Will Cindy Be upgraded to a hurricane?

[Jim Cantore]

This is anyones guess

[wxmann_91]

I have no idea. The NHC big board says yes, but I think it shouldn't be.

[WindRunner]

Yes, it probably should be, but I'm not sure, as they might not see a need for another hurricane this season

[sunny]

Yes, I think she will be.

[Jim Cantore]

In my opinion I think she will

partly because I had her hitting Grand Isle as a minimal Hurricane and that would make me right on

other reason is because she was very well orginized and her pressure was boarderline to a hurricane

[Stormcenter]

I was NOT surprised to read Cindy was upgraded. There was NEVER a doubt just like I believe Katrina was a Cat. 4 at landfall despite the later downgrade. They will probably revisit and upgrade her again in a few years to Cat.4.

[wxmann_91]

Will Cindy be upgraded to a Hurricane?
Yes
75% [ 18 ]
No
16% [ 4 ]
I have no idea
8% [ 2 ]

Total Votes : 24

[Extremeweatherguy]

I was NOT surprised to read Cindy was upgraded. There was NEVER a doubt just like I believe Katrina was a Cat. 4 at landfall despite the later downgrade. They will probably revisit and upgrade her again in a few years to Cat.4.

can you find any wind reports on land of katrina being a 4 though (sustained)? No. The surge may have been that of a 4...but in today's world we rate hurricanes by the wind and not the surge. I think a Cat. 3 for Katrina is right. Also, concerning Cindy...yes, I think she should be upgraded. Lots of the damage I saw with her is in line with that of a Cat. 1 storm.

[HURAKAN]

CASE CLOSED!

[Audrey2Katrina]

I was NOT surprised to read Cindy was upgraded. There was NEVER a doubt just like I believe Katrina was a Cat. 4 at landfall despite the later downgrade. They will probably revisit and upgrade her again in a few years to Cat.4.

can you find any wind reports on land of katrina being a 4 though (sustained)? No. The surge may have been that of a 4...but in today's world we rate hurricanes by the wind and not the surge. I think a Cat. 3 for Katrina is right. Also, concerning Cindy...yes, I think she should be upgraded. Lots of the damage I saw with her is in line with that of a Cat. 1 storm.

There were no land reports that I'm aware of showing Andrew as a Cat 5, this proves nothing. Hence, I agree with Stormcenter. The SAME Slidell Doppler radar used to upgrade Cindy was utterly tossed out while showing Cat 4 for Katrina as being (too distant) and the landfalls are BOTH in Plaquemines (albeit the report states that Grand Isle is in Plaquemines indicating a serious need to revisit Geography class. Valid land readings are very sparse due to instrument failure, and the surge was consistent, at least along Mississippi, with a 5, not a 4. I concur that Katrina will be revisited, just as Andrew was, and reclassified as the 4 she was. And FWIW there was no doubt in my mind Cindy would be upgraded to hurricane status, which is why I was so eager to see this particular report.

A2K

[Extremeweatherguy]

I was NOT surprised to read Cindy was upgraded. There was NEVER a doubt just like I believe Katrina was a Cat. 4 at landfall despite the later downgrade. They will probably revisit and upgrade her again in a few years to Cat.4.

can you find any wind reports on land of katrina being a 4 though (sustained)? No. The surge may have been that of a 4...but in today's world we rate hurricanes by the wind and not the surge. I think a Cat. 3 for Katrina is right. Also, concerning Cindy...yes, I think she should be upgraded. Lots of the damage I saw with her is in line with that of a Cat. 1 storm.

There were no land reports that I'm aware of showing Andrew as a Cat 5, this proves nothing. Hence, I agree with Stormcenter. The SAME Slidell Doppler radar used to upgrade Cindy was utterly tossed out while showing Cat 4 for Katrina as being (too distant) and the landfalls are BOTH in Plaquemines (albeit the report states that Grand Isle is in Plaquemines indicating a serious need to revisit Geography class. Valid land readings are very sparse due to instrument failure, and the surge was consistent, at least along Mississippi, with a 5, not a 4. I concur that Katrina will be revisited, just as Andrew was, and reclassified as the 4 she was. And FWIW there was no doubt in my mind Cindy would be upgraded to hurricane status, which is why I was so eager to see this particular report.

