Did Rita Make Landfall Below Cat. 3 Status? Evidence?

[MiamiensisWx]

I've been hearing about the debate on that Katrina may only have been a Category Three storm at landfall. At landfall, Katrina still had a visible eye and good outflow. However, Rita, which supposedly made landfall as a low-end Category Three storm with 115MPH to 120MPH sustained winds, had more limited outflow and did not have a visible eye at landfall (although it was still easy to pinpoint where the center was). Is it possible, then, that Rita was less than a Category Three at landfall, since Rita's strongest winds appear to have been in a relatively small area (although tropical storm-force and Category One or Category Two hurricane-force winds were more widespread) and may have not been as strong as originally thought?

Opinions?

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

There was soild data supporting her as a cat3.

1# 98 knots Hrd surface at landfall
2# Recon reported winds strong enough for this to be near 120 mph at landfall...

[Derek Ortt]

I contacted the person doing the H-Wind for Ritas landfall, and she told me that the 96KT is legit, using the SFMR reduction method.

It appears as if Rita just barely retained major hurricane status at landfall, though I could also easily accept 95KT. Somewhere between 95-100KT is what Rita came in as

[brunota2003]

You know what, people might as well argue Andrew was a Cat 1, Camille was a Cat 2, and Charley was a TS at landfall, surprised these threads havent popped up yea...

[vbhoutex]

You know what, people might as well argue Andrew was a Cat 1, Camille was a Cat 2, and Charley was a TS at landfall, surprised these threads havent popped up yea...

What is wrong with someone asking a simple question?

[brunota2003]

You could very well argue Rita was weaker, but I dont think so...

[Scorpion]

No, look at the damage pics. Speaks for itself. Anyone thinking it was a Cat 2 is on drugs. Cameron and Holly Beach totally gone. The amount of damage wasn't nearly as bad because it hit a sparsely populated area. HRD, which usually downplays storms, even says its a Cat 3. So 105 kt sounds just right.

[wxman57]

No, look at the damage pics. Speaks for itself. Anyone thinking it was a Cat 2 is on drugs. Cameron and Holly Beach totally gone. The amount of damage wasn't nearly as bad because it hit a sparsely populated area. HRD, which usually downplays storms, even says its a Cat 3. So 105 kt sounds just right.

Once again, Scorpion, you cannot judge a hurricane's max wind speed from storm surge damage. The damage you speak of was from water rushing inland, not from buildings/homes being blown apart by the wind. You certainly cannot distinguish between 95 and 105 kt winds based upon surge damage, as you appear to be saying.

Both Rita and Katrina had hurricane-force winds that extended much farther out from the center than a typical hurricane. That, alone, could account for the increased storm surge and tremendous damage (rather than the absolute peak wind). Many hurricanes that strike the U.S. do not produce any significant hurricane force winds over land, thus many who have experienced these hurrucanes may have the wrong perception of what 75+ mph wind can do in terms of damage. Same is true for many of the Cat 2 or Cat 3 hurricanes. Just because they were carried as Cat 2 or Cat 3 hurricanes by the NHC doesn't mean they actually produced such winds inland. Surface friction significantly reduces a hurricane's winds a very short distance inland.

It just so happens that we've had 2 very large hurricanes (Rita & Katrina) that actually DID carry those hurricane-force winds inland over a large area. That's the rarity here. Many people have now truly experienced Cat 1 and Cat 2 winds for the first time with Rita and Katrina, and they just cannot believe that they didn't go through Cat 3 or higher winds. A 100 mph wind is 4 times the strength of a 50 mph wind, not twice the strength. You can't stand up in it (you'd be blown away) and most homes would suffer serious structural damage in 100 gusting 125-130 mph winds (Cat 2).

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

You know what, people might as well argue Andrew was a Cat 1, Camille was a Cat 2, and Charley was a TS at landfall, surprised these threads havent popped up yea...

Hard to believe that Andrew was a 5...Yes it destroyed things but it hit mostly trailer parks or retirement homes kind of like Charley did. At least thats what I been hearing...While storms like Katrina hit where there was milion dollar homes. Which would be likely harder to destroy any way. For What done most of the damage for Katrina was its surge. Your talking about a hurricane that was a 5 no more then 6 hours before landfall. Then Rita was even stronger at one point. In water doe's not go away...That day when it had hit cat5....I said that the beast is out of the bag. In really it was.

Katrina could of been a cat3 or 4...Doe's not really matter she was big...In was a cat5 less then 6 to 8 hours from landfall. As Derek said Katrina had oen of the largest cat3/major hurricane winds he had ever seen. I agree with Derek he is very knowledgeable.

This just go's to show you that it doe's not take a 5 to do damage...Also Camille was likely weaking at landfall like the rest. But who knows it may not ever be found out just how strong or weak it was.

[jazzfan1247]

Nothing, I'm just getting tired of the news coming up with things that arent true, then running with it...

What exactly isn't true?

[jujubean]

You know what, people might as well argue Andrew was a Cat 1, Camille was a Cat 2, and Charley was a TS at landfall, surprised these threads havent popped up yea...

