I don't know what to make of this

[f5]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3382613

Oct. 5, 2005, 9:10AM

Storm possibly weaker than was first estimated
Recheck of data shows hurricane lacked the strength of a Category 4
By KEN KAYE
Knight Ridder Tribune News
HURRICANE KATRINA

NOAA
Hurricane Katrina swirls toward the Gulf Coast.


• Complete Chronicle coverage
Katrina news via RSS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSTON RELIEF:
• Volunteer Houston's updates
• Joint Command
• Houston Red Cross
• FEMA news releases

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOGS:
• Voices of Katrina
• DomeBlog
• In Exile: An evacuee's blog
• Eric Berger's SciGuy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUDIO:

Katrina evacuee Janice Armstrong talks about starting over 9/13


Businessman Robert Lewis shares his evacuation experiences 9/2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEO:
• New Orleans almost dry 10/4
• Reopening of New Orleans halted 9/19
• Americans react to Bush speech 9/16
• Bush: City to rise again 9/15 / Speech text
• U.S. to pay most costs 9/15
• Nagin: Quarter to open 9/15
• Floodwaters dangerous 9/15
• New Orleans port open 9/14
• Nursing home photos 9/14
• Progress is slow 9/14
• FEMA explains recovery 9/14
• Flu shots for evacuees 9/14

More videos »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOTO GALLERIES:
Associated Press:
• Latest images

Houston Chronicle:
• Reliant Park scenes 9/15
• New Orleans cleans up 9/13
• Houston stories 9/13

More galleries »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERACTIVE:
• New Orleans flood map
• Katrina aftermath
• Victims of Katrina
• New Orleans devastation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN NEW ORLEANS:
• Nola.com's breaking news blog and Hurricane Center

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAPHICS:
• NO gradually opening 9/15
• Impact on natural gas 9/15
• Chemical plant damage 9/15
• Shelter numbers: 9/14
• Seafood losses: 914
• Ecological damage: 9/14
• NO water tested: 9/13

More graphics »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIAL REPORT:
• The Big One: Are we ready?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Video, graphics courtesy Associated Press and KHOU; free Real Player, Flash plug-in and Acrobat Reader may be required.)

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - Hurricane Katrina might have battered New Orleans and the Gulf Coast as a considerably weaker system than the Category 4 tempest initially reported.


New, preliminary information, compiled by hurricane researchers, suggests the system struck southeast Louisiana on Aug. 29 with peak-sustained winds of 115 mph. That would have made it a Category 3 storm, still a major hurricane but a step down from the enormous destructive force of a Category 4.

Katrina might have further downgraded to a strong Category 1 system with 95-mph winds when it punched water through New Orleans' levees, severely flooding most of the city and killing hundreds. The levees were designed to withstand a Category 3 storm.

If verified, the wind information, compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division, could have chilling ramifications.

Notably, it would leave the specter that if a Category 4 or a Category 5 hurricane were to hit the same region, it would be even more catastrophic.

"It's important from a public perception standpoint," said Mark Powell, the research scientist who plotted the new wind measurements, adding that most people think they endured a Category 4. "They won't want to hear it was a Category 3."

The National Hurricane Center regularly re-examines storm parameters to determine the validity of initial information. For example, in 2002, 10 years after it made landfall in Miami-Dade County, Hurricane Andrew was upgraded from a Category 4 to a Category 5.

In its original reports, the hurricane center reported Katrina struck near the town of Buras, about 55 miles south of New Orleans, with 145-mph winds and weakened to 125 mph when it was about 35 miles east of the city, all the while pounding the levees.

That information, derived mainly from hurricane hunter aircraft, still might stand after the hurricane center in Miami-Dade County conducts a thorough reanalysis.

Hurricane specialist Richard Knabb said the new wind measures conflict with the initial reports, but noted, "that's almost always the case." He said the hurricane center has to pore through much more technical data before deciding what wind speeds will be included in Katrina's final report, likely not to be completed for months.

