The Truth About Wind Strengths That MUST Be Heard...

[MiamiensisWx]

Lately, I have seen the arguments going on and points presented in Audrey2Katrina's posts and, I have to say, I still disagree on what Audrey2Katrina is doing. Saying that New Orleans got Category Three sustained winds is just an insult to Wilma survivors (like myself and others) that went through Wilma in southern Florida. We are already acknowledging, like Derek Ortt validly presented in several (Audrey2Katrina, note that I am NOT saying "all" cases) cases, that we predominantly received Category One systained wind conditions, several brief spurts of sustained Category Two winds, and absolutely NO Category Three sustained winds whatsoever. We are also admitting this in this midst of destruction caused by Wilma in this terrible season.

I know that the experts don't know everything and that there are errors in the NHC report on Katrina, but saying things like WE know everything is not right, either. It is definately possible that southeastern Louisiana saw brief sustained Category Four winds in the eyewall, but this does not mean Katrina was a Category Four when it made landfall. Incredibly, while some people are almost arguing that Katrina was restrengthening or not weakening up until landfall, people are arguing in the face of data that Wilma was weakening before Florida landfall, when we have more data to prove that Wilma was strengthening before landfall. Amazing, isn't it?

Exalting windspeeds - without taking into consideration other factors - is a true insult to accurate measures of windspeeds, hurricane knowledge and preparedness, and to survivors of Wilma who are acknowledging just how powerful Category One and Category Two sustained winds are and that most areas that go through a storm do not experience the strongest winds.

[EDR1222]

I agree that many probably don't realize what category one winds can do. Some good examples as you said include Wilma, and also what occured in 2004 regarding Frances and Jeanne. Although Frances was officially a two and Jeanne a three at Florida landfall, most areas only experienced Category one winds. I am sure some areas south of where I am at saw stronger winds, but in my area here in Melbourne, it was mostly high end tropical storm force winds during Frances and gusts to cat 1. Jeanne was about the same with some gust into the cat 2 range. But the damage was widespread, especially with Frances because it decided to spend most of the weekend with us.

[MiamiensisWx]

I agree that many probably don't realize what category one winds can do. Some good examples as you said include Wilma, and also what occured in 2004 regarding Frances and Jeanne. Although Frances was officially a two and Jeanne a three at Florida landfall, most areas only experienced Category one winds. I am sure some areas south of where I am at saw stronger winds, but in my area here in Melbourne, it was mostly high end tropical storm force winds during Frances and gusts to cat 1. Jeanne was about the same with some gust into the cat 2 range. But the damage was widespread, especially with Frances because it decided to spend most of the weekend with us.

I completely agree. Very good points. It is also important to know that during a hurricane, most areas do not experience the area of highest winds. The highest winds during Frances and Jeanne were mainly in certain areas near the point of landfall. Also, even areas that do not get the highest winds often still have significant damage. I saw sustained tropical storm-force winds during Frances with higher gusts, by the way.

[Recurve]

Agree, CapeVerde.

There always seems to be two main arguments:
1) It had to be worse than Cat 1/2/3, because my house/boat/car/town/state had such bad damage.

2) Wow, I didn't realize Cat 1/2/3 could do that kind of damage.

Only 2) seems sensible to me.

Here's my suggestion for a supplemental SS scale, if people insist on relating it to damage:

Cat 1: Very Bad
Cat 2: Very, Very Bad
Cat 3: Horribly Bad
Cat 4: Terribly, horribly bad
Cat 5: Atomic bomb bad

[sunny]

Thanks David!

[vbhoutex]

What is with this "INSULT" BS? There are no insults to anyone intended or otherwise that I see, except in peoples own minds. The facts are the facts and the people need to discuss them and their feelings about the facts, not who is and isn't insulted!!!! Excuse me, but that is just plain ridiculous IMO!! STICK WITH THE FACTS AND DROP THE INNUENDOS(intended or not)!!!!

THIS IS DIRECTED AT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS!!

[MiamiensisWx]

OK... I'm sorry, vbhoutex!

[Brent]

This whole Katrina intensity debate is getting a bit ridiclous to be quite honest...

