Cat 4 hurricanes very unlikely north of Florida on E Coast

[Pearl River]

Derek wrote

Instead of saying that just because the data says a storm was "only" a cat 3 or a 3, and not a 4 or a 5, that the storm is being downplayed, IMO, it would be betetr if we in light of the extensive data analysis were able to convey to the masses that Katrina was an example of what a cat 3 can do, and that those are likely going to destroy your home.business and threten our life. Cat 3's are major hurricanes for a reason

I agree with you there. Even TS's can be dangerous as we saw with Allison in '01. The best thing we can all preach is, when an evacuation order is given..GO. Heck, leave before hand to beat the mass exodus. You can replace a home, you can't replace a LIFE.

[Frank P]

Derek wrote

Instead of saying that just because the data says a storm was "only" a cat 3 or a 3, and not a 4 or a 5, that the storm is being downplayed, IMO, it would be betetr if we in light of the extensive data analysis were able to convey to the masses that Katrina was an example of what a cat 3 can do, and that those are likely going to destroy your home.business and threten our life. Cat 3's are major hurricanes for a reason

I agree with you there. Even TS's can be dangerous as we saw with Allison in '01. The best thing we can all preach is, when an evacuation order is given..GO. Heck, leave before hand to beat the mass exodus. You can replace a home, you can't replace a LIFE.

so true PR because you never really know what's going to happen in the final analysis... it just might be your turn to have that tree fall on your house and then it comes apart, or a window blow through and then off goes your roof.... better to be safe than DEAD

[Pearl River]

Frank P wrote

They build modular homes made out of standard wood construction and actually wind test them at 150 mph, and they ARE NOT DESTROYED....

Frank, you are correct at that. I own one. The eye passed right over it and I lost a ton of trees, a metal shed and the skirting. House untouched, and I feel guilty about it, because so many lost brick homes and businesses.

[Ixolib]

To support the other side, you are missing the point - a CAT 2/3 can be very bad so we should not underestimate that but we are saying that you did not receive anything higher than CAT 2/3....the data shows this, however, we do understand it was a formidble storm and should NEVER be downplayed.

I actually believe most of us accept the fact that Katrina was no 4/5 at landfall. I think the issue that continues to peak the ire is one side using "science" as the primary ingredient in their debate while the other side (the side I am on) wants to accept the science, but also has a huge degree of emotional involvement that can't be negated. Certainly if any two notions are at extreme and opposing ends, it would be the notion of science vs. emotion. While you are almost surely correct in the data supporting a 2/3, (see, there I go again!!) it is phrases like "you did not receive anything higher than CAT 2/3" that causes these types of reactions. Again, it is the emotion on one side opposing the science on the other side. Kinda like opposite poles on a magnet. A no-win situation. It is for this reason, I believe, that this debate will NEVER be settled, and in fact, will only be tempered when those on the science side experience an extreme and personal impact themselves at some point in the future... Human emotion can be a hugely strong influence on one's opinion - regardless of the science.

And to honor the original intent of this thread, my apologies for partaking in the sidetrack.

[Pearl River]

Now, getting back to what this thread is all about. I feel it could happen. Just like everything else, the conditions have to be just right. I've always been the one to say "never say never". In my life experiences, I have had people tell me something couldn't happen and then bam, it does. Just because it's not in the textbook, only means it hasn't happened yet. Not that it can't happen.

[Frank P]

Frank P wrote

They build modular homes made out of standard wood construction and actually wind test them at 150 mph, and they ARE NOT DESTROYED....

Frank, you are correct at that. I own one. The eye passed right over it and I lost a ton of trees, a metal shed and the skirting. House untouched, and I feel guilty about it, because so many lost brick homes and businesses.

thanks PR, and don't feel guilty... you were prepared and were smart in your house selection and contruction... just be glad you didn't get hit with about 8 feet of surge, then it might have been much different... and I'll tell you this also, the house I'm building will be able to withstand any Cat 3 storm winds .... because YOU CAN BUILD for wind... shoddy built house of couse will fail in a Cat 3 but not ones built to the international building codes.....

[Audrey2Katrina]

But for those of us who not only lived through the storm, but survived, our lives have forever changed in ways so profound that those on the "outside" will never, never, never understand.

You've summed it up nicely, Ixolib...those who make "remote" decisions based on all their high-tech this and that, will never be convinced that anything but their computerized data is correct...and well, your "never never never"...really does hit the mark. *sigh*

A2K, Frank, MGC, PR, and others of the same vane - you have my admiration for your tireless persistence in the repetitive face of these types of threads

Well, lol, I guess we're just as hard-headed; because having lived it, and continuing to live it, they will "never, never never" convince us otherwise either!

