Isabel was NOT a minor hurricane

[rob8303]

For all of you on here who said Isabel was nothing but a glorified rainstorm, shame on you Let's review what Isabel did:
-25 deaths (Andrew killed 58)
-8 million without power
-Major wind damge
-Major flood damage
-shut down nation's capital for 2 days.

Just because Isabel was not a category 5!!!! does not mean it was nothing. If a cat 2 could cause such devastation, imagine how bad the category 5 storm would have been.

BTW, I know most of you on here agree with me but there has been a considerable attempt by some on here to make Isabel sound like less than she actually was. Tell that to the nearly 2 dozen families dealing with the tragic loss of a loved one tonight. :o

[Josephine96]

Preach to the choir.. Rob.. Great Post...

[will]

For all of you on here who said Isabel was nothing but a glorified rainstorm, shame on you Let's review what Isabel did:
-25 deaths (Andrew killed 58)
-8 million without power
-Major wind damge
-Major flood damage
-shut down nation's capital for 2 days.

Just because Isabel was not a category 5!!!! does not mean it was nothing. If a cat 2 could cause such devastation, imagine how bad the category 5 storm would have been.

BTW, I know most of you on here agree with me but there has been a considerable attempt by some on here to make Isabel sound like less than she actually was. Tell that to the nearly 2 dozen families dealing with the tragic loss of a loved one tonight. :o

The nation's capital being shutdown has nothing to do with the storm. It has to do with poor decision making. The capital did -not- need to be shut down for one, much less two, days.
I have no disagreement with your assertion that Isabel in and of herself was no bust. I do disagree with you, tho, on your assertion that anyone who feels the storm didn't live up to the hype for their specific area was wrong. The storm was forecasted to be far more intense than it was further inland. That is true. That is a fact.
Why can't you understand this? Are you looking for a cause to rally behind?
Do you question those who say the storm of march 2001 busted? Well, up here in Maine I got near 40 inches.
But down there in DC where 3 feet was called for and maybe 2 inches happened...that's a bust. But the storm still happened.
People were upset that Isabel didn't have the winds forecasted for their specific area - not because it didn't cause any damage on the coast and not because it didn't kill or destroy enough lives. It's called having a passion for extreme weather - quite a few people have it. There's nothing immoral about it.
OK?
Do you think the person who likes rain is insensitive to the people whose loved ones died in car crashes caused by rain?
Do you think they do?
Nope. It's just easier to pin that type of guilt on a person who likes a more specific event.
Doesn't make it any different however.
God made wind. Some people like wind.
Some people like thunder storms. Are they to blame when a person gets struck?
Does the family of the person struck by lightning feel threatened by people who enjoy taking pictures of lightning?

[wxman57]

I certainly agree that Isabel produced major damage along the mid Atlantic coast. But, ctually, Isabel was a minor hurricane, as hurricane winds go. But it was a major disaster for the east coast. Those folks in NC/VA usually get brushed by the much weaker west side of hurricanes as they recurve out to sea, thinking they've gone through hurricane-force winds. This time they really got hit by true hurricane-force winds. Preliminary reports indicate max recorded winds of about 65-70 kts gusting to 85-90 kts, but all reports are not in yet. A recon plane measured about 82-83 kts via dropwindsonde in that one big squall that developed northeast of the center at landfall. So if Isabel was a Cat 2 storm then it was just barely a Cat 2, and only in that one squall. Even Lili last year didn't produce any recorded 65kt winds (about 55kt max) in south-central Louisiana.

We all saw what winds in the 60-70 mph range can do when we saw Brian Williams and Mark Seidel get blown off-camera. They couldn't stand up in winds just near hurricane-force. Can you really imagine what 120-140 mph winds would be like? Now you have to understand that the force of wind is not a linear function. Wind FORCE increases with the SQUARE of the velocity. That is, a 120 mph wind is not twice as strong as a 60 mph wind, it's <b>four times as strong!</b> And a 180 mph Cat 5 wind like Camille in 1969 is <b>eight times as strong as a 60 mph wind!</b> No, I don't think that anyone who hasn't experienced such wind can imagine the force. You'd literally be blown away in a Cat 3-4-5 storm.

