Andrew's Florida landfall downgraded to Category Four?

[SouthFloridawx]

your just being modest american hero dont think of yourself as anything less but i will stop if it bothers u. we will keep it on the down low.

You certainly are special little buddy.

[Jim Cantore]

[mike815]

"special"? if we are to discuss this lets do that in private now back to all that surge

[Derek Ortt]

most of the trees in Miami (especially on the barrier islands) are palm trees, whcih snap in hurricanes, usually not uprooted. So it is possible that aprts of Elliot Key did receive cat 5 winds (but these would only be in the streaks, so some pockets received cat 3 winds)

[Jim Cantore]

Andrew was a tightly would storm so these winds were localized, but deadly

Miami that night had sustained winds at 115mph with a gust to 163, which blew the radar off the NHC roof.

[MiamiensisWx]

most of the trees in Miami (especially on the barrier islands) are palm trees, whcih snap in hurricanes, usually not uprooted. So it is possible that aprts of Elliot Key did receive cat 5 winds (but these would only be in the streaks, so some pockets received cat 3 winds)

I agree that small pockets of Elliott Key (especially on the northern end) and in the vicinity likely may have received sustained Category Five winds, with the rest of the area receiving Category Two/Category Three sustained winds in pockets as well in several areas.

By the way, Derek, I'm still waiting for an answer to this...

I thought Elliott Key and the upper Keys/immediate mainland/island coastal areas along Florida Bay was rather prone to surge (though not as high as seen in Katrina, but around 18 to 22 feet at maximum surge). I also thought that Elliott Key received an eight to ten-foot storm surge in Andrew. Any thoughts?

I do agree, though, that the highest surge would be restricted to the immediate coastal areas. However, I'm now talking about the area where Andrew hit, NOT downtown Miami/Miami Beach.

Any thoughts on that, Ortt?

[MiamiensisWx]

Miami that night had sustained winds at 115mph with a gust to 163, which blew the radar off the NHC roof.

Those sustained 115MPH winds and 164MPH gust from the National Hurricane Center's rooftop anemometer was actually measured on the NHC's rooftop in Coral Gables, just south-southwest of Miami.

[Jim Cantore]

Miami that night had sustained winds at 115mph with a gust to 163, which blew the radar off the NHC roof.

Those sustained 115MPH winds and 164MPH gust from the National Hurricane Center's rooftop anemometer was actually measured on the NHC's rooftop in Coral Gables, just south-southwest of Miami.

The post storm has it listed as Miami

[Derek Ortt]

the winds in Wilma were higher than Andrew in Miami itsefl (center of the city)

as for the surge, maybe 10 feet on the barrier islands of Elliot Key. The 17 feet was on the mianland from Biscayne Bay

[DanKellFla]

Andrew could of been as strong as Katrina at her peak at landfall. See that's what Katrina could of done over a much larger area.

Actually, at landfall, Andrews winds were 40 mph faster. (Is anybody trying to get Katrina declared a Cat 5 at landfall?) But that is just a small bit of information. Andrew has a much smaller wind-field, the storm surge was different because of the geography and previous days wind-field. Katrina's pressure was lower by 2mbar. And, there are other pertinent criteria that I don't have listed here. Each storm is a very individual event. I find it hard to compare storms beyond what damage they did to my local area.

I don't believe that Katrina killed 1,300 people. There is no way to know for sure, but I think the overwhelming majority of victims died as a result of the flooding and abandonment after the storm. After Andrew, it was a total mess, but that was confined to a much smaller area than LA. Obviously, flooding wasn't an issue either. 20 miles away from landfall, life was normal a few days later. 30 miles away, we never even lost electricity. So, support and a functioning infrastructure was available nearby.

[ericinmia]

Another supplemental argument...

You can't compare tree to tree. Andrew leaving a tree vs. others. Anyone ever try and put a nail through south dade pine???? When you cut it, the saw shoots sparks... just a little fyi.

[timNms]

Andrew could of been as strong as Katrina at her peak at landfall. See that's what Katrina could of done over a much larger area.

