NHC FAILED TERREBONNE PARISH COASTAL RESIDENTS!!!!!

[NorthGaWeather]

2) I'm not blaming the NHC. I don't know what they should do now that we keep seeing hurricanes blow the surge models.

Whoa, what? Name these numerous hurricanes blowing the surge levels.

BTW, you post seem to be blaming the NHC.

You can't estimate wind speeds by looking at damage afterwards, except in the most crude fashion. And what's your calibration? Have you ever seen damage where the wind causing the damage was actually measured? I doubt it.

Actually you can. You can get pretty dang close on estimates. I know this after observing some NWS damage surveys and asking questions.

I've even seen a few times the exact wind measurement observed at a house. Then looked at the damage around the place. So you can take your doubts and have a coke and a smile.

[timNms]

Some of you say they need to "rethink storm surge"? This should not even be an issue. I mean come on, we had two CAT5's churning across the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. With that type of intensity everyone should know it is building a powerful storm surge.

In Pascagoula, they issued a mandetory evac for everyone south of HWY. 90. I am 2 miles inland and the surge reached my home. Everyone south of 90 was flooded. In some places there was 8 feet of water in homes.

What I do believe we have learned down here from Katrina, you can't compare one storm to another. If you do, you may lose your life. Camille was a major issue around here, but not anymore.

I can't remember who said it. I think it was either the mayor of Biloxi or the mayor of Gulfport "Camille killed more people on August 29, 2005 than she did on August 17, 1969". People in Mississippi used Camille's storm surge to determine whether to leave or stay. Katrina surprised many with her monster surge.

You are right. You can't compare one storm to another. I think many along our coastline learned that lesson the hard way. Hopefully, now, people will know that if they are threatened by a storm of any size, catagory, they'll consider getting out of harm's way (albeit getting out of harm's way may mean driving to Canada LOL)

Tim,

You are 100000% right on with that assessment. I can't even begin to tell you how many folks down there think (or thought) that way.

We met with the EMS folks and the fire chief in Waveland that Sunday afternoon...and I think I actually have the Camille surge map he was showing us. He thought the fire station and the civil defense buildings would be dry because they didn't get any surge with Camille.

Both locations were completely engulfed with surge.

MW

Mike,
I heard about those buildings being destroyed. Also heard that some of them had to swim for their lives (not sure if that's true or not). I'm planning to go down to Waveland this coming weekend to help my daughter's ex fiance rummage thru some things. His family lost their homes and autos in Katrina's surge.

[MWatkins]

Mike,
I heard about those buildings being destroyed. Also heard that some of them had to swim for their lives (not sure if that's true or not). I'm planning to go down to Waveland this coming weekend to help my daughter's ex fiance rummage thru some things. His family lost their homes and autos in Katrina's surge.

I heard about the swimming thing too...especially at the fire station. Nothing first hand though...only through the media...

I hope your trip goes well.

While you are there...if you don't mind...can you check in with the fire chief there...I will send you the details in a PM.

Take care,

MW

[timNms]

Mike,
I heard about those buildings being destroyed. Also heard that some of them had to swim for their lives (not sure if that's true or not). I'm planning to go down to Waveland this coming weekend to help my daughter's ex fiance rummage thru some things. His family lost their homes and autos in Katrina's surge.

I heard about the swimming thing too...especially at the fire station. Nothing first hand though...only through the media...

I hope your trip goes well.

While you are there...if you don't mind...can you check in with the fire chief there...I will send you the details in a PM.

Take care,

MW

Thanks, Mike. I'd read about the swimming in an article that was in USA Today that my daughter's ex had emailed to us.

I'll make it a point to check in with the fire chief if I can get in to see him.

[curtadams]

Whoa, what? Name these numerous hurricanes blowing the surge levels.

BTW, you post seem to be blaming the NHC.

You can't estimate wind speeds by looking at damage afterwards, except in the most crude fashion. And what's your calibration? Have you ever seen damage where the wind causing the damage was actually measured? I doubt it.

Actually you can. You can get pretty dang close on estimates. I know this after observing some NWS damage surveys and asking questions.

I've even seen a few times the exact wind measurement observed at a house. Then looked at the damage around the place. So you can take your doubts and have a coke and a smile.

