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

[MiamiensisWx]

Absolutely!

A2K

Yep... I think it's a reasonable answer.

Yup... found a good site with info on the '47 storm, also called the "Fort Lauderdale Storm" of Sept 4, 1947.



http://today.answers.com/topic/1947-fort-lauderdale-hurricane

And yes, it also mentions Cat 3 in Louisiana with gusts of 125 in New Orleans as the eye passed directly over the city--from the east... this would be a truly frightening scenario for a Katrina-like storm. Pearl River, I bet your dad could say a lot about that one!

A2K

Thanks... however, the link mentions the 155MPH reading as a gust, when it really was a sustained wind like the 160MPH sustained reading recorded in the Bahamas on Abaco Island during the same storm. This is the quandary I was mentioning before. I truly think the storm was still a high-end Category Four at southeast Florida landfall.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Ok....here is some evidence to support the fact that N.O. DID NOT see Cat. 2 or 3 sustained winds...

..And that is my evidence on why I do not think N.O. or it's surrounding areas saw Cat. 3 force winds...and unless in the far east side, I doubt most areas saw above Cat. 1 force..

First, and foremost, what you cite as "fact" is by every fair evaluation of the syntax, "in fact"... mere "opinion". Additionally, needless to say Mayfield disagrees with you, Lyons certainly does, and so do many others, as does that which we've established more times than I care to recall, the "fact" that isolated photos prove exactly--nothing.

Again, I simply disagree, and so do many others--to each his/her own

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Absolutely!

A2K

Yep... I think it's a reasonable answer.

Yup... found a good site with info on the '47 storm, also called the "Fort Lauderdale Storm" of Sept 4, 1947.



http://today.answers.com/topic/1947-fort-lauderdale-hurricane

And yes, it also mentions Cat 3 in Louisiana with gusts of 125 in New Orleans as the eye passed directly over the city--from the east... this would be a truly frightening scenario for a Katrina-like storm. Pearl River, I bet your dad could say a lot about that one!

A2K

Thanks... however, the link mentions the 155MPH reading as a gust, when it really was a sustained wind like the 160MPH sustained reading recorded in the Bahamas on Abaco Island during the same storm. This is the quandary I was mentioning before. I truly think the storm was still a high-end Category Four at southeast Florida landfall.

yeah, I noticed that too... but thought I'd post the link for informative purposes. Funny how this "gust-vs-sustained" keeps cropping up
and while it was before I was born, I agree the data is quite inadequate to make any unequivocal assertions one-way or the other. But if what you cite is accurate, (about the 160 mph) it certainly had to be at least a high-end 4 when it hit Florida...JMHO.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Also, of interest, CVW, I've heard a lot in this area about the 1915 storm. (Oddly not much about the 1927 which has received a lot of local attention because of the intentional breaking of levees to avoid flooding). I'll have to do more research on it... don't know if it was a CVW, or otherwise; but my Dad, who was like 8 years old when that one hit, (Mom was in the process of being born) seems to have had some pretty profound recollections of it as well.

Have a good 1

A2K

[MiamiensisWx]

yeah, I noticed that too... but thought I'd post the link for informative purposes. Funny how this "gust-vs-sustained" keeps cropping up
and while it was before I was born, I agree the data is quite inadequate to make any unequivocal assertions one-way or the other. But if what you cite is accurate, (about the 160 mph) it certainly had to be at least a high-end 4 when it hit Florida...JMHO.

A2K

Do you notice how the September 1947 storm made landfall right in what is now Boca Raton (my area) in southeast Florida? My area (and much of southeast Florida) would be devastated by such a slow-moving and large storm!

[wxman57]

Nice map; and while I respect the effort put into it, I do question its accuracy. The preliminary report from the HRD which showed this map, (not very different from the one above) showed the "surface" stations they got wind speeds from totalled 12, from SE. Louisiana, all the way through Mississippi--not very many, and additionally ALL of those windspeeds measured were from instruments that failed long before highest windspeeds could have reached them.

