NHC didnt do horrible on the surge forecast for Katrina:

[brunota2003]

Sorry if I offend someone, but I'm just "venting", for all you people who think the NHC blew the surge forecast for Katrina, read this:

COASTAL STORM SURGE FLOODING OF 18 TO 22 FEET ABOVE NORMAL TIDE
LEVELS...LOCALLY AS HIGH AS 28 FEET...ALONG WITH LARGE AND DANGEROUS
BATTERING WAVES...CAN BE EXPECTED NEAR AND TO THE EAST OF WHERE THE
CENTER MAKES LANDFALL.

That is from the Public advisory the night before Katrina made landfall, so 5 feet off is not that bad, its definatly better than what it has been. So why are people stateing the NHC completely screwed up the surge forecast??? Ok, I'm going back to lurking mode now...

[Valkhorn]

I do know a lot of people were worried more over the winds than the surge, so maybe that caught a lot of people off guard.

[LSU2001]

I am sorry but if anyone was listening or paying attention to any of the advisories, newscasts, or any other media outlet they had to know that Katrina would cause massive destruction. If they did not understand the impact of a storm of this magnitude then IMO they don't need to be living along the gulf coast or any coast for that matter. The people who live along the coast had a real good idea of what was coming.
Tim

[curtadams]

I was one of the people saying the surge forecast was inadequate (not that the NHC "screwed up": they did the best they could). I'm greatly relieved that the surge models may have done much better than it first seemed. Not offended at all. I'm still waiting for more final results re the claims of 35 feet in Bay St. Louis and Jim Cantore's location, but they're looking less likely in view of confirmed nearby, lower, surges.

[timNms]

Even WDAM tv out of Hattiesburg was warning people in our area to take this storm seriously. I don't think NHC or any of the local news medias failed to inform the public that Katrina was a serious storm.

[timNms]

I was one of the people saying the surge forecast was inadequate (not that the NHC "screwed up": they did the best they could). I'm greatly relieved that the surge models may have done much better than it first seemed. Not offended at all. I'm still waiting for more final results re the claims of 35 feet in Bay St. Louis and Jim Cantore's location, but they're looking less likely in view of confirmed nearby, lower, surges.

do you have links to those confirmations you are speaking of?

[Javlin]

I live here and I do not think that they did a bad forcast it was just the fact that what happened was beyond comprehension.Camille was the benchmark till now.What caught most everyone was the swelling inland at the bays and rivers.When one can drive down I-10 and still see the surge line 5-10 feet below the road you get a good grasp of the severity of the surge and how many died.I still am having a hard time envisioning it and I have seen the debris lines it's beyond comprehension.So how can one fault NHC.

[Recurve]

I am 100% behind the NHC.

But one thing makes me pause. The wording they used, "NEAR AND TO THE EAST OF WHERE THE CENTER MAKES LANDFALL."

For an advisory forecast, "near" is just useless. Even for those of us who follow this stuff, what is "near"? 10 miles, 50 miles, 100 miles?

The same problem in Rita, people caught by surprise by the extent of the surge far to the east of the landfall; thankfully few casualties.

[Ixolib]

I am 100% behind the NHC.

But one thing makes me pause. The wording they used, "NEAR AND TO THE EAST OF WHERE THE CENTER MAKES LANDFALL."

For an advisory forecast, "near" is just useless. Even for those of us who follow this stuff, what is "near"? 10 miles, 50 miles, 100 miles?

The same problem in Rita, people caught by surprise by the extent of the surge far to the east of the landfall; thankfully few casualties.

You took the words right out of my mouth!!! And "how far east" would also be a reasonable question. I agree - this part of the forecast MUST improve if they want to gain more points for improved prediction. Surely, upgraded computer models could be built that would show specificilly what would happen at 1 mile east, 5 miles, 10 miles, 50 miles, 70 miles, etc. The NHC could/should add that graphical model to its advisory just as they have for the winds. And if they're going to refer to "huge waves", that segment could be added as well. What is "huge"? A computer model could get much more specific than "near" and "huge".

Had I known that 35 feet of water (sorry Ortt) was going to rise out of Biloxi Back Bay and end up in my living room, I ABSOLUTELY believe I would have altered my plans. But with the advisory of 18-22 feet, I knew I would be safe here because I was safe here in Camille, and she had nearly the same surge forecast, and it matched the end result.

And finally, instead of saying "18 to 22 feet" and "28 feet locally", the NHC ought to just take the highest extreme (in this case, 28 feet forecasted) and use that number as the advisory. What the heck does "locally" mean to an 80-mile coastline? When warning an area, they need to warn us of the highest potential - be it wind or be it surge - and leave everything else out. Otherwise, folks will see the lower numbers and base their plans on that instead of the "local" potential.

