Rita Downgraded?

f5 · #121 Postby f5 » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:38 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:Just out of curiosity; wasn't there a reference in the NHC report to a buoy that measured a 55 ft. wave in Katrina (undoubtedly when still a 5)? If so, this would be yet another example of how these two storms compared while having different effects due to the landfall area and water depths offshore?

Rita may well be downgraded to a 2 "at" landfall;" but I guess it'll be another hard sell to the folks of E. Texas and Cameron that went through it--just speaking from experience. Any data on the max waves she produced? I mean her intensity was even greater than that of Katrina and the lowest pressure since Gilbert, until Wilma came along.

it was a hard sell also for folks in NO/mississippi to accept that Katrina was a 3

A2K

Jim Cantore · #122 Postby **Jim Cantore** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:40 pm

it was a hard sell also for folks in NO/mississippi to accept that Katrina was a 3

Hard to sell it to me too and I wasnt even in it

Audrey2Katrina · #123 Postby **Audrey2Katrina** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:24 am

f5 wrote:
Audrey2Katrina wrote:Just out of curiosity; wasn't there a reference in the NHC report to a buoy that measured a 55 ft. wave in Katrina (undoubtedly when still a 5)? If so, this would be yet another example of how these two storms compared while having different effects due to the landfall area and water depths offshore?

Rita may well be downgraded to a 2 "at" landfall;" but I guess it'll be another hard sell to the folks of E. Texas and Cameron that went through it--just speaking from experience. Any data on the max waves she produced? I mean her intensity was even greater than that of Katrina and the lowest pressure since Gilbert, until Wilma came along.

it was a hard sell also for folks in NO/mississippi to accept that Katrina was a 3

A2K

LOL,I think you gave me credit for too much of that "quote": The bold italicized I believe are YOUR words; not that I disagree with it--which is why I said "just speaking from experience."

A2K

tornadochaser1986 · #124 Postby **tornadochaser1986** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:46 am

well is it downgraded i thought it was a cat 3

ROCK · #125 Postby **ROCK** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:42 pm

Still waiting on the report to come out. Its going to be a close call. High-end cat 2 winds can do major damage as see in Katrina.

Ixolib · #126 Postby **Ixolib** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:12 pm

ROCK wrote:Still waiting on the report to come out. Its going to be a close call. High-end cat 2 winds can do major damage as see in Katrina.

Katrina was a "2" ???

vacanechaser · #127 Postby **vacanechaser** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:13 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:
By the time it reached Orlando, it was not very tropical at all (more baroclinic).

well regardless of tropical or baroclinic, whatever it was it still had winds gusting to over 100mph in orlando... we thought it would be much weaker by that time.... well it was still raging when we intercepted it again in orlando..

Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

ROCK · #128 Postby **ROCK** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:58 pm

Ixolib wrote:
ROCK wrote:Still waiting on the report to come out. Its going to be a close call. High-end cat 2 winds can do major damage as see in Katrina.

Katrina was a "2" ???

inland

Ixolib · #129 Postby **Ixolib** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:19 pm

ROCK wrote:
Ixolib wrote:
ROCK wrote:Still waiting on the report to come out. Its going to be a close call. High-end cat 2 winds can do major damage as see in Katrina.

Katrina was a "2" ???

inland

10-4... Also, some of that inland damage may have been caused by higher winds associated with tornadic activity as opposed to straight-line, sustained cat 2 conditions.

ROCK · #130 Postby **ROCK** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:20 pm

true, F0-F1 which are typical can be pretty nasty.....

Ixolib · #131 Postby **Ixolib** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:26 pm

ROCK wrote:true, F0-F1 which are typical can be pretty nasty.....

Heard Dat!! Part of me says I'd rather take a hurricane than a tornado. I can't imagine living in places where F2's and above are relatively common, and many times without any warning at all... :eek:

#132 Postby **MGC** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:07 pm

If you want to live where tornados are common, live in the OKC area. The TV mets track them like we track canes down on the coast. I was up there a couple of weeks after the F5 in May 99. Devastation looked just like the area along the coast, total. To me tornados are scarier than a hurricane. You have plenty of advanced warning of an approaching hurricane and can run, just like I did for Katrina.....MGC

Extremeweatherguy · #133 Postby **Extremeweatherguy** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:26 pm

vacanechaser wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote:
By the time it reached Orlando, it was not very tropical at all (more baroclinic).

well regardless of tropical or baroclinic, whatever it was it still had winds gusting to over 100mph in orlando... we thought it would be much weaker by that time.... well it was still raging when we intercepted it again in orlando..

Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

That's for sure. I lived in that area during Charley and it was surely quite a storm. That morning we thought it was hitting Tampa too. Many people in there never thought it could be so bad that far inland..they were wrong.

Rita Downgraded?

Who is online