Downgrading/Reclass--Insult to New Orleans!!!!

[Aslkahuna]

Well, high intensity gusts can do that easily without requiring a high category sustained winds. Category 1 sustained winds run from 74-95 mph using a 1.4 ratio this would mean peak wind gusts of 104-133 mph while a 1.6 ratio gives peak gusts of 118-152 mph. You hit trees with a sharp intense gust in the latter range and it's going to be a pretty flexible tree that DOESN'T snap in two-especially if the tree has been softened up by an extended period of sustained Cat 1 winds.

Steve

[Pearl River]

Aslkahuna said:

Well, high intensity gusts can do that easily without requiring a high category sustained winds. Category 1 sustained winds run from 74-95 mph using a 1.4 ratio this would mean peak wind gusts of 104-133 mph while a 1.6 ratio gives peak gusts of 118-152 mph. You hit trees with a sharp intense gust in the latter range and it's going to be a pretty flexible tree that DOESN'T snap in two-especially if the tree has been softened up by an extended period of sustained Cat 1 winds.

Steve

I don't mean to sound ugly, by no means am I a pro, but I have been thru many hurricanes and have never seen this kind of damage. During Camille we had gusts to 160 and there is no comparison to what Katrina did. If a person has not been here to physically see the damage, they cannot tell me what kind of damage we had.

[Aslkahuna]

Of course, unless I'm mistaken the duration of hurricane force winds with Katrina was much longer than the similar winds with Camille due to the former's larger size. Wind damage is a cumulative effect so the longer you have sustained hurricane force the more damage you will receive. You are right, I haven't seen the damage there, but I saw enough typhoon wind damage in the Philippines to be aware of what storms can do to vegetation.

Steve

[Jim Cantore]

Surge takes a good bit longer to drop then wind

Examples

Isabel threw a cat 3 surge into the outer banks

Ivan tossed a cat 4 surge into Pensacola/Gulf Shores

Same with Katrina and she had an even shorter time peroid so that 175mph surge was still there

[senorpepr]

I don't understand how reasoning from the best available data winds up being an "insult."

I concur. Furthermore, I think such a thread is an insult to the professionals who worked hard on properly analyizing the best available data.

I know it's hard, but some people have to realize that even category three hurricanes (which are considered MAJOR hurricanes) can still pack a nasty punch. Furthermore, the classification was based on wind speed, not surge, which is standard practice.

[WindRunner]

The one thing that everyone needs to remember is that the damage and surge descriptions provided (and posted above) are general descriptions, and therefore will not be true in every storm as each storm has its own unique set of conditions and occurances that contribute to each of these factors that we measure. All that the SS scale measures on is wind speed, and really has nothing to do with the true strength of the storm. The purpose was really to provide a general indicator of damage potential and let the public know what a storm was generally like. There is no accurate way to perfectly measure the strength of the storm (thanks to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). We will never be able to say such a thing, and all the SS scale is is a rough, general approximation of the strength of the storm and never will two storms that are "equal" by the scale ever produce similar effects.

Yes, we could produce a much better scale than the SS scale, there is little doubt in that. But never will everyone be happy with the results that come out of such an imperfect scale, no matter how accurate it is.

[Brent]

Of course, unless I'm mistaken the duration of hurricane force winds with Katrina was much longer than the similar winds with Camille due to the former's larger size. Wind damage is a cumulative effect so the longer you have sustained hurricane force the more damage you will receive. You are right, I haven't seen the damage there, but I saw enough typhoon wind damage in the Philippines to be aware of what storms can do to vegetation.

Steve

Your exactly right... 100 mph winds over a long period of time will cause a LOT more damage than a 100 mph gust or a brief period of 100 mph winds.

[Brent]

I know it's hard, but some people have to realize that even category three hurricanes (which are considered MAJOR hurricanes) can still pack a nasty punch. Furthermore, the classification was based on wind speed, not surge, which is standard practice.

Category 1 hurricanes pack a nasty punch as well... I went through Opal way up here 200 miles inland and it was not fun.

[Jim Cantore]

Before you call the downgrading an insult consider this

The Saffir Simpson scale is based on wind and New Orleans recieved almost no wind damage what so ever other then high rise windows

the damage was solely caused by water

[docjoe]

Of course, unless I'm mistaken the duration of hurricane force winds with Katrina was much longer than the similar winds with Camille due to the former's larger size. Wind damage is a cumulative effect so the longer you have sustained hurricane force the more damage you will receive. You are right, I haven't seen the damage there, but I saw enough typhoon wind damage in the Philippines to be aware of what storms can do to vegetation.