A2K

[wxman57]

Exactly, which is how storms are categorized by SS... and it shows NO sustained winds over actual landfall in Louisiana at Cat 3, which is more than slightly absurd... especially in light of the fact that the "official" NHC report alleges that it was a "high-end" Cat 3 at first LANDfall in Louisiana, and maintained that to second landfall... this map is in stark contrast even to measured sustained winds at Michoud... sorry, but with all due respect, I can't remotely consider it a reliable source. Nice, and pretty--just inaccurate as far as I can see.

A2K

You appear to not understand what a Cat 3 classification means. It does not mean that Cat 3 winds exist in all sections of the hurricane. Nor does it mean that Category 3 winds are experienced anywhere over land. All a Cat 3 classification means is that SOMEWHERE within the entire scope of the hurricane, there were measured or estimated winds at or above 111 mph for 60 seconds or longer while the center of the eye crossed the coast. In most cases, Cat 3 winds are confined to the over-water sections of a landfalling Cat 3 hurricane. Katrina's Cat 3 winds were all to the right of the track after it made first landfall. I'm not aware of any official observing station at Michoud which reported a 60-second wind of 111 mph or greater. The NASA facility in Michoud reported an unoffical sustained wind of 84 kts (about 95 mph). Highest official sustained wind in southeast Louisiana was 76 kts at the Grand Isle C-MAN buoy, though many instruments stopped reporting after losing power before the center passed.

You might read the official report which lists all observations as Katrina made landfall - both from the ground and from the air:

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

I know it may be hard to believe, but Katrina's strongest winds missed New Orleans quite a ways to the east, slamming into the MS Coast between Bay St. Louis and Gulfport. If it wasn't for Katrina's huge wind field, which generated very large waves and a large surge, New Orleans would have sustained minimal damage (in comparison) from the wind alone.

[Audrey2Katrina]

anything higher than CAT 2/3....the data shows this,

That's not remotely universally agreed upon... even among the pro-met community! Believe me I know whereof I speak--you can drop the 2 out of it altogether anyone saying she wasn't at the very least a 3 is truly living a pipe-dream---or more properly nightmare.

A2K

[Pearl River]

Ixolib wrote

gatorcane wrote:
To support the other side, you are missing the point - a CAT 2/3 can be very bad so we should not underestimate that but we are saying that you did not receive anything higher than CAT 2/3....the data shows this, however, we do understand it was a formidble storm and should NEVER be downplayed.


I actually believe most of us accept the fact that Katrina was no 4/5 at landfall. I think the issue that continues to peak the ire is one side using "science" as the primary ingredient in their debate while the other side (the side I am on) wants to accept the science, but also has a huge degree of emotional involvement that can't be negated. Certainly if any two notions are at extreme and opposing ends, it would be the notion of science vs. emotion. While you are almost surely correct in the data supporting a 2/3, (see, there I go again!!) it is phrases like "you did not receive anything higher than CAT 2/3" that causes these types of reactions. Again, it is the emotion on one side opposing the science on the other side. Kinda like opposite poles on a magnet. A no-win situation. It is for this reason, I believe, that this debate will NEVER be settled, and in fact, will only be tempered when those on the science side experience an extreme and personal impact themselves at some point in the future... Human emotion can be a hugely strong influence on one's opinion - regardless of the science.

And to honor the original intent of this thread, my apologies for partaking in the sidetrack.

Well said IX. Sorry to see you in Florida, but I hope things are better for you. Science is not exact. I hope we can all agree on that. Like you said, it's the "you did not receive anything higher than CAT 2/3" that get's the goat and using chart's, that in my and other's opinions, are skewed.
Disagreements are good for the soul, maybe not the blood pressure, but the soul.

[Audrey2Katrina]

They build modular homes made out of standard wood construction and actually wind test them at 150 mph, and they ARE NOT DESTROYED....

Exactly... which is why pointing to water damage and arguing wind speeds is an exercise in futility.

A2K

[wxman57]

Opal storm wrote

Storm surge is not categorized, so there is no such thing as a "cat 5 storm surge".

Tell that to the pro-mets that do state there is such a thing.

They would be quite incorrect in saying such a thing. Saffir-Simpson is only a wind scale. There is no officially-associated storm surge for each category as such an association would be impossible and/or ridiculous. Very early on, the NHC tried to associate a storm surge with SS categories, but that was dropped after a short time because peak wind speed is only a tiny part of the storm surge equation.