Personally, I find it inconceivable that Buras, Louisiana, the point of initial landfall didn't even fall into cat 3 range of winds, and this is exactly what that map shows. The map also contradicts Mayfields conclusion as it doesn't even show the gusts of cat 3 in New Orleans, and flies in the face of both instruments at Michoud which reported peak winds of 84 KT, and 107 KT respectively, and NOAA's own report says the first is a measured "sustained one-minute" wind.

Perhaps it's as Lyons already noted; some authorities simply live or die by their charts, graphs, models and estimations, with which I believe neither he nor I am finding fault--only disagreement, while others go on their own experience, their own instincts, and a "different" interpretation of pretty much the same data. I still agree with Lyons about landfall and Mayfield that NO received cat 3 winds (seems Mayfield would take issue with these data and I think he's a fairly qualified authority)...already brought up that it's pointless to continue the argument of gusts/sustained... gets us nowhere.

A2K

First of all, that map which I posted IS the HRD post-analysis map, I didn't draw it myself. Second, if you'll note on senorpepr's post that the map represents far more than surface observations. You and others just can't seem to comprehend the difference between a 1-minute sustained wind and a wind gust. They're two different animals.

Typically, wind gusts in a landfalling tropical cyclone average about 22-28% above sustained 1-minute surface winds. So a 100 mph hurricane might typically produce 125-130 mph wind gusts -- over water, that is. But it is also not uncommon, particularly when a TC has very strong winds above the surface, that the surface gusts can reach much higher than 22-28%. Such was the case with Lili in 2002, where wind gusts approached double the sustained surface wind.

So no one is saying that it was not possible that eastern parts of New Orleans experienced Cat 3 winds, or that winds over the marshes of SE LA didn't see Cat 3 winds. What the data say is that these areas did not likely see such winds for a continuous 60 second time period or longer.

I've been through the SE LA and southern MS a number of times, helping to repair my mother's home on the MS coast. For the most part, the wind damage appeared consistent with what Cat 1 sustained winds would do. If anything, I suspect that HRD analysis may be a little generous with the Cat 1-2 winds inland across SE LA and southern MS. By that I mean that not all areas within the Cat 1 or Cat 2 radius received such winds.

[Audrey2Katrina]

yeah, I noticed that too... but thought I'd post the link for informative purposes. Funny how this "gust-vs-sustained" keeps cropping up
and while it was before I was born, I agree the data is quite inadequate to make any unequivocal assertions one-way or the other. But if what you cite is accurate, (about the 160 mph) it certainly had to be at least a high-end 4 when it hit Florida...JMHO.

A2K

Do you notice how the September 1947 storm made landfall right in what is now Boca Raton (my area) in southeast Florida? My area (and much of southeast Florida) would be devastated by such a slow-moving and large storm!

Yes, exactly. In fact I think that article even brought that out... this storm would be a national catastrophe were it to hit the same areas today. I believe that before the site was taken down by NOAA for updating (understandably so after 2005), that it was listed as one of the 10 costliest and potentially most dangerous in US history given inflation and current population adjustments.

A2K

[Extremeweatherguy]

Ok....here is some evidence to support the fact that N.O. DID NOT see Cat. 2 or 3 sustained winds...

..And that is my evidence on why I do not think N.O. or it's surrounding areas saw Cat. 3 force winds...and unless in the far east side, I doubt most areas saw above Cat. 1 force..

First, and foremost, what you cite as "fact" is by every fair evaluation of the syntax, "in fact"... mere "opinion". Additionallyl, needless to say Mayfield disagrees with you, Lyons certainly does, and so do many others, as does that which we've established more times than I care to recall, the "fact" that isolated photos prove exactly--nothing.

