What intensity was Katrina at LA landfall?

[Derek Ortt]

the dropsonde messages indicating a peak of 902 from Rita vs 897mb for Rita

[Brent]

the dropsonde messages indicating a peak of 902 from Rita vs 897mb for Rita

Interesting.

[MGC]

Rita was 5mb more intense than Katrina. Katrina was a much stronger hurricane though. Much larger wind field and much larger surge.....MGC

[Derek Ortt]

at landfall, Katrina was more intense than Rita

[Brent]

at landfall, Katrina was more intense than Rita

Yep... and Katrina was much larger.

[f5]

Mitch was 905 mb with 180 mph sustained winds
Katrina was 902 mb

[Valkhorn]

It seems to me the SFMR data is generally conservative.

I'm not entirely sure how you could claim a 902mb storm would be a category 4. Also, there is ample evidence for category 3 sustained winds 90 miles INLAND in Mississippi.

So, if that's the case she was obviously 125mph on the Mississippi Gulf coast or a little stronger, and obviously a category 4 in LA near Buras.

Considering the massive amount of wind damage to structures and trees so far inland and hurricane force gusts to the TN border I'm not entirely sure why you'd put so much weight into SFMR data.

What is so holy about it, anyways? Has it been proven to be 100% accurate, ever?

[f5]

that broken equipment that Max Mayfield told congress needs to be fix so we can get more accurate data, it can mean the difference between life and death

[Valkhorn]

I found an interesting Abstract about SFMR data:

Surface winds in hurricanes have been estimated remotely using the Stepped-Frequency Microwave Radiometer (SFMR) from the NOAA WP-3D aircraft for the past 15 years. Since the use of the GPS dropwindsonde system in hurricanes was first initiated in 1997, routine collocated SFMR and GPS surface wind estimates have been made. During the 1998, 1999, and 2001 hurricane seasons, a total of 249 paired samples were acquired and compared. The SFMR equivalent 1-min mean, 10-m level neutral stability winds were found to be biased high by 2.3 m s−1 relative to the 10-m GPS winds computed from an estimate of the mean boundary layer wind. Across the range of wind speeds from 10 to 60 m s−1, the rmse was 3.3 m s−1. The bias was found to be dependent on storm quadrant and independent of wind speed, a result that suggests a possible relationship between microwave brightness temperatures and surface wave properties. Tests of retrieved winds' sensitivities to sea surface temperature, salinity, atmospheric thermodynamic variability, and surface wind direction indicate wind speed errors of less than 1 m s−1 above 15 m s−1.

From http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?re ... -0426(2003)020%3C0099:VORSSS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Now considering this, SMFR data appears to be close, but 135 knots in m/s is about 70m/s, 67m/s is 130 knots, and 140 knots is 72m/s.

So if that accuracy rate is to be believed then it really could have been anywhere from 130-140 knots, could it have not?

Also, SFMR, to put it bluntly as far as I can tell, HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED FOR EXTREME WINDS.

Since it relies on microwave data, according to this abstract, it can send back false readings.

I wouldn't let this be the be-all and end-all to the research either.

[Extremeweatherguy]

wind wise = Cat. 3/4 (125-135mph)

surge wise = Cat. 5