JB still sticking with 1954 analog: science or hype?

[LarryWx]

I think he's being a little stubborn for now.

FWIW, the Accuweather video when the released the information didn't have landfall intensity numbers. Out of curiosity, what was the LA and MS/AL/NW FL numerical forecast? Because if that does or doesn't change (along with the Seaboard & NE zones) in his updated forecast, then we'll just have to wait and see whether or not his ideas semi-verify.

Steve

1) Yes, he definitely hates to flip-flop.

2) I haven't yet seen any of his actual numbers as I'm not one of his high-paying customers. I've only seen his write-ups, which give general ideas for the zones. However, he explicitly has said a while back that New England would have the greatest threat IN RELATION TO AVERAGES of all zones, and last week said he wasn't going to change his landfall ideas despite being surpised that Dr. Gray didn't reduce his OVERALL (not landfall) numbers. My point is that the rapid Pacific warming related to ENSO suggests to me that he should reduce the landfall ideas for New England (and perhaps some other east coast zones) at least to some extent, even if he still keeps them above normal.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Considering the still sorry state of the levees in Louisiana, the FEMA trailer villages all along the coast, and the endless expanse of blue tarps that still haven't been replaced since last year's season, even a Category One could wreak havoc along the Gulf Coast this year...

Sad, but true.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

If you look at analog years like 1961 and of course 1996 (the closest analog year). The idea of the East Coast, especially the Carolinas, being effected by hurricane landfalls, is very solid. Now the NE, well that is a bit more out there, but still VERY possible.

[SouthFloridawx]

Considering the shear amount of Total Devastation in places other than New Orleans like the MGC and eastern LA coast, I believe it is going to be 5-10 years before 90% recovery can be attained there. No offense to New Orleans but, the afformentioned areas above were hit MUCH MUCH MUCH harder and took a more powerful blow. TOTAL devastation.

Yes I agree even a strong mid tropical storm - weak hurricane is going to wreak havoc.

[Steve]

>>Considering the shear amount of Total Devastation in places other than New Orleans like the MGC and eastern LA coast, I believe it is going to be 5-10 years before 90% recovery can be attained there. No offense to New Orleans but, the afformentioned areas above were hit MUCH MUCH MUCH harder and took a more powerful blow. TOTAL devastation.

As a tangent, they were hit "much much harder and took a more powerful blow" in relation to wind and surge. There's no way the dollars approach half nor the lives affected or people displaced. I agree with the rest of your post, and you can throw in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties who still haven't recovered from Ivan. Basically anything east of St. Mary Parish, LA and west of Okaloosa County, FL would be in a jam with any mid-grade tropical storm or higher.

Steve

[SouthFloridawx]

>>Considering the shear amount of Total Devastation in places other than New Orleans like the MGC and eastern LA coast, I believe it is going to be 5-10 years before 90% recovery can be attained there. No offense to New Orleans but, the afformentioned areas above were hit MUCH MUCH MUCH harder and took a more powerful blow. TOTAL devastation.

As a tangent, they were hit "much much harder and took a more powerful blow" in relation to wind and surge. There's no way the dollars approach half nor the lives affected or people displaced. I agree with the rest of your post, and you can throw in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties who still haven't recovered from Ivan. Basically anything east of St. Mary Parish, LA and west of Okaloosa County, FL would be in a jam with any mid-grade tropical storm or higher.

Steve

Ok I'm not trying to be mean Steve cause I like you and your posts here on storm2k, they are always informative and great to read. So please don't take offense to what I'm going to say.

As a tangent, they were hit "much much harder and took a more powerful blow" in relation to wind and surge.

I was speaking in regards to the storm and not the man made failures of the cities defense from the Gulf of Mexico. I realize that New Orleans is much more populated but, as far as extensive damage Directly attributed to Hurricane Katrina's wind and surge... the MGC and LA bore the brunt of Katrina's fury that fatefull day.

There's no way the dollars approach half nor the lives affected or people displaced.

I agree that the shear amount of $$ and lives affected in New Orleans is much different from the gulf coast area that I just mentioned above. However I living here in South Florida and only getting reports from the Media on TV it was really hard to tell what was going on in area's other than New Orleans. That is where my problem lies with that. Not your nor anyone else on storm2k but, the Media.

[Steve]

Agreed. And the feelings are mutual btw.

>>I was speaking in regards to the storm and not the man made failures of the cities defense from the Gulf of Mexico. I realize that New Orleans is much more populated but, as far as extensive damage Directly attributed to Hurricane Katrina's wind and surge... the MGC and LA bore the brunt of Katrina's fury that fatefull day.

Yeah, the storm itself demolished much of SE LA, S MS and SW AL. New Orleans and Metairie had substantial wind damage, but it was primiarly trees and roofs (50 year old pecan tree fell on my house). But there's no denying the power of a vicious storm surge like the one that affected St. Bernard, Plaquemines, St. Tammany, Hancock, Harrison (and some of Jackson and Mobile as well). That's just an awesome display of force. I was wondering the other day what the difference might have been had Katrina actually remained a Cat 5. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that she was a Cat 3 or 4 with a Cat 5 surge. But would that surge have been even more brutal had the intensity of the storm lingered until landfall? Basic physics would say yes. But with the level of destruction (talking about surge destruction in SE LA and So. MS), would the end result really have been much different? I guess one day we'll probably find out - hopefully not anytime soon.

Steve

[SouthFloridawx]

was wondering the other day what the difference might have been had Katrina actually remained a Cat 5. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that she was a Cat 3 or 4 with a Cat 5 surge. But would that surge have been even more brutal had the intensity of the storm lingered until landfall? Basic physics would say yes. But with the level of destruction (talking about surge destruction in SE LA and So. MS), would the end result really have been much different? I guess one day we'll probably find out - hopefully not anytime soon.

I don't even want to think about that.

[canegrl04]

Dr. Grey gives the chance for an East Coast strike at better than 60%. Florida has the next best chance,and then Gulf coast states less than 30% .I don't know how they can be so sure

[SouthFloridawx]

Dr. Grey gives the chance for an East Coast strike at better than 60%. Florida has the next best chance,and then Gulf coast states less than 30% .I don't know how they can be so sure

Well they aren't "sure". They are taking a look at all the factors that may come into play and also using previous storm years that appear to be similar to this year and then creating a probability or likelyhood % chance that those different areas maybe affected by a tropical cyclone. In now way are they sure that this is going to happen. It's kind of like issuing a forecast for tomorrow they put a percentage of likelyhood based on models/history and experience.

[Extremeweatherguy]

Today he also mentioned 1980...here is a look at what that hurricane season brought to the U.S:

[Stratosphere747]

Looks like quite a bit of fish to me...

Maybe he is a bit indecisive....

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

True. Other than Allen nothing really of note happened that year.