Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

First!! too cool!

It's interesting how each of the most beautiful places on the globe have their own weather issues... though hundreds of inches per year seems unimaginable. Guess you have to take the bad with the good. I'm just glad I didn;t set up a vacation in Hawaii during the past weeks... hopefully things settle down when I make it out that way.

Happy St. Patty's Day!!

Rita downgraded to 115 mph at landfall: Report

I can't believe the NHC. It's inexplicable.

The NHC has released its report on Hurricane Rita. (www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml?)

No it isn't. Rita's wind damage didn't comapre with Katrina's, and since Katrina was (supposedly) a Cat 3 at landfall, they couldn't very well have had Rita as strong/stronger.

I agree with that, though. Rita's damage, while severe, was not tremendous, and 115 seems reasonable.

Hey Colby,

I respect your opinion, but I'm gonna have to disagree. Katrina, although more powerful than Rita, did 90% of her damage in flooding and storm surge. The wind damage was not tremendous. Rita, however, struck an area with a combined population of less than 10,000 people (compared to almost a million where Katrina hit), and still produced an incredible 10 billion dollars in damage. Hurricane Wilma, for example, struck south Florida (a very heavily populated area) with supposedly stronger winds and did only 2.6 billion dollars more in damage. And what about Rita's 937 mb central pressure? It was not a particularly large hurricane (hurricane force winds extended 85 miles from the center compared with Katrina's 125 miles), and the ambient pressures in the Gulf of Mexico were only slightly lower than average. 937 mb would usually equate to around 120 kts, or 140 mph. Even if we add in lower ambient pressures and the larger size of Rita compared with other hurricanes, it woyuld still equate to 110-115 kts, which is borderline Category 3-4 intensity.

If you could explain further why you think the NHC was right with 115 mph, then I will gladly read it; I am here to be proved wrong on this issue!

Thanks,

Rich

Katrina did not make landfall with anywhere near the strength it had even a hundred miles offshore. It made a hard right just prior to landfall, geared itself down tremendously and tore up the Mississippi coast, mostly with tidal surge, somewhat similar to a Tsunami, or tidal wave.
New Orleans suffered the way it did because the city was a mudhole waiting to fill up. Levees breached, fouled up pumps which were not even elevated themselves, and the city was inundated. If Katrina had not turned right, and had hit New Orleans with anything like full fury, there would have been tens of thousands dead, almost immediately.

sn0wmAn

who cares you been first

The best theory as to why these storms 'gear down' just before landfall on the Gulf of Mexico coast is the lack of deep water to maintain momentum. It is said that these category 5 storms are piling waves 80-200 ft high in the deep ocean. But the storm literally trips and begins to fall as it reaches shore. You must go many miles offshore along the Gulf to approach depths of 200 feet. But consider a Cat 5 storm approaching the US east coast, where such depths exist right offshore, making it more likely that the storm keeps its momentum right up to landfall.

Katrina had some winds, snapped 85% of the pines on the farm. She was harsh on the poultry indusrty as well. NO just didn't see them... Though at the time Rita seemed to have higher winds, to me, just less population damage. As far as business damage, she tore up the oil industry more, than Katrina.

& haw haw ya'll are funny... the magnetic north leaves Canada was just another topic we had covered, unrelated to hurricanes ~ But Inyo, since ya offered, on the slim chance, I'll take that picture:)

Micheal~ i Googled it, between the 2 most recent articles, with same facts, the other was pretty dry in content.

Wikpedida-
Wilma's pressure had risen to 894 mbar (26.40 inHg) as the hurricane weakened to Category 4, with winds of 155 mph (250 km/h). Wilma was the first hurricane ever in the Atlantic Basin (and possibly the first tropical cyclone in any basin), to have a central pressure below 900 mbar (26.58 inHg) while at Category 4 intensity

A cat 4 hurricane under 900 MBs, thats amazing.

A question for globalize who was talking about hurricanes which most of the time downgrade as they near the shoreline. Andrew was an exception as it made landfall strngthening. Do you think this was because the water off that coastline was deeper and had warmer water further down?

