Katrina H-Wind Analysis, marginal 3 at landfall

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
Ivanhater
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 11166
Age: 38
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:25 am
Location: Pensacola

#581 Postby Ivanhater » Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:58 pm

ivanhater wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote: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



still wanna know derek, they will be happy to talk to you if you really want to know what really happened, if you do ill talk to them tomorrow when i go back to mobile and tell them you wanna talk
0 likes   

User avatar
TS Zack
Category 4
Category 4
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:23 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

#582 Postby TS Zack » Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:59 pm

[quote="Valkhorn"]Woah wait a minute. Did Derek actually say Katrina never got to a category 5????
quote]

LOL :roll: :roll:
0 likes   

User avatar
senorpepr
Military Met/Moderator
Military Met/Moderator
Posts: 12542
Age: 43
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:22 pm
Location: Mackenbach, Germany
Contact:

#583 Postby senorpepr » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:00 pm

deltadog03 wrote: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..


Well... first off, Derek never started this. He posted credible data, but said, "Don't shoot the messenger." Everybody decided to anyway.

The fact of the matter is, Derek isn't causing the fight here. He simply posted data and people raised a fuss. He has tried to support the claims, but some don't want to bother with evidence.

Now... stepping away from that topic for a moment... as for the 175 mph winds: the NHC made the comment that the likelihood of 175 mph winds was very limited and that those winds were not mixing to the surface. Most likely, the winds may have only maxed out at 165 mph.

But... with that said, I expect to see Scorpion forget about the laws of pressure gradient and say something along the lines of, "902mb cannot equal a 165 mph hurricane. :roll: "
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#584 Postby Derek Ortt » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:01 pm

it was NOT posted to Ivanhater

it was posted to weatherfreak, who is posting total nonsense[quote][/quote]
0 likes   

User avatar
deltadog03
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:16 pm
Location: Macon, GA

#585 Postby deltadog03 » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:03 pm

its not the info he presented that upset me...its the way he presents it with his comments...thats all....He is just relying info that he came accrossed, I understand that!! he can just be much better about how rude some of his comments could be...
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#586 Postby Derek Ortt » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:03 pm

Send the data directly to Stacy Stewart of NHC, as he is the one who did the report. I am likely to inquire about Jeanne only being 105KT when I came across an SFMR on Friday of Jeanne at 112KT at landfall, and this is not addressed in the report
0 likes   

User avatar
Ivanhater
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 11166
Age: 38
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:25 am
Location: Pensacola

#587 Postby Ivanhater » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:04 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:it was NOT posted to Ivanhater

it was posted to weatherfreak, who is posting total nonsense


ok, its cool then....but i want to know, and i think you would like to know why your data and usa's is so far off. a lot of people on here think your data is gospel, and i think we need to get to the bottom of why the data is so far off
0 likes   

Weatherfreak000

ha

#588 Postby Weatherfreak000 » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:05 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:it was NOT posted to Ivanhater

it was posted to weatherfreak, who is posting total nonsense




Funny



I'm not the one talking about Camille being a Category 4 storm at landfall. WOW, 40 years running and that still stands.



Also, i'm still waiting for any significant proof to back up this claim.
0 likes   

Valkhorn
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:09 am
Contact:

#589 Postby Valkhorn » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:07 pm

I should also state that the Pensacola weather station reported category 1 winds BEFORE it lost power.

So in my opinion that should be a clue to something, should it not?
0 likes   

Weatherfreak000

and...

#590 Postby Weatherfreak000 » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:08 pm

Also let's note that your implying I questioned Ivan's intensity when it never occured.




If it wasn't for the fact that you've pretty much doubted the intensity of every single major hurricane ever to hit the U.S. i'd be inclined to say your not a total moron.


Oh well.
Last edited by Weatherfreak000 on Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
deltadog03
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:16 pm
Location: Macon, GA

#591 Postby deltadog03 » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:09 pm

Im gonna change the mood...I can't WAIT until winter...when we have a historic winter and we can all argue if a 12" snow in the south is not normal....lol
0 likes   

User avatar
wxman57
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
Posts: 23080
Age: 68
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Location: Houston, TX (southwest)

#592 Postby wxman57 » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:10 pm

Valkhorn wrote: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.


Peak winds in a hurricane are typically (certainly not always) around 1500 feet above the ground. The reduction from 1500 ft may be around 70%. From 10,000 ft that reduction is typically 90%. Around 4000 ft, the reducition is probably closer to 80%, not 95%. That would be 130 mph - 26 mph = 104 mph.

There have been a number of "Cat 3" hurricanes making landfall in recent decades that had very tiny areas of Cat 3 winds, if that. Even when a Cat 1 hurriicane makes landfall, very few people actually experience true 75+ mph sustained wind. Those of you here who think you've been through sustained Cat 3 winds in the past may have not even experienced Cat 1 winds. With Ivan - Pensacola appears to have seen Cat 1-2 winds, not Cat 3 winds. Any Cat 3 winds in Ivan passed west of the city.

