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

[Audrey2Katrina]

My main point though was that the journal article cited is quite poor because of its distortions that dramatizes everything...and thus should never be cited or viewed as credible.

That is a legitimate point; but I doubt they were lying when quoting Mayfield as simply saying New Orleans "received Cat 3 winds"... which was my only point.

A2K

[ROCK]

I must admit this discussion looks very familiar. Maybe in a past life?

Ivanhater- you can disagree with pro mets all you want but they are the ones issuing the warnings for your safety and others. Have a little respect. They know more than me or you put together, especially when it comes to hurricanes.

Actually ROCK,I think pro mets need to start showing a little more respect towards other posters.From what I've seen, pro mets post their opinions on things and then bash everybody who disagrees with them,and that's not respectful.They hardly take anybody's opinion into consideration.

I'm not bashing them I'm just saying they need to lighten up on people.I think they do a great job and make excellent points and they are looking out for our safety, but they would be even better if they stopped treating other posters' opinions like garbage.

Show me where a pro-met has bashed someone in this thread. Please. All I have seen are posts / charts to correct the false statements flying around in here about a storm that some people feel should put on a pedestal..,and BTW it never will be.

[Extremeweatherguy]

A2K wrote

Quote:

[to] discount all evidence from a pro-MET is IMO absurd...


Some lifelong pro-METs disagree as well. As far as this immortalizing silliness goes, well, twist the words all you wish, the only thing "some of" us are trying to express is a different viewpoint, which "some people" just can't seem to live with, without looking down their noses at those who dare to disagree.

Simply put, I'll put it plainly. I did not, am not, nor will I ever claim this was to be "immortalized" as the worst storm in history--didn't see that by anyone else either (at least not in terms of winds here in the US)--far too much evidence of more intense storms... deadlier storms... and storms with stronger winds... so please don't try to pigeon-hole what I am trying to assert simply because my viewpoint differs with yours--or for that matter anyone else's.

P.S. "Official" is indeed "official" but has more than once been shown to be inaccurate.. one of the many foibles of being born human.

You have a great day too!

A2K

A2K, I couldn't have said it any better about the "Official". Remember Andrew's final report in 1992 was the "Official" Report.

well if we want to get back to the main point of this thread...the talk with steve lyons...he himself said that he thought that Andrew was not a 5 at landfall...so like with Katrina..there seems to be debate in the meteorology world over that event as well. I think the debate over Katrina may continue for many years, but I have a feeling that the "official" Katrina report will stand. It is not 1992 anymore...the extra 13-14 years have brought with them many improvements to these post storm reports...Katrina WAS a Cat. 3 at landfall.

[Derek Ortt]

I am not sure as to what FL reduction Dr Lyons feels is appropriate as if he believes that Andrew was a 4 at landfall, there is no justification whatsoever that Katrina was a 4, since the FL winds in Katrina were 28KT less than Andrew's 1 hour before landfall, excluding the intensification during the last hour. There were more aircraft in Katrina at landfall than there were for Andrew as well

[MiamiensisWx]

well if we want to get back to the main point of this thread...the talk with steve lyons...he himself said that he thought that Andrew was not a 5 at landfall...so like with Katrina..there seems to be debate in the meteorology world over that event as well.

This also goes back to the debate on Camille's landfall intensity. If Andrew was not a Category Five, then Camille's top sustained winds at landfall were likely overestimated. I'm not saying Camille was not a Category Five at landfall - I'm just saying that Camille's intensity of 190MPH is unrealistic.

[Audrey2Katrina]

i am just stating that some on here need to keep an open mind and look at the POSSIBILITY

Indeed, Ivanhater, and you have been very respectful. What you've stated is exactly what I and a few others have simply tried to do as well--voice a differing perspective/viewpoint. From the getgo I have never questioned the integrity or sincerity of anyone involved in the findings--only that I "respectfully" disagreed with their findings. Ever since then it's been a parade of ofttimes condescending "how dare you..." follow-ups that have betimes precipitated heated exchanges, that really needn't have been such. The funny thing is that even when on opposite sides of the relatively MINOR issue of what wind speeds were, the protagonists and antagonists in this discussion actually seem to agree on much more than that which they disagree--it's just that the disagreement is what makes the discussion lively and interesting--at least as long as one can do so without insult, innuendo, and pejoratives. I, too, have done my best to maintain respect in dialoging with those with whom I disagree (and it's difficult sometimes ) but you gotta admit, it's been both informative and interesting sharing these perspectives. It is the truly CLOSED mind that would stifle any/all opposing viewpoints, while an objective one welcomes them and discusses them without any of the aforementioned tangentials.

You have a good 1

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I must admit this discussion looks very familiar. Maybe in a past life?

Ivanhater- you can disagree with pro mets all you want but they are the ones issuing the warnings for your safety and others. Have a little respect. They know more than me or you put together, especially when it comes to hurricanes.

Actually ROCK,I think pro mets need to start showing a little more respect towards other posters.From what I've seen, pro mets post their opinions on things and then bash everybody who disagrees with them,and that's not respectful.They hardly take anybody's opinion into consideration.

I'm not bashing them I'm just saying they need to lighten up on people.I think they do a great job and make excellent points and they are looking out for our safety, but they would be even better if they stopped treating other posters' opinions like garbage.

AMEN!

[MiamiensisWx]

Actually ROCK,I think pro mets need to start showing a little more respect towards other posters.From what I've seen, pro mets post their opinions on things and then bash everybody who disagrees with them,and that's not respectful.They hardly take anybody's opinion into consideration.

