Rita Downgraded?

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

I agree on the separate surge warnings for landfalling hurricanes. If 2005 showed us anything it was this.

[Derek Ortt]

Canada tried that for Juan (separate surge warnings)

It turned into a giant fiasco and they reverted back to the traditional Hurricane Warning

[Scorpion]

Just doesn't seem right. I mean if its downgraded, it would seem like Rita was no big deal because it was "just" a Cat 2 with probably 110 mph winds. Rita caused alot more damage than Georges did, and both were around the same intensity. The only difference was Rita was rapidly weakening from a Cat 4.

[Derek Ortt]

thats the problem with the mentality

As 110 m.p.h. cat 2 is not "no big deal"

A cat 2 is a very very serious event that must be taken seriously as it is very destructive indeed

[Ixolib]

Also, this goes back to the argument that the NHC needs to have a seperate SURGE WARNING for hurricanes.

A storm coming down from a 5 to a 2/3 will still have the surge of a 4/5 at landfall in the GOM.

A storm coming up to a 2 from a TS or 1 will have the surge of a TS or 1, with small areas of 2 surge.

Can I get an "Amen" on that!!?? How 'bout another??!!

[StormScanWx]

Amen.

[wxman57]

Also, this goes back to the argument that the NHC needs to have a seperate SURGE WARNING for hurricanes.

A storm coming down from a 5 to a 2/3 will still have the surge of a 4/5 at landfall in the GOM.

A storm coming up to a 2 from a TS or 1 will have the surge of a TS or 1, with small areas of 2 surge.

I disagree with the logic above. As per my previous post, storm surge is more a function of the areal coverage of a hurricane's higher wind speeds (74+ mph, for example) than a function of the peak wind that may cover only a limited number of square miles (based on SS scale). Here's an example.

Let's say we have a hurricane with hurricane-force winds extending out 100 miles in all quadrants. That's an areal coverage of 31, 400 square miles. Now let's assume it's a Cat 4 with 140 mph winds only in the NE Quadrant at a distance of about 20 miles from the center. That's a max areal coverage of Cat 4 winds of probably 200 square miles at the most (that may be generous). Now, drop the wind speed in that 200 sq. mile area from 140 to 120 mph and you're not going to significantly affect the storm surge that extends out to 100 miles or more from the center. Such a reduction of ONLY the peak wind speed (all else being equal) may have an insignificant effect on the storm surge of a landfalling hurricane.

That's basically what happened last season with Katrina and Rita. The 74+ mph wind field remained constant but the small area of peak winds northeast of the core weakened a few categories. Therefore, Katrina and Rita produced a storm surge that was greater than what the SS scale would indicate for an average-sized Category 2 or 3 hurricane.

But you can't say that Rita or Katrina produced a Cat 4 or Cat 5 surge, as there's no such thing. Katrina was a Cat 3, so it produced a surge reprensentative of what a much larger-than-average Category 3 hurricane would normally produce. It's just that the SS scale doesn't consider such abnormalities.

So, in the same line of thinking, you can't arbitrarily state that a Cat 2 which weakens to a strong TS at landfall would produce a "Cat 1 surge" or that a Cat 5 that weakens to a Cat 2/3 will have a "Cat 4/5 surge". That's simply not true under all circumstances. It MAY be true that if only the peak wind is reduced (not the areal coverage of 74+ mph winds) then a Cat 5 that weakens to a Cat 2/3 at landfall would produce a storm surge that would be much larger than that expected from a typical Cat 2/3.

On the other hand, if Katrina had not only weakened from a Cat 5 to a Cat 3, but had its hurricane-force and greater wind field areal coverage decreased by half or more, then Katrina would not have produced a storm surge nearly as extensive as it did. A further reduction of the area of Katrina's higher wind radii prior to landfall may have resulted in a storm surge more typically associated with a landfalling Category 3 hurricane.

[Derek Ortt]

Also, a storm surge warning is not needed at all. That info is clearly stated in the public advisories. I really do not comprehend what the issue is

[Pearl River]

Question. So an area that is affected with surge in a CAT 5 surge area , according to a MEOW map, from a CAT 3 storm, is still only considered a CAT 3 surge?

[Ixolib]

Also, a storm surge warning is not needed at all. That info is clearly stated in the public advisories. I really do not comprehend what the issue is

True... It's just NOT stated with the same - or even greater - emphasis as the wind speed is stated. The "issue" is that surge is what killed so many people in Katrina, is what caused such catastrophic damage, and what leaves us today with such a major recovery effort.

Had the winds of Katrina been the only impact, we would have stopped talking about that storm about a week after she made landfall, just like we've done so many others. But the winds were the minor issue and the surge was (is) the major issue.

Consequently, many believe that better - or at least more emphasized - statements should be issued by the NHC regarding surge. If nothing else, at least they ought to bring equal alarm to the public regarding both - wind and surge. Historically, though, the wind speed is the primary point of what comes out of the NHC and the media. And since that's what people primarily hear, that is what they primarily react to.

[Ixolib]

Canada tried that for Juan (separate surge warnings)

It turned into a giant fiasco and they reverted back to the traditional Hurricane Warning

I don't suppose they have a lot of opportunity for practice on tweaking the plan...

