Wilma was ONLY a Category One...

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
MiamiensisWx

Wilma was ONLY a Category One...

#1 Postby MiamiensisWx » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:27 am

Yeah, right. This is what you DON'T here that much from the media - both local and mainstream.

Link

Ten months and STILL no repairs, despite serious damage?! You also have the insurance and contract issues.

This is why I get incensed when people try to call Category One sustained winds "minor" or "only" Category One. Yes, I know Wilma wasn't a Katrina or Rita on the Gulf coast, but still, it was NOT "weak". It caused significant damage from Category One sustained winds and microbursts, and look what we're reaping ten months later: many lingering tarps; few repaired roofs (yes, despite that we're already nearly a year from October 2005 and are approaching the peak of the 2006 season in AUGUST); still signs of heavy damage to trees in the area from last year lingering; insurance claims difficult to get for many; and many other unresolved issues.

Sorry, I know this issue has been beaten like a dead horse, and I know many on the Gulf coast have gone through far worse with Katrina and Rita, but the damage Wilma did - as well as other storms - was anything but "minor" in southwest, south-central, southeast, and east-central Florida. That, along with dealing with the stress many months later, makes me incensed when people tell me Wilma wasn't a "big one". I know it can always be worse (larger and equally major storm coming in from east-southeast on Miami/Fort Lauderdale), but such sayings only reinforce the notion that Category One sustained winds, top with higher gusts, are weak. As I have seen and known, it is anything BUT the case.

Rant over... like many, I just partly wanted to say this and get it off my chest while providing true, scientific, and personal insights.
1 likes   

Jim Cantore

#2 Postby Jim Cantore » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:34 am

Cat 1? Yea ok, and Katrina was a tropical storm, the damage tells the story. No cat 1 is going to cause $16.8 Billion in damage without a surge or flooding, especially moving as quickly as Wilma was.

I believe the NHC's number of 120mph.
0 likes   

MiamiensisWx

#3 Postby MiamiensisWx » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:37 am

Hurricane Floyd wrote:Cat 1? Yea ok, and Katrina was a tropical storm, the damage tells the story. No cat 1 is going to cause $16.8 Billion in damage without a surge or flooding, especially moving as quickly as Wilma was.

I believe the NHC's number of 120mph.


Your first sentence is exactly the point of this topic that I just wanted to honestly say and get off my chest. Tropical storms, depressions, and Category One/Category Two storms/sustained winds and gusts need to be taken much more seriously.
1 likes   

Jim Cantore

#4 Postby Jim Cantore » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:38 am

I always say this, if we want to know the potential of a storm of a certain strength, we need to get it right.
0 likes   

User avatar
wxman57
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
Posts: 23019
Age: 67
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Location: Houston, TX (southwest)

#5 Postby wxman57 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:45 am

Hurricane Floyd wrote:Cat 1? Yea ok, and Katrina was a tropical storm, the damage tells the story. No cat 1 is going to cause $16.8 Billion in damage without a surge or flooding, especially moving as quickly as Wilma was.

I believe the NHC's number of 120mph.


You need to read the post a little more closely. It's not claiming that Wilma's SS rating was a Cat 1 at landfall but that Wilma produced sustained Cat 1 winds across a large section of south Florida. Big difference. It takes a strong/large Cat 2 or a Cat 3 to produce a significant area of Cat 1 sustained winds inland for any distance.
1 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#6 Postby x-y-no » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:49 am

Perhaps Derek can set this straight, but I was pretty sure that Wilma made landfall as a Cat 3, and left Florida as a Cat 2.

That said, I agree with the basic point of this post. A Cat 1 is nothing to sneeze at. I was quite impressed at the level of damage Katrina caused in Coral Gables and South Miami as a very newly formed Cat 1 hurricane. Lots of very large trees down, lots of very serious roof damage.

