Will Cindy Be upgraded to a hurricane?

[Pearl River]

ROCK wrote

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 am 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".

No proof... Carry your happy butts over here and look. You also had 20 something inches of rain from Alicia and tree damage depends on the type of tree and age.

Again, no proof of cat5 damage in Andrew either, just piss poor construction.

Instruments failed or lost power in Katrina long before the eye came ashore. Look at the radar from Mobile as Katrina was making landfall for the 2nd time. The nw and ne eyewall was restrenghthening.

By the way, people have been convicted of crimes using circumstantial evidence.

[Audrey2Katrina]

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".

Fortunately, it will be in meteorological circles and not a courtroom where the final decision will be made. And while I can see "trees" uproot in a thunderstorm, that does not constitute 90% of all the trees in an entire region. Regarding the subjectivity of evidence, I've never claimed otherwise, only that I believe and still do, that subjective analysis at a later date will confirm my "subjective" opinion.

A2K

[jazzfan1247]

Fortunately, it will be in meteorological circles and not a courtroom where the final decision will be made. And while I can see "trees" uproot in a thunderstorm, that does not constitute 90% of all the trees in an entire region. Regarding the subjectivity of evidence, I've never claimed otherwise, only that I believe and still do, that subjective analysis at a later date will confirm my "subjective" opinion. Wink

A2K

Just be aware of the fact that subjective opinions based on subjective evidence will never, and should never, be regarded with the same esteem as a scientific opinion based on objective evidence. If there is ever any objective evidence that arises in support of the Cat 4 Katrina argument, I would happily admit my fault and go along with the evidence. But since that is not the case now, I will go along with the available evidence and say Cat 3.

You can say that you *believe* objective evidence will arise in the future that will support your argument, but you could honestly say that about anything. I could say that I think that objective evidence will arise in support of say...Andrew Cat 4, or Ivan Cat 4, or whatever. I could basically say whatever I want with that kind of reasoning, but does it make it valid or reasonable? No.

[Extremeweatherguy]

ROCK wrote

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 am 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".

No proof... Carry your happy butts over here and look. You also had 20 something inches of rain from Alicia and tree damage depends on the type of tree and age.

Again, no proof of cat5 damage in Andrew either, just piss poor construction.

Instruments failed or lost power in Katrina long before the eye came ashore. Look at the radar from Mobile as Katrina was making landfall for the 2nd time. The nw and ne eyewall was restrenghthening.

By the way, people have been convicted of crimes using circumstantial evidence.

Actually, the 20"+ rain storm was Allison. Alicia was a completely different storm; she was a hurricane that hit the area in 1983, and there was not a lot of rain that fell with Alicia. It only takes gusts to 55-60mph to knock down trees, and it only takes gusts to 100mph to do major widespread damage. For instance, the damage done to Miami from Wilma was from 90-110mph wind gusts (may be a few higher gusts right on Miami beach as the winds encountered no friction when wrapping around in from the Atlantic. I think there was a gust over 112mph recorded just offshore). Those kind of winds were enough to blow out skyscraper windows, knock down trees, move/flip cars, and do tons of other damage. Also, I went through Charley in Orlando and had 100-110mph gusts. Those winds were also enough to rip shingles, destroy pool screens, break windows, knock down large oaks, rip away about 1/2 of the tree canopy, and bring sturdy metal billboards to the ground. In your case, you probably saw gusts to low end Cat. 4 strength, but as for sustained winds you only saw Cat. 3 force. Yes, the winds would be enough to do extreme damage (and that is why a Cat. 3 is a "major" hurricane), but the surge did most of the damage...not the winds. There is just no way that a weakening Katrina could have been a strong Cat. 4 storm (wind-wise).

[ROCK]

ROCK wrote

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 am 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".

No proof... Carry your happy butts over here and look. You also had 20 something inches of rain from Alicia and tree damage depends on the type of tree and age.

Again, no proof of cat5 damage in Andrew either, just piss poor construction.

Instruments failed or lost power in Katrina long before the eye came ashore. Look at the radar from Mobile as Katrina was making landfall for the 2nd time. The nw and ne eyewall was restrenghthening.

By the way, people have been convicted of crimes using circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence used to prove the Standard Levels of Proof which I have described above....Law 101...

Strengthening??? NW/NE eyewall, yes, remained intact but there is no reference in the report to her strengthening. In fact, how does one hurricane stengthen over land, while ingesting dry air, and tranversing cooler gulf coast waters (to paraphrase the NHC)?

And finally to close, Alicia did not give us 20 inches of rain. That was Allison...

[Pearl River]

I wish people who do not live here would stop saying there is not much wind damage in this area. If you have not been here do not base your opinions on pictures on the internet or tv. Building codes are stricter than 14 years ago when Andrew hit. Very few homes are built here with gabled roofs. That is where a lot of roof damage comes from.