[will]

Actually, Isabel WAS a minor hurricane, as hurricanes go. But it was a major disaster for the east coast. Those folks in NC/VA usually get brushed by the much weaker west side of hurricanes as they recurve out to sea, thinking they've gone through hurricane-force winds. This time they really got hit by true hurricane-force winds. Preliminary reports indicate max recorded winds of about 65-70 kts gusting to 85-90 kts, but all reports are not in yet. A recon plane measured about 82-83 kts via dropwindsonde in that one big squall that developed northeast of the center at landfall. So if Isabel was a Cat 2 storm then it was just barely a Cat 2, and only in that one squall. Even Lili last year didn't produce any recorded 65kt winds (about 55kt max) in south-central Louisiana.

We all saw what winds in the 60-70 mph range can do when we saw Brian Williams and Mark Seidel get blown off-camera. They couldn't stand up in winds just near hurricane-force. Can you really imagine what 120-140 mph winds would be like? Now you have to understand that the force of wind is not a linear function. Wind FORCE increases with the SQUARE of the velocity. That is, a 120 mph wind is not twice as strong as a 60 mph wind, it's <b>four times as strong!</b> And a 180 mph Cat 5 wind like Camille in 1969 is <b>eight times as strong as a 60 mph wind!</b> No, I don't think that anyone who hasn't experienced such wind can imagine the force. You'd literally be blown away in a Cat 3-4-5 storm.

Have you read what happened in Hatteras?
I'd have to agree with the others questioning the cat designation for this storm.
It was at LEAST solid cat 2...most likely, tho, it was a cat 3.

[floydchaser]

I agree WxMAN. I was in Lili last year in Lafayette, which is well inland. I clocked winds higher than were clocked in most areas for this storm. Lili was a Cat 1 at landfall. Interestingly, many of the wind gusts measured closer to the LA coast were much higher than were measured in Isabel. This was a very disorganized, unimpressive storm from a meteorological standpoint. It makes you pause and think about what a really potent storm would do if it took the same track.

[terstorm]

I agree too WxMan and Floydchaser. We had a lot of tree damage where I am, and the gusts never exceeded 60mph. Makes you pause and think about how bad it would have been had Isabel had 120+mph winds when she came ashore.

[wxman57]

Have you read what happened in Hatteras?
I'd have to agree with the others questioning the cat designation for this storm.
It was at LEAST solid cat 2...most likely, tho, it was a cat 3.

Will, if you're going to state that Isabel was a solid Cat 2 or more likely a Cat 3 at landfall, then you need to supply some data to validate those claims (measurements by certified/calibrated anemometers or post-storm analysis by structural engineers). The highest sustained wind measurement I've seen is only 80 mph, not 96+ mph. There were 3 recon planes in Isabel prior to landfall, and none measured more than 83 kt surface winds prior to landfall. True, there may be other observations that were a bit higher, and there's no guarantee that the highest wind in that one squall just northeast of the center hit one of the anemometers in its path. Remember, wind gusts do not count toward storm classification. For a storm to be classified a Cat 2 there must be a sustained 96 mph wind that lasts for at least a full minute without dipping below 96 mph. A storm can have sustained wind of 90 mph and gusts to 150, but it's still a Cat 1 by definition.

Certainly, there is no evidence at all that Isabel had SUSTAINED 1-minute winds of Cat 3 strength. Recon didn't measure such winds at any time prior to landfall, and, to my knowledge, not of the numerous recording stations in Isabel's path recored Cat 3 wind for a solid 60 seconds. Wind gusts do not count when classifying hurricanes. But we're generous in the Atlantic basin. In the Pacific, a storm has to maintain a wind speed for 10 minutes to be given a specific wind classification.

