NHC FAILED TERREBONNE PARISH COASTAL RESIDENTS!!!!!

[HollynLA]

I don't really think it's the NHC that failed Terrebone parish. However, the local media did. My place in Dulac (lower Terrebone) is appearantly sitting under 8-10' of water as I type this. We spoke to our neighbors who are further inland in their shrimp boat and have heard that their mobile home (thats raised about 4' up) and completely submerged although they can't say for sure because they can't get there in a boat to verify. The water has risen more than anyone possibly expected but they did expect the water to overflow the banks. Local media has barely mentioned a blip on the screen about Terrebone. I'm sitting here watching every local network and can't find anything. On another board, a lady said she called Fema for assistance because her home is underwater in Montegut and they told her it was not listed as a disaster area. I blame this on local officials and the governor. Terrebone needs to be declared a disaster area but local media is not concerned about the retired folks and shrimpers who live there and have now lost probably everything. It will probably be atleast a week before I can get there to see what's become of my place, or should I say what's left to salvage.

The people of lower Terrebone know the flood potential there and they also know that they are mostly ignored by officials and media so they must decide for themselves how bad it's going to get. No one expected it to come up this high. 9' is probably a very conservative number, I'd say more like 15' or higher.

[SkeetoBite]

Thirty advisories and discussions where issued for Rita directly by the NHC. The regional weather offices also issued their own advisories during this storm The areas affected were well defined, well in advance of the storm. The NHC followed their mandate by issuing all advisories, warnings, watches, etc. in a manner that allowed for action by LOCAL emergency managers and the public.

Here is a link to all discussions by the NHC for Rita with the associated track maps: http://www.skeetobiteweather.com/discoh ... d=AL182005

Note: We're working on adding the public advisories archive and cone of error to this data.

Short of going door to door, I don't know what else we could have expected from the NHC. I guess they issued the warnings with enough time to actually send letters to everyone via U.S. Mail standard post or overnight. I think we need to launch http://www.hurriblamecentral.com.

[bvigal]

After both of these storms, NHC and local NWS-issued advisories, and seeing what happened in neighboring states of TX,MS,AL, a common theme rears its ugly head - the "blame game" sure seems to be a highly-elevated science in Louisiana!! I can honestly say that if I lived in Louisiana, I'd be hunting for some answers, but not from the federal government. I'd be wanting to know what in the world is going on with emergency management, from the top person in Baton Rouge, all the way down the chain of command!

Are these patronage jobs? Have the persons holding them gone to even the minimal number of E.M. courses? And when they were there, were they in class, or in the hotel bar? Or is the problem with elected officials, who ignore their E.M.s, because they have more concern with political matters than public safety? Have they graduated from high school? (sorry, not trying to be insulting to probably majority good people, but the cumulative impression from these two storms is that there are some who are really a few cards short of a full deck, failing to meet their responsibilities)

It is neither NHC nor the media's responsibility to warn locals about dangers. The local E.M. need to know what's going on, what is possible, and then get on radio and tv and let people know the risks. Residents of Lousiana, put the blame where it belongs, and start asking some pointed questions of your local officals!!

[inotherwords]

Let's be honest. When the NHC issued a TS warning, you don't expect to have a 10-15 ft storm surge. You wouldn't expect to lose your house 20 miles inland, would you? Come on, be honest, those of you who have experienced lots of TS warnings. TS warning to me (and according to the description) is a rainy and windy day. Hardly life changing.

You are making a huge mistake in assumption. First of all, Rita wasn't just a TS. It was an enormous hurricane pushing a lot of water. You were to the right of the storm center, which just about everyone knows receives the dirty part of the storm.

Your mistake was assuming Rita was "just a TS" when it wasn't. It didn't form as a TS. You focused on one part of it without taking the whole into consideration, particularly the part where Rita was Category 5 and 4 for a long time, and what the result of that would be with regard to storm surge even if the storm weakened somewhat before landfall.

