Intersting Info from Slidell...

[rtd2]

Since they are on the NORTH shore they would be online with about gulfport to the east. basically ANOTHER source in what I believe was a cat 4 When she came through my area! but I know that has been argued on here enough but regardless of the wind strength I know the Storm surge was a cat 5.... but anyway just found the email imtersting...glad to be back on s2k for another cane season hope its alot less eventful I'm finally through with all my repairs to my house as well as freinds and family....


http://www.slidell.la.us/files/Hurrican ... -10-05.pdf

[Stratusxpeye]

176-190+ MPh Winds. Are they serius?? Is there soemthing wrong with that figure or am I crazy.

[Extremeweatherguy]

there is something wrong with that figure. The weather service NEVER reported that slidell had 176mph sustained winds and gusts to 190mph. I know this sounds like the same argument I have gotten into before, and it is, but it is the truth. There were no Cat. 5 force winds at landfall with Katrina. I have seen the pictures and, yes there is evidence of a storm surge to 28 foot+, but there is no evidence of Cat. 4 or 5 force winds. For reference, here is the Katrina report (no mention of these types of winds):

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf

[rtd2]

For what its worht I seriously doubt those numbers as well.I dont know why a City offical would Fabricate them but I believe he was given some Real Preliminary GUESSES. That said I pulled up the NWS site from slidell and they have Katrina reports on there I was suprised that Keesler (Where I sheltered) had 110knt substained Cause I know they lost they guage. Like I said I dont think anyone can Show evidence of cat 5 winds.I believe in some areas cat 4 yes but Regardless No one can doubt cat 5 surge!

nws slidell info.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/html/psh_katrina.htm

[dwsqos2]

No intention of stepping into the debate, but the "110" value listed for Keesler in the NWS post-storm report is the direction of the wind not the speed itself.

[Extremeweatherguy]

For what its worht I seriously doubt those numbers as well.I dont know why a City offical would Fabricate them but I believe he was given some Real Preliminary GUESSES. That said I pulled up the NWS site from slidell and they have Katrina reports on there I was suprised that Keesler (Where I sheltered) had 110knt substained Cause I know they lost they guage. Like I said I dont think anyone can Show evidence of cat 5 winds.I believe in some areas cat 4 yes but Regardless No one can doubt cat 5 surge!

nws slidell info.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/html/psh_katrina.htm

Actually you did not read that right. Keesler reported a 52 kt. wind before the gauge failed and a top gust to 85 kts. That 110 on the left hand side is the direction of the wind not the speed.

Here is the key from the NWS:

LOCATION DIR/SPEED KT TIME ON AUGUST 29 2005
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

And here is the Keesler report:

BILOXI-KEESLER AFB...INCOMPLETE...DATA FROM LAST OBSERVATION
SUSTAINED 110/52 KT 1400 UTC
PEAK 110/85 KT 1400 UTC

But it is "incomplete" so 52 knots is definitely too low.

[Extremeweatherguy]

dwsqos2 posted the same thing right before me. I was too late. lol.

[Pearl River]

The NWS verbally reported this to the mayor of Slidell. This report has neither been confirmed or denied, even though it's not mentioned in the official report by the NHC. The highest estimated wind gust reported in Slidell was about 121 mph by a stormchaser near Slidell Memorial Hospital, at ground level. The official report of wind speed was 32 mph, but I can guarantee it was a lot higher than that.

The mayor has reported the extreme wind speeds several times on WWL radio, but it seems no one has ever contradicted his statement and I'm not going to get into the wind speed argument again.

[timNms]

Just before leaving my son's little league baseball game Thursday night, one of the kids parents showed me a wind speed map of south LA and all of MS. I'm not sure where he got the map from, but it showed winds of 121mph in my area and 130 mph in hattiesburg. ( I'm about 100 miles inland). I assumed that it was winds gusts, not sustained winds.

I can tell you this as a fact. Pictures will not do justice to the damage that was done on the coast or inland. You can't judge the damage by looking at pictures. You have to see it with your own eyes. I can also tell you that I have never witnessed winds like that before. My house just turned 10 yrs old last month. During the passage of Katrina's eyewall, the house popped, creaked, snapped, groaned and vibrated as if it was going to come off of it's foundation. The interior walls even vibrated when the wind gusts slammed the house.

