfall near Buras, LA
29 / 1445 30.2 89.6 922 120 Landfall near LA/MS border

[Extremeweatherguy]

I still believe they received CAT5 winds when she made first landfall. Just did not look to weaken that much.

I think that is a little extreme. To compare Katrina's wind damage to that of a storm like Andrew is crazy. There is no way the winds were that powerful. Also, concerning the surge, just because it may be an 18+ foot surge does not mean it is a Cat. 5 storm. As we have all learned in these debates...large storms that quickly die to weaker storms will still carry their stronger surge with them for a day or so.