Katrin devastation not unrivaled....

[caneman]

According to research indicated in this article.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 58493.html

[CrazyC83]

If historic storms hit the coastline today, there would be a lot of Katrina-like stories. Examples are Galveston 1900, Great Miami 1926, Okeechobee 1928 and New England 1938 among others...if those storms happened today, they would rival or exceed Katrina...

[jrod]

I am fearful of a storm rapidly strengthening 24hrs prior to landfall. If it were to happen to the Tampa bay area or another at risk location the devastation and casualties would be unrivaled for a US hurricane.

[Normandy]

Katrina was a formidable storm, but as formidable as it was the fact remains it was weaker than MANY of the hurricanes that have struck this country in the past....

Short list includes:
Hugo (1989)
Carla (1961)
Miami Cane of (1928)
Indianola (1886)
Betsy (1945???)
Donna (1940's)

And so on and so on.
I wouldn't put Galveston of 1900 on there when comparing it to Katrina, as studies might show that the 1900 storm was similar in strength to Katrina.

[jrod]

Flooding was the major problem with Katrina, not the winds.

[CrazyC83]

Katrina was a formidable storm, but as formidable as it was the fact remains it was weaker than MANY of the hurricanes that have struck this country in the past....

Short list includes:
Hugo (1989)
Carla (1961)
Miami Cane of (1928)
Indianola (1886)
Betsy (1945???)
Donna (1940's)

And so on and so on.
I wouldn't put Galveston of 1900 on there when comparing it to Katrina, as studies might show that the 1900 storm was similar in strength to Katrina.

Betsy was 1965 and Donna 1960 (storms were not named until 1950). However, I agree with Galveston's strength; I personally think it was a large Category 3 hurricane (although with a pressure around 935), not a Category 4. Most of those storms, except for Miami, had their maximum impact in less-populated areas. (Betsy was not exactly a direct hit for New Orleans - Katrina came much closer)

[Normandy]

Flooding was the major problem with Katrina, not the winds.

Thats completely false.
Katrina did her fair share of wind damage both indland and at the coast. Downtown New Orleans had some bad wind damage (Remember the superdome getting part of its roof torn off and the Hyatt? losing nearly all its windows that were exposed to the wind). Katrina also did lots of inland wind damage to areas like Hattiesburg. Had Katrina not flooded New Orleans the damage total STILL would have been astronomical.

[storms in NC]

Flooding was the major problem with Katrina, not the winds.

That may be true for La but not for the mississippi coast line. No matter if it is wind or water. you lose both ways.

[CrazyC83]

Flooding was the major problem with Katrina, not the winds.

Thats completely false.
Katrina did her fair share of wind damage both indland and at the coast. Downtown New Orleans had some bad wind damage (Remember the superdome getting part of its roof torn off and the Hyatt? losing nearly all its windows that were exposed to the wind). Katrina also did lots of inland wind damage to areas like Hattiesburg. Had Katrina not flooded New Orleans the damage total STILL would have been astronomical.

The winds at the top of the Superdome, and the tallest high-rises, are much stronger than at street level - at least one full category stronger. While winds at the surface may have been, say, 80-90 mph in most of New Orleans (100-120 mph in the east end), they were up to 115 mph at the top of the towers (with higher gusts).

[storms in NC]

There was alot of wind damage on the east side of Katrina that is a know fact. But as far as N.O. it was on the west side of Katrina. The tide surge is what got southeast of N.O.

But I can tell you I have never seen so much damage on the east side in my life. I was there for 3 weeks. It took them over a month to get lights back on at the farm. some took up to 2 months.

[Air Force Met]

Flooding was the major problem with Katrina, not the winds.

Thats completely false.
Katrina did her fair share of wind damage both indland and at the coast. Downtown New Orleans had some bad wind damage (Remember the superdome getting part of its roof torn off and the Hyatt? losing nearly all its windows that were exposed to the wind). Katrina also did lots of inland wind damage to areas like Hattiesburg. Had Katrina not flooded New Orleans the damage total STILL would have been astronomical.

I don't think jrod was saying the winds were not strong or were not a problem...just not the major problem..and that is NOT false. If you look at the damage and lives lost...the majority of both were due to flood (ie surge/levies), not wind. Surge/flooding killed more people than the winds...surge/flooding did more damage in $ amounts. Therefore...that means it is the major problem. It doesn't negate wind damage...just keeps a proper perspective.

[MGC]

Katrina did lots of wind damage. The surge damage was so much greater that the water got top billing. Had there been little surge damge Katrina would still have been in the top ten in reguards of monetary damages based on wind alone. Don't forget that Katrina had a huge swath of hurricane force winds, from New Orleans to Mobile Bay.....MGC

[jrod]

I was not trying to say the winds did not cause a lot of problems, though I didn't know without the water damage it would have still been in the top ten in terms of monetary damage.