[MiamiensisWx]

The NHC should also put more emphasis on the extreme damage Category One and Category Two sustained winds can do.

[MiamiensisWx]

I am going to have to dig deep in to my video and what little digital data I had from Port Arthur. I had some solid gusts over 108 mph at about 10 feet in an open area. I also know that Josh Wurman was nearby with his DOW. I would sure like to know what those babies recorded. I believe I read he lost his ground instruments- ie- the anemometers. The damage to the trees and structures sure seemed like a 100 knot hurricane. Perhaps categories of hurricanes can be like the Fujita scale- take a look at the damage and go from there. Interesting to see what happens, but weak three would be my call since I was on the ground as it happened. And- I was not sqaurely in the RFQ where the stronger winds might have been.

We simply need an extensive network of 10m towers like Uof FL has to deploy around a landfalling hurricane. That would all but solve the problem of wind speeds at landfall. Anyone know of where we can 2.5 million to do it?

"Weak" Category Three? I think you should look at the damage done by Wilma - largely sustained Category One winds - in southeast Florida to change your opinion. No storm is "weak". In fact, more emphasis should be placed on the immense destruction Category One and Category Two sustained winds can do.

[Scorpion]

The NHC should also put more emphasis on the extreme damage Category One and Category Two sustained winds can do.

They should also imply that it is very rare that the maximum sustained winds are felt by anybody and that most of the area will recieve extremely damaging Category 1 and 2 winds.

[Jim Cantore]

we should not be surprised if Rita is a 2. Remember Hatteras from Isabel. Cat 2 winds and a cat 2 surge devastated the island.

So the answer is, yes, a cat 2 can bring about near total devastation

Isabel was also once alot more powerful, like Katrina

Also like Katrina Isabel was a very large storm, I was 400+ miles from its eye and still got 50-60mph winds

Isabel tossed a marganal cat 3 surge into NC which on those thin islands can submurge them

[ROCK]

we should not be surprised if Rita is a 2. Remember Hatteras from Isabel. Cat 2 winds and a cat 2 surge devastated the island.

So the answer is, yes, a cat 2 can bring about near total devastation

I so agree. Maybe classification of a major should be dropped down to a 2......

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Interesting how many factors go into calculating surge

[brunota2003]

I am going to have to dig deep in to my video and what little digital data I had from Port Arthur. I had some solid gusts over 108 mph at about 10 feet in an open area. I also know that Josh Wurman was nearby with his DOW. I would sure like to know what those babies recorded. I believe I read he lost his ground instruments- ie- the anemometers. The damage to the trees and structures sure seemed like a 100 knot hurricane. Perhaps categories of hurricanes can be like the Fujita scale- take a look at the damage and go from there. Interesting to see what happens, but weak three would be my call since I was on the ground as it happened. And- I was not sqaurely in the RFQ where the stronger winds might have been.

We simply need an extensive network of 10m towers like Uof FL has to deploy around a landfalling hurricane. That would all but solve the problem of wind speeds at landfall. Anyone know of where we can 2.5 million to do it?

"Weak" Category Three? I think you should look at the damage done by Wilma - largely sustained Category One winds - in southeast Florida to change your opinion. No storm is "weak". In fact, more emphasis should be placed on the immense destruction Category One and Category Two sustained winds can do.

See post below...

[brunota2003]

Interesting to see what happens, but weak three would be my call since I was on the ground as it happened.

He was also just stating that what he saw appeared to be a weak Category 3 Hurricane damage...not that cat 3's were weak...

[wxmann_91]

Also, a storm surge warning is not needed at all. That info is clearly stated in the public advisories. I really do not comprehend what the issue is

True... It's just NOT stated with the same - or even greater - emphasis as the wind speed is stated. The "issue" is that surge is what killed so many people in Katrina, is what caused such catastrophic damage, and what leaves us today with such a major recovery effort.

Had the winds of Katrina been the only impact, we would have stopped talking about that storm about a week after she made landfall, just like we've done so many others. But the winds were the minor issue and the surge was (is) the major issue.

Consequently, many believe that better - or at least more emphasized - statements should be issued by the NHC regarding surge. If nothing else, at least they ought to bring equal alarm to the public regarding both - wind and surge. Historically, though, the wind speed is the primary point of what comes out of the NHC and the media. And since that's what people primarily hear, that is what they primarily react to.

Agreed. Though stated in the NHC Public advisories, the media has portrayed surge as a second to wind and rain. The truth is that even in this day, a surge has the greatest potential to wipe out an entire U.S. city and scores of people. Though there are better warnings, the fact that there are so many more people along the coastline means that even if 5% stayed in an area to be wiped out as cleanly as Holly Beach or Buras was during Rita and Katrina respectively, many of those who stayed would have no chance. Let's hypothesized 1 out of 2 people would perish. Do the math. 1 out of 40 people who once lived in the town dead. If the town had a population of 400,000 then 10,000 would be dead - in just one town. That places it as the deadliest hurricane in history. And let me tell you - in today's technological world, a massive surge is about the only event besides a tsunami that could have such an impact.

Scary to think what would've happened had even 5% of people living in towns such as Holly Beach, Johnson's Bayou, and Cameron stayed for Rita.