Met Dr. Steve Lyons: his thoughts on Katrina, etc.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I think at most Camille was a minimal Cat-5. No way were the sustained winds 190mph, 160 at best......MGC

Either way, thats one heck of a storm...even though she was small, she packed quite a punch

Yes indeed she did. I can still vividly recall the ride along the coast, and some miles inland, looking at unbelievable rows of trees snapped like matchsticks as far as the eye could see.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

besides look at this archive of Camille from wunderground...theres no way a hurricane can weaken from 190 down to 60 in 3 advisories...It has to be a weak CAT 5 at best
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at196903.asp

I understand your point; but that's still based on unclear data.. the map seems to show her hitting Mississippi as something like a 3, and that is definitely not in line with the official record. Also, rather than use the number of advisories, look at the time window--18 hours, a LOT can degrade a storm in that amount of time. Although not quite as drastic, given the same 18 hour window I believe they show Katrina dropping from 175 + mph to just over 110 while pretty much over open water the entire distance.

A2K

[MGC]

What I find interesting about Camile is that the 905mb CP was observed about 300 miles from landfall. But at landfall an instrument in Bay St. Louis recorded 909mb. That is a long time for a hurricane to maintain that low of a CP. Either Camille went though an EWRC and reintensified as she approached the coast or the CP dipped well below the 905mb observed and Camille was weakening as she came ashore. If I were to wager, I'd suspect that Camille's CP dipped well below the 905mb since she was traversing the loop current and the SST were quite warm in 69.......MGC

[Stratosphere747]

Not sure if everyone has seen this tech report on Katrina. Not really much different than many of the reports out there. What caught my eye though is a sat image of Camille. Maybe it has been posted before, and I'm behind the times, but I've never seen a image of her so close to landfall.

Pg 21.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/tec ... 00501z.pdf

[Scorpion]

Eh pretty soon people will say noone on land got anything higher than Category 1 winds, and therefore Katrina was a Cat 1 at landfall. Happens everytime.

[ROCK]

Eh pretty soon people will say noone on land got anything higher than Category 1 winds, and therefore Katrina was a Cat 1 at landfall. Happens everytime.

don't think that will ever happen.

[Extremeweatherguy]

ARMSTRONG NEW ORELANS INTL AIRPORT LLWAS TOWERS...11 SITES
PEAK WIND FROM ALL SITES 328/85 KT (120 FT AGL) 1340UTC
PEAK WIND FROM INSTRUMENT AT 30 FT AGL
328/64 KT (30 FT AGL) 1405UTC

correct me if I am wrong...but according to the report on Katrina it looks like that 85 kt. wind 15 miles west of N.O. was the top wind between 11 different towers and it also looks like it was taken at 120 feet! 120 feet would be 4 times higher than the readings should have been taken at. Now the 64 kt. wind at 30 ft. is more believable, but this just says "peak wind" and we are to have no idea whether it was a gust or sustained. Also, the 107 kt. reading from Michoud is also not a confirmed sustained wind...in fact, it was most likely a gust. Sure, I have said my self that N.O. could have seen gusts to cat. 2...but to say that DOWNTOWN got Cat. 2 force sustained winds...and yet many homes received little roofing damage, and many streets saw little to no power pole and sign damage is crazy. I mean come on..they get Cat. 2 winds and then the next day the french quarter is up and running? Doesn't sound like Cat. 2 wind damage to me.

[ROCK]

ARMSTRONG NEW ORELANS INTL AIRPORT LLWAS TOWERS...11 SITES
PEAK WIND FROM ALL SITES 328/85 KT (120 FT AGL) 1340UTC
PEAK WIND FROM INSTRUMENT AT 30 FT AGL
328/64 KT (30 FT AGL) 1405UTC

correct me if I am wrong...but according to the report on Katrina it looks like that 85 kt. wind 15 miles east of N.O. was the top wind between 11 different towers and it also looks like it was taken at 120 feet! 120 feet would be 4 times higher than the readings should have been taken at. Now the 64 kt. wind at 30 ft. is more believable, but this just says "peak wind" and we are to have no idea whether it was a gust or sustained. Also, the 107 kt. reading from Michoud is also not a confirmed sustained wind...in fact, it was most likely a gust. Sure, I have said my self that N.O. could have seen gusts to cat. 2...but to say that DOWNTOWN got Cat. 2 force sustained winds...and yet many homes received little roofing damage, and many streets saw little to no power pole and sign damage is crazy. I mean come on..they get Cat. 2 winds and then the next day the french quarter is up and running? Doesn't sound like Cat. 2 wind damage to me.