Again, I simply disagree, and so do many others--to each his/her own

A2K

Once again...how do we know that Dr. Lyons and Max Mayfield meant DOWNTOWN New Orleans? We don't. They could have been referring to far eastern New Orleans. Based on the pictures I posted...there is no way DOWNTOWN got above Cat. 1 force winds. If you still want to think that they did...then that is fine. I guess we can label Wilma damage in Miami as Cat. 3 force too, and Charley damage in Orlando, and every other city that has ever seen hurricane force winds, because the wind damage pics I have seen from those places (and in the case of Charley...I lived in Orlando at the time) are just as bad if not worse than the pictures I have seen from New Orleans from Katrina. But I guess it is true we all have our own opinions, and can believe what ever we want whether or not it is true.

[wxman57]

Absolutely!

A2K

Yep... I think it's a reasonable answer.

Yup... found a good site with info on the '47 storm, also called the "Fort Lauderdale Storm" of Sept 4, 1947.



http://today.answers.com/topic/1947-fort-lauderdale-hurricane

And yes, it also mentions Cat 3 in Louisiana with gusts of 125 in New Orleans as the eye passed directly over the city--from the east... this would be a truly frightening scenario for a Katrina-like storm. Pearl River, I bet your dad could say a lot about that one!

A2K

Thanks... however, the link mentions the 155MPH reading as a gust, when it really was a sustained wind like the 160MPH sustained reading recorded in the Bahamas on Abaco Island during the same storm. This is the quandary I was mentioning before. I truly think the storm was still a high-end Category Four at southeast Florida landfall.

yeah, I noticed that too... but thought I'd post the link for informative purposes. Funny how this "gust-vs-sustained" keeps cropping up
and while it was before I was born, I agree the data is quite inadequate to make any unequivocal assertions one-way or the other. But if what you cite is accurate, (about the 160 mph) it certainly had to be at least a high-end 4 when it hit Florida...JMHO.

A2K

You're discussing the '47 storm at two different time periods.:

By September 16 the hurricane peaked at Category 5 status north of Grand Bahama. The storm skirted over the northern portion of Abaco Island, where a weather station claimed a wind reading of 160 mph (260 km/h) (but note all such wind measurements are suspect). As the storm passed over the Gulf Stream, it lost some strength before landfall.

Florida

The storm made landfall on September 17 near Fort Lauderdale, Florida as a minimal Category 4 hurricane. Wind gusts of up to 155 mph, with sustained winds in excess of 120 mph, were reported from Hillsboro Lighthouse near Pompano Beach

Hurricane wind fields are quite dymanic, you cannot assume that a wind reported in the Bahamas means that the same wind will be observed a day later in Florida.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Waxman57's post: First of all, that map which I posted IS the HRD post-analysis map, I didn't draw it myself.

Never suggested "you" drew it, only said it was a "nice map," and respected the efforts put into it--no more, no less.

Second, if you'll note on senorpepr's post that the map represents far more than surface observations.

Actually, I did notice it, I was only calling attention to the dearth of surface observations to accentuate the focus on much more remote data which is subject to diverse and very subjective evaluation, case in point: the disagreement with some meteorologists themselves over the classification.

You and others just can't seem to comprehend the difference between a 1-minute sustained wind and a wind gust. They're two different animals.

I never presume to crawl into the minds and assume what others "comprehend" and would appreciate reciprocity here. Actually I do comprehend the difference, and have alluded to it many times.

So no one is saying that it was not possible that eastern parts of New Orleans experienced Cat 3 winds

Actually, some in here are; but that is irrelevant I suppose.

For the most part, the wind damage appeared consistent with what Cat 1 sustained winds would do. If anything, I suspect that HRD analysis may be a little generous with the Cat 1-2 winds inland across SE LA and southern MS. By that I mean that not all areas within the Cat 1 or Cat 2 radius received such winds

Well, I live here, and "for the most part" is never the whole picture, though I wish to extend my sincere hopes that your mother has fared out okay--truly I mean that--and am glad that at least it appears from your post, she was spared some of the worst brunt of the storm. Equally hope all continues well for her.

Regarding the HRD analysis.. upon further review I respectfully maintain that I disagree.