A2K

I still would have to disagree. Yes, the surge was a 5, but the wind damage was at max a 3...and even if there was 4 strength damage, we would never know, because the small area that would have gotten it was destroyed by surge. I still think though, looking at landfall satellite pics and radar that Katrina was falling apart rapidly and was not a 4...may be strong 3, but that's it. Do you have any data/pics that show Cat. 4 damage from Katrina? And by that, I mean pictures that clearly are not of damage resulting from surge. I think that with no wind records of a 4, no wind damage comparable with a 4, and with nothing suggesting it was a 4 except surge...I would have to say that Katrina was not a 4. Also, with Andrew, most places that recieved major damage did not see Cat. 5 conditions...the Cat. 5 winds only occured in small pockets right at landfall on the immediate coast. Most of southern Homestead only saw Cat. 4 conditions and there IS data to support Cat. 4 winds in southern Homestead and Cat. 5 winds just offshore.

[cajungal]

I knew she would be upgraded. It was not much here in Terrebonne Parish though because we were once again on the weak side. But, Lafourche Parish just to my east got it pretty bad. My aunt's daughter lost her trailor during Cindy. She lives in Lockport. Thank goodness her and her 8-year old son left. The whole roof of their trailor came off. My brother lives nearby and said that everyone else was home in their trailors. Crying and some even screaming when this storm is going to be over. Terrified! I would not stay in a trailor for even a depression much less a tropical storm! My dad was offshore working during Cindy. They did not evacuate the oil rigs. He works near Venice at the mouth of the river. Cindy passed right over him and he said she was a monster for something that was supposed to be ONLY a tropical storm. He said he had to hold onto a pipe for dear life and nearly got pulled overboard. That easily could of happened and he could of drowned.

[MGC]

Katrina was just finishing an eyewall replacement cycle when the hurricane came ashore in Mississippi. The new smaller eye, still open to the west and southwest was forming. Had Katrina delayed landfall by several hours the cycle would have been complete and Katrina would have been back to a Cat-4. I am not complaining as I feel we were quite fortunate that Katrina did lose some of her wind. Cindy also rapidly lost intensity once the hurricane crossed into Louisiana. By the time Cindy made landfall in Mississippi, Cindy had weakened to a moderate tropical storm. I might have experienced gusts to hurricane force in Pass Christina with Cindy......MGC

[Opal storm]

I was NOT surprised to read Cindy was upgraded. There was NEVER a doubt just like I believe Katrina was a Cat. 4 at landfall despite the later downgrade. They will probably revisit and upgrade her again in a few years to Cat.4.

can you find any wind reports on land of katrina being a 4 though (sustained)? No. The surge may have been that of a 4...but in today's world we rate hurricanes by the wind and not the surge. I think a Cat. 3 for Katrina is right. Also, concerning Cindy...yes, I think she should be upgraded. Lots of the damage I saw with her is in line with that of a Cat. 1 storm.

There were no land reports that I'm aware of showing Andrew as a Cat 5, this proves nothing. Hence, I agree with Stormcenter. The SAME Slidell Doppler radar used to upgrade Cindy was utterly tossed out while showing Cat 4 for Katrina as being (too distant) and the landfalls are BOTH in Plaquemines (albeit the report states that Grand Isle is in Plaquemines indicating a serious need to revisit Geography class. Valid land readings are very sparse due to instrument failure, and the surge was consistent, at least along Mississippi, with a 5, not a 4. I concur that Katrina will be revisited, just as Andrew was, and reclassified as the 4 she was. And FWIW there was no doubt in my mind Cindy would be upgraded to hurricane status, which is why I was so eager to see this particular report.

A2K

I still would have to disagree. Yes, the surge was a 5, but the wind damage was at max a 3...and even if there was 4 strength damage, we would never know, because the small area that would have gotten it was destroyed by surge. I still think though, looking at landfall satellite pics and radar that Katrina was falling apart rapidly and was not a 4...may be strong 3, but that's it. Do you have any data/pics that show Cat. 4 damage from Katrina? And by that, I mean pictures that clearly are not of damage resulting from surge. I think that with no wind records of a 4, no wind damage comparable with a 4, and with nothing suggesting it was a 4 except surge...I would have to say that Katrina was not a 4. Also, with Andrew, most places that recieved major damage did not see Cat. 5 conditions...the Cat. 5 winds only occured in small pockets right at landfall on the immediate coast. Most of southern Homestead only saw Cat. 4 conditions and there IS data to support Cat. 4 winds in southern Homestead and Cat. 5 winds just offshore.

What do you mean "only" saw cat 4 conditions?You talk as if cat 4 winds are a breeze.I agree they probably saw sustained cat 4 winds but they probably also had gusts up to 170-180mph which is enough to level anything.