Steve

Your exactly right... 100 mph winds over a long period of time will cause a LOT more damage than a 100 mph gust or a brief period of 100 mph winds.

You are exactly right. Ivan, from what I can gather, produced high end Cat 1 to low end Cat 2 here in Santa Rosa County, at least away from the coast. Trees were down by the tens of thousands. While I realize that this is a heavily wooded part of Florida that is still extensive. The key was the long duration of the level of winds we had. While there were certainly very high gusts we did not experience sustained Cat 3 conditions.....and this place looked like a bomb went off.

docjoe

[Downdraft]

Would saying Katrina hit you as a CAT 4 or CAT 5 make the suffering any less? Would it excuse the incompetence of bungling City, State or Federal officials reacting to the calamity? Could New Orleans take pride in saying they got hit by a "bigger" one? Saying the city should be insulted by downgrading the hurricane's strength is just plain wrong. Giving Katrina status it doesn't deserve in no way reflects upon the City of New Orleans other than to say you all played Russian roulette for decades and finally landed on a loaded cylinder.
The fact of the matter is a tropical cyclone is a tropical cyclone and once it achieves hurricane status it's in a class all by itself. Given the right conditions or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time makes a CAT 1 just as devastating as being in major. Charlie was a strong CAT 1 when it barrelled through here but the tree damage was well above what one would expect a CAT 3 to cause. Soil composition, developers planting the wrong kinds of trees, power companies that never trimmed, great laurel oaks that look beautiful with Spanish Moss hanging off the ponderous limbs, limbs that can't support even minimal thunderstorm winds all contributed to the damage. Katrina didn't destroy New Orleans levees built by man did. You rebuild that city with less the CAT 5 levees in place you'll see a repeat of what you had. There's an old saying, "If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you always got."

[Audrey2Katrina]

The general public knows nothing about estimating windspeeds.

Really? I'll regard that as hyperbole because I seriously doubt the veracity of a statement that generalizes the entire general public to knowing "nothing". If not hyperbole (and please note that I think it is) then it is a perfect example of the type of arrogance possessed by some people who look down their noses at anyone who dares question the unquestionable authorities.

Even storm chasers caught up in the adrenaline rush moment often exagerrate winds.

Non-sequitur

Besides, if the winds were REALLY that much stronger there would have been more noticeable WIND damage.

There WAS.

Several houses ended up with having ZERO wind damage and the West Bank is carrying on almost as if nothing had ever happened.

Ummm, last I heard, even the worst hurricanes, wind wise, leave some buildings totally unscathed--tornados do as well. Proves nothing. There are more blue roofs in Metairie than IHOPS could dream of having. Almost every fence is either down, or damaged, and well over half the roofs were damaged, some quite substantially. What you're doing is incessantly disproving a minor point, or presenting an inconsequential argument. Either way, it's still irrelevant. As to the damage done to the Westbank, tell these folks that the Westbank had no serious wind damage.

http://www.storynet.org/don/katrina/kat ... ctures.htm

Most of those ARE Westbank pics, for whatever it's worth.

Every anemometer in southeast Louisiana confirms what many had suspected when Katrina began to weaken on infrared imagery.

REALLY? EVERY Anemometer??? And here I thought most if not all of those li'l suckers failed long before the peak of the storm. Guess those folks writing the Katrina report didn't seem to have your valuable information because it seems to contradict that statement. The Grand Isle anemometer "failed" after measuring sustained winds of over 76 kt. (getting mighty close to Cat 2 already) at 0900 UTCmore than 2 HOURS before the closest approach of the eye to that station. Seems another station in Poplarville measured a windspeed of 117 kt. which would be awfully close to cat 4. (right at 135 mph) And even though it is labelled unofficial, it WAS in the Katrina report. Seems to me that if EVERY anemometer in the area would have functioned throughout, we wouldn't even be having this discussion as it would all be a moot point. It's specifically BECAUSE of the lack of valid and reliable anemometer data that the NHC went to microwave imagery and "sea-spray" to come up with their revised data.

Katrina began to undergo an eyewall replacement cycle while interacting with a trough to the west at the same time. On top of that, we were in the west quadrant, and Metairie wasn't even close to the eyewall. Now the storm surge argument is poor and the board has gone over than 100 times.

Non-Sequitur. The wind damage in Metairie is manifest and HUGE trees were bowled over like toys, I have the pictures to prove it, or perhaps maybe you'll want to drive past Lafrenier Park and look at where they've dumped hundreds if not thousands of stumps of these trees that were uprooted by a wind that by the all-knowing SS scale doesn't get to those kinds of trees--in THAT large a number unless it's of a higher magnitude.