Talking about strange hurricane occurences, the price of beds if you have noticed have increased as much as 40-50% in the past 6 months. Due to the amount of foam that is manufactured where Katrina and Rita made landfall, much of that production was cut short as many of the factories which produce the foam in beds were destroyed. My friend bought a bed for 1000 dollars just 3 years ago, it broke and now beds that went for that much are now as much as 2000 dollars.

Giants in 06

I think the strangest thing about last hurricane season is that Emily was a cat-5, and was the third weakest major hurricane of the season.

Report on Zeta is out.

Also, the reports on Franklin and Harvey are out.

What is iwin?

thanks for the link..ditto about "Tallahassee has freaked out"...????

From the NHC report on Zeta:
"The National Hurricane Center has also identified an unnamed subtropical storm that formed earlier in 2005."!!!
Does anyone know anything about this? Will the NHC issue a report on it?

Yes, they will issue a short report on it, according to Max Mayfield

Here's the link to the discussion in IWIN. Scroll down to you get to Tallahasse.

From what i had understood on the propossed iwin termination That i'd linked ya'll to comment to NOAA on was~ if it was to be terminated it would happen by March 1st. Looks like it will see another year.

My 2006 hurricane season outlook has been updated.

I went to find the mention of a STS...it's not there anymore!

Hey everyone,

A quick post regarding both the Rita revised intensity at landfall and the comparisons being made between her and Katrina.

First of all, I personally believe the NHC got both of these final reports wrong in terms of landfalling intensity.

I still have to wonder if there could actually be some underlying reason (insurance companies, political pressures, something) for the MHC to come up with Katrina being only a 125 mph 920 mb hurricane in Buras, La. and a 120 mph category 3 storm at 928 mb in Mississippi.

On the other hand, it is also unfair as well to suggest that the NHC is being the equivalent of being dishonest in their reanalyzation of these storms.

Honestly, there is just no reasonable meteorological explanation for how they can derive (not in their report) that Katrina wasn't a 135 mph minimal category four for Buras landfall and probably closer to 130 mph borderline category 3/4 for the Mississippi landfall.

Likewise, it is pretty hard to conceive based upon the merits, how they can determine that Rita was just a weak category three landfall at 115 mph coming ashore with a 940 mb pressure.

I will go on record and suggest it is possible in my humble opinion that the NHC's rushed report on Katrina, which I believe is flawed had an impact on the discussions in determining Rita true landfalling intensity as well.

To be more specific, there is no way they could've realistically had Rita coming ashore at the same landfalling intensity as Katrina since they already listed Katrina as only a 125 mph moderate category three.

I naturally understand the inadequacies in the one to one ratio of the pressure gradient for correlating wind speeds with a given barometric pressure.

However, a correlation does still exist nonetheless and when reanalyzing both storms with the ambient (surrounding) pressures present at the time of each landfall, the current understanding and the science does not account for so great a disparity as the NHC would have you believe with the revised landfalling intensities for both storms.

As a result, I would respectfully argue that Rita was more on the line of a weakening 125 mph category three at landfall and not 115 mph.

I see some posts suggesting that Katrina's wind damage was not as extensive as Rita which I have to respectfully disagree for the widespread and very extensive wind damage rated as F-2 on the Fujita tornado scale that the NWS uses which reached more than 120 miles inland to Laurel, MS. and I personally drove through South Hattiesburg (65 miles inland)through Hattiesburg (75 miles inland) and past Meridian, MS. (150 miles inland) where the NWS rated damage still at F-1 intensity past Meridian to almost 200 miles inland.

The reason that the wind damage which was unbelievable (factual evidence in my video)doesn't get talked about too often is directly the result of the massive and historic damage caused by Katrina's storm surge which did the vast majority of the damage no doubt, and the subsequent flooding of New Orleans which places estimates at $75-100 billion for Katrina's damage.

This total would still have been well above Rita's, even if they had created comparable storm surges and we shouldn't forget that Rita did demolish entire SW La. towns with her own extreme surge of 15-20 feet which caused the majority of her damage as well.