[Recurve]

What is with this "INSULT" BS? There are no insults to anyone intended or otherwise that I see, except in peoples own minds. The facts are the facts and the people need to discuss them and their feelings about the facts, not who is and isn't insulted!!!! Excuse me, but that is just plain ridiculous IMO!! STICK WITH THE FACTS AND DROP THE INNUENDOS(intended or not)!!!!

THIS IS DIRECTED AT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS!!

Agree, but Wilma's feelings were vaporous at best.
If anyone's insulted, it's probably ol' Labor Day Hurricane. She's been displaced on all the top-10 lists by storms that were weaker when they hit.

[MiamiensisWx]

Agree, but Wilma's feelings were vaporous at best.
If anyone's insulted, it's probably ol' Labor Day Hurricane. She's been displaced on all the top-10 lists by storms that were weaker when they hit.

Are you just joking about the "weaker" part? I hope you are, because now we've learned that no storm - with the exception of some very few tropical storms - are "weak".

[MiamiensisWx]

*BUMP*

Changed thread title, omitting "insult".

[Recurve]

Agree, but Wilma's feelings were vaporous at best.
If anyone's insulted, it's probably ol' Labor Day Hurricane. She's been displaced on all the top-10 lists by storms that were weaker when they hit.

Are you just joking about the "weaker" part? I hope you are, because now we've learned that no storm - with the exception of some very few tropical storms - are "weak".

Oooops, you're right. One should never use the "W" word in here.

But there was a bit of seriousness in my post. There will be many times in the future when 2005 storms will be referred to as "Cat 5s" and record-breakers, but only a few inhabitated areas, including the islands just south of me, have experienced a Cat 5 landfall. It makes me shudder to think of what people experienced on Labor Day '35 -- but that in no way diminishes the terrible tragedy of Katrina and Rita and Charley and the other recent devastating storms.

Here's to Winter!

[Recurve]

*BUMP*

Changed thread title, omitting "insult".

Good edit, CVW.

[MiamiensisWx]

Agree, CapeVerde.

There always seems to be two main arguments:
1) It had to be worse than Cat 1/2/3, because my house/boat/car/town/state had such bad damage.

2) Wow, I didn't realize Cat 1/2/3 could do that kind of damage.

Only 2) seems sensible to me.

Here's my suggestion for a supplemental SS scale, if people insist on relating it to damage:

Cat 1: Very Bad
Cat 2: Very, Very Bad
Cat 3: Horribly Bad
Cat 4: Terribly, horribly bad
Cat 5: Atomic bomb bad

Excellent points and scale. Here is what I think the ENTIRE scale (including depressions and tropical storms) should REALLY look like...

Tropical Depression - Unpleasant
Tropical Storm - Very nasty
Cat. 1 - Very bad
Cat. 2 - Very, very bad
Cat. 3 - Horribly bad
Cat. 4 - Terribly, horribly bad
Cat. 5 - Atomic bomb bad

[MiamiensisWx]

Oooops, you're right. One should never use the "W" word in here.

But there was a bit of seriousness in my post. There will be many times in the future when 2005 storms will be referred to as "Cat 5s" and record-breakers, but only a few inhabitated areas, including the islands just south of me, have experienced a Cat 5 landfall. It makes me shudder to think of what people experienced on Labor Day '35 -- but that in no way diminishes the terrible tragedy of Katrina and Rita and Charley and the other recent devastating storms.

Here's to Winter!

I agree!

Good edit, CVW.

Thanks!

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well, seeing as how my name was bandied about, I'll make one comment and bow out of what (as many have accurately noted) is rapidly becoming an absurdity.

First: I have never in any way, shape, or form, suggested "we know everything" regarding anything I've posted--to the contrary, I've always tendered an "I respectfully disagree" and acknowledged that I am anything BUT infallible--end of that claim.

Second: In one of my posts I simply stated that it is my firm belief (and remains so) that parts of the NO area received upper 2 to lower 3 winds. This was NOT a claim that all of New Orleans received sustained Category 3 winds--again, a mischaracterization. The Michoud reading of winds that were sustained Cat 2 (around 97 mph) some 3 hours before closest approach, lend at least SOME measure of credibility to that conclusion. This was ALL I was trying to illustrate. My chief disagreement was with those that claimed that "all" New Orleans received was Cat 1 speeds and nothig more. --end of that claim.

