HAARP and Katrina

[wxman57]

jinfla

How many times do you need to say this before you convince yourself? "This was not a worst case scenario for New Orleans and her suburbs."

While I can't speak for the residents of New Orleans, I think I can speak for myself and the residents of lower Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parish who will tell you that Hurricane Katrina was a worse case scenario. People lost their lives, people lost family members, people lost their homes, their businesses, some lost their entire communities. Schools were destroyed in Lower Plaquemines and won't be coming back. People's sense of safety, well-being and the feeling of community was destroyed. Now four years later, people are still struggling trying to rebuild and still trying to rebuild their lives. Levees that were built to protect failed. I'm not blaming anyone, not the Federal Government or even Mother nature, but if Katrina was not the worse case scenario for the people of lower Plaquemines and St. Bernard parishes, I really hate to see what is.

Sorry, but Katrina was far from a worst-case scenario for Louisiana. What was experienced was multiple levee failures, for the most part. Had Katrina struck west of New Orleans, the city would have been in the right-front quadrant with the much higher storm surge and much stronger winds. Levees would have been overtopped and/or failed very quickly, giving few time to be rescued. Many structures would have been heavily damaged or destroyed by the wind. The death toll could have been in the tens of thousands. So, no, Katrina wasn't a worst case for New Orleans.

[brunota2003]

If those parishes had been on the east side of the eye, vs the west side, and the hurricane had been strengthening up until landfall (instead of the dry air 'saving the day')...the damage there would of been unimaginable.

It was bad enough as is, but had they been in the RFQ of a strengthening Cat 3 or Cat 4...I shutter to think of the death toll and destruction.

[tolakram]

People think it was a worse case scenario because they are woefully ignorant of just how deadly a hurricane can be. They could not imagine this much damage happening, so naturally it's hard to imagine worse.

So people will continue to build on the coast and some day the worst case scenario will happen.

When 50 people live on the coast and a hurricane hits it's a bad storm. When 500,000 people liv eon the coast and a hurricane hits it's a disaster. Nothing changed except people.

[Dionne]

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the largest single natural disaster in the history of the United States. While the death toll is certainly a determining factor.....you must look at the overall picture. People are constantly talking about the coast and New Orleans. They have forgotten what happened inland. Entire infrastructures of small towns 160 miles northeast of New Orleans lost their entire infrastructure. I live in one of them. The Storm was huge.

This is my 2nd large scale natural disaster. As a teenager I went through the 3/27/64 earthquake of 9.2 in Alaska.

I saw the same population panic after the earthquake that I saw in the first days after Katrina. And as recovery began.....the same finger pointing.

Some folks get to work and others wait in line.

I don't mean to offend anyone, it's just my personal observation.

[CoCo2]

jinfla

How many times do you need to say this before you convince yourself? "This was not a worst case scenario for New Orleans and her suburbs."

While I can't speak for the residents of New Orleans, I think I can speak for myself and the residents of lower Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parish who will tell you that Hurricane Katrina was a worse case scenario. People lost their lives, people lost family members, people lost their homes, their businesses, some lost their entire communities. Schools were destroyed in Lower Plaquemines and won't be coming back. People's sense of safety, well-being and the feeling of community was destroyed. Now four years later, people are still struggling trying to rebuild and still trying to rebuild their lives. Levees that were built to protect failed. I'm not blaming anyone, not the Federal Government or even Mother nature, but if Katrina was not the worse case scenario for the people of lower Plaquemines and St. Bernard parishes, I really hate to see what is.

Sorry, but Katrina was far from a worst-case scenario for Louisiana. What was experienced was multiple levee failures, for the most part. Had Katrina struck west of New Orleans, the city would have been in the right-front quadrant with the much higher storm surge and much stronger winds. Levees would have been overtopped and/or failed very quickly, giving few time to be rescued. Many structures would have been heavily damaged or destroyed by the wind. The death toll could have been in the tens of thousands. So, no, Katrina wasn't a worst case for New Orleans.

You're right Wxman -
Katrina wasn't a worse case scenario for New Orleans or even Louisiana, I didn't say it was. But it was a worse case scenario for lower Plaquemines where all buildings failed as a result of the wind and then the water. What you and the rest of the public need to realize is New Orleans is not Louisiana and Louisiana is NOT New Orleans.

[wxman57]

You're right Wxman -
Katrina wasn't a worse case scenario for New Orleans or even Louisiana, I didn't say it was. But it was a worse case scenario for lower Plaquemines where all buildings failed as a result of the wind and then the water. What you and the rest of the public need to realize is New Orleans is not Louisiana and Louisiana is NOT New Orleans.

You're correct, it was pretty bad for lower Plaquemines Parish. I do know the difference, as I'm from southeast Louisiana. But your response was to a statement about Katrina not being a worst case for New Orleans.

[Ptarmigan]

Katrina was the worst case scenario for Mississippi. Look at them. They got whacked really badly.

[wxman57]

Katrina was the worst case scenario for Mississippi. Look at them. They got whacked really badly.

Yeah, my mother lives near the MS coast. Had to re-sheetrock her house after Katrina. Almost nothing left of the MS coast. The MS coast residents get really steamed when they hear about how Katrina hit New Orleans with no mention of MS.