Isabel, Ivan, Dennis, Katrina, and Rita all produced surge surprises. Isabel and Ivan both had surprisingly large areas of affect. Dennis had a smallish one - yet flooded out a community 200 miles from landfall. Katrina was - well freakishly large, and Rita produced large surge two hundred miles to the east - and surge in some areas continued going up long after she passed. They have all been odd birds.

What wind speeds did you see measured? How were they measuring it? I must admit I would take actual windspeed measurements - which back up what I say - over anybody's visual estimates.

[Aslkahuna]

Actually, the first Gulf Storm that caught us with the surge like Katrina was Opal in 1995. I would agree that additional research needs to be done on surge dynamics since we obviously have more to learn about them. However, that's a job for AOML or HRD and NOT NHC which is an operational unit. NHC takes the tools provided by the researchers and evaluate them and adapt them to their needs but they don't have the time to devote to full time research. If the SLOSH model is deficient then it's up to someone with experience in that field to come up with a fix but you don't come up with such fixes overnight or even in a year's time. There's something about these big storms and how they interact with the ocean-air interface that can result in massive surges and we have to find out what it is. In the meantime, some massive education of the people who insist in living in harm's way is needed because by and large American people are utterly stupid when it comes to understanding the natural events that affect them.

Steve

[NorthGaWeather]

What wind speeds did you see measured? How were they measuring it? I must admit I would take actual windspeed measurements - which back up what I say - over anybody's visual estimates.

The wind speeds ranged from 54 to 97mph. They were measured by what I like to call an anemometer. There are some people actually doing research on this at either Texas Tech or Texas A&M, its one of them, which you should look at. None of your argument has been backed up.

[hookemfins]

3) Read my post. The NHC's wind forecast is for 10 meters up over open ocean. That's going to be a considerably higher speed than will actually be experienced at ground level on land. Actual wind measurements support this. You just don't see wind measurements of the predicted speeds, even in TS and Cat 1 conditions that cause few or no failures of instrumentation.

You can't estimate wind speeds by looking at damage afterwards, except in the most crude fashion. And what's your calibration? Have you ever seen damage where the wind causing the damage was actually measured? I doubt it. All you can do is compare to other hurricanes - all of which have had the same definitional padding. I would suspect that gusts cause most of the damage anyway.

And did you read my post above when I said: "The reason you don't see higher wind speeds is because many instruments failed. Also the 120 mph are confined to a very small area close to the center. There may not have been any instruments that close".

Had I had a wind gauge when Katrina came through Miami it would have read sustained hurricane force winds.

[timNms]

What wind speeds did you see measured? How were they measuring it? I must admit I would take actual windspeed measurements - which back up what I say - over anybody's visual estimates.

If I'm not mistaken, aren't estimates of tornado winds made by visual estimates based upon the damage after the storm has passed?

[Stephanie]

What wind speeds did you see measured? How were they measuring it? I must admit I would take actual windspeed measurements - which back up what I say - over anybody's visual estimates.

If I'm not mistaken, aren't estimates of tornado winds made by visual estimates based upon the damage after the storm has passed?

Yes they do.

This thread needs to tone it down a bit everyone...

[vbhoutex]

Actually, the first Gulf Storm that caught us with the surge like Katrina was Opal in 1995. I would agree that additional research needs to be done on surge dynamics since we obviously have more to learn about them. However, that's a job for AOML or HRD and NOT NHC which is an operational unit. NHC takes the tools provided by the researchers and evaluate them and adapt them to their needs but they don't have the time to devote to full time research. If the SLOSH model is deficient then it's up to someone with experience in that field to come up with a fix but you don't come up with such fixes overnight or even in a year's time. There's something about these big storms and how they interact with the ocean-air interface that can result in massive surges and we have to find out what it is. In the meantime, some massive education of the people who insist in living in harm's way is needed because by and large American people are utterly stupid when it comes to understanding the natural events that affect them.

Steve

I hate to say it, but I couldn't agree more. Even in my own family, I run into this and they are all college level educated. I finally just shut up and quit arguing with my BIL(PHD)even though I could make him look like a fool when it comes to weather knowledge. It is not worth my time to talk to brick walls. A general education program, run several times each year at the beginning of the Hurricane season, during prime time on all channels in Hurricane prone areas would be a good start. It doesn't need to be anything elaborate, just the basics, with graphic pictures of what surge and wind does at different levels.