And of course much of South Florida only saw Cat 1 winds from Wilma.
Last edited by x-y-no on Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
1 likes   

MiamiensisWx

#7 Postby MiamiensisWx » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:49 am

wxman57 wrote:You need to read the post a little more closely. It's not claiming that Wilma's SS rating was a Cat 1 at landfall but that Wilma produced sustained Cat 1 winds across a large section of south Florida. Big difference. It takes a strong/large Cat 2 or a Cat 3 to produce a significant area of Cat 1 sustained winds inland for any distance.


That's exactly my point that Wilma produced mostly Category One sustained winds across southeast and east-central Florida (hence the thread title). It was a solid Category Three at southwest Florida landfall and a Category Two crossing the state.
1 likes   

MiamiensisWx

#8 Postby MiamiensisWx » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:53 am

x-y-no wrote:Perhaps Derek can set this straight, but I was pretty sure that Wilma made landfall as a Cat 3, and left Florida as a Cat 2.

That said, I agree with the basic point of this post. A Cat 1 is nothing to sneeze at. I was quite impressed at the level of damage Katrina caused in Coral Gables and South Miami as a very newly formed Cat 1 hurricane. Lots of very large trees down, lots of very serious roof damage.

And of course much of South Florida only saw Cat 1 winds from Wilma.


Jan, the thread title eludes to the fact that Wilma mostly produced Category One sustained winds across southeast and east-central Florida due to land friction. I never was saying it was not a major at southwest Florida landfall and was a Category One crossing the state... I was just stating that, due to land friction, although Wilma was a major at southwest Florida landfall (120MPH to 125MPH sustained) and a solid Category Two across the state, most areas in southeast and east-central Florida received Category One sustained winds with brief much higher gusts and microbursts. Just wanted to clarify what I meant.

I completely agree with your second (middle) and last sentence. Your second and last sentences exactly reflects my sentiments I'm trying to get across with this thread/post.
0 likes   

User avatar
beachbum_al
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2163
Age: 55
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: South Alabama Coast
Contact:

#9 Postby beachbum_al » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:58 am

Look at what Hurricane Danny did to Alabama in 1997. I think it was a Cat 1 hurricane. It sat over this area for days and flooded the place. Homeowners along Fish River, Weeks Bay, etc lost everything. So it doesn't take a Cat 3 or higher to do major damage. Just have one that sits over you for a extended period of time and you have major damage.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#10 Postby Lindaloo » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:11 am

Hurricane Georges did that to us. We were in the NE Quad for a very long time when he came in an stalled. Caused major flooding in areas that usually do not flood. Mobile opened their flood gates which caused further flooding here in Pascagoula. Georges was a dang nightmare. :grrr:
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#11 Postby Derek Ortt » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:11 am

Yes, Wilma hit a bunch of salt water crocs as a cat 3, brought upper 1/lower cat 2 winds to Naples and Marco Island, and left the coast as a cat 2, maybe slightly weaker than the NHC BT of 95KT. The cat 2 winds unfortunately struck the center of Lauderdale and we saw just how bad that was, with cat 1 winds elsewhere from Key West (5 miles further south, they get the 125 m.p.h. winds and a surge of 15-20 feet, which likely would have resulted in a repeat of the Galveston Hurricane thanks to the worst evac in US history) to the Stuart area
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#12 Postby Derek Ortt » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:11 am

and one other thing

Wilma is the third most expensive hurricane in US history with a damage toll of 16.8 billion
Last edited by Derek Ortt on Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
Extremeweatherguy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 11095
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Florida

#13 Postby Extremeweatherguy » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:17 am

Derek Ortt wrote:and one other thing

Wilma is the first most expensive hurricane in US history with a damage toll of 16.8 billion
Katrina was actually the first most expensive hurricane with a damage total over 80 billion, and Andrew was second with a total over 20 billion. Wilma was 3rd or 4th (depending on what source you use) with a total somewhere between 13-17 billion.
0 likes   

tgenius
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1160
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 5:31 pm
Location: Miami, FL

#14 Postby tgenius » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:21 am

Extremeweatherguy wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote:and one other thing

Wilma is the first most expensive hurricane in US history with a damage toll of 16.8 billion
Katrina was actually the first most expensive hurricane with a damage total over 80 billion, and Andrew was second with a total over 20 billion. Wilma was 3rd or 4th (depending on what source you use) with a total somewhere between 13-17 billion.