Actually, at landfall, Andrews winds were 40 mph faster. (Is anybody trying to get Katrina declared a Cat 5 at landfall?) But that is just a small bit of information. Andrew has a much smaller wind-field, the storm surge was different because of the geography and previous days wind-field. Katrina's pressure was lower by 2mbar. And, there are other pertinent criteria that I don't have listed here. Each storm is a very individual event. I find it hard to compare storms beyond what damage they did to my local area.

I don't believe that Katrina killed 1,300 people. There is no way to know for sure, but I think the overwhelming majority of victims died as a result of the flooding and abandonment after the storm. After Andrew, it was a total mess, but that was confined to a much smaller area than LA. Obviously, flooding wasn't an issue either. 20 miles away from landfall, life was normal a few days later. 30 miles away, we never even lost electricity. So, support and a functioning infrastructure was available nearby.

Not sure why you don't believe this. Whether directly, or indirectly, Katrina was responsible for well over 1000 deaths. Many people in New Orleans were drowned in flood waters that kept rising, even as they scrambled into their attics to try to escape the water. The same thing happened along the Mississippi coast. People were drowned in attics as the surge kept rising, or were drowned as their homes crumbled around them. One account is told of a lady who drowned in a camper trailer as the surge water rose above the top. She was trying to escape thru a vent in the top and got stuck. People watched helplessly from their rooftop as she drowned.

[timNms]

There was no 24 foot surge in Andrew. So, the damage depicted above was a result of surge and wind. According to the SS Scale, which was developed because of Camille, all trees should have been blown down, which obviously is not the case in either hurricane. What I am attempting to convey is that many here insist that Camille was not a Cat-5 because in photographs there are trees standing. Well, looks like a bunch of trees survived where Andrew came ashore as a Cat-5.......MGC

Well I assert that Camille was not a 190 mph based on images....but even still, imo from pics along that first pic that CVW showed shows more severe wind damage than I have seen from images from Camille...

But yes, no Camille debate here.

And I will ask what credentials you hold that would cause one to believe what you assert?

Contrary to what some believe, or think they know, or want others to believe, the NHC says Camille and Andrew were catagory 5 hurricanes and until the NHC changes their tune, we have to accept their findings.

It is my personal opinion that both were catagory 5 storms. And I hope and pray that no one has to go thru anything like them or Katrina again.

[Extremeweatherguy]

Miami that night had sustained winds at 115mph with a gust to 163, which blew the radar off the NHC roof.

Those sustained 115MPH winds and 164MPH gust from the National Hurricane Center's rooftop anemometer was actually measured on the NHC's rooftop in Coral Gables, just south-southwest of Miami.

The post storm has it listed as Miami

This image, posted on page one, shows it well.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/imag ... -radar.gif

The NHC office is clearly SW of downtown Miami and Miami beach.

[Normandy]

There was no 24 foot surge in Andrew. So, the damage depicted above was a result of surge and wind. According to the SS Scale, which was developed because of Camille, all trees should have been blown down, which obviously is not the case in either hurricane. What I am attempting to convey is that many here insist that Camille was not a Cat-5 because in photographs there are trees standing. Well, looks like a bunch of trees survived where Andrew came ashore as a Cat-5.......MGC

Well I assert that Camille was not a 190 mph based on images....but even still, imo from pics along that first pic that CVW showed shows more severe wind damage than I have seen from images from Camille...

But yes, no Camille debate here.

And I will ask what credentials you hold that would cause one to believe what you assert?

Contrary to what some believe, or think they know, or want others to believe, the NHC says Camille and Andrew were catagory 5 hurricanes and until the NHC changes their tune, we have to accept their findings.

It is my personal opinion that both were catagory 5 storms. And I hope and pray that no one has to go thru anything like them or Katrina again.

I never said Camille wasn't a Cat 5. But 190 mph? Come on.

[Extremeweatherguy]

There was no 24 foot surge in Andrew. So, the damage depicted above was a result of surge and wind. According to the SS Scale, which was developed because of Camille, all trees should have been blown down, which obviously is not the case in either hurricane. What I am attempting to convey is that many here insist that Camille was not a Cat-5 because in photographs there are trees standing. Well, looks like a bunch of trees survived where Andrew came ashore as a Cat-5.......MGC

Well I assert that Camille was not a 190 mph based on images....but even still, imo from pics along that first pic that CVW showed shows more severe wind damage than I have seen from images from Camille...