I'm sorry, but people in your other thread pointed out the mistakes in your logic but you persist in believing some sort of myth that everyone in LA agrees with you, or that those of us outside LA (even those of us in other coastal areas and who have experienced hurricanes firsthand) couldn't possibly understand what you're going through. I know this board is about sharing opinions, but occasionally you have to tell someone that they're just flat out wrong, and unfortunately you are, but you seem to want to believe otherwise.

I think there has to be better education about storms in general to help people understand better, for instance, to help you understand why there still was a big storm surge from Rita in your area and that you should have expected it. What gives me pause, though, is when so many people provide sound information and facts, and others still choose to ignore them because they will believe what they want to believe.

[LSU]

Let me ask you this:

Have you ever heard of an area under a TS warning getting a 15 foot storm surge? The SELA coastline probably is put under a TS warning 3-5 times a year and rarely does anything come of it. Worse case scenario you'll get something like Cindy 05 (which the NHC failed LA on again, underestimating her strength) and have strong winds and a 5 foot surge.

If tidal surge is what causes the most damage and kills the most people, shouldn't you emphasize the surge over wind in warnings? A hurricane warning should not extend to what winds you'll receive, but rather, what surge you'll get. Even if that had been the case, the NHC would have been wrong this time, as they only forecast HALF of what was the actual surge from Rita. And even if they had been right with the surge, they were still wrong with the wind. SELA received hurricane winds. Parts of TX that were under hurricane warnings didn't even receive TS winds.

For the poster who says you'll get gusts to 109 in a TS, you've not followed many storms. The NHC almost always over-estmates what the winds will be when the storm comes ashore. A storm like Rita comes ashore with official sustained 120 usually means you'll have sustained 80 with a few gusts maybe reaching 115-120 in isolated spots. Just look at the highest gusts recorded from Rita. None reached 120. And that is the norm and practice of the NHC.

[cajungal]

If it was not for Martin Folse with his TV station HTV, we would not have a clue what was going to happen in our own parish. I watched Channel 4 and the other stations, but they only mention New Orleans. Martin Folse was the only one that shows how Terrebonne and Lafourche Parish was going to be affected. He even said to expect hurricane force wind gusts in western Terrebonne Parish. I live in northwestern Terrebonne Parish, and we did get a few gusts clocked at 80 mph. Martin Folse might be a little goofy and hype things up, but he is hard working and dedicated to his job. He cares about the residents of Terrebonne, Lafourche and St. Mary. Even when people call him and ask him ridiciolous questions, he never loses his cool. He even uses the "stick" to show where the eye of the storm is going, so he can alert Terrebonne if the eye deviates of its path.

[inotherwords]

LSU wrote:

The SELA coastline probably is put under a TS warning 3-5 times a year and rarely does anything come of it.

LSU, you are still not listening. It's not just that Rita was a TS. It was the TS on the edges of A HUGE HURRICANE SYSTEM that had pushed water in the gulf for days. You can't compare this with stand-alone tropical storms!

Why is this fact lost on you? And why are you ignoring the fact that the NHC advisories all contained warnings about surges?

[x-y-no]

Let me ask you this:

Have you ever heard of an area under a TS warning getting a 15 foot storm surge? The SELA coastline probably is put under a TS warning 3-5 times a year and rarely does anything come of it. Worse case scenario you'll get something like Cindy 05 (which the NHC failed LA on again, underestimating her strength) and have strong winds and a 5 foot surge.

If tidal surge is what causes the most damage and kills the most people, shouldn't you emphasize the surge over wind in warnings? A hurricane warning should not extend to what winds you'll receive, but rather, what surge you'll get. Even if that had been the case, the NHC would have been wrong this time, as they only forecast HALF of what was the actual surge from Rita. And even if they had been right with the surge, they were still wrong with the wind. SELA received hurricane winds. Parts of TX that were under hurricane warnings didn't even receive TS winds.

