Hurricane of the previous decade

[KWT]

Now if Mitch were to happen this decade also, my choice would be significantly tougher - but it didn't. However, it will take one heck of a big storm to top what Katrina did.

-Andrew92

If a hurricane hits Haiti this year, it could happen.

Yep thats the really scary thing, imagine an Inez hitting Haiti, I'd not like to see even a TS hit that part of the world right now, yet alone anything close to a major hurricane.

Being from the UK I can't get past Wilma's amazing explosion, though many from that list are worthy of being contenders, and it shows just how terrible the last decade has been when the likes of Rita don't even get into the nominations!

[Category 5]

This is not even a contest.

[Derek Ortt]

If I were ranking the storms, Katrina does not even make top 5. I place far more emphasis on trail of damage and I do not give any extra weight to where a storm makes landfall.

My list would be as follows

1. Jeanne
2. Ivan
3. Wilma
4. Ike
5. Gustav
6. Katrina

Yes, Katrina was deadly... but only a determination that I disagree with allowed it to be the deadliest storm of the season. It also was a marginal 1 in Miami (12 more hours and my ranking is dramatically different as it would have underwent RI into at least a 3 and we would have a double landfalling cat 3), a TS in the Bahamas, and a collapsing 3 at the Gulf Coast. I just cannot see how this puts it ahead of the 5 other storms on my list

[somethingfunny]

If I were ranking the storms, Katrina does not even make top 5. I place far more emphasis on trail of damage and I do not give any extra weight to where a storm makes landfall.

My list would be as follows

1. Jeanne
2. Ivan
3. Wilma
4. Ike
5. Gustav
6. Katrina

Yes, Katrina was deadly... but only a determination that I disagree with allowed it to be the deadliest storm of the season. It also was a marginal 1 in Miami (12 more hours and my ranking is dramatically different as it would have underwent RI into at least a 3 and we would have a double landfalling cat 3), a TS in the Bahamas, and a collapsing 3 at the Gulf Coast. I just cannot see how this puts it ahead of the 5 other storms on my list

28 foot storm surge. Before you go ahead and blame outside factors like the slope of the continental shelf or the sorry state of the levees, consider how notable Jeanne would have been if Haiti weren't completely deforested....

[Derek Ortt]

Jeanne also struck 2 areas as a category 3 hurricane

and what about Dean and its 215 mph wind gusts at landfall and 175 mph winds?

the fact is, where the storms made landfall has ZERO influence on my rankings. A strike on the USA received ZERO EXTRA WEIGHT compared to anyplace else

Only reason Ivan was less destructive than Katrina was because it made landfall about 100 miles to the east

[Category 5]

As bad as Jeanne was. 2000 deaths in the United States in this time and age is absolutely incredible. The damage totals were unmatched, more than tripled andrew.

[Derek Ortt]

As bad as Jeanne was. 2000 deaths in the United States in this time and age is absolutely incredible. The damage totals were unmatched, more than tripled andrew.

slight correction, it less than doubled Andrew, Have to account for normalization. Katrina is the 3rd most destructive hurricane in US history, behind Miami/Pensacola and Galveston

[southerngale]

Uh, where's Rita? I wouldn't expect it to be chosen over Katrina, but easily over many of the others. I can't believe you didn't even include it on the poll.

Single landfall of a marginal 3. I did not include all retired hurricanes of the decade. Allison, Iris, Michelle, Frances, Rita, Stan were all left off. Some of those (Iris and Michelle) made landfall as a category 4 hurricane and would have more of a claim than Rita.

Stan was left off due to the controversy as to the direct vs indirect deaths.

Rita was also left off because Ike was as if not more destructive to the same area

That's not accurate. For example, overall, the damage from Rita was far worse in this area, with it being uninhabitable for longer than in Ike and overall damage worse than in Ike. They kept the mandatory evac up for 2 weeks in Rita... no electricity, water, roads impassable, etc. I don't remember exactly how long during Ike, but it was less. Obviously, Bridge City was far worse in Ike, and the other areas that were completely flooded by storm surge in Ike. The wind damage was awful, but not as bad as Rita. Overall (excluding certain areas), electricity came back sooner in Ike. It was out for 2 weeks+ in many areas during Rita. I dunno... both were devastating to this area, but for most people, Rita caused far more damage. And I believe the same is true for SW LA.

Anyway, it's not like Rita was the worst... I was just surprised it wasn't a choice while some of the others were. It's your poll, though. You can put TS Ana on there if you want.

[Brent]

Katrina hands down. Nothing else comes close.

Rita paled in comparison IMO. Ike was much worse than it. No disrespect to people hit hard by it but you have to look at the overall effects. Rita devastated an extremely small area vs. Katrina and Ike.

[lester]

It's clearly Katrina. The Gulf Coast STILL hasn't fully recovered yet and it's been almost 5 YEARS!!!!