You also have to remember that the NHC puts the MAXIMUM sustained wind in their advisories, not the average sustained wind in all quadrants of a hurricane. That max sustained wind may be found only in some tiny areas in many cases. Katrina had those max winds over a much larger area, thus the much greater damage compared to an "average" Cat 3.

Katrina had a very low central pressure, but it had such a large core of hurricane-force winds that the pressure gradient was lower than with a typical hurricane. It's the pressure gradient that supports the higher winds, not the pressure itself. Tornadoes can have 200+ mph winds but their central pressure can be relatively high compared to some hurricanes with much lower winds. It's the sharp pressure gradient in a tornado that produces the stronger winds, not the central pressure, itself.
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#593 Postby Derek Ortt » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:10 pm

here is some

the fact that when storms weaken, their vertical velocities start to decrease. As the VV's decrease, the vertical momentum transport decreases. In addition, the pressure was rising at the time of Camielles landfall.

In addition, the stanard for the time was not to reduce the flight level winds, but to assume that surface winds equated to the flight level winds. This was not just a problem for Camielle, but for nearly every storm during the 50's and 60's, primarily because the GPS dropsonde had not been invented yet
0 likes   

User avatar
Ivanhater
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 11166
Age: 38
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:25 am
Location: Pensacola

#594 Postby Ivanhater » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:13 pm

Valkhorn wrote:I should also state that the Pensacola weather station reported category 1 winds BEFORE it lost power.

So in my opinion that should be a clue to something, should it not?



is this true, is this the "data" people are basing there "scientific data" on, a station that lost power? like i said, usa said the scientific data was very limited during ivan and their research shows cat 3 gusts to cat 4
0 likes   

Weatherfreak000

hmm...

#595 Postby Weatherfreak000 » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:14 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:here is some

the fact that when storms weaken, their vertical velocities start to decrease. As the VV's decrease, the vertical momentum transport decreases. In addition, the pressure was rising at the time of Camielles landfall.

In addition, the stanard for the time was not to reduce the flight level winds, but to assume that surface winds equated to the flight level winds. This was not just a problem for Camielle, but for nearly every storm during the 50's and 60's, primarily because the GPS dropsonde had not been invented yet



This is your so called proof?




Where do I start? Oh wait this all sounds like...SPECULATION to me.



Gee, i'd be inclined to say your information isn't worth a HILL OF BEANS.
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#596 Postby Derek Ortt » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:15 pm

I am honored that you think I am a total moron, weatherfreak
0 likes   

Weatherfreak000

well

#597 Postby Weatherfreak000 » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:19 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:I am honored that you think I am a total moron, weatherfreak


I wouldn't if you didn't bash everyone's opinions when they don't post significant proof to progress an opinion but you can do the same with Camille and not expect this.



You opening your mouth and shoved your foot right in when you even dared bring Camille against me. I suggest at this point we drop this discussion.


Even if Camille was a Cat 4 that's still EIGHT FEET lower then Katrina's supposedly a MARGINAL Category 3.


This all registers for you?
0 likes   

User avatar
Ivanhater
Storm2k Moderator
Storm2k Moderator
Posts: 11166
Age: 38
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:25 am
Location: Pensacola

#598 Postby Ivanhater » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:21 pm

i would like to know what data some of you are using to determine ivan gave pcola cat 1 conditions, i sure hope its not the station that lost power
0 likes   

User avatar
senorpepr
Military Met/Moderator
Military Met/Moderator
Posts: 12542
Age: 43
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:22 pm
Location: Mackenbach, Germany
Contact:

Re: well

#599 Postby senorpepr » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:25 pm

Weatherfreak000 wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote:I am honored that you think I am a total moron, weatherfreak


I wouldn't if you didn't bash everyone's opinions when they don't post significant proof to progress an opinion but you can do the same with Camille and not expect this.



You opening your mouth and shoved your foot right in when you even dared bring Camille against me. I suggest at this point we drop this discussion.


Even if Camille was a Cat 4 that's still EIGHT FEET lower then Katrina's supposedly a MARGINAL Category 3.


This all registers for you?


FWIW, a lower category storm can produce higher storm surge than a stronger hurricane when the "weaker" storm is much broader, such as Katrina was. This allows for the winds to help push winds inland for a longer period of time, thus creating a larger amount of water (surge).
0 likes   

User avatar
cycloneye
Admin
Admin
Posts: 148497
Age: 69
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

#600 Postby cycloneye » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:25 pm

For the second time I warn ALL who are going to personal debates to cut it off and debate the science of the intensity of Katrina,Ivan etc.

I hope to not post a third warning.
0 likes   
Visit the Caribbean-Central America Weather Thread where you can find at first post web cams,radars
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MadaTheConquistador, ncforecaster89, Teban54 and 124 guests