Katrina Should Go Into The Record Books As A Cat 5

[tropicstorm]

Obviously, the recorded wind speeds and barometric pressure just before or right at first landfall were measured within the Catagory 4 thresholds for Saffir-Simpson classification. If Katrina goes into the books as a Cat 4 hurricane, then the professional meteorological community needs to take a hard look at changing the way major hurricanes are classified.

The damage caused by Katrina was CATASTROPHIC, and not just to New Orleans with post-Katrina failure of the levees / massive flooding. This hurricane ripped Gulfport, Biloxi and other Mississippi coastal communities to OBLIVION - ABSOLUTE TOTAL DESTRUCTION in some areas. There cannot possibly be any reasonable person who observes and studies hurricanes and hurricane damage that would not agree that Katrina's destruction was commensurate at a Catagory 5 level.

Storm surge and the sheer power and force of the ocean to rise 20-30 feet out of it's basin and OBLITERATE coastal communities should be given much more weight in the Saffir-Simpson classification of major hurricanes. Historical rankings of the most intense Atlantic hurricanes always use lowest barometric pressures as the benchmark for classification (# 1 - 1935 No Name Florida Keys at 892 mb / # 2 - 1969 Camille at 909 mb / # 3 - 1992 Andrew at 922 mb). And we still talk about a strengthening hurricane climbing up the Saffir-Simpson scale with higher sustained windspeeds (a 125 mph Catagory 3 hurricane is said to reach Catagory 4 status when the sustained winds reach 131 mph).

Katrina should be historically classified as at Catagory 5 hurricane based on the catastrophic damage that this storm has caused. If this rather unprecedented hurricane (damage) goes into the history books as a Cat 4, we need to rewrite Saffir-Simpson.

Don't forget, Andrew was also originally classified as a Cat 4.

[WeatherEmperor]

oh no. not another intensity debate.

<RICKY>

[LAwxrgal]

The thing here is intensity is academic at this point.

The scope of this disaster is unprecedented.

[SouthFloridawx]

it has everything except for the windspeed.

Category Five Hurricane:
Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr). Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. All shrubs, trees, and signs blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Severe and extensive window and door damage. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of all structures located less than 15 ft above sea level and within 500 yards of the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5-10 miles (8-16 km) of the shoreline may be required. Only 3 Category Five Hurricanes have made landfall in the United States since records began: The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, Hurricane Camille (1969), and Hurricane Andrew in August, 1992. The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane struck the Florida Keys with a minimum pressure of 892 mb--the lowest pressure ever observed in the United States. Hurricane Camille struck the Mississippi Gulf Coast causing a 25-foot storm surge, which inundated Pass Christian. Hurricane Andrew of 1992 made landfall over southern Miami-Dade County, Florida causing 26.5 billion dollars in losses--the costliest hurricane on record. In addition, Hurricane Gilbert of 1988 was a Category Five hurricane at peak intensity and is the strongest Atlantic tropical cyclone on record with a minimum pressure of 888 mb.

[SouthFloridawx]

make this a poll

[wxmann_91]

There is no doubt in my mind that the NHC was right on with its intensity (perhaps nudged just a bit higher but at most 5 kt).

Look at the radar images I posted. The dry slot to the south and the southern eyewall open doesn't correlate with a Cat 5 hurricane.

[Andrew92]

How about we just learn a lesson here:

Just because a storm weakens from a C5 to a C4, doesn't make it any less dangerous. In fact, sometimes I wonder if that even makes a storm MORE dangerous.

Think about it: When storms weaken, sometimes people think they can handle it better, becoming complacent in the process. So they refuse to leave. Then, they get hit head-on by something that is much stronger than they think. Or worse, like Hugo in 1989, it re-intensifies before making landfall.

Whereas if the storm is strong and isn't weakening, nor is it forecast to, a vast majority of people will likely evacuate.

Do I make sense?

-Andrew92

[wxmann_91]

Yes.