But my point wasn't to argue that Isabel was a strong Cat 1 or weak Cat 2 at landfall, the point I wanted to make was that people just do not understand what true 75 mph + winds can do. In so many other instances, the NHC overstates the winds in storms at landfall so much that people have no clue what a 75 mph wind is. Irene in 1999 was an example. It hit Florida as a "Cat 1" storm, but there was never one single observation to support hurricane-force winds.

Here's a graphic of Isabel's winds at landfall, put together by the Hurricane Research division. Note the one small area of 80kt winds that hit Hatteras:

ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2 ... ol4deg.png

[will]

Have you read what happened in Hatteras?
I'd have to agree with the others questioning the cat designation for this storm.
It was at LEAST solid cat 2...most likely, tho, it was a cat 3.

Will, if you're going to state that Isabel was a solid Cat 2 or more likely a Cat 3 at landfall, then you need to supply some data to validate those claims (measurements by certified/calibrated anemometers or post-storm analysis by structural engineers). The highest sustained wind measurement I've seen is only 80 mph, not 96+ mph. There were 3 recon planes in Isabel prior to landfall, and none measured more than 83 kt surface winds prior to landfall. True, there may be other observations that were a bit higher, and there's no guarantee that the highest wind in that one squall just northeast of the center hit one of the anemometers in its path. Remember, wind gusts do not count toward storm classification. For a storm to be classified a Cat 2 there must be a sustained 96 mph wind that lasts for at least a full minute without dipping below 96 mph. A storm can have sustained wind of 90 mph and gusts to 150, but it's still a Cat 1 by definition.

Certainly, there is no evidence at all that Isabel had SUSTAINED 1-minute winds of Cat 3 strength. Recon didn't measure such winds at any time prior to landfall, and, to my knowledge, not of the numerous recording stations in Isabel's path recored Cat 3 wind for a solid 60 seconds. Wind gusts do not count when classifying hurricanes. But we're generous in the Atlantic basin. In the Pacific, a storm has to maintain a wind speed for 10 minutes to be given a specific wind classification.

But my point wasn't to argue that Isabel was a strong Cat 1 or weak Cat 2 at landfall, the point I wanted to make was that people just do not understand what true 75 mph + winds can do. In so many other instances, the NHC overstates the winds in storms at landfall so much that people have no clue what a 75 mph wind is. Irene in 1999 was an example. It hit Florida as a "Cat 1" storm, but there was never one single observation to support hurricane-force winds.

Here's a graphic of Isabel's winds at landfall, put together by the Hurricane Research division. Note the one small area of 80kt winds that hit Hatteras:

ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/hwind/2 ... ol4deg.png

I'm citing evidence, upon which my entire opinion is based, that I read in an article detailing what happened - so far as they can tell - in Hatteras Village. I don't have the link handy, but it's in the thread about Hatteras. Like I said, it is what my opinion is based on and thus if it's incorrect, I admit that I'm wrong.
What the article says tho, is that several people in Hatteras, still miles from the eye, recorded wind gusts over 120 mph. It notes that the gusts were probably stronger, too.
Hatteras itself, according to the article, sustained winds too 105 mph. The anemometer then broke. In additon to this, they reportedly were hit by a tidal surge of 11 feet - well within the cat 3 9-12 foot storm surge range.

[floydchaser]

I agree that, due to more sophisticated measurement instrumentation now, we can better delineate categories in hurricanes. I also agree that many hurricanes from the past would be considered to be weaker now if they were re-analyzied. Some would be stronger too. I think that the category system works fairly well for wind damage though. Fran was a cat 3, and it is quite clear that this storm did not cause anywhere near the wind/surge damage that Fran did, even on some of the more hard hit islands.

[JetMaxx]

I agree Isabel was a cat-2....my problem is hurricanes of the past such as Connie, Ione, and Donna (in NC) had similar meteorological stats and were rated cat-3 (of course so was Gloria which is so absurd it isn't even funny).

I've now heard two tv news accounts that the 105 mph wind in Ocracoke was the limit of the instrument and it "pegged" just past 90 kts (how they got the 105 mph/ 91 kt measurement).