[southerngale]

Katrina hands down. Nothing else comes close.

Rita paled in comparison IMO. Ike was much worse than it. No disrespect to people hit hard by it but you have to look at the overall effects. Rita devastated an extremely small area vs. Katrina and Ike.

I wasn't saying Rita was overall worse than Ike, nor was I saying Ike was overall worse than Rita. I wasn't even addressing that. Look at what I quoted and put in bold. I was disagreeing that "Ike was as if not more destructive to the same area." The areas hit hard by both... Rita was overall worse.

[CaneSurfer]

As bad as Jeanne was. 2000 deaths in the United States in this time and age is absolutely incredible. The damage totals were unmatched, more than tripled andrew.

slight correction, it less than doubled Andrew, Have to account for normalization. Katrina is the 3rd most destructive hurricane in US history, behind Miami/Pensacola and Galveston

Andrew's damage pales in comparison to Katrina's when it comes to landmass destroyed. Andrew's destruction was limited to a small area as opposed to Katrina which literally wiped out Southeastern Louisiana and all of the Mississippi coastline.

[Derek Ortt]

I had heard that SW Louisiana fared about the same from Rita and Ike. Both storms leveled that area (not surprising given the very low lying nature of that part of the coast).

As for the upper Texas coast... I lumped the area of Galveston to the border together as the same area.

Now... had Rita moved about 20 miles farther west... it likely gets included as then I am certain Port Arthur and Beaumont would have went under water from the tidal surge... and winds would have been 10-20 mph higher

[MGC]

Location, location, location. The cat at landfall don't mean a thing if say a cat-5 hits where there is nothing to damage or people to kill. Had Ivan made landfall where Katrina did then the results would have been nearly identical, but it didn't. Close only counts in horse shoes and nuclear weapons. First factor to consider is loss of life.....period, this fact should be given a 90% weith in the calculation not how many times a particular storm hit land as a Cat-3+. Second is human suffering.....thousands without food or water for extended periods kills just like drowning in the storm surge. I personally knew people that lost their lives in Katrina both ways....tragic. Third is property damage. Sticks and stones can be replace, human life can't.....MGC

[southerngale]

I had heard that SW Louisiana fared about the same from Rita and Ike. Both storms leveled that area (not surprising given the very low lying nature of that part of the coast).

As for the upper Texas coast... I lumped the area of Galveston to the border together as the same area.

Now... had Rita moved about 20 miles farther west... it likely gets included as then I am certain Port Arthur and Beaumont would have went under water from the tidal surge... and winds would have been 10-20 mph higher

That's the problem. Extreme SE TX (Beaumont, Port Arthur, Orange, etc.) was devastated by Rita. The Houston area had very minimal effects.

I also think that overall, SW LA fared worse in Rita than in Ike, but I'll let someone from that area confirm that, one way or the other.

[StormClouds63]

Rita caused much more structural damage in SW LA than Ike. Surge and inland flooding may have been higher with Ike, but Rita displaced many more residents for weeks and months due to structural damage to homes and apartments from the winds and associated tornadoes. Very few "blue roofs" with Ike, but thousands with Rita.

It's Katrina, however, for storm of the decade. No disrespect intended, but this is the obvious choice.

[KWT]

Katrina is the obvious choice for the US thats for sure, though as Derek's post alludes to its not the worst case and there have been more costly storms when you factor in normalisation.

As ever its going to be subjective as to what order the list goes in depending on where you are...personally just from a meteorlogical point of veiw, Wilma smashes all of them...from an impact point of view...Katrina wins every time.

[MGC]

Normalization? So a hurricane a thousand years ago that hit where no one lived should be considered ahead of a hurricane that killed hundreds or thousand recently? I don't think so. Lets say a hurricane hits Miami and destroys one home, then hits rural Louisiana and destroys one home. Damage in the Miami destroyed home will be many more times that of the rural Louisiana home. Heck, a pool enclosure in Miami likely costs more than some rural Louisiana homes. You have to factor loss of life and human suffering long before property damage. Katrina destroyed way more property than Andrew did. Don't get me wrong, Andrew was a very devestating hurricane but didn't come close to destroying the number of structures Katrina did......MGC

[KWT]

The whole point of it is to say that Katrina wasn't nearly worst case and there have been other storms that if they developed today would possibly make even Katrina look small time, despite the horrific trail Katrina left behind...

So its not so much that it should be considered ahead but its just to show that if a similar storm struck today it'd likely be more costly.

Also if we are talking about loss of life, then why on earth isn't Jeanne getting more votes, which killed a fair amount more then even Katrina did...

[MGC]

I know Katrina could have been much much worst. 50 miles futher west and all of New Orleans would have been under 30 feet of water. But, you have to compare apples to apples.....MGC