But actually, in retrospect, I do believe that Katrina made landfall in MS as a Cat 4, not a Cat 3. It's sat appearance was improving at that time, and in fact a chaser (I read from another forum) reported a sustained wind of 150 mph between Gulfport and Biloxi.

So in retrospect yes it is possible. Interesting how I got the above info after I posted my previous post on this thread.

But why ? There's a thread already on this issue.

[NastyCat4]

There is no doubt in my mind that the "experts" were wrong on the wind speed. Experts make mistakes--look at biologists and chemists that must perform thousands of experiments to get successful results. The "experts" forecasted Katrina to be a tropical storm on landfall in the West Palm to Vero Beach area--WRONG. They then had it tracking due West across Florida--WRONG. After that, the "models" had Katrina making a "right hook" along the Florida West Coast, so they followed that--WRONG. Then, it was forecast to make second landfall in the Big Bend--Apalachacola area as a Cat1--WRONG. Finally, when it dipped to below 24.5 latitude in its South of West track, they were forecasting Pensacola--WRONG.

Let's see--exactly what did they get RIGHT? Oh yes, one to two days before it made landfall, they finally realized it was going to be a Louisiana hit (not enough time to evacuate all of New Orleans--experts have indicated that NOLA needs 3-4 days of warning). I'd say that whole debacle was dismal forecasting---Katrina was the most catastrophic storm ever to hit the USA--PERIOD. The experts had opportunities to save lives by forecasting by their EYES, rather than by models exclusively. Hey, Derek Ortt called it days before the alleged "experts" did--he was extremely worried about a major hitting New Orleans.

Any reason to think the "Superstars" guessed right on intensity?

[Stratosphere747]

Katrina did NOT have cat5 winds at landfall, and after seeing the damage from the initial landfall there is even more proof of this. The majority of the damage is from the SS built up while Katrina was a cat5 for the full day Saturday and carried with her up to landfall on Monday morning.

Senor can correct me if I'm wrong, but there were four planes running recon as she was approaching landfall. If there is such an issue with the discrepancy of cat4 versus cat5, take it up with the NHC and how they use the Saffir-Simpson scale to classify hurricanes. I think the majority agree that this scale should be adjusted.

Otherwise she is a 4 for wind and a 5 for SS.

The problem with most everyone's evaluation is how rare storms with this type of strength have hit a populated landmass in the US. You can count on one hand, so the ability to actually study and understand what effect they have, has been almost impossible.

[senorpepr]

There is no doubt in my mind that the "experts" were wrong on the wind speed. Experts make mistakes--look at biologists and chemists that must perform thousands of experiments to get successful results. The "experts" forecasted Katrina to be a tropical storm on landfall in the West Palm to Vero Beach area--WRONG. They then had it tracking due West across Florida--WRONG. After that, the "models" had Katrina making a "right hook" along the Florida West Coast, so they followed that--WRONG. Then, it was forecast to make second landfall in the Big Bend--Apalachacola area as a Cat1--WRONG. Finally, when it dipped to below 24.5 latitude in its South of West track, they were forecasting Pensacola--WRONG.

Let's see--exactly what did they get RIGHT? Oh yes, one to two days before it made landfall, they finally realized it was going to be a Louisiana hit (not enough time to evacuate all of New Orleans--experts have indicated that NOLA needs 3-4 days of warning). I'd say that whole debacle was dismal forecasting---Katrina was the most catastrophic storm ever to hit the USA--PERIOD. The experts had opportunities to save lives by forecasting by their EYES, rather than by models exclusively. Hey, Derek Ortt called it days before the alleged "experts" did--he was extremely worried about a major hitting New Orleans.

Any reason to think the "Superstars" guessed right on intensity?

Look at the archives. The "experts" had a New Orleans landfall 60 hours head of time. (The studies shown NO needs 72 hours) Dr. Mayfield begged the mayor to order an evacuation. The mayor didn't because of "legal reasons."

[senorpepr]

Katrina did NOT have cat5 winds at landfall, and after seeing the damage from the initial landfall there is even more proof of this. The majority of the damage is from the SS built up while Katrina was a cat5 for the full day Saturday and carried with her up to landfall on Monday morning.