We'll have to wait and see what type of wind readings private citizens and storm chasers/ researchers on the southern Outer Banks may have to report. That was a key in finally determining Andrew's actual intensity at landfall...barometric pressure reports of 921 and 923 mb and 177 mph gusts from private citizens (that occurred when the wind instrument was destroyed....15-30 minutes before the peak winds arrived; not to mention the Fowey Rocks anemometer support iron mast being bent straight out at a 90° angle AFTER recording a peak gust of 169 mph....disabled by presumably even stronger winds).

Wxman 57 is right about those idiot reporters straining against the "hurricane force" winds....you don't do that in 125 mph winds. You would have seen them blown away like paper, and probably killed. :o

If you want to know what a really severe hurricane is like....in September 1960, when hurricane Donna crossed the Florida Keys, the USCG station anemometer in Tavernier would measure wind speeds to 120 mph. During Donna's passage, the needle was pegged solid against the 120 mph mark solid for over 45 minutes (sustained wind was likely 135-145 mph, gusting to 175-180).

[Downdraft]

If you take a look at the damage to coastal areas caused by Isabel you have to wonder what major resort areas all along the Atlantic coast would look like after a major. We all know what's going to happen but we build on the dunes anyway. We disrupt the normal evolution of the barrier islands and then we moan and groan when nature reclaims what's hers. I have no sympathy for those that run the risk of the inevitable and then cry for federal money to rebuild so it can happen again. The simple fact is the majority of the people that live there choose to they don't have to for economic reasons. The developers are stupid enough to build there, the people are stupid enough to buy there. I know I sound like a hard case but when are we going to wake up? I listened to one fella talk about this being the 3rd time he's rebuilt his house after a storm. I wonder who is paying for that? You or me in our taxes? You or me in higher insurance rates? Glad he enjoys his ocean front lifestyle at the expense of others. Believe me I'm not trying to stir up any anger here but it's time we had a rationale debate about this issue. I don't care if it's Mississippi River flooding, California canyon living or Florida condos in Daytona we need to manage how we develop disaster prone areas.

[BaltimoreGirl]

The storm was forecasted to be far more intense than it was further inland. That is true. That is a fact.

In our area, it seemed to be the direct opposite. We were told we were to experience a 1-3 foot storm surge off the Chesapeake Bay(I had no access to computer or cable TV as our power was out and I only had a portable TV) Imagine my surprise when the 8-10(some say it was closer to 12) foot storm surge and high tide hit. Our neighborhood has NEVER flooded(and even the oldtimers here said that when Hazel hit here in the 50's-the area never flooded) I watched my neighbors wade waist high in water in their homes. I was lucky, I am on the cove and my house, along with a few others, sits about 3 feet higher than the rest of the neighborhood. We were the only houses that didn't flood out completely. Since this neighborhood doesn't flood, none of us were required to have flood insurance either. My neighbors lost everything. 2 lost their lives, one from a heart attack, the other drowned. The emergency evacuations didn't stert until well after the water was already in people's homes.

My point is, that here, there was no hype about how bad it would be.As a matter of fact, it seemed to me it was underplayed about the effects of this storm on the Baltimore area. Even the Mayor of the city said yesterday-that NO ONE predicted how bad this was going to be. Maybe I am sensitive soley due to the experience, but I wonder if the local mets were more foreboding with their reports, my neighbors would have more of their lives left.

[wxman57]

I think there's a basic misunderstanding about hurricane classification based upon observed wind speeds. It's quite possible that Hatteras could have had a wind gust to 120 mph. I saw that Ocracoke Island had a gust to 105 mph. Certainly Cat 2 and Cat 3 wind speeds, but that does not make Isabel a Cat 3 storm if those winds were measured accurately.