I noticed there was no reply to my query about whether or not you actually rode out those winds around here. I'll take that as a tacit no. And I certainly think that anyone living in such a high-risk area would be foolish to even think of doing so. Nevertheless, many out here did just that, and you'll never convince them for all the techno-talk that those winds never surpassed Cat 1 status... yes even wayyyy out here in Metairie.

Hey, I don't mind folks having a different view of things; but when I sense a tone of condescension or one of "poor uninformed you" simply because I have a different view; well then I tend to defend my position. No offense intended; but I respectfully disagree with just about everything you stated. Since neither of us can unequivocally prove our contention, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Pax!

A2K

[Jam151]

Jam151 said:

Every anemometer in southeast Louisiana confirms what many had suspected when Katrina began to weaken on infrared imagery. Katrina began to undergo an eyewall replacement cycle while interacting with a trough to the west at the same time. On top of that, we were in the west quadrant, and Metairie wasn't even close to the eyewall. Now the storm surge argument is poor and the board has gone over than 100 times.

How could every anemometer prove Katrina was weak, when they all broke. Slidell had a 23 to 28 ft strom surge. This was announced by the NWS.

[/quote]

While I still believe Katrina was a 3 at both landfalls, I should have worded the post differenly because my main argument is that New Orleans recieved nothing more than Category 2 winds. First, it is only speculative to think that any of the instruments had failed in New Orleans due to wind. For all we know, as stated in the NHC report, the stations that went down did so due to power failure. All of the ones that stayed up through the storm recorded nothing more than Category 1 winds, and borderline Category 1/2 in Michoud. The only remaining scientific data is SMFR and recon, which do nothing for those that think winds were more intense.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Has it ever occurred to you that the Saffir-Simpson Scale just might need revising? Amazing that this claiming that the Saffir-Simpson Scale is as accurate as you think it is comes from someone who is saying that experts are hardly even close to accurate and are just babbling away, never even admitting that we don't know much. You sound like you know everything. What's up with that, hmmm?

Hmmmm? Ever hear of attacking a straw man? Can't have it both ways. All I did was use the words of the NHC in describing their own categories as an illustration of their own fallibility--seems by your response I've succeeded. Never once did I say anything akin to the experts "hardly even close..." to anything--hence the straw man tactic. I merely suggested that I take issue with the concept that just because they have rendered their opinion from the high altar of the NHC that it must be presumed to be gospel. Took 'em ten years to get Andrew right, might take just as long for 'em to get this one right.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If that's what you believe, why are you acting so proud like you know everything to the very inch?

I don't believe I've made any such claims; however you're entitled to read into it whatever you please.

Also, do you expect even the best of experts to know everything and come to conclusions instantly? Of course not! However, that does not mean they are acting like husky, boasting, know-it-all smart alecs. Everything is a process.

Also, if you are claiming winds are so strong, wouldn't that mean that Andrew had 200MPH sustained winds at landfall, Camille had 210MPH sustained winds at landfall, and the Florida Keys 1935 Labor Day Hurricane had sustained winds of 250MPH at landfall?

Huh? That has more red herrings in it than the Atlantic basin. Won't even attempt to navigate through all that. Let's just leave it at we don't see this thing "eye-to-eye"... simple enough.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

You just have to accept the huge amount of damage that Category One or Category Two sustained winds bring. You are just going in circles just to cover up the fact that you think those winds are weak.

Actually, I don't "have to accept" anything; but it would indeed be foolish to argue anything in defiance of irrefutable and unchallengeable data. It's just that I don't agree that this is what we have here. As far as what I think regarding wind speeds, I do NOT consider any sustained winds over 40 mph, for that matter, as "weak". What you are bringing up here is a very relative subject and weakness like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I've actually been through the winds of Category 1, 2, and 3 storms... none of em are weak; and I know that damage in and of itself is no good indicator of strength of storm, as Allison proved quite effectively in Texas a few years back. What some folks can't seem to get is that I take issue with the claim that winds in New Orleans did NOT exceed Cat 1 status... that is patently absurd! As far as Cat 2... (on the high end imho) I would be willing to say that's precisely what we went through out here. The damage would seem to jive with that. As far as the mention someone made of the Superdome, it would be about 25 storeys above that 10m height so perhaps they were Cat 3 there, and that would also make more sense. I also feel that the storm was a Cat 4 at landfall for all the technical jargon discussion to the contrary.