[JTD]

And also Katrina was by far NOT the worst-case hurricane scenario for New Orleans although it was bad enough, which really goes without saying. Katrina was in full collapse mode before it hit land. Had it stayed at 165-175 mph, it would have been a completely different scenario and it had it not veered off to the east, again, a totally different scenario.

How much of Katrina's devastation was due to human error, negligence and corruption and how much was due to the actual storm? That's something to think about as well.

Go back and read the studies about a cat 3-5 hitting New Orleans. The estimates were 20,000-100,000 dead, city uninhabitable for months, etc. Remember NO didn't flood until AFTER the storm. Imagine 20 feet of water hitting New Orleans during the storm.

And had Katrina been worst case with 175 mph winds and gusts to 210, the superdome wouldn't be standing today either in my opinion.

All of the above goes for New Orleans only. As far as the MS gulf coast, no doubt Katrina was doomsday for them.

Former Director Max Mayfield spoke to a newspaper a while back saying that Katrina wasn't at all worst case a while back as well.

[cpdaman]

the wind damage from katrina away from the coatal surge damage was cat 2-3 damage like florida similiar to what florida got from wilma

the problem with katrina was it was so huge and was so strong before it weakened and made landfall that the surge was huge along mississippi coast and like someone said the damage to new orleans was a LOT LESS than what was feared the morning after the strom hit. it was later that nite when "the flood gates opened".
it's a tragedy that these levees were not up to snuff.

However this damage was part of the hurricane impact and in recent memory this type of devestation in the united states from a storm is unrivaled and in the history it had no happened in the last 50 years.

[Pearl River]

Remember NO didn't flood until AFTER the storm.

This is not true. This has been a big falsehood about the storm. The first Flash Flood warning was issued around 0815 on the Monday morning for levee breaching. The news media did not report it until the next morning. Drive up I-55 from Slidell to Meridian and you can still see a lot of wind damage to buildings and trees today. Also, alot of what has been touted as storm surge damage, eyewitnesses have said buildings went down long before the surge came in.

[Berwick Bay]

I've followed this thread without commenting, but I do have a problem with the title. I guess its referring to what could be, or what might happen. But as far as this world in which we live, at this time, Katrina's devastation is unrivaled. Its not even close. I guess a 28 foot surge combined with coastal erosion and neglect, can do a lot, eh?

[TampaSteve]

Katrina was the worst ever, hands down...at least until that Cat 4 or 5 hits Tampa Bay...still waiting for that one...

[Berwick Bay]

Well, in Tampa, you may just have to make do with a good solid Cat 3. What I'm thinking is that if a storm were to strike Tampa, it would most likely already have begun its "recurve", meaning it would now be moving NE out of the Gulf. Its motion at that time would be controlled by the upper level westerlies, the flow which controls our weather over the continental U.S. From my experience, once a hurricane has been turned NE (moving in a recurve fashion), its unlikely that it will be of Cat 4 or 5 intensity. Cat 4 and 5 storms are still generally moving west with the lower level trades, or have turned north, but not yet NE (not yet fully caught up with the upper level winds further north). There are alternate scenarios. I think Charley was one. A storm moving N into the E GOM, of growing intensity, is just beginning to make its NE turn (or recurve) at or near Tampa Bay. Also, Charley was unusual because it was a mid August storm, affected by a deep long wave trough over the US (very strange for Aug). So this rapidly intensifying Aug storm (mid summer) is just beginning to make the turn NE over what could be Tampa Bay. I think that may have been your best bet for a Cat 4. For those later season (late Sept-Oct storms) beginning their recurve out of the Gulf, I see a Cat 3 scenario as much more likely. But hey, I think a Cat 3 could do the job your talking about in Tampa Bay without any problem.

[Berwick Bay]

Oh, but one other problem with the "Cat 4 type Charley scenario" affecting Tampa, and that is you probably would not have gotten a Cat 4 type surge with Charley. I know that Charley's small size limited surge down near Punta Gorda, but I think the big reason was its angle of approach to the coast. The storm had built up a momentum N before turning NE at the last minute, so the surge I think could not be "brought together" into SW Fl. High winds but not the normal Cat 4 surge. Perhaps the same would have happened with Tampa. Best bet for a massive surge would be a storm moving NE or ENE for a couple of hundred miles out of the Gulf toward Tampa. But I would speculate that this storm would probably be of Cat 3 rating. But thats okay, you could get plenty of surge out of a 125 mph storm moving in this fashion into Tampa Bay.