[caribepr]

Actually, the first Gulf Storm that caught us with the surge like Katrina was Opal in 1995. I would agree that additional research needs to be done on surge dynamics since we obviously have more to learn about them. However, that's a job for AOML or HRD and NOT NHC which is an operational unit. NHC takes the tools provided by the researchers and evaluate them and adapt them to their needs but they don't have the time to devote to full time research. If the SLOSH model is deficient then it's up to someone with experience in that field to come up with a fix but you don't come up with such fixes overnight or even in a year's time. There's something about these big storms and how they interact with the ocean-air interface that can result in massive surges and we have to find out what it is. In the meantime, some massive education of the people who insist in living in harm's way is needed because by and large American people are utterly stupid when it comes to understanding the natural events that affect them.

Steve

I hate to say it, but I couldn't agree more. Even in my own family, I run into this and they are all college level educated. I finally just shut up and quit arguing with my BIL(PHD)even though I could make him look like a fool when it comes to weather knowledge. It is not worth my time to talk to brick walls. A general education program, run several times each year at the beginning of the Hurricane season, during prime time on all channels in Hurricane prone areas would be a good start. It doesn't need to be anything elaborate, just the basics, with graphic pictures of what surge and wind does at different levels.

Maybe it could be integrated into schools, elementary level. If there was a consistant segment on hurricanes effects on the coasts, it might have the same impact as the anti-smoking programs. "Mommy, Daddy, a big storm is coming and Miss Smith taught us WE NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!"

[gratefulnole]

I am getting confused by this thread. Is the argument that the NHC messed up because it was a few feet below in its prediction in the storm surge so that some people didn't evacuate because they thought they should of been able to stay above the surge? They didn't evacuate even though there was a mandatory evacuation and a cat 5 hurricane is headed their way because they thought they would be above the storm surge. Shouldn't they have left because of the possibilty of 150 mph winds anyway?

[curtadams]

And did you read my post above when I said: "The reason you don't see higher wind speeds is because many instruments failed. Also the 120 mph are confined to a very small area close to the center. There may not have been any instruments that close".

Had I had a wind gauge when Katrina came through Miami it would have read sustained hurricane force winds.

Instrumentation failure doesn't cause this. The NHC predictions are for wind 10 meters up over open ocean. Actual wind speeds near ground on land *must* be considerably lower. And no, you wouldn't have measured sustained hurricane winds in Miami. From the NHS report: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mfl/events/?id=katrina

"Measurements from reconnaissance aircraft and Miami Doppler Weather Radar estimated maximum sustained winds to be 80 mph. The maximum reported sustained wind over the south Florida peninsula was 75 mph measured atop a building at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS) on Virginia Key. This wind value was determined by adjusting the actual wind speed to the standard anemometer height of 10 meters."

Note - they *adjusted* the speed *up* from what was actually measured - and they *still* did not quite match the estimated speeds. (Probably because increased ground resistance means the real equivalent on land is even higher than 10 meters up) The peak wind on the ground was 69 mph - not hurricane speeds. And you can't say Miami is poorly instrumented! If somebody had measured 80 mph then the NHC forecast would be wrong because winds at NHC "surface level" would have to be 90 mph or so to sustain that.

[curtadams]

Actually, the first Gulf Storm that caught us with the surge like Katrina was Opal in 1995. I would agree that additional research needs to be done on surge dynamics since we obviously have more to learn about them. However, that's a job for AOML or HRD and NOT NHC which is an operational unit. NHC takes the tools provided by the researchers and evaluate them and adapt them to their needs but they don't have the time to devote to full time research. If the SLOSH model is deficient then it's up to someone with experience in that field to come up with a fix but you don't come up with such fixes overnight or even in a year's time. There's something about these big storms and how they interact with the ocean-air interface that can result in massive surges and we have to find out what it is. In the meantime, some massive education of the people who insist in living in harm's way is needed because by and large American people are utterly stupid when it comes to understanding the natural events that affect them.