I think it's a good thing that Katrina came inland when she did because on one of the last loops I saw before we lost power, she looked as if she were strengthening. The local tv station's meteorologist even commented that she looked like she was wrapping up tightly again and trying to regain strenght.

I hope I never live to see another Katrina-type storm!

[Pearl River]

timNms wrote

I can tell you this as a fact. Pictures will not do justice to the damage that was done on the coast or inland. You can't judge the damage by looking at pictures.

Unless a person is a structural engineer, you are correct.

[rtd2]

For what its worht I seriously doubt those numbers as well.I dont know why a City offical would Fabricate them but I believe he was given some Real Preliminary GUESSES. That said I pulled up the NWS site from slidell and they have Katrina reports on there I was suprised that Keesler (Where I sheltered) had 110knt substained Cause I know they lost they guage. Like I said I dont think anyone can Show evidence of cat 5 winds.I believe in some areas cat 4 yes but Regardless No one can doubt cat 5 surge!

nws slidell info.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/html/psh_katrina.htm

Actually you did not read that right. Keesler reported a 52 kt. wind before the gauge failed and a top gust to 85 kts. That 110 on the left hand side is the direction of the wind not the speed.

Here is the key from the NWS:

LOCATION DIR/SPEED KT TIME ON AUGUST 29 2005
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

And here is the Keesler report:

BILOXI-KEESLER AFB...INCOMPLETE...DATA FROM LAST OBSERVATION
SUSTAINED 110/52 KT 1400 UTC
PEAK 110/85 KT 1400 UTC

But it is "incomplete" so 52 knots is definitely too low.

No intention of stepping into the debate, but the "110" value listed for Keesler in the NWS post-storm report is the direction of the wind not the speed itself.

Sorry I went fishing today and I think I got too much sun! I agree on the Keesler Wind gauge cause all the numbers I remember seeing were Low... guess this report is No different esecially considering I was looking at the WRONG #'s Thanks for correcting me and I dont mean this thread to re-fuel any wind debates all of us who lived through Katrina saw enough wind and water for a life time of storms...

[Extremeweatherguy]

Just before leaving my son's little league baseball game Thursday night, one of the kids parents showed me a wind speed map of south LA and all of MS. I'm not sure where he got the map from, but it showed winds of 121mph in my area and 130 mph in hattiesburg. ( I'm about 100 miles inland). I assumed that it was winds gusts, not sustained winds.

I can tell you this as a fact. Pictures will not do justice to the damage that was done on the coast or inland. You can't judge the damage by looking at pictures. You have to see it with your own eyes. I can also tell you that I have never witnessed winds like that before. My house just turned 10 yrs old last month. During the passage of Katrina's eyewall, the house popped, creaked, snapped, groaned and vibrated as if it was going to come off of it's foundation. The interior walls even vibrated when the wind gusts slammed the house.

I think it's a good thing that Katrina came inland when she did because on one of the last loops I saw before we lost power, she looked as if she were strengthening. The local tv station's meteorologist even commented that she looked like she was wrapping up tightly again and trying to regain strenght.

I hope I never live to see another Katrina-type storm!

I do not deny those gusts at all. Inland, wind gusts to those levels are not uncommon with a fast moving powerful storm. In Florida, Charley still produced wind gusts to 100-125mph well over 50 miles inland, and even up to 99mph at 150 miles inland (near Daytona Beach).

[Jim Cantore]

176-190+ MPh Winds. Are they serius?? Is there soemthing wrong with that figure or am I crazy.

it is obserd UNLESS a tornado was involved.

[MGC]

There is no way Slidell, on the "weak" side of Katrina had Cat-5 winds. After looking at the wind damage, I'd say they are lucky to have see Cat-3 winds. Comparing the wind damage in Slidell to Western Harrison and Eastern Hancock, I'd say Slidell had a Cat or 2 lower than Mississippi. Sorry, but I was just in Slidell Thursday and the wind damage just is not there compared to Mississippi. And if you believe the HRD, the majority of the Mississippi Coast had only Cat-2 winds, with a small area of Cat-3 winds which were displaced towards the Biloxi/Ocean Springs area. I contest these estimates, as visual wind damage is far worst from Long Beach to Waveland......MGC

[Pearl River]

Slidell went thru the eye , not like New Orleans which was truely in the weak side, when it passed over. It also depends on where you went to look for damage. Several buildings on the northside of town were destroyed, away from the flooding in south Slidell. Comparing damage now to what it looked like 9 months ago, there is no comparison. The residents here got off their butt's and worked real hard to get the city back up and running.