I'm not bashing them I'm just saying they need to lighten up on people.I think they do a great job and make excellent points and they are looking out for our safety, but they would be even better if they stopped treating other posters' opinions like garbage.

Perfect points! I know they don't mean to sound that way, but I think I understand a bit on what you mean.

[ROCK]

EWG- I know where your coming from and we have talked about this before. So much evidence but still people feel inclined to immortalize this storm as the worst of all time.

I was wondering how long it would take for the straw-man arguments to be resurrected. YAWWNN!

[to] discount all evidence from a pro-MET is IMO absurd...

Some lifelong pro-METs disagree as well. As far as this immortalizing silliness goes, well, twist the words all you wish, the only thing "some of" us are trying to express is a different viewpoint, which "some people" just can't seem to live with, without looking down their noses at those who dare to disagree.

Simply put, I'll put it plainly. I did not, am not, nor will I ever claim this was to be "immortalized" as the worst storm in history--didn't see that by anyone else either (at least not in terms of winds here in the US)--far too much evidence of more intense storms... deadlier storms... and storms with stronger winds... so please don't try to pigeon-hole what I am trying to assert simply because my viewpoint differs with yours--or for that matter anyone else's.

P.S. "Official" is indeed "official" but has more than once been shown to be inaccurate.. one of the many foibles of being born human.

You have a great day too!

A2K

You really need to drop the straw man references. Personally, I find it offensive and rude. I was just making a comment yet you still feel inclined to respond in this manner. It is your right but offensive remarks are not.

thank you...

[MiamiensisWx]

You really need to drop the straw man references. Personally, I find it offensive and rude. I was just making a comment yet you still feel inclined to respond in this manner. It is your right but offensive remarks are not.

thank you...

Yeah, I agree... sorry if I sound mean, Audrey2Katrina, but I don't really like those remarks you make, either.

[f5]

has their ever been a storm with 190 mph sustained winds above 900 mb (Camille)?

[MiamiensisWx]

I don't think so, f5... also, Camille probably had sustained winds below 190MPH...

[Audrey2Katrina]

Show me where a pro-met has bashed someone in this thread. Please. All I have seen are posts / charts to correct the false statements flying around in here about a storm that some people feel should put on a pedestal..,and BTW it never will be.

One has to go beyond "this thread" to find some of what I think Opal is referring to; but I'd leave that to him/her to clarify. I agree that on THIS thread, (at least until the last page or so) the discussion has been very civil, and the mets, while disagreeing, certainly not hostile--nor have there been responses to the mets that I've seen as anything but respectful disagreement--and there is NOTHING wrong with that! Even THEY have allowed us that privilege, can you do any less? This thread was started with statement from a WELL respected pro-MET whose statements would seem to disagree with the NHC report on both Andrew and Katrina--all done with utmost respect. It has simply been that since those of us who have agreed with this perspective all along have taken a modicum of vindication in this well-respected man's opinions that a lot of others (NOT the pro mets as I have seen it) have come back with the usual litany of condescension. There has been newer data revealed, and THAT too gets trashed, or sloughed off.

As far as the typical straw-man about people wanting to "put this storm on a pedestal"... well, Just my opinion, but anyone wanting to "pedestal" any storm is pretty sick, and those who think that simply because someone voices disagreement about data is to be perverted into "placing it on a pedestal" bespeaks volumes of just to what magnitude some will go in attempting to either ridicule or mischaracterize what others are simply voicing as their honest viewpoint--a fact which some simply can't learn to deal with.

A2K

[f5]

every storm i seen with 190 mph sustained winds had a sub 900 mb pressure they were mostly WPAC typhoon though.TIP,Keith ect...

[Opal storm]

I don't think so, f5... also, Camille probably had sustained winds below 190MPH...

Yeah,it's pretty unlikely to have a 190mph storm make landfall in the Northern Gulf coast.

[Audrey2Katrina]

It is not 1992 anymore...the extra 13-14 years have brought with them many improvements to these post storm reports..

Indeed so. And in 2015 it won't be 2005 anymore, and the next 10-15 years will bring with them many improvements to these assessments as well, and I am convinced that in time the rush to judgment on Katrina will be re-examined.

Katrina WAS a Cat. 3 at landfall

At this point in time, that is "officially" true; but as we've seen... it has yet to bear the test of time--you could well be proven correct. We shall see.

A2K

[MiamiensisWx]

every storm i seen with 190 mph sustained winds had a sub 900 mb pressure they were mostly WPAC typhoon though.TIP,Keith ect...

Allen from 1980 also had 190MPH winds officially, along with the 899 millibars pressure, though I think Allen's actual sustained winds were closer to 185MPH at highest.

[MiamiensisWx]

By the way, Camille's winds at landfall were likely overestimated by using the incorrect reduction factor for each altitude the plane was at just before the storm made landfall.

[f5]

pre dropsonde era winds were likely overrated making the flight level winds the surface winds

[Pearl River]

EWG wrote

well if we want to get back to the main point of this thread...the talk with steve lyons...he himself said that he thought that Andrew was not a 5 at landfall...so like with Katrina..there seems to be debate in the meteorology world over that event as well. I think the debate over Katrina may continue for many years, but I have a feeling that the "official" Katrina report will stand. It is not 1992 anymore...the extra 13-14 years have brought with them many improvements to these post storm reports...Katrina WAS a Cat. 3 at landfall.

And 13-14 years from now, there will be even better improvements.