Storm of the century

[JtSmarts]

Ms. Katrina

[f5]

the storm of the century will be when Manhattan is under 20-30 ft of water sorry KAT

[ROCK]

I did not vote for Katrina even though she did crazy damage from her surge. The reason? B/C a lot of damage was contributed to poor / obsolete levee system in NO. Nothing special about that.

Wilma is my vote.

[gatorcane]

Katrina may be the storm of the century ( 5 years of it) now but we have to remember that we still DONT have a landfalling CAT 5 yet, Katrina weakened substantially before landfall from top sustained winds of CAT 5+ 175mph to CAT 3 winds. I would wager to say that a major landfalling CAT 5 will happen before this century is over.

I agree with Rock that the damage was due in large to a poorly designed levee system. Had that not have broken, we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars less of damage.

I vote for Wilma.

[AussieMark]

what Katrina did to the Mississippi gulf coast is worse than anything we have seen for decades tho

[wxmann_91]

Katrina may be the storm of the century ( 5 years of it) now but we have to remember that we still DONT have a landfalling CAT 5 yet, Katrina weakened substantially before landfall from top sustained winds of CAT 5+ 175mph to CAT 3 winds. I would wager to say that a major landfalling CAT 5 will happen before this century is over.

I agree with Rock that the damage was due in large to a poorly designed levee system. Had that not have broken, we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars less of damage.

I vote for Wilma.

If you think about it, a landfalling Cat 5 is almost impossible unless it's a small storm, which will lessen the damage. So, technically, the worst case scenario (a landfalling large Cat 5) is almost impossible, yet in many cases, a large Cat 3/4 can be almost as devastating as a small Cat 5. I think with the geography and bathymetry of the NGOM, Katrina's almost as bad as it could get (a Katrina-sized Cat 4 just to the west of where Katrina hit would be the worst case).

[gatorcane]

If you think about it, a landfalling Cat 5 is almost impossible unless it's a small storm, which will lessen the damage. So, technically, the worst case scenario (a landfalling large Cat 5) is almost impossible, yet in many cases, a large Cat 3/4 can be almost as devastating as a small Cat 5. I think with the geography and bathymetry of the NGOM, Katrina's almost as bad as it could get (a Katrina-sized Cat 4 just to the west of where Katrina hit would be the worst case).

Yes you are right good point

[Jim Cantore]

I think that if Ivan is up there, Charley should be too because of the rapid intensification RIGHT BEFORE LANDFALL and the fact that it did more damage than Ivan.

hence the "other"

[Jim Cantore]

I think that if Ivan is up there, Charley should be too because of the rapid intensification RIGHT BEFORE LANDFALL and the fact that it did more damage than Ivan.

hence the "other"

that didnt show up in the poll

[Audrey2Katrina]

Not even close. If you want to decide based on sheer intensity and awe-inspiring images, I'd say Wilma; however, I feel you gotta go with death toll first (human loss of life should be paramount: Katrina, nearly 1500 and still counting with over 2,000 still unaccounted for--nothing else in the same ballpark.) Saying that it was all the fault of a bad levee system is like saying Andrew, although Cat 5, was small and the area of total devastation was small and largely because of poorly constructed housing--wouldn't matter to me at all, Andrew was THE storm of the 1990's. Or for that matter saying the Galveston storm which took upwards of 8,000 lives wasn't the hurricane of the last century (technically it was the last of the 19th), simply because it was located in entirely too vulnerable an area without adequate protection: (they DID build a sea wall AFTER that storm.) To me, this is utterly irrelevant: death is death, and loss is loss, tragedy is tragedy, and just my opinion; but finger pointing to reasons for its happening in no way mitigates the impact of a storm designated "the stom of the ____" The only criteria should be death toll, damage, impact, area/size of impact, and then the lesser important but more sensationalistic items like imagery, intensity as per barometric pressure, winds as per SS etc. etc. And in looking at all those factors, it's not even a race at this point in time. Katrina by 3/4 the length of the track!

And I do agree that we have an awful LOT left of the century, and while I'd like to hope that no area has to suffer a worse fate than that which Katrina inflicted on the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Florida, it is indeed quite possible, if not outright probable that it will happen. God bless the people in that one's pass though, and while wishing it on no one, I sure as hell hope it isn't around the central Gulf.

Katrina--by a mile... or perhaps an area of devastation over 90,000 square miles, which goes quite far beyond the breached levees of New Orleans.

A2K

[wxmann_91]

Not even close. If you want to decide based on sheer intensity and awe-inspiring images, I'd say Wilma; however, I feel you gotta go with death toll first (human loss of life should be paramount: Katrina, nearly 1500 and still counting with over 2,000 still unaccounted for--nothing else in the same ballpark.) Saying that it was all the fault of a bad levee system is like saying Andrew, although Cat 5, was small and the area of total devastation was small and largely because of poorly constructed housing--wouldn't matter to me at all, Andrew was THE storm of the 1990's. Or for that matter saying the Galveston storm which took upwards of 8,000 lives wasn't the hurricane of the last century (technically it was the last of the 19th), simply because it was located in entirely too vulnerable an area without adequate protection: (they DID build a sea wall AFTER that storm.) To me, this is utterly irrelevant: death is death, and loss is loss, tragedy is tragedy, and just my opinion; but finger pointing to reasons for its happening in no way mitigates the impact of a storm designated "the stom of the ____" The only criteria should be death toll, damage, impact, area/size of impact, and then the lesser important but more sensationalistic items like imagery, intensity as per barometric pressure, winds as per SS etc. etc. And in looking at all those factors, it's not even a race at this point in time. Katrina by 3/4 the length of the track!