LSU, you've aparently got an agenda and all the facts in the world to the contrary won't dissuade you.

A couple of questions for you:

1) The alleged storm surge in TS warning areas has mysteriously gone from 9 feet to 15 feet during the course of this thread. Please provide authoritative documentation of the 15 foot surge you are claiming.

2) Please provide authoritative documentation of the sustained hurricane force winds you claim were seen in TS warning areas. Gusts don't count as has already been explained to you.

For the poster who says you'll get gusts to 109 in a TS, you've not followed many storms. The NHC almost always over-estmates what the winds will be when the storm comes ashore. A storm like Rita comes ashore with official sustained 120 usually means you'll have sustained 80 with a few gusts maybe reaching 115-120 in isolated spots. Just look at the highest gusts recorded from Rita. None reached 120. And that is the norm and practice of the NHC.

Now this argument is hilarious. You allege that the NHC has historically exaggerated winds, and so you apparently chose to ignore the warnings on the assumption that the actual winds would be much lower than the warnings indicated. Then you blame the NHC for your false assumption.

[curtadams]

LSU, you are still not listening. It's not just that Rita was a TS. It was the TS on the edges of A HUGE HURRICANE SYSTEM that had pushed water in the gulf for days. You can't compare this with stand-alone tropical storms!

Why is this fact lost on you? And why are you ignoring the fact that the NHC advisories all contained warnings about surges?

The surge warning was vague. It said up to 20 feet east of landfall - but didn't say how far east. Was Tampa supposed to evacuate? Of course not. Where would the public draw the lines? They're going to draw it by the warning categories for given stretches. The logical presumption for somebody in the area is that a TS warning means possible TS conditions - not a major hurricane surge.

There are two problems. First, and more fundamental, is that we do not understand what's going on with surge lately. All 4 Cat 5 monsters produced surge far in excess of expectations and models, albeit in different ways. The second, and secondary problem is that the NHC doesn't have a warning for "big surge but mild winds". The warnings are based on a rough coupling of winds and surge and they're decoupling in these Cat 5 storms.

[inotherwords]

LSU, you are still not listening. It's not just that Rita was a TS. It was the TS on the edges of A HUGE HURRICANE SYSTEM that had pushed water in the gulf for days. You can't compare this with stand-alone tropical storms!

Why is this fact lost on you? And why are you ignoring the fact that the NHC advisories all contained warnings about surges?

The surge warning was vague. It said up to 20 feet east of landfall - but didn't say how far east. Was Tampa supposed to evacuate? Of course not. Where would the public draw the lines?

Sorry but that strawman argument doesn't hold. How far was Terrebonne parish from the eyewall? That location is the subject of this discussion. If anyone anywhere in Louisiana didn't expect significant storm surge from Rita, particularly people in low-lying areas, they were not thinking, and I bet most of them relied on TV and not on the official NHC bulletins for their info, which CLEARLY mentioned storm surge for LA.

The logical presumption for somebody in the area is that a TS warning means possible TS conditions - not a major hurricane surge.

That is not a logical presumption in a storm like this! If someone thinks that, then they're unfortunately quite ignorant of hurricanes, and that's really nobody's fault but their own. Perhaps their local mets and other news media need a little brush-up course themselves so they can do a better job educating their audience.

[SouthernWx]

The advisories issued by NHC were crystal clear.......stating that a 15-20' foot coastal storm surge was expected "near and east" of where the eye crossed the coast. The NHC forecasters realized the size and intensity of Rita combined with very shallow offshore waters meant a tremendous storm surge along a wide section of Louisiana coastline......all the way to and beyond Terrebonne Parish.....all the way to Grand Isle, New Orleans, and the mouth of the Mississippi River; even in areas where winds would be less than hurricane force, there would still be a damaging 15-20' foot storm surge.