Senor can correct me if I'm wrong, but there were four planes running recon as she was approaching landfall. If there is such an issue with the discrepancy of cat4 versus cat5, take it up with the NHC and how they use the Saffir-Simpson scale to classify hurricanes. I think the majority agree that this scale should be adjusted.

Otherwise she is a 4 for wind and a 5 for SS.

The problem with most everyone's evaluation is how rare storms with this type of strength have hit a populated landmass in the US. You can count on one hand, so the ability to actually study and understand what effect they have, has been almost impossible.

You're right on the money... there were four planes running passes through her at landfall. The one NOAA bird recorded lower winds. Regardless, the passes indicated that there was some strengthening prior to the Mississippi landfall. If there is any change... it will be to bump up the Mississippi landfall to cat four.

[SouthFloridawx]

How about we just learn a lesson here:

Just because a storm weakens from a C5 to a C4, doesn't make it any less dangerous. In fact, sometimes I wonder if that even makes a storm MORE dangerous.

Think about it: When storms weaken, sometimes people think they can handle it better, becoming complacent in the process. So they refuse to leave. Then, they get hit head-on by something that is much stronger than they think. Or worse, like Hugo in 1989, it re-intensifies before making landfall.

Whereas if the storm is strong and isn't weakening, nor is it forecast to, a vast majority of people will likely evacuate.

Do I make sense?


100% sencse.... i agree cat 4 or 5 just the same and need for evac is the same

-Andrew92

[hookemfins]

I think the point that is overlooked is the damge to NO is because of breaches in the floodwall of 3 canals. The 17th Street, London St and Industrial Canals which were built in 1897 and could withstand upto a Cat 3 storm.

[aerojad]

I think that after looking at all the information again, NHC might do to Katrina what they did to Andrew, and bump it up to a Cat 5/160mph at landfall. Some of the wind damage in Mississippi supports that.

[WeatherEmperor]

I dont think we are ever gonna come to an agreement on this

<RICKY>

[Derecho]

The "experts" forecasted Katrina to be a tropical storm on landfall in the West Palm to Vero Beach area--WRONG.

Katrina was forecast to landfall in South Florida as a hurricane beginning in NHC forecasts 32 hours prior to landfall. Considering it was a poorly organized Tropical Depression prior to 32 hours before landfall in FL, I fail to see anything seriously wrong with this.

Let's see--exactly what did they get RIGHT? Oh yes, one to two days before it made landfall, they finally realized it was going to be a Louisiana hit

It was forecast to hit New Orleans as a Cat 4 60 hours before landfall, and the forecast track never wavered from that forecast for the next 60 hours, and it ended up hitting within a few miles of all of those forecast tracks.

You'll never, ever do better than that.

It's pretty clear you have precious little experience or knowledge of matters tropical.

(not enough time to evacuate all of New Orleans--experts have indicated that NOLA needs 3-4 days of warning).

Well, if you actually knew anything about anything, you'd know it's basically a physical impossibility to give a tropical forecast of that precision 4 days out.

4 days before it hit Louisiana, Katrina was a 50 kt tropical storm in the Northern Bahamas.

It's simply wildly unrealistic to start evacuating New Orleans every time there's a 50 kt tropical storm east of Florida, or somewhere in the Western Carribean, that could hit NO. Heck, one of the reasons people didn't leave is that NO wasn't hit by Georges, or Ivan.

I'd say that whole debacle was dismal forecasting---Katrina was the most catastrophic storm ever to hit the USA--PERIOD. The experts had opportunities to save lives by forecasting by their EYES, rather than by models exclusively.

It was the models that had the perfect call on landfall 60 hours out and never wavered. It was the clueless model bashers who were running around at that time claiming "oh, the models will flop around all over the place blah blah blah" and discounting their shift.

I'd say your whole post was dismal and typical NHC-bashing by the terminally clueless.

This was one of the NHC's finest forecast jobs ever.