But thanks for the info, and once again, my very best to you and your mom.

A2K

[Pearl River]

EWG wrote

A2K...you keep referring to the idea that the people who live there and see the damage automatically can tell what Cat. 3 damage looks like. Really, though, this seems to just be your "opinion" of what Cat. 3 damage is. Now I know you may want to refer back to previous storms that you have gone through, but how do you know for sure that you saw Cat. 3 damage from those storms? What you might have considered Cat. 2 or 3 damage in the past may have actually just been Cat. 1 damage, and now when Katrina hit and the damage was to the same level or worse...you automatically assume it was just as bad or worse than the Cat. 2 or 3 winds you thought you had seen before.

I don't think A2K is saying that at all. But you can sit and selectively show pictures of damage, or lack there of and state your opinion of what occured. Now Kenner was further west than New Orleans from the eye. New Orleans also has a lot of tall buildings blocking the residential area's too.

wxman57 wrote

You and others just can't seem to comprehend the difference between a 1-minute sustained wind and a wind gust. They're two different animals.

Yes we do know what the difference is. As a matter of fact when we state that a report shows a 1-minute peak wind, we are automatically criticized and told that it was a gust, when nowhere does it state that it was a gust. It must be an individuals interpertation as to what they want it to be!!!

I've been through the SE LA and southern MS a number of times, helping to repair my mother's home on the MS coast. For the most part, the wind damage appeared consistent with what Cat 1 sustained winds would do. If anything, I suspect that HRD analysis may be a little generous with the Cat 1-2 winds inland across SE LA and southern MS. By that I mean that not all areas within the Cat 1 or Cat 2 radius received such winds.

There are area's I'm sure you haven't been to and seen all the damage either. Maybe not all the area's received cat 1/2 winds, but that doesn't mean that some area's didn't that or higher.

[Pearl River]

A2K wrote

Quote:
Waxman57's post: First of all, that map which I posted IS the HRD post-analysis map, I didn't draw it myself.



Never suggested "you" drew it, only said it was a "nice map," and respected the efforts put into it--no more, no less.

Quote:

Second, if you'll note on senorpepr's post that the map represents far more than surface observations.




Actually, I did notice it, I was only calling attention to the dearth of surface observations to accentuate the focus on much more remote data which is subject to diverse and very subjective evaluation, case in point: the disagreement with some meteorologists themselves over the classification.


Quote:

You and others just can't seem to comprehend the difference between a 1-minute sustained wind and a wind gust. They're two different animals.



I never presume to crawl into the minds and assume what others "comprehend" and would appreciate reciprocity here. Actually I do comprehend the difference, and have alluded to it many times.

Quote:

So no one is saying that it was not possible that eastern parts of New Orleans experienced Cat 3 winds



Actually, some in here are; but that is irrelevant I suppose.

Quote:

For the most part, the wind damage appeared consistent with what Cat 1 sustained winds would do. If anything, I suspect that HRD analysis may be a little generous with the Cat 1-2 winds inland across SE LA and southern MS. By that I mean that not all areas within the Cat 1 or Cat 2 radius received such winds



Well, I live here, and "for the most part" is never the whole picture, though I wish to extend my sincere hopes that your mother has fared out okay--truly I mean that--and am glad that at least it appears from your post, she was spared some of the worst brunt of the storm. Equally hope all continues well for her.

Regarding the HRD analysis.. upon further review I respectfully maintain that I disagree.

But thanks for the info, and once again, my very best to you and your mom.

A2K

Very well put A2K and I also wish wxman57's mother well too. I have family and friends who also lost everything they own.

[wxman57]

I don't think these charts are that accurate.The chart of Dennis showed T.S force winds in Pensacola when actaully Pensacola had hurricane force winds.That might not be a big deal but that tells me these charts can't be 100% accurate on everything.