I knew it.....knew what it meant; that much of southern Louisiana was going underwater; that it would be devastating......just as other large Gulf hurricanes of the past created damaging storm surges well east of where hurricane force winds were experienced. During hurricane Betsy, there was substantial storm surge flooding all the way to Panama City, Florida.
During hurricane Dennis, much of Apalachee Bay innudated coastal communities well east of the landfall point; areas under tropical storm warnings but not hurricane warnings. In 1961, hurricane Carla struck the middle Texas coast near Port Lavaca, and significant storm surge damage occurred at Grand Isle, LA.....hundreds of miles to the northeast.

I'm honesty mystified as to why so many folks were surprised.....and am both shocked and saddened why anyone wishes to place blame on NHC or it's forecasters. I've already realized that Katrina's death toll will likely cost Max Mayfield his job.....even though the warnings, forecasts, and advisories were excellent; there was no reason for so many to die. The hurricane advisories during Katrina.....and during Rita were as accurate as you can get, yet still NHC gets blamed, second guessed, and in all probability these rants and protests will end up costing some (in addition to Dr Mayfield) very competent and professional meteorologists their careers

What I'm about to say may anger some....but I'm stating it anyway. People have to take some personal responsibility for their own safety...for their family's safety. NHC doesn't have the time or resources to warn each and every coastal resident individually.....doesn't have the manpower to call everyone and say "Please Mrs Jones, you really need to evacuate...we forecast a 12.3' storm surge at your home on 1309 Hammock Avenue in Jacksonville Beach; just as the local WSFO offices can't possibly alert everyone individually in the path of an impending tornado....it's simply not possible, and in my honest opinion.....it SHOULDN'T be neccesary. If you choose to live in a tornado prone area, you should have the moxie and common sense to learn the signs of impending tornadoes, buy and utilize a NOAA weather radio, to take cover immediately when a tornado warning is issued.....and to get out of vunerable mobile homes and vehicles. By the same token, if someone lives along or near the U.S. seashore, it is their responsibility to learn everything possible about hurricanes, the hurricane history of their location, the storm surge potential of their area, and how to prepare and stay safe when a hurricane strikes.

PW

[Brent]

Can you not read? Direct from the NHC:

COASTAL STORM SURGE FLOODING OF 15 FEET ABOVE NORMAL TIDE LEVELS...
LOCALLY UP TO 20 FEET AT HEAD OF BAYS AND NEARBY RIVERS...WITH
LARGE AND DANGEROUS BATTERING WAVES...CAN BE EXPECTED NEAR AND TO
THE EAST OF WHERE THE CENTER MAKES LANDFALL. TIDES ARE CURRENTLY
RUNNING ABOUT 2 FEET ABOVE NORMAL ALONG THE WAVES...AND RESIDENTS THERE COULD EXPERIENCE COASTAL FLOODING.
LARGE SWELLS GENERATED BY RITA WILL LIKELY AFFECT MOST LOUISIANA...MISSISSIPPI
AND ALABAMA COASTS IN THE AREAS AFFECTED BY KATRINA. TIDES IN THOSE
AREAS WILL INCREASE TO 4 TO 6 FEET AND BE ACCOMPANIED BY LARGE
PORTIONS OF
THE GULF COAST.

Oh and I wouldn't believe your claim about hurricane force winds that far east if your tongue came notorized. It seems like your inflating what has happened to try and help your side.

[swimaster20]

OK, people saying that there were not any warnings for people in Louisiana east of where Rita came in, I've got something to tell you. Vermilion Parish had a mandatory evacuation for everyone living south of LA 14, Iberia Parish had a mandatory evacuation for everyone living south of US 90 and/or LA 14, and St. Mary Parish had a mandatory evacuation for anyone south of the Intracoastal Waterway.

[hookemfins]

Let me ask you this:

Have you ever heard of an area under a TS warning getting a 15 foot storm surge? The SELA coastline probably is put under a TS warning 3-5 times a year and rarely does anything come of it. Worse case scenario you'll get something like Cindy 05 (which the NHC failed LA on again, underestimating her strength) and have strong winds and a 5 foot surge.