[ROCK]

Fortunately, it will be in meteorological circles and not a courtroom where the final decision will be made. And while I can see "trees" uproot in a thunderstorm, that does not constitute 90% of all the trees in an entire region. Regarding the subjectivity of evidence, I've never claimed otherwise, only that I believe and still do, that subjective analysis at a later date will confirm my "subjective" opinion. Wink

A2K

Just be aware of the fact that subjective opinions based on subjective evidence will never, and should never, be regarded with the same esteem as a scientific opinion based on objective evidence. If there is ever any objective evidence that arises in support of the Cat 4 Katrina argument, I would happily admit my fault and go along with the evidence. But since that is not the case now, I will go along with the available evidence and say Cat 3.

You can say that you *believe* objective evidence will arise in the future that will support your argument, but you could honestly say that about anything. I could say that I think that objective evidence will arise in support of say...Andrew Cat 4, or Ivan Cat 4, or whatever. I could basically say whatever I want with that kind of reasoning, but does it make it valid or reasonable? No.

well said.....

[Audrey2Katrina]

Circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence used to prove the Standard Levels of Proof which I have described above....Law 101

The Kaplan Inland Decay Series is being used this very day to reclassify storms from 150 years ago, but is being utterly ignored in application to Katrina, of course the NHC dodges this one by not referencing it at all-- And storms can and have defied the "circumstantially" hostile environs in which they were NOT supposed to continue, strengthen, or even exist--case in point, Epsilon and even moreso, Zeta. The NHC doesn't cite any number of things but that proves nothing. Again, it is quite fortunate that Law 101 has very little, indeed nothing whatsoever, to do with classification of cyclones.



A2K

[ROCK]

I wish people who do not live here would stop saying there is not much wind damage in this area. If you have not been here do not base your opinions on pictures on the internet or tv. Building codes are stricter than 14 years ago when Andrew hit. Very few homes are built here with gabled roofs. That is where a lot of roof damage comes from.

Pearl, I am not doubting you for a second. You received major wind damage and I agree. Cat 3 winds will do that. Mature trees will snap in cat 1 winds, uproot in soggy ground, and with such an expansive wind field as Kat had, its no wonder their was vast amounts of tree damage.

[Extremeweatherguy]

I wish people who do not live here would stop saying there is not much wind damage in this area. If you have not been here do not base your opinions on pictures on the internet or tv. Building codes are stricter than 14 years ago when Andrew hit. Very few homes are built here with gabled roofs. That is where a lot of roof damage comes from.

Pearl, I am not doubting you for a second. You received major wind damage and I agree. Cat 3 winds will do that. Mature trees will snap in cat 1 winds, uproot in soggy ground, and with such an expansive wind field as Kat had, its no wonder their was vast amounts of tree damage.

exactly.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Yes, Cat 3 winds can do a lot of damage, and Cat 4 even more. I don' believe Pearl is attempting to say it was Cat 4 on second (actually third) landfall; albeit I'll let him speak for himself on that. I do feel that he is contending that it was a Cat 4 at initial landfall and the inland decay series would seem to lend credence to that contention. In either case, this was an unprecedented monster.


A2K

[Pearl River]

ROCK wrote

Strengthening??? NW/NE eyewall, yes, remained intact but there is no reference in the report to her strengthening. In fact, how does one hurricane stengthen over land, while ingesting dry air, and tranversing cooler gulf coast waters (to paraphrase the NHC)?

First of all, it was over marsh and not dry land and the the dry air intrusion had stopped. Second, the sst in Lake Borgne was in the low 80's.
Third, the NHC can't even put Grand Isle in it's correct parish.

Mayor of Slidell, LA

The Weather Service reports that Slidell had sustained winds of 176 mph and gusts of 190+ mph during Hurricane Katrina. In addition, Slidell was hit by a 23' - 26' storm surge that devastated much of the city. This has been very devastating for everyone, but we are making great progress thanks to the many city workers, police officers, firefighters, military troops, citizens and volunteers who have worked so hard these last few weeks.

Why the NHC doesn't say this? I don't know.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I think I do. But I'll keep it to myself

Very nicely put, Pearl.

A2K

[Pearl River]

A2K wrote

Yes, Cat 3 winds can do a lot of damage, and Cat 4 even more. I don' believe Pearl is attempting to say it was Cat 4 on second (actually third) landfall; albeit I'll let him speak for himself on that. I do feel that he is contending that it was a Cat 4 at initial landfall and the inland decay series would seem to lend credence to that contention. In either case, this was an unprecedented monster.


A2K

Thanks A2K. It's been a long week teaching Police dispatchers.

Not only what A2K said, but it just bothers me when people say that damage wasn't that bad. I, like a lot of people, see it everyday. So I apologize if I went overboard with anyone. Yes cat 3 can do alot of damage, no doubt. I believe there are discrepencies to the report, just like most everyone else believes the report is accurate. It's an opinion and opinions are just like rear ends(putting it politely), everyone has one and it stinks.