good point EWG....

[Pearl River]

EWG wrote

Quote:
ARMSTRONG NEW ORELANS INTL AIRPORT LLWAS TOWERS...11 SITES
PEAK WIND FROM ALL SITES 328/85 KT (120 FT AGL) 1340UTC
PEAK WIND FROM INSTRUMENT AT 30 FT AGL
328/64 KT (30 FT AGL) 1405UTC


correct me if I am wrong...but according to the report on Katrina it looks like that 85 kt. wind 15 miles east of N.O. was the top wind between 11 different towers and it also looks like it was taken at 120 feet! 120 feet would be 4 times higher than the readings should have been taken at. Now the 64 kt. wind at 30 ft. is more believable, but this just says "peak wind" and we are to have no idea whether it was a gust or sustained. Also, the 107 kt. reading from Michoud is also not a confirmed sustained wind...in fact, it was most likely a gust. Sure, I have said my self that N.O. could have seen gusts to cat. 2...but to say that DOWNTOWN got Cat. 2 force sustained winds...and yet many homes received little roofing damage, and many streets saw little to no power pole and sign damage is crazy. I mean come on..they get Cat. 2 winds and then the next day the french quarter is up and running? Doesn't sound like Cat. 2 wind damage to me.

You are wrong there homey. MSY is 15 miles west of New Orleans.

As far as the 107 kt goes, the same terminology is used for the 84 kt wind in Katrina's report. The NWS calls it a peak wind. The NHC refers to the 84 kt as

However, the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans measured a 1-minute sustained wind of 84 kt

[Stratosphere747]

EWG, I think you are concentrating too much on New Orleans proper and not the outlying areas, especially to the East. I don't think there is a whole lot of argument that NO proper only received cat1 and debatable cat2 conditions. It obvious that as you go more East, conditions there were certainly cat2. I think many forget how close the eye was in these areas and the reason why we may be seeing such dramatic differences in a relatively close distance.

If there was ever a storm the proved that the NE eywall is where the heart is, Kat is it.

[Extremeweatherguy]

EWG wrote

Quote:
ARMSTRONG NEW ORELANS INTL AIRPORT LLWAS TOWERS...11 SITES
PEAK WIND FROM ALL SITES 328/85 KT (120 FT AGL) 1340UTC
PEAK WIND FROM INSTRUMENT AT 30 FT AGL
328/64 KT (30 FT AGL) 1405UTC


correct me if I am wrong...but according to the report on Katrina it looks like that 85 kt. wind 15 miles east of N.O. was the top wind between 11 different towers and it also looks like it was taken at 120 feet! 120 feet would be 4 times higher than the readings should have been taken at. Now the 64 kt. wind at 30 ft. is more believable, but this just says "peak wind" and we are to have no idea whether it was a gust or sustained. Also, the 107 kt. reading from Michoud is also not a confirmed sustained wind...in fact, it was most likely a gust. Sure, I have said my self that N.O. could have seen gusts to cat. 2...but to say that DOWNTOWN got Cat. 2 force sustained winds...and yet many homes received little roofing damage, and many streets saw little to no power pole and sign damage is crazy. I mean come on..they get Cat. 2 winds and then the next day the french quarter is up and running? Doesn't sound like Cat. 2 wind damage to me.

You are wrong there homey. MSY is 15 miles west of New Orleans.

