Will Cindy Be upgraded to a hurricane?
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
- Pearl River
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 825
- Age: 66
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: SELa
Ok. So the mayor of Slidell, who by the way has stated this same information over a dozen times on radio and no one from the NWS has come on and disputed this, is a liar and apparently so is the NWS.
I know what the storm looked like. I followed it from beginning to end. I followed until Slidell's radar failed and then used Mobile's radar.
I know what the storm looked like. I followed it from beginning to end. I followed until Slidell's radar failed and then used Mobile's radar.
0 likes
Extremeweatherguy wrote:Pearl River wrote: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.
Not a 5 or a 4.....She was so ragged coming in....
0 likes
- Extremeweatherguy
- Category 5
- Posts: 11095
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
- Location: Florida
How is the NWS lying? Obviously they themselves threw out that wind report because it was not accurate or else they would have upgraded Katrina to a 5. Also, the mayor of Slidell is not a weather expert and is only saying what he has been told...just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is correct.Pearl River wrote:Ok. So the mayor of Slidell, who by the way has stated this same information over a dozen times on radio and no one from the NWS has come on and disputed this, is a liar and apparently so is the NWS.
I know what the storm looked like. I followed it from beginning to end. I followed until Slidell's radar failed and then used Mobile's radar.
0 likes
- Pearl River
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 825
- Age: 66
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: SELa
- Audrey2Katrina
- Category 5
- Posts: 4252
- Age: 76
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Metaire, La.
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
What either of us "think" is irrelevant, and I'm sure I don't have to tell a law expert that.

Second, comparing Epsilon/ Zeta to Katrina is like comparing apples and oranges
Comparing ANY two hurricanes is like comparing apples and oranges; funny thing is that there are comparisons possible! The only point I was making was that "hostile environments" can and have been overcome by hurricanes which defied the logical odds, whether over the Atlantic, in the Caribbean, or in the Gulf, anomalies are always possible.
Its hard for me to understand why so many want her to be a cat 4 and ignore the evidence.
I imagine the folks who felt the same about Andrew felt much the same way.
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....
I think we all might have some legitimate lawsuits pending!

A2K
0 likes
- Extremeweatherguy
- Category 5
- Posts: 11095
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
- Location: Florida
I think we should leave it at this...Katrina killed many, caused billions in damages, and is one of the worst hurricanes to hit the U.S. Whether she was a 3 or 4 or whatever, she was bad. Personally I will continue to think she was a 3 (primarily because the people that re-classified her must have had valid reasons in doing so), and you can continue thinking she was a 4. It really makes no difference now since the storm has already caused her damage and taken her toll. Bottom line is Katrina was bad whether she was a 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 it really makes no difference. I think the category doesn't matter, it is the effect on people's lives that does. I just pray that this season brings nothing like the storms of the last two years (but I doubt that will be the case). I hope all affected areas can rebuild and be more prepared for the next monster. In the end, I think we should get over this argument and begin thinking about future storms. We should just enjoy the next few months of the quite tropics while we can and not think too much about last season or next season...we should all take this time to just relax..something I, nor most of the U.S. have not done in a long, long time.





0 likes
- Pearl River
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 825
- Age: 66
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: SELa
MGC, you are correct. I don't care if it's classified as a depression. Over 1,300 have lost their lives, about a million homeless in one way or another. We will never know the true strength of this overwhelming national disaster. We can only hope it will never happen to anyone else. For people who have lived it, may the Good Lord give them strength to go on. Domestic violence is up and no telling what else may surface. I really miss the coast, but I know you guys will be back better than ever.
0 likes
- Audrey2Katrina
- Category 5
- Posts: 4252
- Age: 76
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Metaire, La.
Amen to those last few posts!
A2K
A2K
0 likes
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24
- Pearl River
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 825
- Age: 66
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: SELa
Re: No surprise
Extremeweatherguy wrote: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.Stormcenter wrote: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.
the surge was not that of a 4
it was that of a 5
its winds leveled of to cat 3 but the surge remained
0 likes
- Extremeweatherguy
- Category 5
- Posts: 11095
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
- Location: Florida
Re: No surprise
Hurricane Floyd wrote:Extremeweatherguy wrote: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.Stormcenter wrote: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.
the surge was not that of a 4
it was that of a 5
its winds leveled of to cat 3 but the surge remained
yes, in later posts I corrected myself and said that the surge was that of a Cat. 5
0 likes
- Pearl River
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 825
- Age: 66
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: SELa
- Pearl River
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 825
- Age: 66
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: SELa
Opal storm wrote
I have problems with the report, no problem with Katrina being a cat 3. It's others who keep bringing up the cat 4 issue, not me.
Why does it matter so much whether Katrina was a 3 or a 4,it doesn't change the devastation that has already occured.I say people need to move on and stop arguing over this.More than likely the NHC will not upgrade Katrina to a 4 so just stop wasting your time.
I have problems with the report, no problem with Katrina being a cat 3. It's others who keep bringing up the cat 4 issue, not me.
0 likes
I also have problems with the Wilma report. I still think Wilma had 125MPH sustained winds at landfall, regardless of the downgrade. The surge in the northwestern Bahamas and surge damage in Cuba from Wilma was also left out from the report.
Also - on Katrina's surge - is it possible that Katrina really DID have a Category Four surge? I think it may be possible... it's just that wave action on top of the surge exemplified the effects and surge into a Category Five-type surge. Also, the surge may have had such profound effects because the Gulf coast may be much more vulnerable than what many even conceived. Is this possible?
Also - on Katrina's surge - is it possible that Katrina really DID have a Category Four surge? I think it may be possible... it's just that wave action on top of the surge exemplified the effects and surge into a Category Five-type surge. Also, the surge may have had such profound effects because the Gulf coast may be much more vulnerable than what many even conceived. Is this possible?
0 likes
- Pearl River
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 825
- Age: 66
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: SELa
CapeVerdeWave wrote
I also have problems with the Wilma report. I still think Wilma had 125MPH sustained winds at landfall, regardless of the downgrade. The surge in the northwestern Bahamas and surge damage in Cuba from Wilma was also left out from the report.
Also - on Katrina's surge - is it possible that Katrina really DID have a Category Four surge? I think it may be possible... it's just that wave action on top of the surge exemplified the effects and surge into a Category Five-type surge. Also, the surge may have had such profound effects because the Gulf coast may be much more vulnerable than what many even conceived. Is this possible?
I also have problems with the Wilma report. I still think Wilma had 125MPH sustained winds at landfall, regardless of the downgrade. The surge in the northwestern Bahamas and surge damage in Cuba from Wilma was also left out from the report.
Also - on Katrina's surge - is it possible that Katrina really DID have a Category Four surge? I think it may be possible... it's just that wave action on top of the surge exemplified the effects and surge into a Category Five-type surge. Also, the surge may have had such profound effects because the Gulf coast may be much more vulnerable than what many even conceived. Is this possible?
Very well put Cape. I don't know what the cat surge is for Slidell, but I do know my dad had a still water mark of 13ft at his house, 4 miles from Lake Pontchartrain.
Tell me this. What's wrong with disagreeing with a report?
0 likes
Opal storm wrote:Why does it matter so much whether Katrina was a 3 or a 4,it doesn't change the devastation that has already occured.I say people need to move on and stop arguing over this.More than likely the NHC will not upgrade Katrina to a 4 so just stop wasting your time.
it would have changed it
IF Katrina remained a 5 the damage may have been doubled
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ljmac75 and 78 guests