If tidal surge is what causes the most damage and kills the most people, shouldn't you emphasize the surge over wind in warnings? A hurricane warning should not extend to what winds you'll receive, but rather, what surge you'll get. Even if that had been the case, the NHC would have been wrong this time, as they only forecast HALF of what was the actual surge from Rita. And even if they had been right with the surge, they were still wrong with the wind. SELA received hurricane winds. Parts of TX that were under hurricane warnings didn't even receive TS winds.

For the poster who says you'll get gusts to 109 in a TS, you've not followed many storms. The NHC almost always over-estmates what the winds will be when the storm comes ashore. A storm like Rita comes ashore with official sustained 120 usually means you'll have sustained 80 with a few gusts maybe reaching 115-120 in isolated spots. Just look at the highest gusts recorded from Rita. None reached 120. And that is the norm and practice of the NHC.

major

The reason you don't see higher wind speeds is because many instruments failed. Also the 120 mph are confined to a small area close to the center. There may not have been any instruments that close.


Since you never really read the advisory here is where it talked about coastal flooding and storm surge:

COASTAL STORM SURGE FLOODING OF 15 TO 20 FEET ABOVE NORMAL TIDE LEVELS...ALONG WITH LARGE AND DANGEROUS BATTERING WAVES...CAN BE EXPECTED NEAR AND TO THE EAST OF WHERE THE CENTER MAKES LANDFALL. TIDES ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING ABOUT 2 FEET ABOVE NORMAL ALONG THE LOUISIANA...MISSISSIPPI AND ALABAMA COASTS IN THE AREAS AFFECTED BY KATRINA. TIDES IN THOSE AREAS WILL INCREASE TO 3 TO 5 FEET AND BE ACCOMPANIED BY LARGE WAVES...AND RESIDENTS THERE COULD EXPERIENCE COASTAL FLOODING.

and also: FOR STORM INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO YOUR AREA...INCLUDING POSSIBLE INLAND WATCHES AND ARNINGS...PLEASE MONITOR PRODUCTS ISSUED BY YOUR LOCAL WEATHER OFFICE.

If Mississippi could get 5 feet then maybe closer to the center may be higher???

[MyGulfParadise]

Speaking of bashing......I thought TWC has done a exceptional job this year as compared to last year in reporting hurricanes. Last year they seemed to want to create news instead of reporting it. This year I have been impressed with there coverage. Now there is some new meat to attack so we can lay off of the NHC.

[SouthernWx]

Another point.....to the poster re: observed wind gusts at landfall...

The NOS weather station anemometer near Cameron failed after recording sustained winds over 90 mph and a peak gust of 112 mph.....and failed over an hour BEFORE the peak winds arrived. IMO peak gusts in that area (based on doppler radar) were 140-150 mph or more.

You will rarely ever see the true peak winds of a major hurricane recorded accurately inside the max wind region of the eyewall. Either the anemometer fails or is destroyed by flying debris. Most of the historical peak gusts you've seen were either the upper limit of the anemometer or the peak at time the instrument was blown away.

I've heard for two months about how the strongest gusts at Navarre Beach during hurricane Dennis were 121 mph. After seeing the wind damage firsthand, I now question that anemometer's accuracy.....because my "on scene visual" wind damage analysis told me peak gusts were more likely 135-140 mph.....or about the same as the average F2 tornado.

Just for the record, does anyone else here know the peak recorded wind gust during hurricane Audrey in 1957? It was 105 mph and was a peak gust at WSO Lake Charles.....just before the anemometer blew away (beachfront gusts during Audrey likely reached 150 mph or more

PW

[robjay]

And, with the breakpoints where they are, if they'd extended the hurricane warnings east of Morgan City, the whole entire city of New Orleans would panic.

