Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
ConvergenceZone
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5194
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Northern California

Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#1 Postby ConvergenceZone » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:28 pm

Okay, before you declare me insensitive, let me explain why I'm asking this...
First off, before Ike struck I had a sick feeling in my stomach. From all of the messages I was reading on here and everything the media was saying about Ike, practically made me sick. It was a real horrible situration unfolding, especially considering some of the words used by NHC in regards to what to expect. Now with that said, I expected that CNN and the weather channel would be filled with nothing but live aftermath reports all weekend long, or at least part of the time, but I'm hardly seeing anything compared to what I expected... For example, when I'm turning on the TV today, I'm really not seeing or hearing much.. I keep hearing the weather channel saying that there was extensive damage, but I remember during storms like Andrew and Charley, that the post hurricane coverage was a lot more substantial.

the bottom line is, the way this storm was built up by the NHC, the news media, and on this board, I thougth the TV coverage on the aftermath of IKE would be substantial, and since it's not, it leads me to believe that it wasn't near as bad as expected.....Any thoughts on this?
0 likes   

RL3AO
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
Posts: 16308
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: NC

#2 Postby RL3AO » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:31 pm

It probably would have been near or as bad as expected had it not wobbled north a few hours before landfall. If it would have made landfall 20 miles or so south of Galveston instead or over Glaveston...
0 likes   

User avatar
ConvergenceZone
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5194
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Northern California

Re:

#3 Postby ConvergenceZone » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:36 pm

RL3AO wrote:It probably would have been near or as bad as expected had it not wobbled north a few hours before landfall. If it would have made landfall 20 miles or so south of Galveston instead or over Glaveston...



Hmm, I guess the media must have expected what you said to happen then......I'm very glad it didn't, but am blown away by the lack of post hurricane coverage I'm seeing. I'm sure on a local scale the coverage is there, but usually it's on a national scale...

And based upon the coverage, it obviously wasn't the horrible event that the media was building it up to be....Thank god it wasn't even remotely close to being a Katrina....
0 likes   

User avatar
Cyclenall
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 6666
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:01 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

#4 Postby Cyclenall » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:13 pm

All I ever hear from every storm now is "It could have been worse". Has there EVER been a tropical cyclone where no one has said it could have been worse? The answer is NO. Not even Hurricane Andrew, Katrina, and Charley. I'm 100% sure if Ike made landfall 20 miles south of Galveston people would be coming up with excuses to try and use the "It could have been worse" line.

I have noticed there is a media blackout for the aftermath of Hurricane's Ike and Gustav. These storms were as bad as some in 2004 and there was quite a bit on them afterwards. It will now take a major city to be wiped off the land to get their attention.
0 likes   

User avatar
cycloneye
Admin
Admin
Posts: 145679
Age: 68
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#5 Postby cycloneye » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:18 pm

Being in a weekend may be part of the lack of coverage.I agree with what RL3AO said.
0 likes   

User avatar
southerngale
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 27418
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 1:27 am
Location: Southeast Texas (Beaumont area)

#6 Postby southerngale » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:19 pm

It ALWAYS "could have been worse." If 100 people died, it could have been 200. If 1000 people died, it could have been 2000. If the damage estimates are 10 billion, it could have been 20 billion. If the damage estimates are 80 billion, it could have been 100 billion.

etc.

Unless everyone and everything is completely wiped out and there's nobody left to say it, then it always "could have been worse."

I think it sort of undermines what did happen when that phrase is used every single time.
0 likes   

User avatar
ConvergenceZone
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5194
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Northern California

Re:

#7 Postby ConvergenceZone » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:23 pm

southerngale wrote:It ALWAYS "could have been worse." If 100 people died, it could have been 200. If 1000 people died, it could have been 2000. If the damage estimates are 10 billion, it could have been 20 billion. If the damage estimates are 80 billion, it could have been 100 billion.

etc.

Unless everyone and everything is completely wiped out and there's nobody left to say it, then it always "could have been worse."

I think it sort of undermines what did happen when that phrase is used every single time.



and again, it's the lack of post hurricane coverage that I"m upset about... It gives the bad impression to someone like myself who's out in California, that IKE was nothing big afterall, just another cane....
0 likes   

Brent
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 38101
Age: 37
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: Re:

#8 Postby Brent » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:26 pm

ConvergenceZone wrote:
southerngale wrote:It ALWAYS "could have been worse." If 100 people died, it could have been 200. If 1000 people died, it could have been 2000. If the damage estimates are 10 billion, it could have been 20 billion. If the damage estimates are 80 billion, it could have been 100 billion.

etc.

Unless everyone and everything is completely wiped out and there's nobody left to say it, then it always "could have been worse."

I think it sort of undermines what did happen when that phrase is used every single time.



and again, it's the lack of post hurricane coverage that I"m upset about... It gives the bad impression to someone like myself who's out in California, that IKE was nothing big afterall, just another cane....


I'm REALLY disappointed in the media. Only MSNBC can be bothered to cover the story right now. CNN and FNC are MIA. Thousands of people unaccounted for and they don't care.

I don't think we know the full scope of what Ike has done yet, although it definitely wasn't the worst case scenario, I think it's pretty close.
0 likes   

gsgs
Tropical Low
Tropical Low
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:44 am

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#9 Postby gsgs » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:29 pm

so, what was the highest storm surge along the coast ?

