Experts: Katrina-type storm unlikely this year

[MGC]

Yea, I've heard of Carla. What I meant to say was the size and scope of Katrina hitting a major metropolitan area. Luckily Carla didn't hit a real big city like New Orleans....MGC

[Normandy]

^gotcha

[Jim Cantore]

Were Katrina type storms ever "Likely" in the first place?

[f5]

what would have happened if 175 mph did hit the geography of the Louisiana coastline?

[Pearl River]

vacanechaser wrote

Pearl River wrote:
The levee failures happened, you can't take that away, no matter how much you want too.

"Chocolate City" Nagin is the one who said there could have been 10,000 dead, not the federal government. He's the one who requested the 10,000 body bags.

100,000 without transportation was a guesstimate that was used for the hurricane Pam scenario. No one knows for sure.


no one said anything about the levee failures.... i sure didnt anyway... but that still does not make claims of more people dead than reported to accurate... if thats your point... it happened.. we know that and no one here has disputed that.... now the reasons for the failures maybe contested.... but that could be another issue all together....


Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

First off, I didn't say you said that. It has been said in multiple threads on this board in the past and regit stated "take away the levee failures".

The 10,000 statement came from the mayor of New Orleans stating they would be needing 10,000 body bags. I in no way was stating more people were dead than reported.

[stormtruth]

What about Rita? Rita came right after Katrina and was just as powerful. If Rita had hit
Galveston-Houston there would have been tremendous damage. If they are so rare why were they several very powerful hurricanes all in one season? It sounds like the amazing Klotzbach-Gray forecasting duo is wrong yet again. There are quite a few vulnerable cities on the coast besides New Orleans that are at risk to get obliterated within the next 10 to 20 years. The NHC issued that statement warning about people moving to the coasts like lemmings and then the Klotzbach-Gray duo go "oh, they are so rare." What a couple of misleading goofballs they are.

[Normandy]

^Rita was not as powerful as Katrina by any means imo^
Though still devastating.

Really, we have just been lucky. There have been many monsters that threatened to devastate coastlines.....

Opal
Isidore
Lili

etc
etc

Just so happened that last year the monsters did not weaken as much

[stormtruth]

CNN quotes Max Mayfield last year as saying it could be worse than Katrina.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/21/rita/index.html

Max Mayfield, director of the hurricane center, said Rita could be even more damaging than Katrina.

"This is a very, very dangerous hurricane," he said.

So rare they almost happened twice in one season? Clearly the Klotzbach-Gray dynamic duo are wrong. Even Gray himself said last year that Rita could be a $100 billion storm.

Dr. Gray says if Rita stays on its current path, it's likely the storm will reach Category 4 strength with massive damage to oil production, resulting in higher gas prices and potentially doing about 100-billion dollars in damage.

So why this year does his pal Klotzbach tell the press they are so rare? Who knows? Maybe they are flip-floppin forecasters. Or maybe the two just don't get along with each other

[Jim Cantore]

what would have happened if 175 mph did hit the geography of the Louisiana coastline?

There would have been catestrophic wind damage along with that surge.

[Lindaloo]

Well said Jesse. You would not believe the rumors going around here after Katrina. Some of the stories about how people survived the storm and what they went through turned out to be true, however.


Regit, it is obvious you have no idea about how bad things were. Hope you never have to find out.

As for the death toll, alot of people are still missing. They are now presuming they were swept out to sea and will never be found.

[Jim Cantore]

As for the death toll, alot of people are still missing. They are now presuming they were swept out to sea and will never be found.

1,836 dead
1,840 missing

death toll could be 3,676

this speaks for itself

http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/images/users/fire/Hurricane%20Katrina%20Response2.jpg

http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/images/users/fire/Hurricane%20Katrina%20Response3.jpg

[f5]

Rita -895
Katrina-902
Wilma-882

those aren't your average hurricanes they were historically powerful

[Pearl River]

HurricaneFloyd wrote

1,836 dead
1,840 missing

death toll could be 3,676

Where are you getting these numbers from?

[Mac]

Katrina type storms are unlikely every single year. A storm that just happens to be a category 5 and is headed right towards New Orleans in 12 hours and is very large seems like a once in a 100 year event.

