Moderator: S2k Moderators
MGC wrote:Some posters tend to cheer for their hurricane in their region. I guess it is a territorial thing common in the male of the species. Like no cat-5 is capable of hitting the NGOM coast only S FLA type post I've read here.......MGC
Not true at all,Atlantic Canada too!!!wxmann_91 wrote:MGC wrote:Some posters tend to cheer for their hurricane in their region. I guess it is a territorial thing common in the male of the species. Like no cat-5 is capable of hitting the NGOM coast only S FLA type post I've read here.......MGC
We all know the only place a Cat 5 can make landfall is in southern California.
x-y-no wrote:quandary wrote:x-y-no wrote:Level of coastal development has a lot to do with the bias to recent years. If the 1926 Miami storm (which ranks #30 on the official list) had struck the same place this year, it would easily be #1 - even over Katrina.
No. The 1926 storm would've been a toss-up when compared to Katrina. Katrina had a significantly larger economic impact versus the 1926 storm and the estimates for both range from 80-100 billion.
Well, we can argue over what the damage of the '26 storm would have been today - I think it would have been a higher dollar damage than Katrina (remember, the '26 storm hit the Gulf coast too). But even if it's a "toss-up" as you say, that still supports my basic point of a bias towards more recent storms in these rankings due to increased coastal development. Even by your reconing, the '26 storm moves from #30 to a virtual tie for #1 - the only difference being the amount of development then vs. now.However, the fact that Katrina equals or exceeds all the storms of the last 100 years, even considering build-up and inflation makes her all the more astounding and unique.
I don't think I said anything to contradict this.
Normalizing for inflation and for increases in population and wealth, only the 1926 hurricane that struck southern Florida surpasses Katrina in terms of damage cost. However, this would not be the case if the values on the higher end of the range of Katrina estimates are later found to be the most accurate.
quandary wrote:This looks like a list of most costly storms in the US for 2004-2005, but it is not. Scary that the list of worst storms is now predominantly from two of the most recent years.
Top 5 -- The Elites
1. Katrina (80+ billion)
2. Andrew (42 billion)
3. Charley (15 billion)
4. Wilma (14.4 billion)
5. Ivan (14.2 billion)
Top 10
6. Rita (9.4 billion)
7. Frances (9.0 billion)
8. Hugo (7.0 billion)
9. Jeanne (6.9 billion)
10. Allison (5 billion)
When we remarked last year that 4 of the top 10 were from 2004, it was astounding. Now, 7 of the top 10 are from 2004-2005. 6 of the top 7 are from 2004-2005. Ouch.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests
:hehe