[Extremeweatherguy]

I was NOT surprised to read Cindy was upgraded. There was NEVER a doubt just like I believe Katrina was a Cat. 4 at landfall despite the later downgrade. They will probably revisit and upgrade her again in a few years to Cat.4.

can you find any wind reports on land of katrina being a 4 though (sustained)? No. The surge may have been that of a 4...but in today's world we rate hurricanes by the wind and not the surge. I think a Cat. 3 for Katrina is right. Also, concerning Cindy...yes, I think she should be upgraded. Lots of the damage I saw with her is in line with that of a Cat. 1 storm.

There were no land reports that I'm aware of showing Andrew as a Cat 5, this proves nothing. Hence, I agree with Stormcenter. The SAME Slidell Doppler radar used to upgrade Cindy was utterly tossed out while showing Cat 4 for Katrina as being (too distant) and the landfalls are BOTH in Plaquemines (albeit the report states that Grand Isle is in Plaquemines indicating a serious need to revisit Geography class. Valid land readings are very sparse due to instrument failure, and the surge was consistent, at least along Mississippi, with a 5, not a 4. I concur that Katrina will be revisited, just as Andrew was, and reclassified as the 4 she was. And FWIW there was no doubt in my mind Cindy would be upgraded to hurricane status, which is why I was so eager to see this particular report.

A2K

I still would have to disagree. Yes, the surge was a 5, but the wind damage was at max a 3...and even if there was 4 strength damage, we would never know, because the small area that would have gotten it was destroyed by surge. I still think though, looking at landfall satellite pics and radar that Katrina was falling apart rapidly and was not a 4...may be strong 3, but that's it. Do you have any data/pics that show Cat. 4 damage from Katrina? And by that, I mean pictures that clearly are not of damage resulting from surge. I think that with no wind records of a 4, no wind damage comparable with a 4, and with nothing suggesting it was a 4 except surge...I would have to say that Katrina was not a 4. Also, with Andrew, most places that recieved major damage did not see Cat. 5 conditions...the Cat. 5 winds only occured in small pockets right at landfall on the immediate coast. Most of southern Homestead only saw Cat. 4 conditions and there IS data to support Cat. 4 winds in southern Homestead and Cat. 5 winds just offshore.

What do you mean "only" saw cat 4 conditions?You talk as if cat 4 winds are a breeze.I agree they probably saw sustained cat 4 winds but they probably also had gusts up to 170-180mph which is enough to level anything.

The difference between Cat. 4 sustained winds and gusts to 170-180 and Cat. 5 sustained winds and gusts to 220mph is huge. But really I only mentioned Andrew because the post before mine had mentioned it. Yes andrew was bad, but it was also bad due to horrible building codes at the time. A 170-180mph gust would not "level" everything in today's day and age. In fact, most well-built structures would survive a gust that high. Yes, they would be heavily damaged, but the main core of the building would probably stay intact...especially if it had storm shutters. Also, office buildings and skyscrappers would be able to withstand gusts to 200mph during a storm (yes, they would be gutted by the wind...but they would still be standing). Either way, Andrew is in the past, I was originally in the argument about the strength of Katrina at landfall. I was asking the people who claim it was a 4 to show me if they have any proof. Any recorded Cat. 4 wind speeds on land? Any Cat. 4 wind damage? As of yet, no body has been able to provide any backing to claim that it was a 4. Yes, the surge was that of a 5, and the surge leveled everything in it's path, but that was the surge, and hurricanes are ranked by wind. That is why the NWS decided to downgrade Katrina to a 3 at landfall...and I agree with them 100%. I mean it was a smart team of scientists that decided to downgrade her and not just some guy off the street. I think they knew what they were doing and what to look for.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I still would have to disagree. Yes, the surge was a 5, but the wind damage was at max a 3...and even if there was 4 strength damage, we would never know, because the small area that would have gotten it was destroyed by surge. I still think though, looking at landfall satellite pics and radar that Katrina was falling apart rapidly and was not a 4...may be strong 3, but that's it. Do you have any data/pics that show Cat. 4 damage from Katrina? And by that, I mean pictures that clearly are not of damage resulting from surge. I think that with no wind records of a 4, no wind damage comparable with a 4, and with nothing suggesting it was a 4 except surge...I would have to say that Katrina was not a 4. Also, with Andrew, most places that recieved major damage did not see Cat. 5 conditions...the Cat. 5 winds only occured in small pockets right at landfall on the immediate coast. Most of southern Homestead only saw Cat. 4 conditions and there IS data to support Cat. 4 winds in southern Homestead and Cat. 5 winds just offshore.

