National Climate Data Center Katrina Report

[Normandy]

Normandy. You said you don't need to see the damage first hand, that you saw Katrina's? Well did you see damage first hand or not? If not, you have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Derek. Where is this surge scale for the MS coast? Where is the official report that wind gust were 190 mph in Camille?

Margie. Where do you live? Is it on the MS coast?

Katrina Storm surge in Slidell was 8 feet. Slidell is 10-12 feet above sea level. That makes the storm surge 18 to 20 feet asl.

[/quote]

First off, no matter what u say, nobody will ever convince me that Katrina's and Camille's damage are not similar/exact. They both flattened everything with their surge, and the wind damage from both looks pretty similar. Ill give Camille the benefit of the doubt and say it had worse wind damage, but if it did its not by much. Every picture of both storms looks exactly the same.

And as for surge, yea Slidell had 22 feet. Slidell was on the western side of Katrina (which still btw tied Camille's record if your info is legit). Guess what MS got? 35 feet.

And AFM, I still dont understand how Camille was a small storm. I would agree with Derek that its Ivan's size.

[Pearl River]

Air Force Met.

I do understand. I have stated that the Camille report says in 2 areas, the first..estimated winds up to 190 mph and further down gusts to 190 mph. Its either one or the other.

I am not saying my storm was stronger than your storm, what I'm saying is look at the damage on scene and assess from there. Don't say fact is fact by looking at a few pictures.

[Pearl River]

Normandy.

My info on the surge is legit. It came from the NWS here in Slidell and my brother is land surveyor who has surveyed a lot of the water lines in the area.

Camille was small in respect that the hurricane force winds extended out 60 miles and gales 180 miles.

[Pearl River]

And guess what Normandy? I know MS got 35 ft. I didn't say they didn't. look, I feel Katrina was a strong cat 4 when it made a 2nd landfall, heck if not a cat 5. I will say this for th 10th time. Building codes are stricter here in LA and MS. Thats why there does not appear to be much structural damage to homes and businesses. Plus ther are a ton of trees around here to give a natural wind break. The damage to a lot of homes around here, besides storm surge, was caused by falling trees.

[wxmann_91]

Air Force Met.

I do understand. I have stated that the Camille report says in 2 areas, the first..estimated winds up to 190 mph and further down gusts to 190 mph. Its either one or the other.

I am not saying my storm was stronger than your storm, what I'm saying is look at the damage on scene and assess from there. Don't say fact is fact by looking at a few pictures.

I'm thinking it peaked around 190 mph, and then when it made landfall, it weakened enough so that only the gusts reached 190 mph.

[Derek Ortt]

Andrews upgrade was in no way, shape, or form, based upon damage. please read the reanalysis report on Andrew and you will learn that the sole reason for the upgrade is a better understanding of flight level to surface winds

[senorpepr]

The NHC based their change of Andrew on a lot of things, mostly going above ground and seeing the devestation first hand.

I'm going to echo Derek's comments here. Andrew's upgrade was based on a revised "formula" from flight level winds to surface winds.

Check out http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Hur ... lysis.html

This decision was based on a re-examination of the original 700-mb flight-level winds, and the use of a 90% reduction of those winds to the surface (10-m). This is the reduction that would be applied in similar cases operationally, using current guidelines. The scientific basis for these guidelines appears in Franklin, et al. (Weather and Forecasting, submitted) and is reiterated in his written summary. A substantial body of GPS dropsonde data supports the use of these guidelines.

The committee notes that the 90% reduction to 10-m (or any other reduction) cannot be applied blindly in all circumstances. Factors that must be considered include the presence of deep convection, the strength of the system, the altitude of the observations, position within the vortex, and representativeness of the observations. The committee carefully reviewed the original reconnaissance data and found that the 90% reduction was appropriate based on these factors.