[Derecho]

I think a big, big problem is people want the Saffir-Simpson scale to be like the Fujita scale.

The two are completely different and have nothing in common with each other. The Fujita is a damage scale from which one can roughly extrapolate back to wind, and the Saffir-Simpson is a wind scale from which one can roughly extrapolate back to damage.

[seflcane]

The "experts" forecasted Katrina to be a tropical storm on landfall in the West Palm to Vero Beach area--WRONG.

Katrina was forecast to landfall in South Florida as a hurricane beginning in NHC forecasts 32 hours prior to landfall. Considering it was a poorly organized Tropical Depression prior to 32 hours before landfall in FL, I fail to see anything seriously wrong with this.

Let's see--exactly what did they get RIGHT? Oh yes, one to two days before it made landfall, they finally realized it was going to be a Louisiana hit

It was forecast to hit New Orleans as a Cat 4 60 hours before landfall, and the forecast track never wavered from that forecast for the next 60 hours, and it ended up hitting within a few miles of all of those forecast tracks.

You'll never, ever do better than that.

It's pretty clear you have precious little experience or knowledge of matters tropical.

(not enough time to evacuate all of New Orleans--experts have indicated that NOLA needs 3-4 days of warning).

Well, if you actually knew anything about anything, you'd know it's basically a physical impossibility to give a tropical forecast of that precision 4 days out.

4 days before it hit Louisiana, Katrina was a 50 kt tropical storm in the Northern Bahamas.

It's simply wildly unrealistic to start evacuating New Orleans every time there's a 50 kt tropical storm east of Florida, or somewhere in the Western Carribean, that could hit NO. Heck, one of the reasons people didn't leave is that NO wasn't hit by Georges, or Ivan.

I'd say that whole debacle was dismal forecasting---Katrina was the most catastrophic storm ever to hit the USA--PERIOD. The experts had opportunities to save lives by forecasting by their EYES, rather than by models exclusively.

It was the models that had the perfect call on landfall 60 hours out and never wavered. It was the clueless model bashers who were running around at that time claiming "oh, the models will flop around all over the place blah blah blah" and discounting their shift.

I'd say your whole post was dismal and typical NHC-bashing by the terminally clueless.

This was one of the NHC's finest forecast jobs ever.

I must admit NHC did a great Job on Katrina's forecast track for the most part. One thing that screwed the forecast up some was the big southward track. Looking how Katrina started to bomb right at landfall it's scary to think if she had been moving even slower and was more organized if she bombed to a cat4 and hit South florida then on that southward track would have brought near major hurricane conditions to the Keys when no one is evacuated. When I was watching katrina form I saw she had "bombing" written all over it, but could just not organize her core fast enough.

[sma10]

There is no doubt in my mind that the "experts" were wrong on the wind speed. Experts make mistakes--look at biologists and chemists that must perform thousands of experiments to get successful results. The "experts" forecasted Katrina to be a tropical storm on landfall in the West Palm to Vero Beach area--WRONG. They then had it tracking due West across Florida--WRONG. After that, the "models" had Katrina making a "right hook" along the Florida West Coast, so they followed that--WRONG. Then, it was forecast to make second landfall in the Big Bend--Apalachacola area as a Cat1--WRONG. Finally, when it dipped to below 24.5 latitude in its South of West track, they were forecasting Pensacola--WRONG.

Let's see--exactly what did they get RIGHT? Oh yes, one to two days before it made landfall, they finally realized it was going to be a Louisiana hit (not enough time to evacuate all of New Orleans--experts have indicated that NOLA needs 3-4 days of warning). I'd say that whole debacle was dismal forecasting---Katrina was the most catastrophic storm ever to hit the USA--PERIOD. The experts had opportunities to save lives by forecasting by their EYES, rather than by models exclusively. Hey, Derek Ortt called it days before the alleged "experts" did--he was extremely worried about a major hitting New Orleans.

Any reason to think the "Superstars" guessed right on intensity?

This is the most ignorant post I've ever read at S2K. And that's saying something.