I hope the NHC isn't so concerned about causing panic that they would fudge actual warnings that need to be issued. I do think they need to update their hit map more frequently than every 6 hours when a storm is less than 48 hours from landfall.

[LSU]

I think curtadams has hit the nail on the head. Terrebonne, Jefferson and Plaquemines parishes were all under TS warnings (late warnings at that). These areas are about 200 or more miles east of where Rita's eye made landfall. Just how far east are those predicted 15ft surges to extend?

You don't expect a 10-15ft storm surge so far away when you're under a TS warning. TWC, for instance, said these areas would only experience 4-8 ft surges. If the NHC knew it would be like that so far away, don't you think they would have given note -- perhaps by extending the Hurricane Warning since in a warning the element of tidal surge is included?

[x-y-no]

I think curtadams has hit the nail on the head. Terrebonne, Jefferson and Plaquemines parishes were all under TS warnings (late warnings at that). These areas are about 200 or more miles east of where Rita's eye made landfall. Just how far east are those predicted 15ft surges to extend?

How early does a warning need to be for you not to consider it late? Here's the advisory that elevated that region from a TS watch to a TS warning:

ZCZC MIATCPAT3 ALL
TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM CCA
BULLETIN
HURRICANE RITA ADVISORY NUMBER 19...CORRECTED
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
4 AM CDT THU SEP 22 2005

...CORRECTED BREAKPOINTS IN TROPICAL STORM WATCH SECTION...

...POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC CATEGORY FIVE RITA MOVING
WEST-NORTHWESTWARD ACROSS THE CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO...

AT 4 AM CDT...0900Z...THE HURRICANE WATCH IS EXTENDED EASTWARD ALONG
THE LOUISIANA COAST TO INTRACOASTAL CITY. A HURRICANE WATCH IS NOW
IN EFFECT FOR THE GULF OF MEXICO COAST FROM PORT MANSFIELD TEXAS TO
INTRACOASTAL CITY LOUISIANA. A HURRICANE WARNING WILL LIKELY BE
REQUIRED FOR PORTIONS OF THE HURRICANE WATCH AREA LATER TODAY.

AT 4 AM CDT...A TROPICAL STORM WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR THE
SOUTHEASTERN COAST OF LOUISIANA EAST OF MORGAN CITY TO THE MOUTH OF
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. A TROPICAL STORM WARNING MEANS THAT
TROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS ARE EXPECTED IN THE WARNING AREA DURING
THE NEXT 24 HOURS.

That's 48 hours before landfall. What the heck more do you want???

You don't expect a 10-15ft storm surge so far away when you're under a TS warning. TWC, for instance, said these areas would only experience 4-8 ft surges.

I asked you for documentation of your claim of a 15 foot surge and sustained hurricane force winds in this area. Have you got it?

If the NHC knew it would be like that so far away, don't you think they would have given note -- perhaps by extending the Hurricane Warning since in a warning the element of tidal surge is included?

I fail to see why the NHC should be expected to issue inflated warnings simply because fools choose to assume that the warnings issued will be inflated.

I much prefer the policy they follow, which is to be as true to the actual data and best forecast prctices as they can be.

[SouthernWx]

I think curtadams has hit the nail on the head. Terrebonne, Jefferson and Plaquemines parishes were all under TS warnings (late warnings at that). These areas are about 200 or more miles east of where Rita's eye made landfall. Just how far east are those predicted 15ft surges to extend?

You don't expect a 10-15ft storm surge so far away when you're under a TS warning. TWC, for instance, said these areas would only experience 4-8 ft surges. If the NHC knew it would be like that so far away, don't you think they would have given note -- perhaps by extending the Hurricane Warning since in a warning the element of tidal surge is included?

1) since John Hope died, anyone who places any confidence in The Weather Channel as a major hurricane approaches is making a MAJOR mistake IMO....

2) Why would NHC have not known it (a 10-15' storm surge would reach so far east)? I knew it....and their technology and data sources are light years ahead of mine......