Cat 4 hurricanes very unlikely north of Florida on E Coast

[storms in NC]

I live here in NC now and I have never heard anyone say it was a cat5 that live here or in SC. At the most it may have been a high 3 to a low 4 for Hugo.

Why does some think so that don't even live around there.Yes it made a mess. But I will tell you if you want to see what a cat4 can do you should have been in La and Miss. last year when Katrina went though. I was and I will tell you it looked like a bomb had went off and this was 60-70 miles inland.I was flooded by floyd and I have been thought 7 hurricans and Katrina beat them all.

[wxman57]

I live here in NC now and I have never heard anyone say it was a cat5 that live here or in SC. At the most it may have been a high 3 to a low 4 for Hugo.

Why does some think so that don't even live around there.Yes it made a mess. But I will tell you if you want to see what a cat4 can do you should have been in La and Miss. last year when Katrina went though. I was and I will tell you it looked like a bomb had went off and this was 60-70 miles inland.I was flooded by floyd and I have been thought 7 hurricans and Katrina beat them all.

I'd point out that you are comparing wind damage (Carolinas) to surge damage. The LA/MS coast is particularly prone to high storm surges - the Carolinas are generally not as vulnerable.=. Wind damage in LA/MS, though, was rather unremarkable when compared to the total devastation by the storm surge. And, yes, I've been to LA/MS. My mother's home is on the MS coast. Spent a good bit of time rebuilding her house after Katrina, but it was all water damage. The only wind damage I found was a tiny piece of siding about 6" long that had to be replaced off the top of her gable roof.

[Derek Ortt]

classifications are hardly ever made by the people who live in an area, and rightfully so. Instead, they are made based upon an objective analysis of the data.

As for any reclassifications of wind speed, there have already been very significant ones, sucha s Donna being dropped from a 4 to a marginal 3 when it hit Naples

[storms in NC]

I live here in NC now and I have never heard anyone say it was a cat5 that live here or in SC. At the most it may have been a high 3 to a low 4 for Hugo.

Why does some think so that don't even live around there.Yes it made a mess. But I will tell you if you want to see what a cat4 can do you should have been in La and Miss. last year when Katrina went though. I was and I will tell you it looked like a bomb had went off and this was 60-70 miles inland.I was flooded by floyd and I have been thought 7 hurricans and Katrina beat them all.

I'd point out that you are comparing wind damage (Carolinas) to surge damage. The LA/MS coast is particularly prone to high storm surges - the Carolinas are generally not as vulnerable.=. Wind damage in LA/MS, though, was rather unremarkable when compared to the total devastation by the storm surge. And, yes, I've been to LA/MS. My mother's home is on the MS coast. Spent a good bit of time rebuilding her house after Katrina, but it was all water damage. The only wind damage I found was a tiny piece of siding about 6" long that had to be replaced off the top of her gable roof.

Sorry to hear that I know it has been tough. It took us a year and a half to rebiuld our home after floyd. I am going back down to the farm In La. There is still alot of work to be done.

[Budro999]

classifications are hardly ever made by the people who live in an area, and rightfully so. Instead, they are made based upon an objective analysis of the data.

As for any reclassifications of wind speed, there have already been very significant ones, sucha s Donna being dropped from a 4 to a marginal 3 when it hit Naples

It's fine that classifications are rarely made by people who live in the area of landfall; however, as was done with Andrew, a wide array of data would likely be needed to reclassify Hugo, not just one wind measurement from one level.

And, yes, there have been some notable changes in classification for past hurricanes. Donna, as you mentioned, and of course Andrew. However, given what we have learned about reduction rates over the last 10 years, it would seem reasonable that every storm whose intensity was estimated by recon wind measurement will likely see changes in its intensity.

[Pearl River]

wxman57 wrote

storms in NC wrote:
I live here in NC now and I have never heard anyone say it was a cat5 that live here or in SC. At the most it may have been a high 3 to a low 4 for Hugo.

Why does some think so that don't even live around there.Yes it made a mess. But I will tell you if you want to see what a cat4 can do you should have been in La and Miss. last year when Katrina went though. I was and I will tell you it looked like a bomb had went off and this was 60-70 miles inland.I was flooded by floyd and I have been thought 7 hurricans and Katrina beat them all.


