Katrina H-Wind Analysis, marginal 3 at landfall

[jazzfan1247]

Where did those wind observations in the first post come from anyway? The Houston Observer?


Bottom Line, The New Orleans International Airport recorded 130 Sustained. That would be in the wind swath where according to those links it should have had 100 sustained.


And that's FAR INLAND. Are you telling me that in the WEST QUAD this thing registering 130 isn't significant? What wind should have been recoridng in the Eastern Quadrant?

145 Sustained in Buras, Lousiana.




Now please show me where i'm wrong.

First of all, if you read the article at all, you would know the wind observations did NOT come from the Houston Chronicle; they came from researchers who spent hours rechecking the data, and know a whole lot more than you or I do.

Please show me this report of 130 mph sustained.

[f5]

has there ever been a debate about a hurricane's intensity like this one well it was X category but produced X category damage instead?

[Scorpion]

the advisory winds are subject to a 20% error. They try to smooth out the rapid intensifictaion and weakening, and often do not weaken systems as quick for a very good reason, because the public tends to think the storm is falling apart, or if it goes down a category, say to a 3, they think the storm wont be that bad

It also depends upon who does the final report. Some forecasters perfer the higher readings, while others perfer the lower ones

Yeah that is something I noticed, the wind analysis max winds fluctuate dramatically even every few hours. But the max winds for a storm's path from these wind analyses don't quite measure up to the max advisory intensity, usually from what I've seen. For example (and pardon me if I'm wrong as I haven't checked every single graphic) but Katrina's max wind from HRD was 133 kts, so does this mean Katrina could've NOT been a Cat 5 at any point in its lifetime? I believe for Rita it shows the same thing, the max winds maxing out at around 135 kts. And there are other examples, I'm just wondering why this is the case.

I agree. This is another reason I do not believe the HRD. Katrina was never a Cat 5?? Sure. It did something similar with Ivan. This means they have a 10-15 kt error. Although I realize Katrina was a solid 3 on the MS coast, I do also believe Katrina was about 115-125 kts at the LA coast. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they use 115 kt(130 mph) for Buras and 105-110 kt(120-125 mph) for the MS coast. Any lower than that is ridiculous though.

[JTD]

Where did those wind observations in the first post come from anyway? The Houston Observer?


Bottom Line, The New Orleans International Airport recorded 130 Sustained. That would be in the wind swath where according to those links it should have had 100 sustained.


And that's FAR INLAND. Are you telling me that in the WEST QUAD this thing registering 130 isn't significant? What wind should have been recoridng in the Eastern Quadrant?

145 Sustained in Buras, Lousiana.




Now please show me where i'm wrong.

First of all, if you read the article at all, you would know the wind observations did NOT come from the Houston Chronicle; they came from researchers who spent hours rechecking the data, and know a whole lot more than you or I do.

Please show me this report of 130 mph sustained.

Wind damage in New Orleans is nowhere near what 130 mph sustained would do. I think that report that you read was probably false.

[JTD]

From Google:

Highest Wind Gusts (Over 100 mph shown):
Laurel, MS (Jones County Emergency Management) - 134 mph*
Pascagoula, MS (Civil Defense) - 118 mph*
Grand Isle Buoy (Off LA Coast) - 114 mph
Lake Ponchartrain, LA (NWS) - 114 mph
Belle Chase, LA - 105 mph*
Dauphin Island Buoy (Off LA Coast) - 102 mph
Southwest Pass CMAN (Off LA Coast) - 101 mph
Gulfport, MS (Emergency Operations Center) - 100 mph

*Unofficial readings. Official gusts are recorded by quality-controlled government stations. Unofficial readings were taken by amateur stations or government buoys. I am still researching the 134 mph claim and am not sure of its authenticity.

Highest Official Sustained Winds (Only Hurricane Force Shown):
Lake Ponchartrain, LA (NWS) - 90 mph
Southwest Pass CMAN (Off LA Coast) - 74 mph

Lowest Land Pressures (Under 28.50" Shown):
27.58" Slidell, LA
27.89" Grand Isle Buoy (Off LA Coast)
28.36" @L49 SOUTH LAFOUR, LA
28.49" @NEW NEW ORLEANS, LA

High Storm Surge Readings (Over 20 Feet Shown):
Biloxi River @ Wortham: 26 Feet

Highest Reported Waves (Over 40 Feet Shown):
Buoy 42040 (Off LA Coast): 47.6 Feet**

**The wave height report was missing from the next hourly observation, indicating that it was out of range or the instrumentation was damaged. Wave height reports resumed at the next hourly observation. We may be able to find higher readings in the per-minute observations when the NBDC comes back online.

Heavy Rains (Over 10 Inches Shown):
Big Branch, LA: 14.58"
Slidell, LA: 11.63"
Radar Estimates: 12-16"

[Ivanhater]

well i live in pensacola so i DO know what a major hurricane is like...to me it doesnt matter if some think it was a 3 or a 4...it was horrible here....so for those folks who went through katrina, i know how yall feel and dont let it get to you

[timNms]

Still trying to figure out why NO ONE is looking at this data. Is it because it proves a point that some don't want to accept?

http://kamala.cod.edu/offs/KJAN/0510061900.acus74.html

[jazzfan1247]

Still trying to figure out why NO ONE is looking at this data. Is it because it proves a point that some don't want to accept?

http://kamala.cod.edu/offs/KJAN/0510061900.acus74.html

The isolated areas bordering on F3 damage would be consistent with gusts in the 150-155 mph range found in a Cat 3 storm. Also, the fujita scale isn't an absolute measure of the wind speed, just the damage. As far as the inland gusts in that report, that would certainly be supportive of Cat 1 sustained, which would be expected that far inland.