[curtadams]

I was one of the people saying the surge forecast was inadequate (not that the NHC "screwed up": they did the best they could). I'm greatly relieved that the surge models may have done much better than it first seemed. Not offended at all. I'm still waiting for more final results re the claims of 35 feet in Bay St. Louis and Jim Cantore's location, but they're looking less likely in view of confirmed nearby, lower, surges.

do you have links to those confirmations you are speaking of?

Here's a link to the report from Cantore. It's buried in a blog so you have to search the page for "Cantore" http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/44641

The 35 feet in Bay Saint Louis claim I've been seeing on this board.

Note - these aren't confirmations, they're claims. My question is why did Cantore and his team say water was on the 2nd floor of a building at 27 feet if the Gulfport surge was around 20 feet? I heard that message on TWC, BTW. They were making a big deal about what Cantore was going through.

[f5]

there is no such thing as a marginal hurricanes they are all killers and should be taken as such.cantore says 37 ft Ortts says less than 30 i go with cantore since he has been in the field longer than ortts

[timNms]

I was one of the people saying the surge forecast was inadequate (not that the NHC "screwed up": they did the best they could). I'm greatly relieved that the surge models may have done much better than it first seemed. Not offended at all. I'm still waiting for more final results re the claims of 35 feet in Bay St. Louis and Jim Cantore's location, but they're looking less likely in view of confirmed nearby, lower, surges.

do you have links to those confirmations you are speaking of?

Here's a link to the report from Cantore. It's buried in a blog so you have to search the page for "Cantore" http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/44641

The 35 feet in Bay Saint Louis claim I've been seeing on this board.

Note - these aren't confirmations, they're claims. My question is why did Cantore and his team say water was on the 2nd floor of a building at 27 feet if the Gulfport surge was around 20 feet? I heard that message on TWC, BTW. They were making a big deal about what Cantore was going through.

You still did not answer my question. Where are the links to the "Confirmed, nearby lower surges" that you mentioned?

[jasons2k]

I was one of the people saying the surge forecast was inadequate (not that the NHC "screwed up": they did the best they could). I'm greatly relieved that the surge models may have done much better than it first seemed. Not offended at all. I'm still waiting for more final results re the claims of 35 feet in Bay St. Louis and Jim Cantore's location, but they're looking less likely in view of confirmed nearby, lower, surges.

do you have links to those confirmations you are speaking of?

Here's a link to the report from Cantore. It's buried in a blog so you have to search the page for "Cantore" http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/44641

The 35 feet in Bay Saint Louis claim I've been seeing on this board.

Note - these aren't confirmations, they're claims. My question is why did Cantore and his team say water was on the 2nd floor of a building at 27 feet if the Gulfport surge was around 20 feet? I heard that message on TWC, BTW. They were making a big deal about what Cantore was going through.

Well, the next day on TWC they showed video footage of the surge coming into the building. Unless they have a pretty good special effects team on-hire and some hidden agenda, I'd say it was more than just a "claim".

[skysummit]

Definately more than just a claim. As I was driving through those areas, you could easily see where water reach as high as 40 feet in locations.

[Derek Ortt]

I have never questioned that places received 35 feet of water, just whether a base water rise of 35 feet occurred. This confusion tends to happen immediately after every landfalling cyclone. After Ivan, people were saying it had a 30 foot surge, when a post analysis showed about 10-15 feet with 20 foot waves. I know MS is not as wave prone as Pensacola, but of the surge I have seen from there did include wave action on top, which also puts water into peoples homes

[Ixolib]

I have never questioned that places received 35 feet of water, just whether a base water rise of 35 feet occurred. This confusion tends to happen immediately after every landfalling cyclone. After Ivan, people were saying it had a 30 foot surge, when a post analysis showed about 10-15 feet with 20 foot waves. I know MS is not as wave prone as Pensacola, but of the surge I have seen from there did include wave action on top, which also puts water into peoples homes

Not sure what confusion you're refering to. The facts are the facts. No waves in THIS neighborhood as we're on the south side of Biloxi Back Bay, about 1.5 miles north of the Gulf, and well protected from the waves generated on the Gulf side by those southerly and southeasterly winds. Yet the level height of the water right here was easily between 30 and 34 feet above MSL. As for me and my neighbors, we are far from confused...

And also, let's consider that an astronomical 2.4' high tide occurred at 6:50am on August 29. The low for that day didn't take place until 6:22pm that evening. Assuming the typical flow of tide in this area, that 2.4' was easily in place well into the mid-afternoon hours.

For the post-analysis, I'd really be interested in the methodology used to conduct those reviews. Is there a standard and proven set of absolute rules by which the reports are generated, and do they incorporate the data from numerous sources and measures?