[Ptarmigan]

Yeah, my mother lives near the MS coast. Had to re-sheetrock her house after Katrina. Almost nothing left of the MS coast. The MS coast residents get really steamed when they hear about how Katrina hit New Orleans with no mention of MS.

I have seen photos of Mississippi after Katrina. Looks like a nuke went off. Even the trees are ripped off. I am sure they are steamed that New Orleans got more attention. If the levees had been maintained, it would of never happened. I did not see much wind damage in New Orleans. Same can be said about Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parish, they were flooded out. I know 256 people died in Mississippi. I wonder if more people died there.

[gboudx]

I have seen photos of Mississippi after Katrina. Looks like a nuke went off. Even the trees are ripped off. I am sure they are steamed that New Orleans got more attention. If the levees had been maintained, it would of never happened. I did not see much wind damage in New Orleans. Same can be said about Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parish, they were flooded out. I know 256 people died in Mississippi. I wonder if more people died there.

Thousands of blue tarped rooves in the entire SELA region would disagree with you about their not being much wind damage. Every family member and friend I have in SELA had wind damage. Everyone of them. Those windows in the downtown buildings and the Superdome roof vent and roof skin didn't just fall off.

As for not much wind damage in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parish; well I guess it's hard to tell what was from the wind and what was from a massive storm surge.

Everyone knows NOLA got more attention because of the major and televised human element of people being stranded. And because it's a major city that was almost completely flooded and put out of commission.

Oh, and it's not only the levees being maintained. If the wetlands hadn't been destroyed and coastal erosion hadn't devastated so much of the La coastline, it may not have been as severe either.

[CoCo2]

Wxman -

My response was to the part about surrounding areas, not New Orleans. If you read my first response I said, I don't know about New Orleans. Well, not that I don't know, I just really don't care. I do know about lower Plaquemines, having lived it. The death toll in Plaquemines Parish was not high because the residents have the good sense to get out. Few people did stay in lower Plaquemines during Katrina and they will all tell you first hand about the wind destruction and then the surge. For the residents of lower Plaquemines, it was the worse case scenario. I can't imagine how it could be worse.

[Ptarmigan]

Thousands of blue tarped rooves in the entire SELA region would disagree with you about their not being much wind damage. Every family member and friend I have in SELA had wind damage. Everyone of them. Those windows in the downtown buildings and the Superdome roof vent and roof skin didn't just fall off.

As for not much wind damage in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parish; well I guess it's hard to tell what was from the wind and what was from a massive storm surge.

Everyone knows NOLA got more attention because of the major and televised human element of people being stranded. And because it's a major city that was almost completely flooded and put out of commission.

Oh, and it's not only the levees being maintained. If the wetlands hadn't been destroyed and coastal erosion hadn't devastated so much of the La coastline, it may not have been as severe either.

Plaquemins and St. Bernard Parish were closer to the eyewall, so more likely for wind damage, but that would be washed away from the surge. Actually, yes, I have seen photos of tarps in New Orleans. Sorry for that. I agree that something should be done about the wetlands. Had the wetlands have been there, New Orleans would of less likely be flooded.

[jinftl]

The danger in calling a storm a worst case scenario is that when the next monster approaches, folks don't prepare as they should since 'nothing could be as bad as storm xyz'. In saying that, I in no way am trying to minimize, downplay, or diminish the devestation that areas saw from Katrina. Let's face it, if there is 15' or 25' feet of water over your head (and your house), the distinction is moot. But the reason I do stress this point....and in this instance, it really isn't to convince myself (as others have insinuated...i think...since my screenname was mispelled). Rather, I don't want anyone to think that another Katrina...or a worse storm....is impossible.

Camille was the benchmark storm for a generation that couldn't be surpassed. And according to Dr. Phil Klotzbach, that thinking cost lives in Katrina.

No one is questioning the devastation the less publicized areas of LA and MS saw.....not in the least. There are areas outside of those places that didn't experience that level of devastation from katrina.....and there is a danger if those folks think they have seen the 'worst' nature has to offer.

The data doesn't lie.....a track a bit to the west would have brought a higher surge to not only new orleans, but all of southeast louisiana. Again, the surge that occurred in Katrina was enough to cause total devestation....but there could have been another 10' on top of it in parts (if not all) of southeast louisiana with a slightly west track. That means some areas that didn't fare too badly could have seen alot worse.....those are the folks that need to really digest that prospect. The graphic below compares the surge of Katrina with the prior benchmark storm, Camille.


'

[JTD]

Why did the collapse near landfall of Katrina not matter as much in terms of overall deaths and damage as it did for Lili, Ivan and Opal's collapse? Was it all about Katrina's size and remnant surge?

[MGC]

Katrina hit a more densely populated area. Many in New Orleans could not evacuate due to no money. Many along the Mississippi coast didn't evacuate because Katrina had weakened below cat-5 intensity and didn't think the surge would be higher than Camille, a Cat-5.....MGC

[wxman57]

Why did the collapse near landfall of Katrina not matter as much in terms of overall deaths and damage as it did for Lili, Ivan and Opal's collapse? Was it all about Katrina's size and remnant surge?

Katrina's wind field did not "collapse" near landfall. In fact, it expanded. The large wind field was responsible for the height and expanse of the storm surge. Saffir-Simpson classification (peak sustained wind) is a minimal factor as far as storm surge generation.