Wind gusts are not used to classify a huricane, sustained wind is used. In a hurricane, a wind gust is defined as any peak wind observed that lasts for less than 60 seconds. If the wind speed (say, 120 mph) lasts for a full 60 seconds without dropping at all, then, that wind speed becomes a SUSTAINED wind. It takes A LOT stronger storm to maintain 120 mph wind for minutes or hours on end, vs. a few brief seconds.

Now, there's no doubt that Isabel had 120 mph wind aloft at landfall. Winds about 1500 feet above the surface are generally about 30% stronger than winds at the ground. These stronger winds can mix down to the surface briefly, in gusts, at landfall. This probably happened with Isabel. But that doesn't make Isabel a strong Cat 2 or a Cat 3 storm. To call such a storm with a few brief wind gusts to Cat 3 strength a Cat 3 storm would greatly diminish the REAL Cat 3 storms that can maintain such wind for hours, producing gusts 30-40 mph above Cat 3 strength.

That all said. even wind gusts of 100-120 mph can do significant damage, as was observed across the Outer Banks of North Carolina. But my main point has been that the general public do not really understand what even Cat 1 or Cat 2 wind can do in terms of damage. Very few people who go through hurrucanes really get to see sustained winds of hurricane-force.

One of my "pet peeves" is that the NHC tends to overstate winds in most landfalling storms. I guess you can't fault them for being overly-cautious and presenting to the public that winds in a given storm may be 10 or 20 mph higher than what are actually being measured by recon, as there is always a chance that either the storm could strengthen just prior to landfall, or that perhaps the strongest wind in a storm have not been sampled. But this gives the public a false sense of security. Going though a bogus Cat 1 hurricane makes the public think that 75+ mph winds aren't that bad. And on that, they're dead wrong. Even 75-80 mph sustained 1-minute winds (with gusts of 100-120 mph) can do a tremendous amount of damage. Ant THAT, has been my point. Had Isabel come ashore as a true, Cat 3 storm with 120 mph wind sustained for hours and gusts of 150-160 mph and a storm surge 5-7 feet higher, then most of the homes on the Outer Banks (and the NC coast) would be completely gone.

I certainly don't mean to slight those who have been devastated by this disaster.

[jude]

The nation's capital being shutdown has nothing to do with the storm. It has to do with poor decision making. The capital did -not- need to be shut down for one, much less two, days.
[/quote]

pre 9/11/01 perhaps some would agree with you.
Now, I ask you to consider the distinct possibilty of a DC terror attack in the middle of Isabel. Decisions are made using many criteria, not just wind speeds. Times are different, new normal and all that, you know.


May I suggest you also read some local reports. Would you have thousands of gov't workers coming in on kayaks?

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... ON=MIDWEST

-Jude

[Superstorm]

Excuse me, but we're recovering for the longest power outage in my lifetime-27 hours, and the worst wind damage ever. No one can remember anything like this. At the height of the storm, winds were gusting to hurricane force, and about 20 large trees were lost, 3 in my yard, and 2 in my road. One of the trees hit my window (it didn't break the glass). Anyone who thinks Isabel is a glorified rainstorm can come to my neighborhood and see for themself!

[wxman57]

I agree Isabel was a cat-2....my problem is hurricanes of the past such as Connie, Ione, and Donna (in NC) had similar meteorological stats and were rated cat-3 (of course so was Gloria which is so absurd it isn't even funny).

I've now heard two tv news accounts that the 105 mph wind in Ocracoke was the limit of the instrument and it "pegged" just past 90 kts (how they got the 105 mph/ 91 kt measurement).

We'll have to wait and see what type of wind readings private citizens and storm chasers/ researchers on the southern Outer Banks may have to report. That was a key in finally determining Andrew's actual intensity at landfall...barometric pressure reports of 921 and 923 mb and 177 mph gusts from private citizens (that occurred when the wind instrument was destroyed....15-30 minutes before the peak winds arrived; not to mention the Fowey Rocks anemometer support iron mast being bent straight out at a 90° angle AFTER recording a peak gust of 169 mph....disabled by presumably even stronger winds).