"We're still in the midst of doing that analysis," he said.

Powell said the new data show that Katrina packed 95-mph winds over the east end of Lake Pontchartrain and about 65 mph over the west end, enough to breach the levees

[NastyCat4]

I don't buy it.....

[Derek Ortt]

has been posted in the thread debating the intensity of Katrina

[f5]

this says she was a CAT 1

[Stratosphere747]

this says she was a CAT 1

No it does not...

Says it was a cat1 when it impacted New Orleans.

[m_ru]

Wait a second. So are they implying that whenever the center was parallel with New Orleans it was a Cat. 1? Are you joking me? That would be implying that it hit the Mississippi Coast as a strong Cat. 1. Hattiesburg, MS is over a hundred miles inland and got wind gusts over 100 mph and had extreme damage to trees and even to some structures. I think it's absolutely rediculous for someone to imply that it was a Cat. 1 when it was parallel to New Orleans, what about the Mississippi Gulf Coast? In Pascagoula which was 60 miles east of the center, wind gusts were clocked up to 137mph before stronger gusts destroyed the instruments. So it must have been much stronger closer to the center.

The Mississippi Gulf Coast has been slammed my many strong hurricanes in the past 50 years: a Cat.5 , several Cat. 3's and a Cat. 2 and the damage from those storms (except Camille of course) didn't even compare with Katrina.

I'm just going to laugh because it is obvious that these folks are mistaken.

[jazzfan1247]

Wait a second. So are they implying that whenever the center was parallel with New Orleans it was a Cat. 1? Are you joking me? That would be implying that it hit the Mississippi Coast as a strong Cat. 1. Hattiesburg, MS is over a hundred miles inland and got wind gusts over 100 mph and had extreme damage to trees and even to some structures. I think it's absolutely rediculous for someone to imply that it was a Cat. 1 when it was parallel to New Orleans, what about the Mississippi Gulf Coast? In Pascagoula which was 60 miles east of the center, wind gusts were clocked up to 137mph before stronger gusts destroyed the instruments. So it must have been much stronger closer to the center.

The Mississippi Gulf Coast has been slammed my many strong hurricanes in the past 50 years: a Cat.5 , several Cat. 3's and a Cat. 2 and the damage from those storms (except Camille of course) didn't even compare with Katrina.

I'm just going to laugh because it is obvious that these folks are mistaken.

Naw naw, I could understand from the wording they use how it could be interpreted that way. But what they really mean is that New Orleans experienced Cat 1 winds.

[Derek Ortt]

the're saying that strong cat 1 conditions (95 m.p.h. winds) affected the center of New Orleans, not that the storm was a cat 1

[SouthFloridawx]

Doesn't mean squat and it doesn't change a thing because the damage is still done and the lives are still lost. I think they should leave it alone and move on and stop bickering over the fact it might have been weaker it is still a major hurricane and has devastated our gulf coast and it will be years before it gets back to "normal" it will never be the same there and I think everyone knows that.

my 2 cents

[Brent]

:na: Doesn't mean squat and it doesn't change a thing because the damage is still done and the lives are still lost. I think they should leave it alone and move on and stop bickering over the fact it might have been weaker it is still a major hurricane and has devastated our gulf coast and it will be years before it gets back to "normal" it will never be the same there and I think everyone knows that.

my 2 cents

It's important because IF Katrina was only a Cat 3(in winds), then a Cat 4 or 5 would be much much worse.

I personally believe Cat 4 in SE LA and 3 in MS... what the NHC said.

[TS Zack]

Idiots that write these articles should be fired.

They obviously have no clue what they are talking about. The winds don't break levee's. The water does. Yea, I am sure we have 5-7ft of storm surge.

You tell this information to natives down the bayou that went through Andrew, Betsy, and Camille. They will pull out their shotgun and blow your head off. They should!

I just looked at video from my street during the height of the storm. Yea, Cat 1.. What a joke.....

I will try to upload that so you all can see. May take awhile.