For example, a Category 3 hurricane could produce a storm surge anywhere from 3-5 feet to 30-35 feet, depending upon radius of max winds, forward speed, angle it hits the coast, offshore topography, and coastal topography. Same thing for a Cat 4 or 5, but with a bit higher surge on the high-end.

[Ixolib]

Disagreements are good for the soul, maybe not the blood pressure, but the soul.

As for Florida, the funny thing about Florida is there are actually very few (relatively speaking) people here who are actually from Florida!! I do miss the good-old-boy accent from my beloved Biloxi, though....

[Pearl River]

Wxman57 wrote

Audrey2Katrina wrote:


Exactly, which is how storms are categorized by SS... and it shows NO sustained winds over actual landfall in Louisiana at Cat 3, which is more than slightly absurd... especially in light of the fact that the "official" NHC report alleges that it was a "high-end" Cat 3 at first LANDfall in Louisiana, and maintained that to second landfall... this map is in stark contrast even to measured sustained winds at Michoud... sorry, but with all due respect, I can't remotely consider it a reliable source. Nice, and pretty--just inaccurate as far as I can see.

A2K


You appear to not understand what a Cat 3 classification means. It does not mean that Cat 3 winds exist in all sections of the hurricane. Nor does it mean that Category 3 winds are experienced anywhere over land. All a Cat 3 classification means is that SOMEWHERE within the entire scope of the hurricane, there were measured or estimated winds at or above 111 mph for 60 seconds or longer while the center of the eye crossed the coast. In most cases, Cat 3 winds are confined to the over-water sections of a landfalling Cat 3 hurricane. Katrina's Cat 3 winds were all to the right of the track after it made first landfall. I'm not aware of any official observing station at Michoud which reported a 60-second wind of 111 mph or greater. The NASA facility in Michoud reported an unoffical sustained wind of 84 kts (about 95 mph). Highest official sustained wind in southeast Louisiana was 76 kts at the Grand Isle C-MAN buoy, though many instruments stopped reporting after losing power before the center passed.

You might read the official report which lists all observations as Katrina made landfall - both from the ground and from the air:

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

I know it may be hard to believe, but Katrina's strongest winds missed New Orleans quite a ways to the east, slamming into the MS Coast between Bay St. Louis and Gulfport. If it wasn't for Katrina's huge wind field, which generated very large waves and a large surge, New Orleans would have sustained minimal damage (in comparison) from the wind alone.

From the NWS Slidell, updated post Katrina report. Updated on Feb.17th.

GAGE 2 PEAK WIND 107 KT 1415UTC
VISUAL OBSERVATION OF READOUT DISPLAY FROM GAGE 2

[wxman57]

I actually believe most of us accept the fact that Katrina was no 4/5 at landfall. I think the issue that continues to peak the ire is one side using "science" as the primary ingredient in their debate while the other side (the side I am on) wants to accept the science, but also has a huge degree of emotional involvement that can't be negated. Certainly if any two notions are at extreme and opposing ends, it would be the notion of science vs. emotion. While you are almost surely correct in the data supporting a 2/3, (see, there I go again!!) it is phrases like "you did not receive anything higher than CAT 2/3" that causes these types of reactions. Again, it is the emotion on one side opposing the science on the other side. Kinda like opposite poles on a magnet. A no-win situation. It is for this reason, I believe, that this debate will NEVER be settled, and in fact, will only be tempered when those on the science side experience an extreme and personal impact themselves at some point in the future... Human emotion can be a hugely strong influence on one's opinion - regardless of the science.

And to honor the original intent of this thread, my apologies for partaking in the sidetrack.

You're quite correct, there is a great deal of emotion that may be clouding the facts of Katrina's actual sustained winds at any particular location. Many just can't or don't want to accept the fact that a Catetory 3 hurricane could have produced so much damage, or even that Category 1 or 2 sustained winds west of the track could have produced the damage that was observed. That's why you have to take ANY hurricane seriously.

[Audrey2Katrina]

You appear to not understand what a Cat 3 classification means.

With all due respect you appear to have made an error in judgment here; I completely understand what a Cat 3 classification means.

It does not mean that Cat 3 winds exist in all sections of the hurricane.

Really? Would you please direct me to the place where I even remotely intimated that it did? I never once said or even implied that these winds had to be "everywhere"... and even went so far as to show that by the HRD map, Buras itself did NOT get higher than cat 2 winds... it's exactly what THAT MAP shows.