[Opal storm]

Mayor of Slidell, LA

The Weather Service reports that Slidell had sustained winds of 176 mph and gusts of 190+ mph during Hurricane Katrina. In addition, Slidell was hit by a 23' - 26' storm surge that devastated much of the city. This has been very devastating for everyone, but we are making great progress thanks to the many city workers, police officers, firefighters, military troops, citizens and volunteers who have worked so hard these last few weeks.

Why the NHC doesn't say this? I don't know.

That can't be right.There's no wind damage in that area that suggests category 5 winds.

[jazzfan1247]

The Weather Service reports that Slidell had sustained winds of 176 mph and gusts of 190+ mph during Hurricane Katrina. In addition, Slidell was hit by a 23' - 26' storm surge that devastated much of the city. This has been very devastating for everyone, but we are making great progress thanks to the many city workers, police officers, firefighters, military troops, citizens and volunteers who have worked so hard these last few weeks.

This has been determined to be a false reading, cuz of the type of anemometer used or some other such reason. Someone else can clarify this.

[Extremeweatherguy]

Mayor of Slidell, LA

Quote:
The Weather Service reports that Slidell had sustained winds of 176 mph and gusts of 190+ mph during Hurricane Katrina. In addition, Slidell was hit by a 23' - 26' storm surge that devastated much of the city. This has been very devastating for everyone, but we are making great progress thanks to the many city workers, police officers, firefighters, military troops, citizens and volunteers who have worked so hard these last few weeks.




Why the NHC doesn't say this? I don't know.

This is not accurate. Winds of 176mph DID NOT occur with Katrina. If they had, then Katrina's landfalling winds would be among some of the strongest ever recorded from a landfalling hurricane...and WEAKENING hurricanes do not produce the strongest winds ever. Katrina was in no way a Cat. 5 at landfall.

[Pearl River]

All that is needed is a sustained wind for 1 minute. So it could have been 176 for 1 minute, then dropped, so the damage may not show as cat 5 because of the short duration. Also, much of Slidell was under 10 -12 feet of water, which would act as a wind buffer.

So the NWS does not have the right type of anemometer? Must have been left out of funding from Congress. lol

OpalStorm, you live in Pensacola and you are going to tell me what type of damage we sustained?

[Extremeweatherguy]

All that is needed is a sustained wind for 1 minute. So it could have been 176 for 1 minute, then dropped, so the damage may not show as cat 5 because of the short duration. Also, much of Slidell was under 10 -12 feet of water, which would act as a wind buffer.

So the NWS does not have the right type of anemometer? Must have been left out of funding from Congress. lol

OpalStorm, you live in Pensacola and you are going to tell me what type of damage we sustained?

If it was 176mph even for one minute, then the NWS would have considered the storm a 5. But in reality there is NO WAY Katrina was a 5. At landfall, dry air was being sucked into it's western side and it was definitely in a weakening stage. Remember what Katrina looked like the day before landfall...now that was a 175mph storm...compare that to what she looked like at landfall and you can see that there is no way she was as strong. Once again, Katrina was NOT a 5 at landfall.

[ROCK]

Circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence used to prove the Standard Levels of Proof which I have described above....Law 101

The Kaplan Inland Decay Series is being used this very day to reclassify storms from 150 years ago, but is being utterly ignored in application to Katrina, of course the NHC dodges this one by not referencing it at all-- And storms can and have defied the "circumstantially" hostile environs in which they were NOT supposed to continue, strengthen, or even exist--case in point, Epsilon and even moreso, Zeta. The NHC doesn't cite any number of things but that proves nothing. Again, it is quite fortunate that Law 101 has very little, indeed nothing whatsoever, to do with classification of cyclones.



A2K

Since I havent much to do tonight I will rebutt.

First off, I don't think the NHC is dodging anything. If they had the evidence to reclassify, they would do so using whatever method necessary. No evidence no reclassify. We had this discussion already.

Second, comparing Epsilon/ Zeta to Katrina is like comparing apples and oranges. E/Z were both mid atlantic storms at very high lats, that transversed cooler water than we typically consider adequate to support cane status. Amazing feat indeed. They almost could have been considered hybrids at one time or another. ONE thing that E/Z did not encounter was land interaction. Kat on the other hand, had numerous things she encountered. Eroding to the NW/W ( NHC quote, and if you look at a vis from 12hr prior to landfall you would see this) due to dry air, internal issues (eg a suspect ERC), LAND interaction, ect. This is why the NHC classified her a cat 3. Its hard for me to understand why so many want her to be a cat 4 and ignore the evidence. Almost like its a type of hurricane social status issue (eg my TS can beat up your TS)

And finally, yes it is quite fortunate that law has nothing to do with TS classification. If it was, I would have a libel suite to file....