There is very little doubt that Rita did not even come that close to producing the type of wind damage as Katrina did and she certainly didn't come close to having officially measured winds of 137 mph 50 miles inland, much less 120 mph 100 miles inland as well, which brought the astonishing widespread F-2 wind damage to inland Mississippi.

In short, both storms did most of their damage via the huge storm surges they both produced (Rita's surge pushing 20 feet is very rare in itself) and each surge virtually wiped entire coastal communities off the map for the time being.

Naturally, they also each caused widespread wind damage that was overshadowed in Katrina's case because of the astronomical damage on the coast by her surge and the media coverage primarily focused on the historic and devastating flooding of New Orleans combined with the immense and incomprehensible tragedy of more than 1400 people losing their lives along the coast which naturally would not have occurred had Katrina not produced that astounding storm surge.

In other words, if Katrina would've only brought in the same still incredible storm surge as Rita (which might not have breached the levees in New Orleans if the surge was closer to the 15 foot estimate on the low end of Rita's estimated surge), there still would have been a huge disparity in the damage totals related to wind damage alone, as the official NWS damage surveys undeniably prove.

Regardless of the inaccurate(in my humble opinion) revised landfall intensities for both storms, it has zero effect on the immense and virtually unbearable hardship that each storm brought to those who were most affected by each.

That being said, there is also no doubt that Rita's wind speeds and resultant damage couldn't come close to being comparable to Katrina's (have to remember Katrina's surge completely demolished the structures along the coast that otherwise would've been able to show the wind damage there) not just on the coast, but 200 miles inland which is astounding for a weakening 120 mph category three (supposedly) on the Mississippi coast.

It is one thing to analyze and contemplate the wind damages inflicted by each storm from afar and an entirely different matter when you have seen it with your very own eyes.

I will submit the post storm damage report for Katrina and Rita for comparisons, and it will clearly show that Rita's wind damages, while very extensive, doesn't come close to comparing with Katrina's (the difference in windfields had much to do with it as well as if I remember correctly, Katrina was moving slightly faster than Rita)

We can't forget that Rita had a very large hurricane force wind field extending some 85 miles from the center. Yet, Katrina had an even more remarkable hurricane force wind field extending up to 125 miles away from the center.

That is a very big difference of 40 miles in which Katrina's hurricane force winds would be impacting an area 40 miles farther inland if both storms were located at the same point. Moreover, it would take Rita more than two full hours to bring her hurricane force winds to the same area Katrina had blasted at landfall.

At that point, Katrina would then be blasting areas with hurricane force winds another 40 miles further inland of Rita. It is also important to note that Katrina maintained her very destructive intensity much further inland as well.

I am in no way trying to minimize the incredible wind damage inflicted by Rita. However, it's truly unfair and very inaccurate to suggest it was more widespread and more significant than Katrina's.

In short, they both were very destructive storms and huge calamities for everyone who was adversely affected by each and the technical meteorological discussions that are debated by all of us (definitely me included here) as well as the NHC is comparably very inconsequential.

Thanks,
Tony

Here is the summary from the Katrina post storm report that I alluded to in my previous post detailing the incredible wind damage inland for Katrina. This report is from the NWS in Jackson, MS.

It says:

"Destruction in the path of Hurricane Katrina has been widespread and overwhelming.

catastrophic destruction was left across the Gulf Coast and parts of southeast Mississippi.

Several visual surveys were made by NWS personnel across portions of central...east-central and southeast Mississippi.

These surveys indicated widespread damage comparable to F1 and F2 tornadoes...with areas bordering on F3 type damage.

The most extensive damage...from the surveyed areas...is roughly located south and east of a Purvis to Collins to Newton to Meridian line.

Areas north of I-20 have considerable tree
damage...comparable to an F1 tornado...but the damage is not as widespread like across southeast Mississippi."