I really don't think a large Cat 3 hitting in New Orleans that rare of an event. I believe the NHC Hurricane Preparedness website has a map with average expected return periods. New Orleans is somthing like 30-35 years, IIRC. I think NOLA lived on borrowed time for a long time...look at how many close calls they had. A Cat 5 hitting NOLA is dead-on might be a once in 500 year event, but a major is not even close to that. What's wild is that NOLA actually could count Katrina as another "close call."

Every city alont the northern Gulf coast is about the same, too. Ask the people in Pensacola if their nearly 90 year streak of not suffering a direct hit has turned around. Cities like Tampa are safer because of position, but even their day will will come.

Main point is this: some people come here and say "Where are all the Cat 5s?" The rest of us know better. Some people then come on and say Katrina was the worst storm in half a millineum. Trust me, there will be worse storms.

Here's the problem with anybody saying that a hurricane was a 20, 100, 500, or 1000 year event. Such statements assume that all variables are equal between years. And that simply isn't the case.

The fact of the matter is, bad hurricanes are going to happen with increasing frequency. Why? Because we love to build cities by the water. Because we do so at the expense of our wetlands, which act as natural buffers against tidal surge. Because whether it is due to man's actions or just normal atmospheric cycles, global warming is most definitely happening.

Add it all up and you've got warmer waters for hurricanes to feed upon, more people living in vulnerable locations on the water's edge, and less wetlands to absorb the tidal surge. That = worse hurricanes in the years to come.

The point is, you don't need a category 5 hurricane to hit a major metropolitan area. A category 3 hitting in the right spot can do plenty of damage, as evidenced by any number of storms in recent years.

[JTD]

Somebody said earlier in this thread that Katrina was nowhere near the worst case scenario. That is very true. You had a rapidly weakening storm that hit 30 miles east of Downtown New Orleans. Now, if you want the real worst case scenario, imagine Katrina hitting metro New Orleans at 175 mph with a pressure of 902. A 125-120 mph storm is nowhere near as bad as it can get.

That said, Katrina goes to show that even a cat 3 hurricane can do tremendous damage and be the worst catastrophe in U.S. history. Katrina killed thousands and was horrific but was as it bad as it can get? Not even close.

[f5]

the 902 mb Katrina would of put NO right there with the lost city of atlantis

[Jim Cantore]

HurricaneFloyd wrote

1,836 dead
1,840 missing

death toll could be 3,676

Where are you getting these numbers from?

http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2006/05/katrina-death-toll-surges-to-1836.html

[btangy]

The NHC issued that statement warning about people moving to the coasts like lemmings and then the Klotzbach-Gray duo go "oh, they are so rare."

Well, statistically speaking, the probability of exceeding major hurricane winds at a single point on the US coastline is a very small number in a given year, so Phil Klotzbach is just saying the obvious. It shouldn't be interpreted as permission to build your house along the coastline so everyone else can subsidize your insurance, but I think it may be perceived that way by the 'lemmings.'

[mtm4319]

Somebody said earlier in this thread that Katrina was nowhere near the worst case scenario. That is very true. You had a rapidly weakening storm that hit 30 miles east of Downtown New Orleans. Now, if you want the real worst case scenario, imagine Katrina hitting metro New Orleans at 175 mph with a pressure of 902. A 125-120 mph storm is nowhere near as bad as it can get.

The 175/902 in N.O. is nearly impossible though. If it comes from the south or southwest, you have like 75 miles of land to go through; if it comes from the east/southeast, land interaction before true landfall is likely to weaken it.

[timNms]

The NHC issued that statement warning about people moving to the coasts like lemmings and then the Klotzbach-Gray duo go "oh, they are so rare."

Well, statistically speaking, the probability of exceeding major hurricane winds at a single point on the US coastline is a very small number in a given year, so Phil Klotzbach is just saying the obvious. It shouldn't be interpreted as permission to build your house along the coastline so everyone else can subsidize your insurance, but I think it may be perceived that way by the 'lemmings.'

I think we've beaten this horse to death, but one more time, I see no difference in someone building their home along the coast as opposed to someone building their home along a major fault line or in tornado alley, or near a volcano, or in the flood plains along the Mississippi river, etc. Suppose your area is crippled by a major ice storm, which brings trees and powerlines down onto homes and businesses. Are we to assume that because that area is prone to winter storms, no one should build there?

And I can assure you that while you think everyone else is subsidizing the insurance costs for those residents along the coast, they are paying more than their share for it! Any doubt, just ask those who live along the coastline what they pay for insurance.