I found: "storm surge was 23 ft at bolivar" (can it be confirmed ?)

from
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/quickl ... print.html
Rainbow bridge:10.0
Port Arthur:12.0
Sabine Path North:14.0
Manchester:12.0
Eagle Point 12.0
Galveston Pleasure Pier:12.0
Calcasieu Pass:12.0
Freshwater Canal Locks:10.0
LAWMA Amerada Pass:8.0
USCG Freeport:7.0
Corpus Christi:6.0
0 likes   

CajunMama
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 10791
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: 30.22N, 92.05W Lafayette, LA

#10 Postby CajunMama » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:48 pm

Maybe, just possibly they're letting the responders get their work done without the media hovering over them. I'd rather wait to see images and reports so the responders can get in there and get their work done. We don't need the media there "bottlenecking" the recovery efforts.
0 likes   

User avatar
Nimbus
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5310
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:54 am

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#11 Postby Nimbus » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:04 pm

The major national ISP Sysmatrix headquartered in Silsbee has been out since yesterday.
They apparantly did not have a backup site setup for disasters such as this so their customers all over the country lost their net access.
Wonder if the oil companies underestimated the problems Ike would cause?
0 likes   

User avatar
Cyclenall
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 6666
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:01 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re:

#12 Postby Cyclenall » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:05 pm

southerngale wrote:It ALWAYS "could have been worse." If 100 people died, it could have been 200. If 1000 people died, it could have been 2000. If the damage estimates are 10 billion, it could have been 20 billion. If the damage estimates are 80 billion, it could have been 100 billion.

etc.

Unless everyone and everything is completely wiped out and there's nobody left to say it, then it always "could have been worse."

I think it sort of undermines what did happen when that phrase is used every single time.

This is exactly what my point is focusing on.
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5901
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#13 Postby MGC » Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:23 pm

It took a couple of days for the full scope of the Katrina disaster to be known. We evacuated to Florida for Katrina. There was little if any news from the Mississippi Coast till the day after the hurricane and then it was very localized. It was not until Wednesday that a helo got images in and we could see the damage. Thankfully Ike does not appear to be as bad as Katrina was. I can only hope there are no dead bodies found in the wreckage. Bodies were being found here on the coast months after Katrina.....MGC
0 likes   

CYCLONE MIKE
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2183
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:04 pm
Location: Gonzales, LA

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#14 Postby CYCLONE MIKE » Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:12 pm

Cyclenall wrote "I have noticed there is a media blackout for the aftermath of Hurricane's Ike and Gustav. These storms were as bad as some in 2004 and there was quite a bit on them afterwards. It will now take a major city to be wiped off the land to get their attention."

I totally agree. Acsension,Baton Rouge, Iberville, Assumption, and other surrounding parishes got hit harder from Gustav than from any other hurricane at least wind wise. Some places still without power. As soon as the national media saw Gustav was not going to be a cat 3 or 4 and hit New Orleans directly and cripple the levee systems they high tailed it out of here. No one outside of Louisiana probably has no idea on the extent of damage around here.
0 likes   

User avatar
wxman57
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
Posts: 22985
Age: 67
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Location: Houston, TX (southwest)

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#15 Postby wxman57 » Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:07 pm

We spent about 6 hours in the western eyewall of Ike. Mostly strong TS winds and a brief period of hurricane force sustained wind near 6am Saturday. Northerly winds in Galveston Bay prevented a much bigger storm surge from moving into the Bay. But Bolivar Peninsula was wiped out. It's also fortunate that Ike never could rebuild its core before landfall.
0 likes   

User avatar
Cyclenall
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 6666
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:01 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#16 Postby Cyclenall » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:48 am

wxman57 wrote:It's also fortunate that Ike never could rebuild its core before landfall.

Rebuild its core? I can't see a near category 3 hurricane that was stregnthening up to landfall with a pressure of 950 mb having no core. Where is the science behind that? Recon even showed it had a closed eyewall near landfall.
0 likes   

User avatar
Skintback26
Tropical Wave
Tropical Wave
Posts: 9
Age: 60
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: Lake Charles,Louisiana
Contact:

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#17 Postby Skintback26 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:29 am

There was a channel that had live feed of the Texas coast.It was channel 360 on Direct TV.It is no longer there,as of this morning.Go to http://www.khou.com,maybe its working.I've been watching that channel,and my God,the desruction!.
0 likes   

User avatar
wxman57
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
Posts: 22985
Age: 67
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Location: Houston, TX (southwest)

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#18 Postby wxman57 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:14 am

Cyclenall wrote:
wxman57 wrote:It's also fortunate that Ike never could rebuild its core before landfall.

Rebuild its core? I can't see a near category 3 hurricane that was stregnthening up to landfall with a pressure of 950 mb having no core. Where is the science behind that? Recon even showed it had a closed eyewall near landfall.


Yes, I'm quite aware there was an eyewall, as I was in it for 6+ hours. However, it was quite large and hadn't yet contracted, so the winds were quite a bit lower than they could have been.
0 likes   

Sanibel
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10375
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: Offshore SW Florida

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#19 Postby Sanibel » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:57 am

How much worse can you totally wipe away houses than what they already were in Bolivar? I think what NHC did was err on the safe side with the worst surge in case people were thinking of riding out a category 2. They got maybe one level underneath that with Ike because it didn't quite rebound to catgeory 3 before shore. But the surge was close enough even if the winds weren't. NHC didn't want to be caught underwarning if high numbers were killed.
0 likes   

suepeace
Tropical Wave
Tropical Wave
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:35 am

Re: Was Ike not near as bad as anticipated???

#20 Postby suepeace » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:33 am

My fear is that the damage and loss of life is much worse than what's being reported. We keep hearing about Houston, which did not get the worst of the storm. There are numerous reports of people saying that the Bolivar peninsula, Crystal Beach, and the West End were catastrophically damaged. And we know that thousands of people stayed behind to ride it out. Something's not being reported.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JtSmarts and 17 guests