You can disagree all you wish, with all due respect I disagree with your insistence on what can only be defined as subjective "proof". I still maintain she was a strong 4 at first landfall. The fact is that this storm made THREE landfalls, but they completely omit the passage over eastern St. Bernard Parish as a landfall at all. I completely AGREE that much of what might have been evidence of a Cat 4 wind damage was destroyed by the subsequent surge; but this by no means indicates she wasn't every bit of a 4. This is known as an appeal to ignorance (no offense intended, that is simply what it is called) wherein "if you can't PROVE what you say, then it mustn't be so. Well that just doesn't wash with me. I would call 90% of trees snapped and uprooted indicative of 4 winds, I would call the Slidell NWS doppler data of winds of Cat 4 windspeeds fairly sound evidence. This is the SAME Slidell doppler data used to "upgrade" Cindy and yet utterly discounted in maintaining Katrina's status as being "too far away"... this kind of inconsistency does not lend much credibility to a report I see as seriously flawed. Additionally, this is inconsistent with the very Kaplan-DeMaria inland decay series of 1995 which is being used TODAY to re-evaluate storms as far back as the 1850's. I respectfully disagree that there are plenty of data available to argue the point that she was a Cat 4 at first landfall. Your citing of "offshore" cat 5 for Andrew is exactly my point. There are NO land "proofs" of Cat 5 for Andrew, and if you're going to go "offshore" then the same can be said for Katrina. As for the "experts" you cite; the same could be said of the "experts" who classified Andrew as a 4 in 1992, and ten years later reconsidered the data. While this is the finding of today's so-called "experts", they will, in my honest opinion, be overridden by "experts" down the pike who will reclassify it as the 4 I'm convinced it was.

A2K

[m_ru]

[/quote]You can disagree all you wish, with all due respect I disagree with your insistence on what can only be defined as subjective "proof". I still maintain she was a strong 4 at first landfall. The fact is that this storm made THREE landfalls, but they completely omit the passage over eastern St. Bernard Parish as a landfall at all. I completely AGREE that much of what might have been evidence of a Cat 4 wind damage was destroyed by the subsequent surge; but this by no means indicates she wasn't every bit of a 4. This is known as an appeal to ignorance (no offense intended, that is simply what it is called) wherein "if you can't PROVE what you say, then it mustn't be so. Well that just doesn't wash with me. I would call 90% of trees snapped and uprooted indicative of 4 winds, I would call the Slidell NWS doppler data of winds of Cat 4 windspeeds fairly sound evidence. This is the SAME Slidell doppler data used to "upgrade" Cindy and yet utterly discounted in maintaining Katrina's status as being "too far away"... this kind of inconsistency does not lend much credibility to a report I see as seriously flawed. Additionally, this is inconsistent with the very Kaplan-DeMaria inland decay series of 1995 which is being used TODAY to re-evaluate storms as far back as the 1850's. I respectfully disagree that there are plenty of data available to argue the point that she was a Cat 4 at first landfall. Your citing of "offshore" cat 5 for Andrew is exactly my point. There are NO land "proofs" of Cat 5 for Andrew, and if you're going to go "offshore" then the same can be said for Katrina. As for the "experts" you cite; the same could be said of the "experts" who classified Andrew as a 4 in 1992, and ten years later reconsidered the data. While this is the finding of today's so-called "experts", they will, in my honest opinion, be overridden by "experts" down the pike who will reclassify it as the 4 I'm convinced it was.

A2K[/quote]

Well said!

[Derek Ortt]

cat 4 winds at 10,000 feet elevation in no way shows cat 4 at the surface. That is consistent with cat 3 winds

[Pearl River]

130 kt at 10,000 ft does not equate to cat4 at the surface? Unless my calculator is broke, it is 117 kt. Thats cat4

[ROCK]

I have to agree with Extreme on this one and not b/C we are from the same state...

Katrina was definitely losing her punch right up until landfall given her eroding NW/W side to due dry air and her suspect ERC. This has been stated in the her report. There has /was no evidence of sustained cat 4 winds, (ON THE GROUND) either by instruments or damage. I had trees snap and uproot with 5O mph winds from Alicia. And just to pile on some more since I was law major. There is different levels of "Proof" in law which in this case could be applicable for this disagreement. You have "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal) preponderance of evidence" (civil).....I believe that given the "preponderance of evidence" against cat 4 winds, Katrina will never be upgraded. A2k, you don't have the evidence (proof) to support your argument....in fact, it could be said that your argument for cat 4 winds at landfall can only be defined as subjective "evidence".