If you thought Katrina was bad.....

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
User avatar
LAwxrgal
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1763
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:05 pm
Location: Reserve, LA (30 mi west of NOLA)

#61 Postby LAwxrgal » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:34 am

quandary wrote:Ok lets not make a frenzy out of this beforehand.

A few soothing thoughts:

First, Rita is very unlikely to be more damaging than Katrina. Katrina flooded 80% of New Orleans. It made an extremely large city completely inhabitable. So even though Katrina did not take the worst path, it did nearly as much as it could damagewise. Add that to the 918 pressure at landfall, which, if we have already forgotten, was the 3rd lowest on record. True Katrina's winds were only 140-145 mph at landfall, but 918mb storms cause 918mb damage. That's what Joe Bastardi said, which makes a lot of logical sense. Wind speed might not be based on pressure, but surge is, as is damage, since a 918mb storm with 145 mph winds will have them extend out very far as Katrina's did, whereas a 918 storm with 180mph winds will have them extend out only as far as Andrew's did. So as long as the storm does not make direct landfall on a city, which is rare probabilistically (100s of miles of coastline, less than dozens of miles of real heavy duty city).

More likely than not, Rita will be bad. Maybe it will pull a Bret and hit an unpopulated area, where even 115 (or 145mph, by the same token) winds will not do much. More likely, it'll make landfall near but not over a major city. Damage will be widespread, just like during Charley or Ivan or Andrew, but it will likely not be the economically devastating impact of Katrina.


You have to remember, if this storm follows its projected path along the central Texas coast, there ae a lot of oil refineries and oil rigs that could take a big-time hit from this big-time cane. That itself would be a big economical hit. Not to mention all the lives that will be impacted. It's like watching a train wreck and there's no way to stop it.

Also, several other posters pointed out that NOLA wasn't the only area damaged. I agree. There are towns south and east of the city in LA that were completely wiped off the map, fishing communities that are so far gone they may never come back. And let's not talk about the entire Mississippi coast.

If this thing is as strong as Katrina coming in the trajectory that it's coming in, it would be even worse in some respects because it's putting Houston/Galveston in the right front quadrant. NOLA, as bad off as it was, wasn't in that most dangerous part of the storm, and it still flooded. Imagine Houston/Galveston in the right front quadrant of this thing. Let alone central Texas. It will be a mess.

God bless Texas. :cry:
0 likes   
Andrew 92/Isidore & Lili 02/Bill 03/Katrina & Rita 05/Gustav & Ike 08/Isaac 12 (flooded my house)/Harvey 17/Barry 19/Cristobal 20/Claudette 21/Ida 21 (In the Eye)/Francine 24
Wake me up when November ends

Brent
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 38264
Age: 37
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
Contact:

#62 Postby Brent » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:03 am

quandary wrote:Ok lets not make a frenzy out of this beforehand.

A few soothing thoughts:

First, Rita is very unlikely to be more damaging than Katrina. Katrina flooded 80% of New Orleans. It made an extremely large city completely inhabitable. So even though Katrina did not take the worst path, it did nearly as much as it could damagewise. Add that to the 918 pressure at landfall, which, if we have already forgotten, was the 3rd lowest on record. True Katrina's winds were only 140-145 mph at landfall, but 918mb storms cause 918mb damage. That's what Joe Bastardi said, which makes a lot of logical sense. Wind speed might not be based on pressure, but surge is, as is damage, since a 918mb storm with 145 mph winds will have them extend out very far as Katrina's did, whereas a 918 storm with 180mph winds will have them extend out only as far as Andrew's did. So as long as the storm does not make direct landfall on a city, which is rare probabilistically (100s of miles of coastline, less than dozens of miles of real heavy duty city).

More likely than not, Rita will be bad. Maybe it will pull a Bret and hit an unpopulated area, where even 115 (or 145mph, by the same token) winds will not do much. More likely, it'll make landfall near but not over a major city. Damage will be widespread, just like during Charley or Ivan or Andrew, but it will likely not be the economically devastating impact of Katrina.


Always the optimist? :)
0 likes   
#neversummer

SCHawkFan
Tropical Depression
Tropical Depression
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:04 am
Location: Myrtle Beach

#63 Postby SCHawkFan » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:07 am

However, our National Guard team was NOT on call. They are stationed in Iraq fighting a war.


Actually over 65% of the LA National Guard are available in the state for relief efforts. 3500 of them were called to active duty at 7AM Monday, August 29. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
0 likes   

KLP124
Tropical Depression
Tropical Depression
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Near Beaumont, TX

#64 Postby KLP124 » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:36 am

National Guard is being stationed at Ford Park in Beaumont, TX. They got all the evacuees out of Ford Park on Thursday or Friday of last week -- and now this!
0 likes   

User avatar
TreasureIslandFLGal
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1584
Age: 57
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:16 pm
Location: Cancun, Mexico (northeast Yucatan coast)

#65 Postby TreasureIslandFLGal » Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:32 am

Both comments correct regarding National Guard units...

Nationally, many states have a HUGE chunk of their NG units deployed to Iraq. LA was not one of those states. They were lucky enough to have most of their units remain stateside.

Maybe that was part of the federal plan in activating units... keeping southern states with healthy Guard units in case of post-hurricane support?

I know Idaho and Ohio have huge numbers activated.
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AnnularCane, cajungal, Hurricane2022, Teban54 and 104 guests