The committee then considered the winds at the times of both the initial and second Florida landfalls. As a procedural matter, it was noted that by long-standing practice, the winds given in the best-track file at a particular time represent the highest winds found anywhere within the surface circulation of the system. The committee agreed to adhere to this practice. Regarding the winds at the time of landfall, it was again decided that the 90% reduction was appropriate, in that the necessary conditions were met. The maximum winds were consistently found in the northern eyewall, and this area was still substantially over open water. After much further discussion (described below) it was concluded that the winds at the time of initial U.S. landfall at Elliott Key (24/0840) were 145 kt. It was also concluded that these winds had not significantly changed 25-min later, and thus the maximum sustained 1-min winds at Fender Point (24/0905) should also be given as 145 kt. The committee also considered the fact that surface pressure and satellite data indicated the system was clearly strengthening as it made landfall, after a 162 kt flight-level wind was recorded at 0810 UTC about 10 n mi north of the center. (This was the maximum flight-level wind recorded near the time of Florida landfall.)

There was much discussion about the use of the 90% reduction in close proximity to the coastline. It is noted here that the committee readily acknowledges that a boundary layer transition zone exists at some point between the open water surface and the rigid land surface. The width, nature, and exact location of this transition zone are, however, currently not well-known. It is the conclusion of the committee that further research in this area should be strongly encouraged, and that our current knowledge is insufficient to formulate any guidelines which could be used operationally at this time - and by extension - applied to this case. The committee recommends that field experiments be conducted specifically to document changes in the boundary layer before, during, and after hurricane landfall, using GPS dropsondes within the near off-shore environment.

[Lindaloo]

It has been 36 years since Camille. Don't you all think that if she was anything less than a CAT5 she would have surely been downgraded. And anyone who states that she was not a CAT5 by looking at radar pics has my sympathies.

Derek, I respect your opinions and love ya to death, but you are just wrong on this one.

[Pearl River]

Thank you Lindaloo. That's what I have been trying to say all along in respect to both Camille and Katrina. Just because something doesn't look strong on satellite or radar doesn't necessarily mean it's not.

If you look at the first meeting of the Andrew committee it states that Peter Black used damage analysis along with wind profile to state on his part Andrew was a cat 5. So damage assessment was used in part for the upgrade.

The SS scale was originally produced for structural damage based on wind speed. It also uses pressure and storm surge.

[Derek Ortt]

there has not been a post analysis on Camielle yet, since the origional 1969 one. (This is also the case for nearly every other storm, which is why I no longer feel confortable citing previous hurricanes as examples of destruction expected from an approaching major hurricane before 1998)

[senorpepr]

Thank you Lindaloo. That's what I have been trying to say all along in respect to both Camille and Katrina. Just because something doesn't look strong on satellite or radar doesn't necessarily mean it's not.

If you look at the first meeting of the Andrew committee it states that Peter Black used damage analysis along with wind profile to state on his part Andrew was a cat 5. So damage assessment was used in part for the upgrade.

The SS scale was originally produced for structural damage based on wind speed. It also uses pressure and storm surge.

The damage assessment had nothing to do with it other than a minutely backing up their driving point: the decision was based on a re-examination of the original 700-mb flight-level winds, and the use of the 90% reduction to 10m.

[Lindaloo]

there has not been a post analysis on Camielle yet, since the origional 1969 one. (This is also the case for nearly every other storm, which is why I no longer feel confortable citing previous hurricanes as examples of destruction expected from an approaching major hurricane before 1998)

You can't tell me that it has not been looked at in 36 years. Come on Derek.

[Pearl River]

I'm not going to get into a p***ing contest with anyone here. Lets throw out Andrew and Camille. This issue I have with anyone who does not live here or personally come down and see this area for themselves has no idea of the damage that has been done to SE LA and Coastal MS. Whether it be by storm surge or wind, this was catastrophic.