But yes, no Camille debate here.

And I will ask what credentials you hold that would cause one to believe what you assert?

Contrary to what some believe, or think they know, or want others to believe, the NHC says Camille and Andrew were catagory 5 hurricanes and until the NHC changes their tune, we have to accept their findings.

It is my personal opinion that both were catagory 5 storms. And I hope and pray that no one has to go thru anything like them or Katrina again.

I never said Camille wasn't a Cat 5. But 190 mph? Come on.

I think 190mph was her top speed. She was 160mph at landfall.

[Normandy]

There was no 24 foot surge in Andrew. So, the damage depicted above was a result of surge and wind. According to the SS Scale, which was developed because of Camille, all trees should have been blown down, which obviously is not the case in either hurricane. What I am attempting to convey is that many here insist that Camille was not a Cat-5 because in photographs there are trees standing. Well, looks like a bunch of trees survived where Andrew came ashore as a Cat-5.......MGC

Well I assert that Camille was not a 190 mph based on images....but even still, imo from pics along that first pic that CVW showed shows more severe wind damage than I have seen from images from Camille...

But yes, no Camille debate here.

Thats much more reasonable, but thats not what many here believe.
And I will ask what credentials you hold that would cause one to believe what you assert?

Contrary to what some believe, or think they know, or want others to believe, the NHC says Camille and Andrew were catagory 5 hurricanes and until the NHC changes their tune, we have to accept their findings.

It is my personal opinion that both were catagory 5 storms. And I hope and pray that no one has to go thru anything like them or Katrina again.

I never said Camille wasn't a Cat 5. But 190 mph? Come on.

I think 190mph was her top speed. She was 160mph at landfall.

[MiamiensisWx]

[Vandora]

After Andrew, it was a total mess, but that was confined to a much smaller area than LA. Obviously, flooding wasn't an issue either. 20 miles away from landfall, life was normal a few days later. 30 miles away, we never even lost electricity. So, support and a functioning infrastructure was available nearby.

Excuse me? My SO's parents's house is about 20 miles away (few blocks north of Kendall Drive), and they certainly didn't go on as normal a few days later. They had water damage, broken windows and roof damage, not to mention the tree on their house. They were without power for more then a month. Some were lucky to get it sooner, but it certainly wasn't "normal" and my SO's parents weren't the only ones dealing with post-Andrew problems for an extended period of time. They were very lucky, yes, but it wasn't normal days later.

[AnnularCane]

Andrew could of been as strong as Katrina at her peak at landfall. See that's what Katrina could of done over a much larger area.

Actually, at landfall, Andrews winds were 40 mph faster. (Is anybody trying to get Katrina declared a Cat 5 at landfall?) But that is just a small bit of information. Andrew has a much smaller wind-field, the storm surge was different because of the geography and previous days wind-field. Katrina's pressure was lower by 2mbar. And, there are other pertinent criteria that I don't have listed here. Each storm is a very individual event. I find it hard to compare storms beyond what damage they did to my local area.

I don't believe that Katrina killed 1,300 people. There is no way to know for sure, but I think the overwhelming majority of victims died as a result of the flooding and abandonment after the storm. After Andrew, it was a total mess, but that was confined to a much smaller area than LA. Obviously, flooding wasn't an issue either. 20 miles away from landfall, life was normal a few days later. 30 miles away, we never even lost electricity. So, support and a functioning infrastructure was available nearby.

Not sure why you don't believe this. Whether directly, or indirectly, Katrina was responsible for well over 1000 deaths. Many people in New Orleans were drowned in flood waters that kept rising, even as they scrambled into their attics to try to escape the water. The same thing happened along the Mississippi coast. People were drowned in attics as the surge kept rising, or were drowned as their homes crumbled around them. One account is told of a lady who drowned in a camper trailer as the surge water rose above the top. She was trying to escape thru a vent in the top and got stuck. People watched helplessly from their rooftop as she drowned.

Whoever was responsible for the state of the levees and the existence of the MRGO is really responsible for that, not Katrina. If it weren't for all that, most of those floodwaters wouldn't even have happened, storm or no storm.