[skysummit]

I have never questioned that places received 35 feet of water, just whether a base water rise of 35 feet occurred. This confusion tends to happen immediately after every landfalling cyclone. After Ivan, people were saying it had a 30 foot surge, when a post analysis showed about 10-15 feet with 20 foot waves. I know MS is not as wave prone as Pensacola, but of the surge I have seen from there did include wave action on top, which also puts water into peoples homes

Not sure what confusion you're refering to. The facts are the facts. No waves in THIS neighborhood as we're on the south side of Biloxi Back Bay, about 1.5 miles north of the Gulf, and well protected from the waves generated on the Gulf side by those southerly and southeasterly winds. Yet the level height of the water right here was easily between 30 and 34 feet above MSL. As for me and my neighbors, we are far from confused...

And also, let's consider that an astronomical 2.4' high tide occurred at 6:50am on August 29. The low for that day didn't take place until 6:22pm that evening. Assuming the typical flow of tide in this area, that 2.4' was easily in place well into the mid-afternoon hours.

For the post-analysis, I'd really be interested in the methodology used to conduct those reviews. Is there a standard and proven set of absolute rules by which the reports are generated, and do they incorporate the data from numerous sources and measures?

That is the EXACT same thing I have seen Ixolib. The LEVEL height of the waterline...not wave action, and I've been all through the bay side also.

[brunota2003]

I am 100% behind the NHC.

But one thing makes me pause. The wording they used, "NEAR AND TO THE EAST OF WHERE THE CENTER MAKES LANDFALL."

For an advisory forecast, "near" is just useless. Even for those of us who follow this stuff, what is "near"? 10 miles, 50 miles, 100 miles?

The same problem in Rita, people caught by surprise by the extent of the surge far to the east of the landfall; thankfully few casualties.

You took the words right out of my mouth!!! And "how far east" would also be a reasonable question. I agree - this part of the forecast MUST improve if they want to gain more points for improved prediction. Surely, upgraded computer models could be built that would show specificilly what would happen at 1 mile east, 5 miles, 10 miles, 50 miles, 70 miles, etc. The NHC could/should add that graphical model to its advisory just as they have for the winds. And if they're going to refer to "huge waves", that segment could be added as well. What is "huge"? A computer model could get much more specific than "near" and "huge".

Had I known that 35 feet of water (sorry Ortt) was going to rise out of Biloxi Back Bay and end up in my living room, I ABSOLUTELY believe I would have altered my plans. But with the advisory of 18-22 feet, I knew I would be safe here because I was safe here in Camille, and she had nearly the same surge forecast, and it matched the end result.

And finally, instead of saying "18 to 22 feet" and "28 feet locally", the NHC ought to just take the highest extreme (in this case, 28 feet forecasted) and use that number as the advisory. What the heck does "locally" mean to an 80-mile coastline? When warning an area, they need to warn us of the highest potential - be it wind or be it surge - and leave everything else out. Otherwise, folks will see the lower numbers and base their plans on that instead of the "local" potential.

That is why we have Local Hurricane Statements, and the NHC does link to them... NEAR: AROUND THE EYE, EAST: THE RFQ... People should read their hurricane statements for additional info...

[brunota2003]

Its not the NHC's job to give out specifics to the public... And on top of that, its their local NWS offices that people should get the local info from, from that same public advisory:

...POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC HURRICANE KATRINA CONTINUES TO APPROACH
THE NORTHERN GULF COAST...

A HURRICANE WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR THE NORTH CENTRAL GULF COAST
FROM MORGAN CITY LOUISIANA EASTWARD TO THE ALABAMA/FLORIDA
BORDER...INCLUDING THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN.
PREPARATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY SHOULD BE RUSHED TO
COMPLETION.

A TROPICAL STORM WARNING AND A HURRICANE WATCH ARE IN EFFECT FROM
EAST OF THE ALABAMA/FLORIDA BORDER TO DESTIN FLORIDA...AND FROM
WEST OF MORGAN CITY TO INTRACOASTAL CITY LOUISIANA.

A TROPICAL STORM WARNING IS ALSO IN EFFECT FROM DESTIN FLORIDA
EASTWARD TO INDIAN PASS FLORIDA...AND FROM INTRACOASTAL CITY
LOUISIANA WESTWARD TO CAMERON LOUISIANA.

FOR STORM INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO YOUR AREA...INCLUDING POSSIBLE
INLAND WATCHES AND WARNINGS...PLEASE MONITOR PRODUCTS ISSUED
BY YOUR LOCAL WEATHER OFFICE.

[quandary]

Still NHC made generally good judgments throughout this storm and the season. The last time they made a bad forecast was Charley, when the storm strengthened significantly and made a slight turn right before landfall, causing far more damage than expected.

With all the media hype that accompanies any storm... I was in Tampa for Charley when it was at 110mph and that was all the news talked about all day... I can't believe what would happen to local news if a storm like Katrina (175, 902mb) was approaching... so how can people not understand the severity of the situation? Also, everyone saw last year what happened in Ivan, Charley, Jeanne and Frances, people have seen footage or heard stories from Andrew... how can they not understand the severity of a storm that clearly, is stronger than all of them?