It doesn't take a 5

[NastyCat4]

It doesn't take a Cat 5 to be one of the dealiest storms in history. The Galveston hurricane of 1900 was a Cat 4, and we know the results. Katrina may end up ranking with this cane, in terms of death and destruction.

Obviously, the location of the storm's landfall can be much more significant than the intensity.

[gatorcane]

a CAT 1 (e.g. Katrina) in South Florida caused 11 deaths and billions of dollars of damage. ANY category of hurricane could be catastrophic.

[gpickett00]

you think that BILLIONS were caused in south fla from katrina?

[scostorms]

Actually, yes! From what I got close to $2 billion in south Florida from Katrina.

[gatorcane]

I heard it was billions....

not many people realize it cost S. Florida badly even though it was only a CAT1.

I could not imagine a CAT3 or higher into Miami.

[Brent]

A Cat 1 into a highly populated area causes a LOT of damage...

I dread a Cat 3 or higher coming into the same area...

[Canelaw99]

you think that BILLIONS were caused in south fla from katrina?

Yes, especially when you factor in all of the agricultural damage done in extreme S. Dade. http://www.nbc6.net/news/4915976/detail.html

[cancunkid]

This makes me think that the NHC should come up with maybe a second scale that takes in the factor of surge. The Mississippi gulf coast is just so shallow that surge is always going to be a horrible factor for them. You can build to withstand some pretty bad winds but the force of water.....full of debris like barges, casinos, shipping containers and semis from the port made Gulf Port and Biloxi sitting ducks for Katrina. I was just watching the video on http://www.wlbt.com website and just see the most horrific surge damage I have to wonder why surge isn't a factor for classifying any hurricane.

[jopatura]

My local met was on the news, showing the last picture of Katrina before she came over land. He said that the eyewall was so strong, that the "dirty side" almost didn't apply to this storm because the factors that make up the dirty side could be seen on the northwest and west side of the storm. He thinks this is why the Slidell area and the I-10 bridge were so badly devastated, even though they didn't suffer a direct hit.

Also, he said that he had been informed by the NWS that the recon flights had equipment that was malfunctioning the morning of landfall around 4am. He says that he 100% expects the winds to be reclassified after the NWS studies the hurricane after the fact.

[Fego]

People react with alarm, others with enthusiasm, when the experts predict an active hurricane season. Katrina teachs us that just one, only one hurricane, doesn't matter the intensity, can bring devastation. May be because we give more importance to the winds and not to the rain and surge. Doesn't matter if the hurricane season is below the average, normal or active, you need just one to experience caos; if that happens I'm sure nobody will be thinking about below, normal or active. Now more than ever be prepared.. but in June or July, not in August!!

[AlabamaDave]

It doesn't take Cat-5 winds to do this kind of devastation, but this was no "ordinary" Cat-3 or Cat-4. This storm was ENORMOUS as far as the spread of its windfield, and its surge was certainly a Cat-5 surge that had built up in the hours preceding landfall when Katrina was at her most extraordinary levels of strength. The thing that shocks me is the distance away from the center where the surge was still so tremendous, but this WAS forecast well in advance.

[Mello1]

My local met was on the news, showing the last picture of Katrina before she came over land. He said that the eyewall was so strong, that the "dirty side" almost didn't apply to this storm because the factors that make up the dirty side could be seen on the northwest and west side of the storm. He thinks this is why the Slidell area and the I-10 bridge were so badly devastated, even though they didn't suffer a direct hit.

Also, he said that he had been informed by the NWS that the recon flights had equipment that was malfunctioning the morning of landfall around 4am. He says that he 100% expects the winds to be reclassified after the NWS studies the hurricane after the fact.

I was just telling a friend this morning that I thought that Katrina would be reclassified because the storm surge estimates and amount of coastal devastation did not collate with the landfall wind speeds....

..Or the fact that the pressure was still very very low at the time of landfall.

[Downdraft]

you think that BILLIONS were caused in south fla from katrina?

Yes, especially when you factor in all of the agricultural damage done in extreme S. Dade. http://www.nbc6.net/news/4915976/detail.html

There is nothing wrong with how we presently classify hurricanes. Even people in here that aren't supposed to be totally ignorant (that's debatable) shrugged off a CAT 1 Katrina.

Anyone remember posts that said "well it's only a tropical storm or it's only a CAT 1?

[WeatherEmperor]

It sure doesnt take a Cat 5. Heck, just look at what Tropical Storm Allison did.

<RICKY>

[jasons2k]

It sure doesnt take a Cat 5. Heck, just look at what Tropical Storm Allison did.

<RICKY>

Ditto.

[jaxfladude]

Don't forget Tropical Storm Allison (2001)<--- type it on Google and read!!!
Any tropical system can cause death and damages that one would think was too weak or not powerful enough...

[gratefulnole]

I think they do need a better way to graphicly depict the potential for destruction. Both Charley and Andrew had stronger winds than Katrina but the windfield size were much smaller so affecting a much smaller area. Ivan caused much more damage a hundred miles east of the eye than 25 mile west of the eye. Both Ivan and Katina caused as much damage from storm surge as from winds. The skinny line depicting potential path is highly misleading. Maybe the line should be the size of the hurricane force windfield. Additionally storm surge potential should be given as much emphasis as the winds. This can all be done without adjusting the current classification system.