You really needn't have provided a link to the report as I have a copy of it right here on the trusty 'puter; but thanks anyway as others may wish to check it as well. Bear in mind that even this has been "updated" with further data later on, specifically with the readings from the 2nd guage at Michoud--but that's irrelevant; if you check page 3 of this report on your Adobe reader, you'll find this quote: "The hurricane then made landfall, at the upper end of Category 3 intensity with estimated maximum sustained winds of 110 kt, near Buras,".... okay...ummm UPPER end of Cat 3 at Buras... and it maintains that it remained a 3 all the way till it moved inland over Mississippi... sorry, again this does NOT correspond to the contours of that map--it just simply doesn't jive at all, and I'm not buyin' it. I respect both your position and your right to accept it, please reciprocate the courtesy and grant me the right to see the contradictions that are rife amongst available data. I simply do not accept these contours at all. This by no means suggests I do not know what a Category 3, (or any other category classification for that matter) means--I most assuredly do.

A2K

[wxman57]

From the NWS Slidell, updated post Katrina report. Updated on Feb.17th.

GAGE 2 PEAK WIND 107 KT 1415UTC
VISUAL OBSERVATION OF READOUT DISPLAY FROM GAGE 2

So what's your point? The observation states that the peak wind (i.e., a wind gust) of 107 kts was observed. Wind gusts are not sustained winds, which is how hurricanes are categorized. To qualify as a sustained wind, that peak wind must be measured for 60 seconds or longer. Wind gusts are typically about 25-30% higher than sustained winds. In some cases, gusts can be nearly double the sustained wind (Lily in 2002 where sustained winds were 40-50 mph and gusts were recorded near 100 mph). Wind gusts can last anywhere from a few seconds to less than 60 seconds.

[Pearl River]

Wxman57 wrote

Pearl River wrote:
Opal storm wrote

Quote:
Storm surge is not categorized, so there is no such thing as a "cat 5 storm surge".


Tell that to the pro-mets that do state there is such a thing.



They would be quite incorrect in saying such a thing. Saffir-Simpson is only a wind scale. There is no officially-associated storm surge for each category as such an association would be impossible and/or ridiculous. Very early on, the NHC tried to associate a storm surge with SS categories, but that was dropped after a short time because peak wind speed is only a tiny part of the storm surge equation.

For example, a Category 3 hurricane could produce a storm surge anywhere from 3-5 feet to 30-35 feet, depending upon radius of max winds, forward speed, angle it hits the coast, offshore topography, and coastal topography. Same thing for a Cat 4 or 5, but with a bit higher surge on the high-end.

If it's ridiculous, then again, tell it to the pro-mets who state such a thing. Whether you agree with it or not, some pro-mets do use it to categorize surge. I know the SS is based on wind, the UN comissioned Herbert Saffir to develop a scale for universal building codes along the coasts. Dr Simpson added storm surge later.

[Audrey2Katrina]

You're quite correct, there is a great deal of emotion that may be clouding the facts of Katrina's actual sustained winds at any particular location.

Indeed... emotions and egos... hand-in-hand and a right volatile mix. No?

Okay... I'm for getting back to the subject if others will let the dead horse lay... and avoid the even more offensive condescesion behind as well.

Category 4 along the E. Coast above Florida anyone?

A2K

[Frank P]

I actually believe most of us accept the fact that Katrina was no 4/5 at landfall. I think the issue that continues to peak the ire is one side using "science" as the primary ingredient in their debate while the other side (the side I am on) wants to accept the science, but also has a huge degree of emotional involvement that can't be negated. Certainly if any two notions are at extreme and opposing ends, it would be the notion of science vs. emotion. While you are almost surely correct in the data supporting a 2/3, (see, there I go again!!) it is phrases like "you did not receive anything higher than CAT 2/3" that causes these types of reactions. Again, it is the emotion on one side opposing the science on the other side. Kinda like opposite poles on a magnet. A no-win situation. It is for this reason, I believe, that this debate will NEVER be settled, and in fact, will only be tempered when those on the science side experience an extreme and personal impact themselves at some point in the future... Human emotion can be a hugely strong influence on one's opinion - regardless of the science.

And to honor the original intent of this thread, my apologies for partaking in the sidetrack.

You're quite correct, there is a great deal of emotion that may be clouding the facts of Katrina's actual sustained winds at any particular location. Many just can't or don't want to accept the fact that a Catetory 3 hurricane could have produced so much damage, or even that Category 1 or 2 sustained winds west of the track could have produced the damage that was observed. That's why you have to take ANY hurricane seriously.

Heck I take thunderstorms seriously now in this FEMA trailer......

If nothing else Katrina has elevated the seriousness of hurricanes to a new level.... and that just might save a bunch of lives next go around... this one for sure...