[Derek Ortt]

calling people idiots is un called for

if I had video from the roof of my office building during Katrina, people would think that it was more than cat 1, but it was very marginal cat 1

ne has to remember that there is very little real major hurricane video to compare an experience to. Most compare it to the outer bands of a major hurricane. Most take shelter during the height of the storm. But for real major hurricane video, look at Iniki or Charley. You see entire houses flying down the road, not shingles or siding

[rockyman]

the're saying that strong cat 1 conditions (95 m.p.h. winds) affected the center of New Orleans, not that the storm was a cat 1

That might be what they "meant," but what they said was "Katrina might have further downgraded to a strong Category 1 system with 95-mph winds "...That shows to me that the writers of the article know nothing about hurricanes...that would be like me saying that Hurricane Dennis "might have further downgraded to a tropical depression" because I only got 35mph winds on Dauphin Island. What a load!

[jazzfan1247]

Idiots that write these articles should be fired.

They obviously have no clue what they are talking about. The winds don't break levee's. The water does. Yea, I am sure we have 5-7ft of storm surge.

You tell this information to natives down the bayou that went through Andrew, Betsy, and Camille. They will pull out their shotgun and blow your head off. They should!

I just looked at video from my street during the height of the storm. Yea, Cat 1.. What a joke.....

I will try to upload that so you all can see. May take awhile.

When they say "when it punched water through levees" it is referring to Katrina and not the high winds itself.

Admittedly, the article is poorly written from an English standpoint.

[Brent]

The surge was defintely a Cat 5 surge... there is no dispute about that. But New Orleans did NOT experience the brunt of the storm. They missed the eye, and the western eyewall and were on the weaker west side. The article is right in that New Orleans experienced a Cat 1 hurricane.

[TS Zack]

I know what they mean.

We didn't recieve the worst but the way he writes it, he makes it seem like a Cat 1 surge took out the levees.

If thats the case why weren't we drowning for Cindy?


I just saw a video and it was a little worst than Cat 1. Cat 2 with gusts to Cat 3. You can see the walls bulging in and the garage door was was about to fly off. At one point, it got a little hairy.

[jazzfan1247]

The surge in the New Orleans area, while certainly above a Cat 1 level, was certainly nowhere near the Cat 4/5 levels. I have read several articles pointing to increasing evidence that at least some of the levees were never overtopped. This is very important because it seems a lot of people are under the impression from the media that New Orleans went through a Cat 4 hurricane, and thus a Cat 4 surge, which is simply not true (example: "Levees to be rebuilt" topic in the Aftermath board). For example, if you asked a handful of people from the street, I'm willing to bet they'll point out that New Orleans was hit by a Cat 4 instead of pointing out what kind of conditions and surge they really experienced.

[f5]

does this also suggest that there were some faulty mishaps in the way the levees were built?

[Weatherfreak000]

The surge in the New Orleans area, while certainly above a Cat 1 level, was certainly nowhere near the Cat 4/5 levels. I have read several articles pointing to increasing evidence that at least some of the levees were never overtopped. This is very important because it seems a lot of people are under the impression from the media that New Orleans went through a Cat 4 hurricane, and thus a Cat 4 surge, which is simply not true (example: "Levees to be rebuilt" topic in the Aftermath board). For example, if you asked a handful of people from the street, I'm willing to bet they'll point out that New Orleans was hit by a Cat 4 instead of pointing out what kind of conditions and surge they really experienced.

That's just ridiculous. New Orleans was hit by the Western Eyewall and experienced 130 sustained this was allready proven.


In fact, this study is completely bogus. Winds were a significant part of why the levees broke and Cat 1 winds didn't break it. The winds that broke that levee where ranging from 130 to 145 easily.

[jazzfan1247]

Winds were a significant part of why the levees broke and Cat 1 winds didn't break it. The winds that broke that levee where ranging from 130 to 145 easily.

The winds broke the levees?!?! Wow that's news to me