Katrina H-Wind Analysis, marginal 3 at landfall

[Derek Ortt]

it was very near Pensacola, but not in the center of the city. This is per the NHC report, plus some conversations I have had with forecasters there. The strongest winds were just west of the center of the city. Yes, the greater Pensacola area did receive cat 3 winds, just not the city

AOL, what method is your "research", when we have surface obs of at least cat 4

What level are they looking at via the doppler? In Ivan, a standard surface reduction of 90% cannot be made.

One other interesting thing. Earlier this year, I attended a presentation by Frank Marks, director of HRD, going over some Olivia doppler radar results from 1994. One finding he showed is that a sudden explosion of convection does not correlate with intensification, especially in a high shear environment, which Ivan as in

[aOl]

Also, if you went up to anyone in pcola and told them Ivan was just as bad as Erin, you'd probably get shot.

[f5]

since when did a CAT 3 produce damage that looks like several atomic bombs went off?

[Ivanhater]

it was very near Pensacola, but not in the center of the city. This is per the NHC report, plus some conversations I have had with forecasters there. The strongest winds were just west of the center of the city. Yes, the greater Pensacola area did receive cat 3 winds, just not the city

AOL, what method is your "research", when we have surface obs of at least cat 4

What level are they looking at via the doppler? In Ivan, a standard surface reduction of 90% cannot be made.

One other interesting thing. Earlier this year, I attended a presentation by Frank Marks, director of HRD, going over some Olivia doppler radar results from 1994. One finding he showed is that a sudden explosion of convection does not correlate with intensification, especially in a high shear environment, which Ivan as in

id really advise you to talk to Dr. Bill and the usa costal reasearch center, i know you are all about finding what exactly happened, because yalls data and research is so off....compare yalls data and see whats up...its very odd how yall are so off from each other

[Weatherfreak000]

Well Derek since your the expert, explain to me how Katrina's storm surge was significantly 8 feet higher then Camille's even though Camille was a strong Cat 5 and Katrina was a "Marginal Cat 3".



Don't you see something a little funny here?

[Derek Ortt]

Erin was moving quickly, and FAR smaller than Ivan and in the actual city of Pensacola, the winds in Erin likely were marginal 1.

In Ivan, the winds were mid to upper 1 and lasted about 6 hours.

In Erin, gusts in Pensacola were to marginal 2. In Ivan, marginal 3.

Nobody is debating that Ivan was worse than Erin... just did you go through a 3 as that is part of the perception alteration that liekly ha led some in MS to think they went through a 4

[Derek Ortt]

simple,

Camielle likely was not a 5. HRD's reanalysis will get to Camielle in a couple of years

[Ivanhater]

Erin was moving quickly, and FAR smaller than Ivan and in the actual city of Pensacola, the winds in Erin likely were marginal 1.

In Ivan, the winds were mid to upper 1 and lasted about 6 hours.

In Erin, gusts in Pensacola were to marginal 2. In Ivan, marginal 3.

Nobody is debating that Ivan was worse than Erin... just did you go through a 3 as that is part of the perception alteration that liekly ha led some in MS to think they went through a 4

well call up usa and have a chat with them....somones data is waaaaay off

[Weatherfreak000]

How do you know that buddy? Any significant proof for this one??

[Derek Ortt]

yeah,

weatherfreak http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml

the official report indicates only sustained cat 1 for Pensacola

where is your so called proof. Conjecture, speculation, and avoidance of the question is not worth a hill of beans

[f5]

simple,

Camielle likely was not a 5. HRD's reanalysis will get to Camielle in a couple of years

that would be Fatal considering every Camille book that was written says her winds were 200mph with gust up to 225

[Ivanhater]

yeah,

weatherfreak http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml

the official report indicates only sustained cat 1 for Pensacola

where is your so called proof. Conjecture, speculation, and avoidance of the question is not worth a hill of beans

derek, im assuming that was directed at me, getting a little testy? all im saying is call up usa and talk to dr. bill, they will know a lot more than i do, but it seems like all you want to do is sit on a weather forum and argue with non met people. im a met student and im just starting out. but if you truly want to find out why your data is so far off from usa's then call them, if not then i guess you dont really care to find out the truth

[cycloneye]

yeah,

weatherfreak http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml

the official report indicates only sustained cat 1 for Pensacola

where is your so called proof. Conjecture, speculation, and avoidance of the question is not worth a hill of beans

Ok Derek let's avoid personal debates and stick to the real science debate about the intensity of Katrina,Ivan etc.

[deltadog03]

once again......here we go!!!! why is ther people in here that try to argue about everything....i suppose the 1993 superstorm was a weak mid lat storm too huh??

[jazzfan1247]

Ortt you say that Katrina was 100 kts at landfall in Louisiana? And you go by the HRD. However, the HRD also said that Katrina's max intensity was only 135 kts, not even Cat 5. So why should we expect to believe them at landfall too?

Hey Derek, can you answer this question, why HRD only has Katrina at 135 kts for max intensity? I want to remove all remaining doubt about the credibility of this research...

[Valkhorn]

Woah wait a minute. Did Derek actually say Katrina never got to a category 5????

Um, hello, earth to Derek, the recon found winds to support it when they upgraded it, they wouldn't upgrade it unless they did. It may not have gotten to 175mph, but it was at least 165mph at its maximum intensity.

As to it being a marginal 3, I think it was a strong 3. 125mph is pretty darned closer to 131mph than it is to 111mph.

And, take a look at this graphic:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mob/cgi-bin/imageview.php?dir=/0805Katrina&file=vel_2_mob_1359Z.GIF

Its at 4,000 feet, if you reduce it by about 5% you get strong category 3 winds well indland, which indicates to me that it was possibly a 4 in terms of wind speeds - considering mobiles radar was a good distance away.

Derek, we did get sustained winds of 100mph in Hattiesburg 90 miles inland, and even a report of 110mph in Laurel, NORTH of us.

So, I'm not sure what you're point is.

[deltadog03]

ok, lets calm down before this gets out of hand AGAIN!!! Derek, this is not dissrespect, but, you seem to LOVE to argue with EVERYTHING....why?? give it up....your causing nothing but FIGHTS..

[cycloneye]

ok, lets calm down before this gets out of hand AGAIN!!! Derek, this is not dissrespect, but, you seem to LOVE to argue with EVERYTHING....why?? give it up....your causing nothing but FIGHTS..

Ok I posted a message to Derek saying to him to calm down and avoid personal debates.So now I say to you do the same and we are equal now.

[deltadog03]

ok, fair enough

[gpickett00]

When the hurricane was at its max, it looked like the strongest a hurricane could possibly be. And if at its peak it was not a cat 5, then there have been very few cat 5's ever.