Please note the widespread wind damage alone was equivalent to F-3 on the Fujita tornado scale! Most other areas south of 150 miles inland (Meridian, MS.) had widespread damage equivalent to F-2 tornadoes.

It also says less widespread wind damage equivalent to F-1 tornadoes some 200 miles inland.

This is very consistent with the damage I also surveyed and recorded myself for there was very widespread and extensive damage to trees, power lines, and structural damage to homes and businesses past Laurel into Meridian where the widespread nature of the destruction was less noticeable on my drive North into that town on I-59.

It is safe to say Rita can't come close to claiming this type of widespread and extensive wind damage excluding the storm surges.

Thanks,
Tony

Hey everyone,

I noticed a typo on my part.:)

"Please note the widespread wind damage alone was equivalent to F-3 on the Fujita tornado scale! Most other areas south of 150 miles inland (Meridian, MS.) had widespread damage equivalent to F-2 tornadoes."

It should've said, widespread wind damage of F-2 with some areas pushing F-3 type damage on the Fujita tornado scale.

In other words, there was widespread wind damage more than 120-150 miles inland of F-2 damage on the Fujita tornado scale, and F-1 damage past that upwards of 200 miles in many areas.

The fujita scale assumes that the winds do not last long, a minute or so at most. Winds from a tropical system last hours. Of course the fujita damage overrates the storm.

Good Update Dr Masters and beautiful selection of pictures.
I remember Hurricane Iniki in 1992 (I've always been a Hurricane geek) that news footage of that roof blowing off was seen hundreds of times!

Hope they get a little break in that area soon.
Thanks again,
Gams

The S Pacific is back - Larry looks good.

'92 seems to have been a bad year for the U.S., despite low activity. Andrew and Iniki.

Or, it would have been considered a bad year until, say, 2004.

i have update my blog on the R storm it was not a cat 3 storm come on by a look at the photo on there you see it cat not be a cat 3 storm if you look at the photo it was a cat 4

chaser,
I agree completely with your assessment on Katrina and Rita. I don't want to accuse anyone of being dishonest, but I'm afraid politics did play a part. Also, the insurance industry is very, very powerful. There may be a lot of pressure to "massage the data", as a professor in one of my college courses used to say.

But one good thing out of all of this is that we are really rethinking how we rate hurricanes. I think the size of a hurricane can be more important than what the lowest pressure or highest wind speed is. This is true especially with a major hurricane. When Katrina was a Cat 5 it built up such an enormous storm surge that even as the winds weakened somewhat before landfall, that had almost no effect because the momentum of the storm surge was so great, and covered such a large area.

It is tough to figure out how to rate hurricanes, though. We don't want to minimize in any way the destruction and suffering caused by much smaller but very intense hurricanes (Charley would be an example), but it makes no sense to rate Katrina lower than Charley!

The rating system is based on WINDS ONLY. When will you people get that through your heads? It could do F5 tornado damage and have a pressure of 218mb, and the winds could still be 155 and it would still be a Cat 4.

I'm actually a little suprised they kept it that high...this doesn't look like a Cat 3 to me.

when i say the R storm updat i was mad i was hoping for a update to a cat 4 and not lower it to 115mph

did you all no that they did the to all 3 hurricane ????

Colby,
Yes, I realize we rate by winds only right now. But I just don't think that did justice to the destruction caused by Katrina and points up weaknesses in our current rating system. Just my opinion.

Hey Colby,

You said:

"The rating system is based on WINDS ONLY. When will you people get that through your heads? It could do F5 tornado damage and have a pressure of 218mb, and the winds could still be 155 and it would still be a Cat 4."

Who ever said the rating system (i.e. Saffir- Simpson hurricane scale) wasn't based on WINDS ONLY as you correctly noted?

If you somehow misunderstood my point that there is still a correlation between Barometric pressure and the winds generated by the storm, I suggest you please reread my posts once again.

I stated correctly that although there is not a direct one to one ratio between winds and pressure, that there isn't as great a disparity as the NHC would have some believe.

That was only one of many points that I discussed as to why Katrina and Rita were unjustly revised in their true landfalling intensities based SOLELY on wind speeds alone.