Finally: What I have stated has always been very clearly stated as "My Opinion" and while I am only too well aware that this does NOT make it fact, it remains my opinion all the same and I am entitled that much. I am amazed that some seem to look at these deadly monsters much in the way they would a sporting event: "my team is better than your team" only substitute the word "hurricane" in there. I find THAT kind of envy, for lack of a better word, to be extremely SICK. Nobody I know of WANTS to have the worst hurricane--I know I certainly don't! I also find it somewhat confusing in that by my own posts, I've condoled with those who've been in Wilma's path as truly being in the path of a catastrophe. What more do you want?

Okay, so I've vented, and actually solely for the purpose of clarification as I feel I've been misrepresented by certain statements. ANY hurricane is a bad hurricane--in fact, you'll find a tropical storm on the list of highest damage in the US by the name of Allison. The point being that this discussion has been rendered both moot and out of hand. I agree with the mod that to classify an inanimate report, or finding, or even a post about a hurricane (as long as personal attacks are eschewed) as an insult, is a monument to naivete. And I've already said as much in the New Orleans "insult" thread.

Hope this brings this sort of discussion to a close; it certainly has from my end!

A2K

[MiamiensisWx]

Well, seeing as how my name was bandied about, I'll make one comment and bow out of what (as many have accurately noted) is rapidly becoming an absurdity.

First: I have never in any way, shape, or form, suggested "we know everything" regarding anything I've posted--to the contrary, I've always tendered an "I respectfully disagree" and acknowledged that I am anything BUT infallible--end of that claim.

Second: In one of my posts I simply stated that it is my firm belief (and remains so) that parts of the NO area received upper 2 to lower 3 winds. This was NOT a claim that all of New Orleans received sustained Category 3 winds--again, a mischaracterization. The Michoud reading of winds that were sustained Cat 2 (around 97 mph) some 3 hours before closest approach, lend at least SOME measure of credibility to that conclusion. This was ALL I was trying to illustrate. My chief disagreement was with those that claimed that "all" New Orleans received was Cat 1 speeds and nothig more. --end of that claim.

Finally: What I have stated has always been very clearly stated as "My Opinion" and while I am only too well aware that this does NOT make it fact, it remains my opinion all the same and I am entitled that much. I am amazed that some seem to look at these deadly monsters much in the way they would a sporting event: "my team is better than your team" only substitute the word "hurricane" in there. I find THAT kind of envy, for lack of a better word, to be extremely SICK. Nobody I know of WANTS to have the worst hurricane--I know I certainly don't! I also find it somewhat confusing in that by my own posts, I've condoled with those who've been in Wilma's path as truly being in the path of a catastrophe. What more do you want?

Okay, so I've vented, and actually solely for the purpose of clarification as I feel I've been misrepresented by certain statements. ANY hurricane is a bad hurricane--in fact, you'll find a tropical storm on the list of highest damage in the US by the name of Allison. The point being that this discussion has been rendered both moot and out of hand. I agree with the mod that to classify an inanimate report, or finding, or even a post about a hurricane (as long as personal attacks are eschewed) as an insult, is a monument to naivete. And I've already said as much in the New Orleans "insult" thread.

Hope this brings this sort of discussion to a close; it certainly has from my end!

A2K

I understand, and you have your opinion, but I was never "cheering" for hurricanes in my region such as Wilma. Also, if you havn't noticed, I've edited the title of this thread, leaving out "insult".

I guess I'll stop talking to you since it is already obvious that it is becoming useless. The end. I'm sorry if I sound rude... but I feel the same emotions as you do over different things. I hate hearing somebody saying things that sound like "downplaying" of storms or "exalting" of windspeeds, making it sound like cheering for a storm without clear evidence. Also, it sounded a bit offending to me and others who went through Wilma and have acknowledged that we got predominantly Category One sustained winds with occasional Category Two sustained winds and that those winds are not "weak", nor are any storm's winds. That is why I felt it was an "insult", and I am sorry if I offended you and others by posting that... I was just trying to be honest.