Wxman 57 is right about those idiot reporters straining against the "hurricane force" winds....you don't do that in 125 mph winds. You would have seen them blown away like paper, and probably killed. :o

If you want to know what a really severe hurricane is like....in September 1960, when hurricane Donna crossed the Florida Keys, the USCG station anemometer in Tavernier would measure wind speeds to 120 mph. During Donna's passage, the needle was pegged solid against the 120 mph mark solid for over 45 minutes (sustained wind was likely 135-145 mph, gusting to 175-180).

Good points, JetMaxx. There were 2 P3-Orion aircraft and a WC-130 recon plane flying into Isabel just prior to landfall. The planse dropped numerous dropwindsondes into the strongest squalls, and used other instruments (radar) to measure wind speeds. I was getting e-mails from Peter Black and Chris Landsea from the Hurricane Research Division during and after these missions. They estimated peak sustained wind of 83 kts at landfall. That's 95.5 mph 1-minute winds. If those measurements were correct, then Isabel lwas a weak Cat 2 at landfall. But not all hurricanes are alike in wind structure. In Isabel's case, the strongest winds were over a very small part of the storm near the core. Some Cat 2 storms have actual Cat 2 winds all around the eye., making them much more damaging in all quadrants.

What IS unusual about this storm is that it hit the coast head-on, putting residents in that stronger right-front quadrant of the storm. In many, many storms of the past, those residents only THINK they have been through a hurricane as Cat 1-3 storm grazed Hatteras before recurving out to sea In most cases, the Outer Banks passed through the often much-weaker west half of the storms. This time, as in 1933, they weren't as lucky.

I hadn't heard of the 169 mph wind gust before. That would be quite incredible, as the numerous recon flights into Isabel in the 2 days before landfall never recorded ANY wind that high between the surface and 10,000ft. I suspect that was an erroneous report, as was the 180 mph wind recorded at Bilixo during Georges' landfall in 1998.

There should be a full post-storm report issued in the next week (maybe 2 due to the damage) that will have all recorded wind and tides for the region.

[Pileus]

Wxman, same measurement applies on the Richter Scale involving
earthquakes. A number 7 quake is ten times as strong as a number 6.

[SacrydDreamz]

There certainly was a cat 3 storm surge on the outer banks!! You cannot deny that! Perry also brought up an excellent point, Andrew was not named a cat 5 until 10 years later!! It takes more than "official" readings and "official" damage assessment to categorize the storm. You can't have anemometers and dropsonded for every square inch of the storm. You, wxman, are being too absolue about it. You don't even acknowledge the possibilty of later reports validating cat 2 or cat 3 status. It's my personal belief that Isabel was a solid cat 2 storm at landfall, winds sustained near 100 mph. You are not correct yet, and neither am I.. so don't tell anyone that they're wrong. That's yet to be determined..

Floydchaser.. disorganized and unimpressive?? Dude, review what Isabel went through. She made cat 5 status TWICE and held that status longer than most people said she could! Her evolution was exciting and most interesting. It's impressive IMO how she fought to maintain strength in spite of shear and cool, dry air. She was VERY impressive. Fabian was impressive.. it took forever for the cold water to kill her!! Fran and Isabel hit NC in different areas at different angles and speeds. The surge potential is undoubtedly different to some degree in each area. Before talking about surge damage I think we should consider surge potential. Judging by videos from Nags Head.. looked like quite a surge to me!! Impressive surge all along the Virginia coast as well.. higher than anticipated for many areas! Isabel affected MANY people to some degree.. she was impressive

I agree with most here, the nations capitol DID NOT need to be shut down.. not on Thursday at least..

[JetMaxx]

Wxman57...my apologies for causing a misunderstanding. The 169 mph gust I referred to occurred during hurricane Andrew...at the Fowey Rocks c-man station SE of Miami, FL.

The highest gust I'm currently aware of in hurricane Isabel at landfall are several media reports of 121 and 118 mph gusts recorded by stormchasers and/ or university research units in the Hatteras area.