If you put inflation into the mix, Andrew's 20 million in 92 will go over Katrina's 80 billion 05 dollars.
0 likes   

User avatar
cheezyWXguy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 6132
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX

#15 Postby cheezyWXguy » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:28 am

No...actually right now its between 35 and 40 billion. Katrina was ahead of andrew by a good amount.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#16 Postby Lindaloo » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:29 am

tgenius wrote:
Extremeweatherguy wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote:and one other thing

Wilma is the first most expensive hurricane in US history with a damage toll of 16.8 billion
Katrina was actually the first most expensive hurricane with a damage total over 80 billion, and Andrew was second with a total over 20 billion. Wilma was 3rd or 4th (depending on what source you use) with a total somewhere between 13-17 billion.


If you put inflation into the mix, Andrew's 20 million in 92 will go over Katrina's 80 billion 05 dollars.




How do you figure?

You better explain that one to the experts that are saying and writing that Katrina is the worst and costliest natural disaster to ever hit the United States.
0 likes   

miamicanes177
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:53 pm

#17 Postby miamicanes177 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:34 am

Derek Ortt wrote:and one other thing

Wilma is the first most expensive hurricane in US history with a damage toll of 16.8 billion
katrina
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#18 Postby Lindaloo » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:35 am

Derek Ortt wrote:and one other thing

Wilma is the first most expensive hurricane in US history with a damage toll of 16.8 billion


I am surprised at your reply. Hopefully, this is a mistake or typo.
0 likes   

User avatar
bvigal
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2276
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:49 am
Location: British Virgin Islands
Contact:

#19 Postby bvigal » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:46 am

I get your point, CapeVerdeWave. In the past, we'd hear about big hurricanes and that they were, say, Cat 3 at landfall. We didn't hear so much about what "category level" the winds were measured over land, if measured at all, as the storm moved inland. We just knew they did a lot of damage. They may have fallen into Cat 1 measuring range in all but a small area, but it was essentially a Cat 3 hurricane striking land.

Now, with all the media hype and public scutiny, folks hear that winds were measured in the Cat 1 range and think, "Oh, it was ONLY Cat 1, not the strong Cat 3 we heard." When in reality, it was the same winds and damage a major striking land has always caused.
0 likes   

Jim Cantore

#20 Postby Jim Cantore » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:52 am

Extremeweatherguy wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote:and one other thing

Wilma is the first most expensive hurricane in US history with a damage toll of 16.8 billion
Katrina was actually the first most expensive hurricane with a damage total over 80 billion, and Andrew was second with a total over 20 billion. Wilma was 3rd or 4th (depending on what source you use) with a total somewhere between 13-17 billion.


1. Katrina $81.2 Billion
2. Andrew $26.5 Billion
3. Wilma $16.8 Billion

You need to read the post a little more closely. It's not claiming that Wilma's SS rating was a Cat 1 at landfall but that Wilma produced sustained Cat 1 winds across a large section of south Florida. Big difference. It takes a strong/large Cat 2 or a Cat 3 to produce a significant area of Cat 1 sustained winds inland for any distance.


and to answer that, your right I should have, if I would have I would have likely mentioned that

look at the post storm report, 70-80 sustained with 90+ gusts were widespread.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cpv17, gib, Google Adsense [Bot], Hurricaneman, islandgirl45, Killjoy12, MarioProtVI, Miami Storm Tracker, NingNing and 45 guests