I'd point out that you are comparing wind damage (Carolinas) to surge damage. The LA/MS coast is particularly prone to high storm surges - the Carolinas are generally not as vulnerable.=. Wind damage in LA/MS, though, was rather unremarkable when compared to the total devastation by the storm surge. And, yes, I've been to LA/MS. My mother's home is on the MS coast. Spent a good bit of time rebuilding her house after Katrina, but it was all water damage. The only wind damage I found was a tiny piece of siding about 6" long that had to be replaced off the top of her gable roof.

I don't know where you went to, but I have seen a lot of wind damage around here in St Tammany and Washington Parishes. As a matter of fact there have been several witnesses in Slidell that said most of the fishing camps went down before the surge came up.

[storms in NC]

I was 16 miles east of Amite. Almost to Franklinton

[Audrey2Katrina]

Camielle being a small storm is a myth. It was actually slightly above average.

Well in the first place, then I suppose a LOT o pro-mets perpetuate mythology as quite a few of them describe Camille as comparatively "small" although I wouldn't dispute this point, and would, if anything, view Camille as close to average in size but decidedly atypical for one of its intensity...and unless they are inclined to mythology themselves, even NOAA's own websites describe her as "MUCH" smaller than, say Katrina... which detracts nothing from the point I was attempting to make in showing the size/gradient differential... it was patently obvious.

It was considered small when compared to a hurricane like Carla, but would be large when compared to Andrew

Actually it was considered "MUCH smallerl" when compared to Katrina--by the words of the NOAA itself....

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag178.htm

For those who don't care to read the entire article, the quoted sentence is this: "Although much smaller in size than Katrina, Camille’s 190 mile per hour winds generated a record storm surge measuring as much as 24.3 feet along a large portion of the Mississippi coastline."

...so I sort of agree, but with qualifications on that:

Here are two comparative satellite images of the very same two storms--one (Andrew) which the NHC clearly describes as "small" on several of it's own web pages. And the other, (Camille) by which standard you would say was "large" compared to the former--again I believe a close call:

http://www.noaa.gov/images/andrew-comp0822-2592.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hurricanecamille.htm

Now what I did was open both of these sites, reduce the size of the viewing window so that I could look at the imagery, side-by-side, and, as I was advised by at least one well-respected pro-met in here, did NOT take into account the "outflow" or distant feeding bands; but focused on the solid "core" of the hurricane itself... additionally I took into account that the Camille image is showing ONLY the Gulf Area which enhances it's comparative size as the Andrew image shows the SE United States AND the Gulf, so one need either consider that as well, or adjust the windows further to where they show "comparable" land areas as well--and the only conclusion I can see is that they are decidedly similar--perhaps giving a slight nod to Camille, but really, not by a whole lot. This using NOAA's own imagery.

Frankly that's neither here nor there... the two were IMO comparable in size, but you can give a nudge to Camille... the point wasn't that this or that was the smallest, only that the more tightly wound the steeper the gradient... and I stick with that unless someone can come up with a better explanation for the 920 mb pressure of Katrina at landfall with a windspeed at barely Cat 3 "without" taking into account the "spread" of the gradient due to her enormous size. JMHO.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

but the forward speed enhanced the winds to the north of the center in McClellanville, and decreased the winds in Charleston.

I was under the impression that Wxman57 was informing us that this isn't quite a valid assumption, (I dunno, perhaps I missed something).. regardless, if it is--then I stand by the similar analogy of winds from Grand Isle, Vs. Buras... I mean we gotta be consistent here.

A2K

[marcane_1973]

I live here in NC now and I have never heard anyone say it was a cat5 that live here or in SC. At the most it may have been a high 3 to a low 4 for Hugo.
Hugo Was a 4 if not a high 4. The northern eye wall that came ashore in McClellanville S.C. came with a surge that was high enough to go to the top of a roofs of big buildings such as the middle school and homes as well. The same we saw with Katrina just not as bad and widespread. It wiped out the whole town. If Hugo would of slowed down before landfall the devastation would of been a lot worse with wind and surge. Hugo came in fast and was over pretty quick compared to most Hurricanes.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Camille hit nearly the same point as Katrina, but it approached the coast from the southeast rather than from the south. This greatly reduced the storm surge west of the track.

But wouldn't that have greatly "increased" the storm surge "east" of the track? I can assure you that the Mobile area did not get the surge from Camille, that she did from Katrina.