In short, there is a reason why we (I have actually done NWS damage surveys, so I know first hand) use the Fujita tornado scale to estimate wind damage and the NWS does take into consideration all variables to include how well the buildings were constructed before assigning a rating for those areas.

Therefore, the F-2 and borderline F-3 damage that was so widespread and extensive is extremely relevant in trying to best estimate the actual WINDS since the anemometers in these areas were disabled well before they could record the ACTUAL peak winds.

Likewise, the barometric pressure is still relevant as well, especially in cases like Katrina when there was difficulty obtaining the sustained winds from both radar out of Slidell, La. and the destroyed anemometers on the ground.

You have to remember that one must take into account the verifiable surrounding pressures and the measured barometric pressure in the storm and determine the magnitude of the pressure gradient as just simply one tool along with ALL the aforementioned to accurately access a storms true intensity absent reliable data from Recon flights and Doppler radar as was the case with Katrina.

In short, I respectfully disagree with you about your suggestion that barometric pressure as well as the fujita tornado damage scale have no relevancy regarding such storms like Katrina, where there was no true verifiable data to accurately obtain her true intensity.

As a result, we have to use all of the aforementioned to subjectively determine the best estimated landfalling intensity or otherwise flip a coin or play innie minnie mighty moe to figure out what categorization is most appropriate.

You think it is possible that we all could respectfully state our opinions without the sarcasm?

I for one think it would be nice.:)

Thanks,
Tony

Hey Colby,

It is ironic that you decide to sarcastically make a comment about how irrelevant the Fujita damage scale and the storms actual measured barometric pressure and then follow with a post about how the storm doesn't "look" like a category 3 to you.

Are you suggesting it is better to simply just estimate the intensity by looking at it and ignore the storms verified barometric pressure and the wind damage it caused in the absence of reliable data?

Of course you aren't.

That being said, the official WIND data listed in my blog I just created, clearly shows to me at least that both storms were given too low an intensity based on winds alone.

Thanks,
Tony

Hey Colby,

By the way, just for the record, I don't personally think that we will ever see a 218 mb category four with 155 mph winds that does F-5 tornado damage from those winds.

Hey Colby,

Please excuse the sarcasm for I was simply showing how unnecessary such comments truly are in making ones point.:)

I respect your right to disagree and you could be right in your assessment of Ritas true intensity. However, my interpreatation of the data suggests to me only that she was definately a category three at landfall with winds more in the 120-125 mph range rather than a weak 115 mph category three or even a category two as you apparently believe.

There is no harm in agreeing to disagree respectfully.:)

Thanks,
Tony

Keys NWS new office in the Keys, is built to with stand a cat 5 & they allow tourists in.

The Zeta report I downloaded yesterday had a "1" indicating a footnote at the end of the first sentence (after "basin") & had what I wrote at the bottom of the page. It is gone now.

Has anyone else noted that there are problems with the Gamma report? For example, the text states that Gamma started moving to the SE on Nov. 20 but the map shows it moving NW on the 20th & turning SE on the 21st. Also Fig. 1 shows the minimum pressure of 1002mb at noon on the 20th but Fig. 3 shows it at noon on the 19th.

I don't know if it's the same elsewhere but a local broadcast station is supposed to show the episode of Stargate Atlantis with the superhurricane today (start of a 2 part story).

What if they rated hurricanes by both wind and spread? Like when Rita was a cat. 3 (just before landfall) with hurricane force winds extending 85mi from center, it would be a cat 3.85.205. Beta was also a cat. 3 just before land fall, but would have been a 3.15.60.

Colby, for once I am with you on something..LOL
I totally agree with you on Rita. Just look at the radar and satelite signature about 12 hours before landfall, how can nayone deny that. I remember I was up all night with Rita's landfall on WU. The next few days everyone was tearing into me because I said it was a Weak 3, Strong 2. Noone believed me..LOL. Its nice to know I wasnt crazy!!

*anyone..Now if only I can learn to type..Ha Ha!!