It has nothing to do with my storm was stronger than your storm. It has to do with fact, and as you said Derek, fact is fact. I have a problem with anyone who lives several hundred miles from here basing their opinion on snippets of news film, radar and satellite pictures that this was a cat 3 storm. Nowhere have I read about the SS scale does it state that storm surge is based on Biscayne Bay or cat 4 storm surge for the MS coast is 30 ft

Saffir-Simpson Scale Saffir-Simpson
Category Maximum sustained wind speed Minimum surface pressure Storm surge
mph m/s kts mb ft m
1 74-95 33-42 64-82 greater than 980 3-5 1.0-1.7
2 96-110 43-49 83-95 979-965 6-8 1.8-2.6
3 111-130 50-58 96-113 964-945 9-12 2.7-3.8
4 131-155 59-69 114-135 944-920 13-18 3.9-5.6
5 156+ 70+ 136+ less than 920 19+ 5.7+

This SS scale was taken from the AOML web site. A cat 5 hurricane is a cat 5 hurricane. It does not say if it hits Biscayne Bay it's a cat 3, but if it hits MS coast it's a cat 5.

[Derek Ortt]

pearl river,

you need to learn the differences that topography plays. A cat 5 surge for miami Beach is 10 feet. This is an accepted fact based upon modern model simulations, and observations. That is why the SS surge values are NEVER referenced, except by people on message boards. Instead, SLOSH values are used in the advisories

Lindaloo, they have not looked at Camielle based upon today's methods yet. In fact, they have looked at next to no storms. This work is sadly, hardly ever done.

Some changes that I know offhand that are likely are the following

1. a lowering of camielle's winds
2. dropping Gloria
3. Increasing Hugo's landfall to 125KT
4. slightly lowering Gilber's max winds
5. major increase to 1935 hurricane
6. possible slightly increasing bob's peak intensity
7. increasing luis and marilyn's intensity in the islands
8. adding a christmas eve hurricane that hit new england in 1994

[terstorm1012]

Off topic--but could you explain some more about this Xmas Eve storm in '94? I recall it as a rather nasty nor-easter but didn't realize it was warm core.

[Derek Ortt]

its under consideration to be added as a subtropical hurricane to the data base retroactively as apparantly (I am not well versed on this storm) it had some tropical characteristics

[vbhoutex]

I understand what the pro mets all say about the data is what matters in the end. What some seem to fail to acknowledge is the fact that the data is limited to small specific areas and CAN'T show a true profile of what happened over any broad area. For that kind of coverage we would need stations which could stand the weather no matter what at least for every square mile and that just ain't gonna happen!!! It would be nice if it would, but even with our current technology today we can't gather really accurate data in the amount that is really needed for truly accurate ananlysis and/or reanalysis, imo.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

If the upgrade is true for Wilma to 185 mph. I don't believe Camille was 190 mph it would of to be stronger then Wilma or Gilbert. In it was not stronger then them. Wilma had Dark convection like I'v never seen in my life as it bombed. In looked better then Gilbert. Its hard to believe that Camille with 905 millibars in much less impressive then Wilma/Gilbert would be stronger.

I don't think it was stronger then Wilma that would be Amazing.

[Derek Ortt]

to get the type of data coverage that you are talking about, David, we would need to have the same surveillance that we had for Rita in the GOM, where the Airforce, NOAA, and Navy were all flying simultaneously (Rita at times had 4 different planes flying the storm)

[vbhoutex]

If the upgrade is true for Wilma to 185 mph. I don't believe Camille was 190 mph it would of to be stronger then Wilma or Gilbert. In it was not stronger then them. Wilma had Dark convection like I'v never seen in my life as it bombed. In looked better then Gilbert. Its hard to believe that Camille with 905 millibars in much less impressive then Wilma/Gilbert would be stronger.

I don't think it was stronger then Wilma that would be Amazing.

As was stated earlier, you can't make good judgements based soley on pictures or radar. One needs all data to make assumprions such as those you are making. Radar presentations can be very decieving depending oh how that radar is adjusted.