As far as the 107 kt goes, the same terminology is used for the 84 kt wind in Katrina's report. The NWS calls it a peak wind. The NHC refers to the 84 kt as

However, the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans measured a 1-minute sustained wind of 84 kt

yes, sorry that was a mistype...I meant to say west.

[Pearl River]

Please. If you are going to make comments reference to what the winds may have or have not done, at least know something about this area. Mostly where places are located.

Quote:
ARMSTRONG NEW ORELANS INTL AIRPORT LLWAS TOWERS...11 SITES
PEAK WIND FROM ALL SITES 328/85 KT (120 FT AGL) 1340UTC
PEAK WIND FROM INSTRUMENT AT 30 FT AGL
328/64 KT (30 FT AGL) 1405UTC


correct me if I am wrong...but according to the report on Katrina it looks like that 85 kt. wind 15 miles east of N.O.

[Extremeweatherguy]

EWG, I think you are concentrating too much on New Orleans proper and not the outlying areas, especially to the East. I don't think there is a whole lot of argument that NO proper only received cat1 and debatable cat2 conditions. It obvious that as you go more East, conditions there were certainly cat2. I think many forget how close the eye was in these areas and the reason why we may be seeing such dramatic differences in a relatively close distance.

If there was ever a storm the proved that the NE eywall is where the heart is, Kat is it.

No, I completely agree that eastern N.O. may have seen Cat. 2 force winds. I am just saying that downtown did not see Cat. 2 or 3 winds. Also, there ARE a few that are trying to say that downtown saw Cat. 2 or 3 force winds...and this is why I have been focusing on downtown in recent posts.

MGC wrote: Extreem eastern New Orleans might have sustained Cat-3 winds, but not downtown where the Superdome is. Low Cat-2 there IMO.....MGC

STORMCENTER wrote:I'm sorry but I believe downtown N.O. had Cat.3 winds. Did you happen to see the pictures of the Superdome's roof and other areas after Katrina?

[Extremeweatherguy]

Please. If you are going to make comments reference to what the winds may have or have not done, at least know something about this area. Mostly where places are located.

Quote:
ARMSTRONG NEW ORELANS INTL AIRPORT LLWAS TOWERS...11 SITES
PEAK WIND FROM ALL SITES 328/85 KT (120 FT AGL) 1340UTC
PEAK WIND FROM INSTRUMENT AT 30 FT AGL
328/64 KT (30 FT AGL) 1405UTC


correct me if I am wrong...but according to the report on Katrina it looks like that 85 kt. wind 15 miles east of N.O.

Ok I already said in the post above that I was sorry. I mean it was a simple mistake to make when you are trying to put out a post quickly. This debate is moving very fast on this topic and in order to stay in line with what is happening I am not taking as much time as I normally would re-reading my posts. Plus, this small mistake did not change the point of my post by much..especially to those who have been keeping in track with this thread and who had read the posts above my own where the airport is stated as being west of N.O.

[vbhoutex]

What I do not understand about this whole argument about Katrina's winds, which we have all seen previously, is why it is the SAME PEOPLE(and I mean on both sides of the argument)who are the ones who are trying to prove they are right and the others are wrong. There is an OFFICIAL report out now. Nothing we say is going to change that. Further scientific investigation might and if you have good verifiable proof of your opinion of what Katrina's winds were that you think the officials have not seen, by all means provide it to them. EVERYONE is making assumptions to prove their point. EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion as to what the winds in Katrina were, whether YOU think they are right or wrong. EVERYONE is also entitled to RESPECT, which is earned, not by bashing others, not by rudely disagreeing with others, not by making smart arse remarks, and not by telling them they don't know what they are talking about just because you disagree with them, but by having a respectful discussion in which one raises points that may be relevant to the discussion at hand. I agree and disagree with arguments on both sides of this issue. You do not see me coming in here making asssumptions or telling others they are wrong. I do ask questions and I will say why I disagree with someone, but that is as far as I will go.

EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT KATRINA'S WINDS needs to drop it and move on. It is sad that it ALWAYS drops to the level that an administrator or staff member has to come in and put a stop to it. This thread was originally about what Dr. Lyons said about Katrina and Andrew also. So why are there arguments about who is right or wrong about the winds past what he stated????

[Pearl River]

EWG wrote

Ok I already said in the post above that I was sorry. I mean it was a simple mistake to make when you are trying to put out a post quickly. This debate is moving very fast on this topic and in order to stay in line with what is happening I am not taking as much time as I normally would re-reading my posts. Plus, this small mistake did not change the point of my post by much..especially to those who have been keeping in track with this thread and who had read the posts above my own where the airport is stated as being west of N.O.

I wasn't fussing at you. That was for everybody.

[Audrey2Katrina]

ARMSTRONG NEW ORELANS INTL AIRPORT LLWAS TOWERS...11 SITES
PEAK WIND FROM ALL SITES 328/85 KT (120 FT AGL) 1340UTC
PEAK WIND FROM INSTRUMENT AT 30 FT AGL
328/64 KT (30 FT AGL) 1405UTC

correct me if I am wrong...but according to the report on Katrina it looks like that 85 kt. wind 15 miles west of N.O. was the top wind between 11 different towers and it also looks like it was taken at 120 feet! 120 feet would be 4 times higher than the readings should have been taken at. Now the 64 kt. wind at 30 ft. is more believable, but this just says "peak wind" and we are to have no idea whether it was a gust or sustained. Also, the 107 kt. reading from Michoud is also not a confirmed sustained wind...in fact, it was most likely a gust. Sure, I have said my self that N.O. could have seen gusts to cat. 2...but to say that DOWNTOWN got Cat. 2 force sustained winds...and yet many homes received little roofing damage, and many streets saw little to no power pole and sign damage is crazy. I mean come on..they get Cat. 2 winds and then the next day the french quarter is up and running? Doesn't sound like Cat. 2 wind damage to me.

Well, for the record, MSY is about 15 miles WEST of New Orleans, (understandable--heck I know I'd be just as confused were we talking about areas around Houston, or Miami for that matter) and yeah those readings are a bit sketchy, however that 84KT sustained was NOT at 120 ft. The NHC report and NOAA report it on a tower about 40 ft. up... about 7 feet higher than the standard of 10m used by the NHC. According to one of our own mets that small of a distance should not make much of a difference at all in windspeed measurements. (referring to more than 7 ft in another thread, I believe).

And even the Katrina report lists the 84 KT (which is right at the minimal Cat 2) is a "sustained" 1 minute wind. Not to mention it is WELL before closest approach and quite doubtful that it measured highest winds the area received, hence the higher 107 KT reported at guage 2 much closer to 2nd landfall time. Whether it ultimately is/was a gust or keeping things consistent, another 1 minute sustained, I feel there's little doubt about sustained Cat 2 winds in that area of New Orleans. JMO, for whatever it's worth.

Interesting points tho'

A2K

[skysummit]

I mean come on..they get Cat. 2 winds and then the next day the french quarter is up and running? Doesn't sound like Cat. 2 wind damage to me.

Uh....where do you get the idea that the French Quarter was up and running the next day? I was there working recovery. Believe me, it was not up and running. Still though...I doubt downtown had sustained 2 winds. If they did, it was for a VERY short period of time.

[Stratosphere747]

Would be nice if we could get Steve on the site and actually confirm his thoughts on the matter at hand.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Not sure if everyone has seen this tech report on Katrina. Not really much different than many of the reports out there. What caught my eye though is a sat image of Camille. Maybe it has been posted before, and I'm behind the times, but I've never seen a image of her so close to landfall.

Pg 21.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/tec ... 00501z.pdf

That's a great link, Stratosphere, and thanks. Returning to what Dr. Lyons said, I DO find it interesting that in the opening pages of this NOAA document, they state the landfalling windspeeds were 127 mph. That's awfully close to agreeing with what Dr. Lyons was saying--only 4 mph lower than Cat 4 which he stated he thought it was. I think as more and more info comes out, he will be proven correct.

A2K