Hard to believe that Andrew was a 5...Yes it destroyed things but it hit mostly trailer parks or retirement homes kind of like Charley did. At least thats what I been hearing...While storms like Katrina hit where there was milion dollar homes. Which would be likely harder to destroy any way. For What done most of the damage for Katrina was its surge. Your talking about a hurricane that was a 5 no more then 6 hours before landfall. Then Rita was even stronger at one point. In water doe's not go away...That day when it had hit cat5....I said that the beast is out of the bag. In really it was.

Katrina could of been a cat3 or 4...Doe's not really matter she was big...In was a cat5 less then 6 to 8 hours from landfall. As Derek said Katrina had oen of the largest cat3/major hurricane winds he had ever seen. I agree with Derek he is very knowledgeable.

This just go's to show you that it doe's not take a 5 to do damage...Also Camille was likely weaking at landfall like the rest. But who knows it may not ever be found out just how strong or weak it was.

I have to say in all honesty ,when I saw the coverage for katrinas damage in miss. It reminded me of andrew all over again only on a larger scale....I can not say what category hurricane katrina was because I do not have the expertise to say either way. and with all the debate on whether or not katrina was a three, has made even me wonder if andrew was a lesser storm.....but just to clarify about andrew it did not only hit retirement communities and trailer parks there were a lot of neighborhoods that contained block houses that were heavily damaged and by heavily damaged I mean total losses.the media only shows what they think will bring ratings. the pictures of the destroyed mobile home parks were completly wiped clean which is why they use those pictures, oh and let us not forget the coverage of destroyed homes that only consisted of 2 or 3 housing developments like country walk and lakes by the bay which was completly biased considering they were both constructed by a company called lennar homes that built their homes out of particle board, but what they don't show you is the real deal.all the different areas that were strongly constructed and still destroyed granted maybe not leveled but condemed all the same. this has all made me wonder about katrinas strength....see the news only shows the coast but I have heard numerous posters say how bad the wind damage is inland, if this is the case how could katrina hit as a cat three and do damage of a cat three so far inland?

[terstorm1012]

You know what, people might as well argue Andrew was a Cat 1, Camille was a Cat 2, and Charley was a TS at landfall, surprised these threads havent popped up yea...

Hard to believe that Andrew was a 5...Yes it destroyed things but it hit mostly trailer parks or retirement homes kind of like Charley did. At least thats what I been hearing...While storms like Katrina hit where there was milion dollar homes. Which would be likely harder to destroy any way. For What done most of the damage for Katrina was its surge. Your talking about a hurricane that was a 5 no more then 6 hours before landfall. Then Rita was even stronger at one point. In water doe's not go away...That day when it had hit cat5....I said that the beast is out of the bag. In really it was.

Katrina could of been a cat3 or 4...Doe's not really matter she was big...In was a cat5 less then 6 to 8 hours from landfall. As Derek said Katrina had oen of the largest cat3/major hurricane winds he had ever seen. I agree with Derek he is very knowledgeable.

This just go's to show you that it doe's not take a 5 to do damage...Also Camille was likely weaking at landfall like the rest. But who knows it may not ever be found out just how strong or weak it was.

I have to say in all honesty ,when I saw the coverage for katrinas damage in miss. It reminded me of andrew all over again only on a larger scale....I can not say what category hurricane katrina was because I do not have the expertise to say either way. and with all the debate on whether or not katrina was a three, has made even me wonder if andrew was a lesser storm.....but just to clarify about andrew it did not only hit retirement communities and trailer parks there were a lot of neighborhoods that contained block houses that were heavily damaged and by heavily damaged I mean total losses.the media only shows what they think will bring ratings. the pictures of the destroyed mobile home parks were completly wiped clean which is why they use those pictures, oh and let us not forget the coverage of destroyed homes that only consisted of 2 or 3 housing developments like country walk and lakes by the bay which was completly biased considering they were both constructed by a company called lennar homes that built their homes out of particle board, but what they don't show you is the real deal.all the different areas that were strongly constructed and still destroyed granted maybe not leveled but condemed all the same. this has all made me wonder about katrinas strength....see the news only shows the coast but I have heard numerous posters say how bad the wind damage is inland, if this is the case how could katrina hit as a cat three and do damage of a cat three so far inland?

Couple things jumped out at me:

first: Lennar builds homes up here in PA...and the homes are crap. Overpriced (and we're not even in a "bubble" area, least not yet) too. They take all of a month to go up....me and a buddy literally watched a whole development go up south of York PA in just under a month---from the time the site was cleared to the time we saw people hanging up blinds was 30 days---unreal.

second: Why does everyone keep debating the wind strength. It took ten years to get Andrew re-evaluated...my dad's family all lives in that area of Florida that Andrew destroyed...lived there for generations...even to the point taht big storms made it into the family bible...Donna and Betsy were the Benchmark storms...and they argued for 10 yrs that Andrew was a five...given what they lived through with Donna and Betsy and again with Andrew--and they are certain some of those gusts in Andrew were up over 200mph, to this day.

[Derek Ortt]

Need to make a technical correction regarding the H-wind.

Just converted 96KT to m.p.h. and it yields 110.4 m.p.h. (give or take a couple of tenths, since I used 1.15, not the full decimal). This is a few tenths below the cat 3 threshhold. That said, cat 3 is within the noise factor