I actually agree with your last line.

Pax

A2K

[Jam151]

Really? I'll regard that as hyperbole because I seriously doubt the veracity of a statement that generalizes the entire general public to knowing "nothing". If not hyperbole (and please note that I think it is) then it is a perfect example of the type of arrogance possessed by some people who look down their noses at anyone who dares question the unquestionable authorities.

Wanna know the difference between our views on this topic? I wouldn't have more faith in ordinary people claiming that winds were stronger than Category 1-2 than actual scientific data. I'd bet that many of those people, if not all, have never even witnessed sustained winds exceeding 74mph pre-Katrina in their lifetime to even make a comparison.

And here I thought most if not all of those li'l suckers failed long before the peak of the storm. Guess those folks writing the Katrina report didn't seem to have your valuable information because it seems to contradict that statement. The Grand Isle anemometer "failed" after measuring sustained winds of over 76 kt. (getting mighty close to Cat 2 already) at 0900 UTCmore than 2 HOURS before the closest approach of the eye to that station. Seems another station in Poplarville measured a windspeed of 117 kt. which would be awfully close to cat 4. (right at 135 mph) And even though it is labelled unofficial, it WAS in the Katrina report. Seems to me that if EVERY anemometer in the area would have functioned throughout, we wouldn't even be having this discussion as it would all be a moot point. It's specifically BECAUSE of the lack of valid and reliable anemometer data that the NHC went to microwave imagery and "sea-spray" to come up with their revised data.

My main argument is sustained winds in New Orleans, but I can handle both issues. Again, it is only speculative to think that any of the instruments had failed in New Orleans due to wind. For all we know, as stated in the NHC report, the stations that went down did so due to power failure. All of the ones that stayed up through the storm recorded nothing more than Category 1 winds, and borderline Category 1/2 in Michoud. The point about Grand Isle is nearly irrelevant when discussing my point about New Orleans. Additionally, it still does not prove that Katrina was nothing more than a three when it hit land. But I'll give you this much... Katrina was probably a minimal 4 at most, when it hit the very tip of Louisiana. The Poplarville station is a non-issue. Not only is the report unofficial, but it was a recorded GUST. The last time I checked, we were discussing maximum SUSTAINED winds.

And if anyone wants to use tree damage as evidence maybe we should look up all the WWL-TV New Orleans articles post-Cindy. Large trees fell across the area, power outages rivaled those seen in BETSY '65, and New Orleans felt nothing more than moderate TROPICAL STORM force winds, regardless if Cindy is upgraded at landfall along the coast.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I have been thru many hurricanes and have never seen this kind of damage. During Camille we had gusts to 160 and there is no comparison to what Katrina did. If a person has not been here to physically see the damage, they cannot tell me what kind of damage we had.

Same here. We'll accomplish nothing here in debating it as it appears minds have been made and heels dug in. No big deal except that I concur that there's room for disagreement on the conclusions being made. If it took the NHC ten years to figure out what Andrew was, we certainly won't prove anything here by arguing back and forth with those who have already made up their minds. As for me, I'll go with my own instincts, and senses. You don't lose 80% of the trees in your area from Cat 1 winds, irrespective of gusts. But that's my opinion. As for the others, we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Pax

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

The one thing that everyone needs to remember is that the damage and surge descriptions provided (and posted above) are general descriptions, and therefore will not be true in every storm as each storm has its own unique set of conditions and occurances that contribute to each of these factors that we measure. All that the SS scale measures on is wind speed, and really has nothing to do with the true strength of the storm. The purpose was really to provide a general indicator of damage potential and let the public know what a storm was generally like. There is no accurate way to perfectly measure the strength of the storm (thanks to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). We will never be able to say such a thing, and all the SS scale is is a rough, general approximation of the strength of the storm and never will two storms that are "equal" by the scale ever produce similar effects.

Yes, we could produce a much better scale than the SS scale, there is little doubt in that. But never will everyone be happy with the results that come out of such an imperfect scale, no matter how accurate it is.

Couldn't agree with you more. Very well put.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

New Orleans recieved almost no wind damage what so ever other then high rise windows

the damage was solely caused by water

I respectfully disagree, if by "New Orleans" you mean the entire Metro area. Metairie, to the WEST of New Orleans had quite a bit of Wind damage. The damage across the lake was far worse.

A2K

[stormcrow]

Alomst no wind damage in NOLA? Have you been there? Becuase of the extent of the flooding the wind is ignored, when the insurers talley up the wind claims you will be surprised.