[Derek Ortt]

Fujita scale is based upon a quick impact, not a 5 hour period of 100KT winds, which is why I have been repeadetly told never use damage to determine a hurricane's intensity

[NastyCat4]

Give it up folks--the NHC called it right the first time--Cat 4 in initial landfall, and Cat 3 in New Orleans. Stop whining, and accept the facts that this was the worst natural disaster, and move on.

[timNms]

Fujita scale is based upon a quick impact, not a 5 hour period of 100KT winds, which is why I have been repeadetly told never use damage to determine a hurricane's intensity

Did you learn that in your studies to become a meteorologist?

If that be the case, then why does the NWS do it?

[Aslkahuna]

I will say this one last time and then I give up. GUSTS are not what you use to categorize storms-the sustained winds are. Secondly, the wind gusts are typically 20-25% higher than the sustained winds OVER WATER. Overland the ratio is in the 40-60% range so a wind gust of 140-160 mph could occur with a sustained wind of 100 mph overland. For those not familiar with the SS scale, a 100 mph sustained wind is Cat 2. I have some thoughts about the morphology of hurricanes (which unfortunately are difficult to prove without continuous or near continuous in situ observations in the near boundary to boundary layers in the eyewall region) which would allow for a storm with very low pressure but not necessarily the winds such a pressure would support. This would require that hurricanes in the absence of outside influences would follow the same pattern of development as do atmospheric vortices at all scales from dust devils on up. Of course, if we DO find out that storms can have very low pressures with lighter winds than current wind/pressure relationships call for, then a certain corporate forecaster stooge will have great quantities of egg on his face.

Steve

[jazzfan1247]

Give it up folks--the NHC called it right the first time--Cat 4 in initial landfall, and Cat 3 in New Orleans. Stop whining, and accept the facts that this was the worst natural disaster, and move on.

First of all, "Cat 3 in New Orleans"?! Secondly, we have all already accepted the fact that this was the worst natural disaster in U.S. history; there's nobody saying that the storm didn't live up to its $300 billion potential or whatever. And lastly, we cannot just "move on", we need to continue to debate and determine the exact intensity of Katrina for future purposes. And you are a living example of why this needs to be done.

[timNms]

Give it up folks--the NHC called it right the first time--Cat 4 in initial landfall, and Cat 3 in New Orleans. Stop whining, and accept the facts that this was the worst natural disaster, and move on.

First of all, "Cat 3 in New Orleans"?! Secondly, we have all already accepted the fact that this was the worst natural disaster in U.S. history; there's nobody saying that the storm didn't live up to its $300 billion potential or whatever. And lastly, we cannot just "move on", we need to continue to debate and determine the exact intensity of Katrina for future purposes. And you are a living example of why this needs to be done.

Are you referring to "We" as in the posters on this board, or "We" as in the real professionals at NHC?
"We" on this and other message boards can continue to debate and discuss Katrina until the cows come home, but the bottom line is "we" will not make the final decision on this

[senorpepr]

Give it up folks--the NHC called it right the first time--Cat 4 in initial landfall, and Cat 3 in New Orleans. Stop whining, and accept the facts that this was the worst natural disaster, and move on.

Cat 3 in New Orleans?? That is far from the truth. The damage in New Orleans is far from what a cat 3 would do.

[jazzfan1247]

Are you referring to "We" as in the posters on this board, or "We" as in the real professionals at NHC?
"We" on this and other message boards can continue to debate and discuss Katrina until the cows come home, but the bottom line is "we" will not make the final decision on this

"We" as in both professionals and people on message boards. The profs need to do it for obvious reasons, but we do as well because it seems a lot of people are misinformed about what the facts really say. Yes, we have no say on the final analysis, but we need to make others realize that this is indeed what the facts are, and make sure that they don't judge a storm incorrectly and potentially suffer the consequences in the future.

[jazzfan1247]

And on another level, people need to realize what science is and how to use it. There are far too many here who completely disregard scientific findings; it's quite scary.

[MGC]

It don't matter what cat Katrina is assigned. Katrina WILL be the third most intense hurricane to make landfall in the USA, following the Labor Day Hurricane at 892mb, Hurricane Camille at 909mb and AHEAD of Hurricane Andrew at 920mb as listed (or soon to be) according to the NHC website. Katrina will also be the most destructive hurricane on record by a large undetermined margine of several 100 billion dollars. At this point I could care less if Katrina is downgraded to a tropical storm.....MGC

[timNms]

And on another level, people need to realize what science is and how to use it. There are far too many here who completely disregard scientific findings; it's quite scary.

Yeah, I've noticed that, too. Official reports are poo pooed away. Amazes me!

[wxmann_91]

Give it up folks--the NHC called it right the first time--Cat 4 in initial landfall, and Cat 3 in New Orleans. Stop whining, and accept the facts that this was the worst natural disaster, and move on.

Completely agree.

But since this is a healthy debate, I will contribute.

New Orleans did not get Cat 3 conditions obviously. But areas to the east did. Please, everybody remember that. Bottom line is that Katrina was a 115-135 mph hurricane at MS landfall, and a 130-150 mph hurricane at LA landfall. Anything out of that range is completely absurd IMHO.