Here ya go, I had made a graphic of Dennis's wind field (edited HRD wind analysis) through the FL Panhandle a month or so ago. It does show a small area of hurricane force 1-minute sustained wind in northern parts of Pensacola.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Once again...how do we know that Dr. Lyons and Max Mayfield meant DOWNTOWN New Orleans? We don't.

Obviously we don't, and never made the claim that either did.

They could have been referring to far eastern New Orleans.

Based on the pictures I posted...there is no way DOWNTOWN got above Cat. 1 force winds. If you still want to think that they did...then that is fine. I guess we can label Wilma damage in Miami as Cat. 3 force too, and Charley damage in Orlando, and every other city that has ever seen hurricane force winds,

Well all that other ad-absurdum litany aside, what I referenced most particularly was your claim as "fact" that New Orleans (no reference to ANY particular location in the city) could in no-way have received Cat 3 winds. This is just IMO not true.

...because the wind damage pics I have seen from those places (and in the case of Charley...I lived in Orlando at the time) are just as bad if not worse than the pictures I have seen from New Orleans from Katrina.

Can't and won't argue with that--it's a very logical probability. And as stated many times, pictures cannot tell the whole story.

But I guess it is true we all have our own opinions, and can believe what ever we want whether or not it is true.

Exactly!

A2K

[Ixolib]

...If anything, I suspect that HRD analysis may be a little generous with the Cat 1-2 winds inland across SE LA and southern MS. By that I mean that not all areas within the Cat 1 or Cat 2 radius received such winds.

According to the HRD map, CAT 3 winds were taking place in my neighborhood. Based on my experience, I tend to agree with your suspision of the product being over-generous.

At my home here in Biloxi, I maintained throughout Katrina's landfall that the winds just simply did not "seem" very intense. As I've stated in other threads, I recall more extreme winds in both Elena and Georges - and certainly in Camille and Fredrick.

I will concede, however, that it's possible my judgement and/or perception was clouded (or at least diverted) at the time as a result of sea water swirling through our living room.

[wxman57]

Hmm, the board wouldn't let me post Ivan's wind field below Dennis's. Let's try Ivan separately:

Might as well post Ivan's HRD wind field with SS category isotachs as well. As you can see, though both Dennis and Ivan were carried as 120 mph Cat 3 hurricanes at landfall, there's absolutely NO comparison. Another example of a failure of the SS scale to adequately predict potential damage.

Note that the scale of the map below is not the same as the one for Dennis. Ivan's map is zoomed out about 50% more.

[Pearl River]

EWG wrote

I guess we can label Wilma damage in Miami as Cat. 3 force too, and Charley damage in Orlando, and every other city that has ever seen hurricane force winds, because the wind damage pics I have seen from those places (and in the case of Charley...I lived in Orlando at the time) are just as bad if not worse than the pictures I have seen from New Orleans from Katrina.

I won't disagree with you about the damage in other cities. But I'm not going to base my judgement as to how strong those storms were or were not based on pictures.

[f5]

Katrina at one point had sustained 170-175 mph winds with gust over 200 and thats over water imagine the damage those kind of winds can do to N.O

[wxman57]

...If anything, I suspect that HRD analysis may be a little generous with the Cat 1-2 winds inland across SE LA and southern MS. By that I mean that not all areas within the Cat 1 or Cat 2 radius received such winds.

According to the HRD map, CAT 3 winds were taking place in my neighborhood. Based on my experience, I tend to agree with your suspision of the product being over-generous.

At my home here in Biloxi, I maintained throughout Katrina's landfall that the winds just simply did not "seem" very intense. As I've stated in other threads, I recall more extreme winds in both Elena and Georges - and certainly in Camille and Fredrick.

I will concede, however, that it's possible my judgement and/or perception was clouded (or at least diverted) at the time as a result of sea water swirling through our living room.

My mother has been living on the MS coast since 1977. I remember driving there along I-10 after Frederic and Elena and the tree damage was significantly greater with thsoe two than what I saw with Katrina.

[f5]

Katrina was a surge event