Also, I truly DO care about the safety of others during storms. Therefore, I want to let them know the TRUTH about them: that "weak" winds are not so-called "weak" and cause tremendous destruction; the danger of surge; to always prepare for the worst and avoid comparing an oncoming storm to a past storm (e.g., Camille), leading to the conclusion that it can't be worse; and to know that even "weakening" storms before landfall cause devastation even as a tropical storm, Category One hurricane, Category Two hurricane, or Category Three hurricane. That is why I responded to you the way I did. I know you are entitled to your opinion, but I still don't agree with you.

[jazzfan1247]

The Michoud reading of winds that were sustained Cat 2 (around 97 mph) some 3 hours before closest approach, lend at least SOME measure of credibility to that conclusion.

I was just wondering whether this instrument failed too? I tried to look it up but I couldn't find any info about it.

[MiamiensisWx]

I was just wondering whether this instrument failed too? I tried to look it up but I couldn't find any info about it.

Maybe this will help...
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/html/psh_katrina.htm

[Recurve]

Thanks for clarifying Audrey. You make good points and it's good to have many voices in the discussion.

In these intensity discussions, think we should be aware of the sloppiness of saying "Cat n winds" at all. Only a hurricane can be characterized by SS category, based solely on max sustained (measured or interpolated/estimated) winds. Winds aren't "Category" anything, if you get my drift.

SS categories are a very rough, over-simple way of categorizing hurricanes. Saying a place got "Cat n" winds leaves too much out. Only unambiguous way to discuss winds is "this location had 80k sustained winds for 10 minutes, with two 10-second peak gusts of 127 mph from the SW," say. And you can describe effects, say, "Something knocked the Aaron Rents Furniture store down and put a school bus on the Holiday Inn."

When it comes to damage, comparisons using SS scale are worse than misleading. Andrew was a Cat 5 at landfall. Katrina wasn't. Katrina wiped out 100-year-old homes, caused the levee failures, scoured the MS coast, and had a horribly high death toll. Andrew left most of South Florida unscathed, but blocks and blocks were ground to splinters -- but some homes were cardboard crap. Andrew was tiny. Katrina was big. Andrew was flying. Jeanne was crawling. Wilma was followed by an intense cold front. Charley bombed and flew inland. Hugo caused major damage far from the SC coast. Mitch killed 10,000 with rain. Toradoes from Mitch in Key Largo, then "just a tropical storm," caused some of the worst damage I've seen in 20 years. Wilma's surge, 5 hours after the peak winds were past, wiped out nearly every dock and boat on Florida Bay. Katrina started fires. Dennis killed people with lightning and tornadoes. Floyd left the NC coast under water for weeks and months. Camille killed hundreds in Appalachia from flash floods. Some areas of NOLA and MS had bad wind damage from Katrina. Some roofs barely lost a shingle.

So what category was Katrina? Whatever the NHC says. If you are sure it's wrong, then you don't get that their designation can't be "wrong" -- any more than they can assign the "wrong" name to a hurricane. Yeah, this is tautological, but these are designations, so the designee is whatever the designator designates.

Were they "wrong" about Andrew being a Cat 4? No. Andrew was a Cat 4 -- until they said it was a Cat 5, and then it was a Cat 5. It's just a number we use to discuss it, not what the instruments would say it was if there were an anemometer on every square meter of ground.

Moreso, might there be a 150 mph gust in a Cat. 1 hurricane? I wouldn't rule it out. Would it mean it wasn't a Cat 1? No. I don't believe that on this topic the "truth" matters because it probably isn't ever knowable, there could always be better measurements.

Yes, categories are (barely) important and max winds are (somewhat) important for understanding hurricanes and their effects. But there's no basis for determining a hurricane's SS category -- or what the winds were at any location -- except what is measured by reliable, calibrated instruments according to standards for wind speed measurement. Were the winds higher at your location than what the official measurements indicate? Could very well be.

Does it feel "better" to be wiped out by a category 4 than a category 2? I have no idea, thank goodness. Is it more exciting to go through a Category 3 than a category 1? Teenage weather nerds seem to think so. Mortgage payers not so much.

All of the above my opinion only. Only things that really matter to me are minimizing damage, loss of life, suffering in years to come, and I hope knowledge and communication help do that. And from all the discussion though the horrible 2004 and 2005 seasons, and living in Florida, I can only say I hope people take every category of tropical cyclone very very seriously.