One could argue the vaguary or "nearly" but I believe Camille hit some 10 or 20 miles to the east, but that's admittedly a guess, perhaps statistically insignificant; on the other hand, Camille's approach to the coast was not all that different from Katrina's in the last couple of hundred of miles of approach. In looking at the track, if anything, Camille came from a much more "southern" approach than did Katrina, which came from a much more overall "eastern" direction... it was that last hundred or so miles of approach that mattered, and in this, they really are not all that different. The bottom line is that Katrina was MUCH bigger than Camille, with the latter having MUCH tighter intensity--and as you aptly suggested, the swath of the wind field created Katrina's much worse surge. Had Camille been the size of Katrina, the surge damage would have been very similar in the size of the swath of devastation, and in this category, there isn't a remote comparison as Katrina inundated practically from the Ala/Florida border well into SE Louisiana.

A2K

[KWT]

[quote="Budro999"]
a wide array of data would likely be needed to reclassify Hugo, not just one wind measurement from one level.
[quote]

Wasn't just one measurement enough to upgrade Emily from a cat-4 to a cat-5 and that was also from a recon plane???

[Budro999]

a wide array of data would likely be needed to reclassify Hugo, not just one wind measurement from one level.

Wasn't just one measurement enough to upgrade Emily from a cat-4 to a cat-5 and that was also from a recon plane???

Actually, there were other surface-adjusted observations which confirmed the 136-138 knot estimate. The biggest difference between the two situations is that Emily was not a landfalling cat 5, so reclassification of such a storm would theoretically not draw as much attention. The reclassification of Hugo would draw enormous attention and scrutiny. We also have other means of confirming such a classification since we are talking about a landfalling storm, like the other ways used to reclassify Andrew

[Audrey2Katrina]

There you have it... and in very recent times:

While I don't want to get into the debate regarding Hugo's landfall intensity

Hyperstorm: Well there's a nice way to attempt to secure the parameters of a discussion narrowly enough to restrict a rebuttal--but efforts notwithstanding, (and I appreciate the data BTW), I will make the necessary responses.

In the first place, you have cited as your exhibit A, little more than an issued advisory. I could just as well cut and paste an issued advisory showng winds in excess of 140 mph striking Buras when Katrina made landfall--and we know how that turned out don't we?

Secondly: Let's look at this data, from the NHC tables on Isabel:

Going through the information by Bevan and Cobb, you find some interesting insights:

You actually need OVER 135 Kts to be classified as Cat 5... and NONE of the reported Cat 5 winds over 135 Kts, show a pressure above 935. In fact, from the "official" report they are as follows:

11 / 1200 21.4 54.0 925 135 "
11 / 1800 21.5 54.8 915 145 "
12 / 0000 21.6 55.7 920 140 "
12 / 0600 21.7 56.6 920 140 "
12 / 1200 21.6 57.4 920 140 "
12 / 1800 21.7 58.2 920 140 "
13 / 0000 21.8 59.1 925 135
13 / 1200 22.1 61.0 935 135 "
13 / 1800 22.5 62.1 932 140 "
14 / 0000 22.9 63.3 935 135 "
14 / 0600 23.2 64.6 939 135 "
14 / 1200 23.5 65.8 935 135 "
14 / 1800 23.9 67.0 933 140 "
15 / 0000 24.3 67.9 937 130

Indeed the only true Cat 5, records show pressures only as high as 933, and that on only ONE reading... all of the others are 930 or BELOW. Additionally, whether you wish to debate/discuss this or not, it is quite germaine to the issue that ALL of these "readings" are taken from data while the storm was WELL out over open seas, and nowhere near landfall in the Carolina area. I would suggest that quite possibly the "higher" baromentric readings (although "none" are over 935) are anomalies that might well have a logical explanation in that the dropwindsondes may well have missed the lowest pressure areas? I find the 915 mb far more indicative of an accurate pressure reading for a storm with those winds. Now to be certain we're talking actually getting what might be the most reliable pressure readings of this puppy, we would turn to those recorded on land as she moved ashsore. Sadly, the much bereaved Isabel was reduced to Cat 2 when making landfall; but one can still draw some interesting pressure/wind comparisons from the "official" report, as opposed to those shown in an isolated NWS advisory:

Atlantic Beach (Clemson/UF Tower) 18/1645 962.8 18/1558 55 67

Cape Hatteras (Clemson/UF Tower) 18/1644 968.2 18/1622 69 85

Duck Corps of EngineersPier NOSe 18/1918 984.0 18/2100 55 72

Now you can see by the underscored pressure readings, the "lowest" (these are underscored and italicized).. is 962, and the max sustained winds here (Bold print, sustained left, peak gust-right), are only 55 mph. At 968, 23 have 69 mph... at 984, we have 55 mph... not very impressive. In fact, the 69 mph sustained at Cape Hatteras is the "official" highest sustained recorded anywhere. I imagine given the distance from actual landfall this is understandable; but the pressure of 968 hardly lends credibility to the contention that a Cat 5 (particularly a HUGE one) can have a CP higher than 935.

Getting back to Hugo... with a landfalling pressure at/over 935 I see no way possible for it to have been Cat 5--end of story IMHO.

Seems it's not as easy as one might have thought. I do give you A for effort though!

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I have a question. Is there any serious move afoot to recategorize Hugo as a Cat 5 at landing? I haven't heard of any but I may have totally missed it. Or is is just wishful thinking of a few peopel on the board?

Personally... and this is just my opinion... I believe it's a serious case of the latter.... ain't gonna happen.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I won't go no furtrher back then as data starts to become a little shakey but as you can say actually there are quite a few hurricanes are what some would think on the high side of cat-5 status. While I'm not saying Hugo was a cat-5 at landflal, I'm just showing that actually there are at least 3 hurricanes that were above 938mbs and several others above 930mbs.

I'm not going to dispute the "possibility"; but I do believe I have a valid point in disputing the "reliability" of these figures. I'd have to see the actual time and place of the reported data--as shown above with Isabel... were these readings while a storm was well out to sea instead of actually making landfall with a reading certifiably in the COC, we have no way of knowing these are the actual lowest pressures, now do we? Again... I'd like to see a "land-falling" pressure above 935 of a storm that at that time is Cat 5.... and since we know the only 3 certifiable cat 5 landfalls in the US were Andrew, Camille, and the Labor Day storms... all three of which were distinctly well below that number--the perplexity remains unresolved. But again, I appreciate the data/information.

A2K

[KWT]

Audery, what about my two examples that I've given two other examples of cat-5's such as hurricane Allen with pressure of 945mbs and winds of 140kts and it came very close to land at that point though I'm not sure wehther it did actually make landfall or not?
It may not have been actually landfall but aobut 15-25 miles north and it would have been a landfalling cat-5 with a pressutre of 945mbs, its the closest I've found anyway!!!
While its not the USA, it proves that its possible at least in theory and if the right situation occurs...not saying Hugo was that but its a possiblty as I believe your just saying?

(ps, just seen your last post just now!!!)

[Audrey2Katrina]

I was flooded by floyd and I have been thought 7 hurricans

Please forgive this real quick lapse off topic but I couldn't help but notice the "Wallace" La., ID... isn't that where one of the plantations used in "The Skeleton Key" is located? Is it Felicite, or Evergreen?... anyway, more to the tune of tropics.... how did it fare after Katrina?--because we don't have many of those classic antebellums left and it's tragic how many Mississippi has lost.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I'm not sure wehther it did actually make landfall or not?
It may not have been actually landfall but aobut 15-25 miles north and it would have been a landfalling cat-5 with a pressutre of 945mbs, its the closest I've found anyway!!!

Actually you have to look at Allen's entire history... this is a storm that had at one time registered a central pressure as low as 899.. and that is VERY low... All the other readings to which you refer were well out at sea, certainly more than any 20 nm... Allen even was as low as 909 mb less than 24 hours from landfall in the Gulf before weakening substantially before landfall near Brownsville, where the pressure was already substantially higher at 945 with top winds at 100 kt. (Official NHC/TPC data) Again... a long shot from having over 135 kts and higher than 935 mb pressure... but again, let me make this clear: I'm not saying it's not possible... but I am definitely saying it's anything but "easy"...to find... and feel convinced this was not the case for Hugo. Appreciate the info, though!

A2K

[KWT]

Fair enough Audery i know what your saying. one other thing about Allen, it was at 140kts at 945mbs just south of Haiti by about 10-25nm, its number 23:

23 17.80 -73.80 08/06/00Z 140 945 HURRICANE-5

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... /track.gif

Just a shade further north and we'd have a cat-5 at 945mbs making landfall.