And I do agree that we have an awful LOT left of the century, and while I'd like to hope that no area has to suffer a worse fate than that which Katrina inflicted on the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Florida, it is indeed quite possible, if not outright probable that it will happen. God bless the people in that one's pass though, and while wishing it on no one, I sure as hell hope it isn't around the central Gulf.

Katrina--by a mile... or perhaps an area of devastation over 90,000 square miles, which goes quite far beyond the breached levees of New Orleans.

A2K

THANK YOU... COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF...

[Jim Cantore]

Not even close. If you want to decide based on sheer intensity and awe-inspiring images, I'd say Wilma; however, I feel you gotta go with death toll first (human loss of life should be paramount: Katrina, nearly 1500 and still counting with over 2,000 still unaccounted for--nothing else in the same ballpark.) Saying that it was all the fault of a bad levee system is like saying Andrew, although Cat 5, was small and the area of total devastation was small and largely because of poorly constructed housing--wouldn't matter to me at all, Andrew was THE storm of the 1990's. Or for that matter saying the Galveston storm which took upwards of 8,000 lives wasn't the hurricane of the last century (technically it was the last of the 19th), simply because it was located in entirely too vulnerable an area without adequate protection: (they DID build a sea wall AFTER that storm.) To me, this is utterly irrelevant: death is death, and loss is loss, tragedy is tragedy, and just my opinion; but finger pointing to reasons for its happening in no way mitigates the impact of a storm designated "the stom of the ____" The only criteria should be death toll, damage, impact, area/size of impact, and then the lesser important but more sensationalistic items like imagery, intensity as per barometric pressure, winds as per SS etc. etc. And in looking at all those factors, it's not even a race at this point in time. Katrina by 3/4 the length of the track!

And I do agree that we have an awful LOT left of the century, and while I'd like to hope that no area has to suffer a worse fate than that which Katrina inflicted on the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Florida, it is indeed quite possible, if not outright probable that it will happen. God bless the people in that one's pass though, and while wishing it on no one, I sure as hell hope it isn't around the central Gulf.

Katrina--by a mile... or perhaps an area of devastation over 90,000 square miles, which goes quite far beyond the breached levees of New Orleans.

A2K

THANK YOU... COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF...

absolutely

[StormScanWx]

I voted Ivan, because inland Alabama has never seen a storm so powerful. I do not think the news media EVER focuses on the inland areas, it's always about the coast.

[Jim Cantore]

as much as Katrina effected all of us, I couldn't go against wilma, what she did in a 24 hour period was unbeatable and she covered with damage and impact, 62 inches of rain in cancun, blew out every window in Miami, nearly pulled a doomsday on Key West.

[Pearl River]

ROCK wrote

did not vote for Katrina even though she did crazy damage from her surge. The reason? B/C a lot of damage was contributed to poor / obsolete levee system in NO. Nothing special about that.

Wilma is my vote.

Let's see. Pass Christian...gone. Waveland..extreme damage. Bay St Louis..extreme damage. Area's outside of the levee protection system in LA..extreme damage. South Slidell, LA..extreme damage.

Nothing special? Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Jim Cantore]

ROCK wrote

did not vote for Katrina even though she did crazy damage from her surge. The reason? B/C a lot of damage was contributed to poor / obsolete levee system in NO. Nothing special about that.

Wilma is my vote.

Let's see. Pass Christian...gone. Waveland..extreme damage. Bay St Louis..extreme damage. Area's outside of the levee protection system in LA..extreme damage. South Slidell, LA..extreme damage.

Buras, Gone, Biloxi/Gulfport/Ocean Springs/Pascagoula/Dauphin Island Major damage, Grand Isle major damage, Pilottown/Boothville Gone.

[JPmia]

Divide this award into two:

I think Katrina for now based on damage and loss of life...Wilma for strongest this century (she did not break every window in Miami, actually far from it)

However, all of this will be wiped away when the Cat 4 or 5 directly strikes the Miami/Ft. Laud/West Palm Beach metro area (or another into NO). The 1926 or 1947 hurricanes and others come to mind.

[Jim Cantore]

The broken window thing was an expression

[SouthFloridawx]

Didn't they upgrade andrew to a cat 5? Was that before he hit south florida then weakend to a cat 4 while making landfall?

[Ixolib]

What amazes me, after ALL THIS TIME, is that we still have members of S2K who continue to see Katrina as a N.O. hit only!!

How is it that you choose to concentrate on a levee system and about 500 square miles and disregard the other 85,500 square miles of the Gulf coastal regions that were significantly impacted by Katrina - in many cases to a sizable degree greater than what happened in New Orleans??