People want to think because the whole town was not destroyed, the winds could not have been more that cat2. Winds are not evenly dispersed in a hurricane. You have small tornadoes and micro-bursts. I'm not saying the winds were cat5. I have also been thru Long Beach, Waveland, Pass Christian and most of the damage to me looks like storm surge damage. I'm not going to argue with anyone. This is my opinion , and like others, am entitled to my opinion.

[george_r_1961]

timNms wrote

I can tell you this as a fact. Pictures will not do justice to the damage that was done on the coast or inland. You can't judge the damage by looking at pictures.

Unless a person is a structural engineer, you are correct.

I was in Slidell a couple of weeks ago while visiting New Orleans..ate at the Shoneys there. The city seems to be making a comeback although it was obvious that heavy damage was sustained. Im not a damage expert but I think the report of 176 mph sustained winds might have been in error though, as I do not think anything would be left standing.

[vbhoutex]

People, people, people, why do we continue to try to second guess /argue something we were not there to witness? How many times do we/I have to say it. Just because and area was not devastated/totally wiped off the map doesn't mean the aforementioned winds did not happen. Winds are very capricious. They can occur on one block and not the next and we are talking a difference of possibly 30 mph difference or more and that makes a huge difference in damage at that level of wind. I don't know if those winds occurred or not-it is not for me to judge. But I am willing to consider the fact that it was possible since there was at least one report of it that at least initially appeared official-NOT ONE OF THOSE OFFICIALS WOULD GAIN ANYTHING BY MAKING THIS UP!!! Winds in a hurricane DO NOT NECESSARILY OCCUR OVER A LARGE AREA, BUT RATHER IN BURSTS IN SMALL AREAS OF THE HEAVIER STORMS WITHIN THE EYEWALL AND NEARBY. That is why it is possible that this happened. Unfortunately we will never be able to prove it since we do not have indestructible anemometers every block or so along the coast and 50 miles inland.

[Audrey2Katrina]

People, people, people, why do we continue to try to second guess /argue something we were not there to witness? How many times do we/I have to say it. Just because and area was not devastated/totally wiped off the map doesn't mean the aforementioned winds did not happen. Winds are very capricious. They can occur on one block and not the next and we are talking a difference of possibly 30 mph difference or more and that makes a huge difference in damage at that level of wind. I don't know if those winds occurred or not-it is not for me to judge. But I am willing to consider the fact that it was possible since there was at least one report of it that at least initially appeared official-NOT ONE OF THOSE OFFICIALS WOULD GAIN ANYTHING BY MAKING THIS UP!!! Winds in a hurricane DO NOT NECESSARILY OCCUR OVER A LARGE AREA, BUT RATHER IN BURSTS IN SMALL AREAS OF THE HEAVIER STORMS WITHIN THE EYEWALL AND NEARBY. That is why it is possible that this happened. Unfortunately we will never be able to prove it since we do not have indestructible anemometers every block or so along the coast and 50 miles inland.

Well Said, Vbhoutex! I could reiterate a bazillion items what we'd gone over a bazillion times before over everything from inland decay to... well, ad nauseum; but it is tiring how anytime someone posts something about a storm, it doesn't take long to get some fairly emotional responses from the "experts"--no cheap shot intended, I'm as guilty as the next. From the trend I see, it's only a matter of time before we'll find out Katrina was only a tropical depression when she made landfall. And of course we'll continue to get the barrage of "Now (fill in your local favorite) .. THERE was a REAL storm!" YAWWWWWWWWWWWN!

Sadly, folks need to realize that to those who experience a hurricane, THAT becomes the benchmark for whatever folks want to compare any other's storms--be it Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Ivan, or the irrepresible Charley. The fact remains that NO hurricane is a NICE hurricane. The damages done by ANY can be tremendous... and the death toll from Katrina alone attests to their dangers. All the bandying about of this figure and that figure... while nice ways of empiricizing the data, are in no way indicative of the WHOLE picture. Others simply need to understand that and just let it go.

A2K

[george_r_1961]

Im sorry I wasnt trying to upset anyone here. I know it was a horrible year for all of you on the gulf coast.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

It was infact a full force cat5 no more then 6 hours before landfall.