Steve

Agreed on all points. I didn't know it had happened with Opal too. However, the NHC should alter its surge warning to acknowledge that surge isn't well predicted at this point. When the NHC says "120 mph winds) that means your house isn't going to see worse than that barring the storm bombing out big time. People consequently expect the same of the surge forecast, especially since the way they are phrased suggests a worst-case scenario. I would suggest, rather than saying "surge up to .." that the warning say something like "models predict surge up to xxx but models have underpredicted similar storms in the past and interests in the yy area should prepare for the possibility of even larger surges". Wordy, but you get the idea. Only when necessary, of course. They seem to do just fine with anything that hasn't been at least a strong 4, usually 5, at some point in its history.

[vacanechaser]

This cannot be a serious post.

People cannot be this idiotic(or maybe they can?)

Let's think about this scenario: Your east of the eye in an onshore flow and your Parish is barely above sea level for the most part... meaning the surge will have no problem reaching you.

Not to mention, it was a CATEGORY 5 a day before. I guess some people think that the water just fades away!!!

As for the media, they are horrible. They cover the mega story at the time, which in this case was Galveston being leveled. They did not report on much else. It is whatever grabs the headlines and thats it for them. Max was on all the alphabet channels and said that you folks in that area of Louisiana and into New Orleans could see a 4-10 foot rise in water as Rita passed. I guess if you didnt have power you may not have seen that. However, your local statements should have covered all that. I guess this is another case where the federal gov't failed you once again. The locals who are in charge have no cross to bare for any of it i guess.



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

[Innotech]

I live in Lafayette and have friends in Abbeville. None of us were surprised by anything we experienced in Rita and I htink NHC did a great job personally based on the unpredictability of this particular sotrm.

[Innotech]

I live in Lafayette and have friends in Abbeville. None of us were surprised by anything we experienced in Rita and I htink NHC did a great job personally based on the unpredictability of this particular sotrm.

[hookemfins]

And did you read my post above when I said: "The reason you don't see higher wind speeds is because many instruments failed. Also the 120 mph are confined to a very small area close to the center. There may not have been any instruments that close".

Had I had a wind gauge when Katrina came through Miami it would have read sustained hurricane force winds.

Instrumentation failure doesn't cause this. The NHC predictions are for wind 10 meters up over open ocean. Actual wind speeds near ground on land *must* be considerably lower. And no, you wouldn't have measured sustained hurricane winds in Miami. From the NHS report: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mfl/events/?id=katrina

"Measurements from reconnaissance aircraft and Miami Doppler Weather Radar estimated maximum sustained winds to be 80 mph. The maximum reported sustained wind over the south Florida peninsula was 75 mph measured atop a building at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS) on Virginia Key. This wind value was determined by adjusting the actual wind speed to the standard anemometer height of 10 meters."

Note - they *adjusted* the speed *up* from what was actually measured - and they *still* did not quite match the estimated speeds. (Probably because increased ground resistance means the real equivalent on land is even higher than 10 meters up) The peak wind on the ground was 69 mph - not hurricane speeds. And you can't say Miami is poorly instrumented! If somebody had measured 80 mph then the NHC forecast would be wrong because winds at NHC "surface level" would have to be 90 mph or so to sustain that.

Now in your so-called weaker hurricanes the strongest winds may not be right near the center. When Katrina hit Miami the strongest bands were in the southern eyewall and around 5-10 miles S of the center. This was verified by base velocity radar. The 71 kt winds were right over my house and I'm 5 miles SSE of the NHC. Winds speeds measured by radar fairly accurate.

Had there been no mearsured hurricane force winds over Miami then the NHC would have downgraded Katrina to a tropcal storm.

Just because the pockets of hurricane force winds didn't pass over any of the offical recording stations doesn't mean there weren't any. Maybe had the NHC been situcated 3 miles S they would have recorded 75mph winds.

[brunota2003]

You can't estimate wind speeds by looking at damage afterwards, except in the most crude fashion. And what's your calibration? Have you ever seen damage where the wind causing the damage was actually measured? I doubt it.

Wind Estimates: (For Fun, Sorry if I offended anyone...)
Cat 1: some signs down
Cat 2: You find a tree thru your roof, all signs down, some weak houses damaged or destroyed
Cat 3: You fine your roof on the other side of the block, most weak houses gone
Cat 4: House is found in your next door neighbors house, if he has a house left
Cat 5: House is never found, or found in the next state...