Is this the year

[vbhoutex]

Either way, any storm that reaches or surpasses the level of Katrina will be a doomsday scenario in my eyes (and the nations eyes)..and I, like you, pray it never happens. I am afraid though that it is not IF, but rather WHEN. No matter how much I may not want it to happen..eventually it will and we all need to be ready for it.

Very true statements!!! The problem with the last one-YOU CAN NEVER BE READY FOR THE DOOMSDAY STORM!!! The closest thing to being ready for the doomsday storm is - GET OUT!!! GET OUT WELL IN ADVANCE!!!! Being ready in that sense of the word means you know what you are taking with you and can gather it and get it in the vehicle(s) in short time and know where you are going!!

[Audrey2Katrina]

Okay, I might be answering my own question here; or just livening up the discussion over some "doomsday" hurricane costs--who knows?

I found one article about calculating costs from the III and both Katrina and Andrew comparisons. You can check out the article at:

http://www.disasterinformation.org/disaster2/latest/release_013106/

the interesting part to which I somewhat referred in my earlier post comes near the end of the article which states: (for those of you not interested in checking the link or reading the article)

The property/casualty insurance industry will pay out an estimated $40 billion on some 1.75 million claims for Hurricane Katrina alone. By contrast, Hurricane Andrew, the previous record-holder, resulted in $15.5 billion in losses in 1992 ($20.9 in today’s dollars) and 700,000 claims.

Now I make no presumption as to where/how they got this info; but it is a hurricane insurance site so I DO presume they know something about that which they speak. You will note they cite "insurance" claims from Andrew were $15.5 B in 1992 and $20.9 B today. (The article is dated only a month ago--Jan. 31, 2006) and that's roughly HALF of what most sites declare as Andrew's damages. This is why I stated that these are usually doubled for the final estimate of cost/damage. It falls right in place. Using this, it looks like Katrina will fall in the 80-100 B in damages/cost range. Just a guess, but it is based on some fairly authoritative data.

Apologies if it seems I've gotten off topic; because that's not my intent, I just didn't want to start another thread on this topic as it would probably garner a dearth of responses and the exact means of calculating the damages/cost is something I've always wanted to nail down--particularly for these "doomsday" storms which is the topic of the thread... thanks for the time!

A2K

[Extremeweatherguy]

Okay, I might be answering my own question here; or just livening up the discussion over some "doomsday" hurricane costs--who knows?

I found one article about calculating costs from the III and both Katrina and Andrew comparisons. You can check out the article at:

http://www.disasterinformation.org/disaster2/latest/release_013106/

the interesting part to which I somewhat referred in my earlier post comes near the end of the article which states: (for those of you not interested in checking the link or reading the article)

The property/casualty insurance industry will pay out an estimated $40 billion on some 1.75 million claims for Hurricane Katrina alone. By contrast, Hurricane Andrew, the previous record-holder, resulted in $15.5 billion in losses in 1992 ($20.9 in today’s dollars) and 700,000 claims.

Now I make no presumption as to where/how they got this info; but it is a hurricane insurance site so I DO presume they know something about that which they speak. You will note they cite "insurance" claims from Andrew were $15.5 B in 1992 and $20.9 B today. (The article is dated only a month ago--Jan. 31, 2006) and that's roughly HALF of what most sites declare as Andrew's damages. This is why I stated that these are usually doubled for the final estimate of cost/damage. It falls right in place. Using this, it looks like Katrina will fall in the 80-100 B in damages/cost range. Just a guess, but it is based on some fairly authoritative data.

Apologies if it seems I've gotten off topic; because that's not my intent, I just didn't want to start another thread on this topic as it would probably garner a dearth of responses and the exact means of calculating the damages/cost is something I've always wanted to nail down--particularly for these "doomsday" storms which is the topic of the thread... thanks for the time!

A2K

hmm that is very interesting. I had always heard that the damage totals were all from insured losses, but looking at this it seems I may have been wrong. I guess doubling it would make sense. Either way, the total for Katrina is no where near the 200 billion that someone earlier claimed it was. I would say that 75-100 billion sounds just about right. All I can say is I HOPE this year does not feature anything close to that kind of destruction, but I fear it may. With a warm loop current, and a strong La Nina we could be in for another active year in the Gulf and for Florida. Great...

[Audrey2Katrina]

Either way, the total for Katrina is no where near the 200 billion that someone earlier claimed it was.

Absolutely correct. That figure is credited to (to avoid political tangents) "some" politician who was attempting to make hay and threw out that exhorbitant figure to the press, and everyone jumped on it like a duck on a june-bug. Kind of reminds one of the original press claiming 10,000 deaths in New Orleans--sensationalism makes for good press, I suppose. Yes, the $80-100 B makes much more sense.

I HOPE this year does not feature anything close to that kind of destruction,

Roger that. I'm checking out a technology firms site now which shows some potential flooding if major made a direct hit on Miami, complete with computerized graphic of surge flooding into the city... very scary.

A2K

[JTD]

Guys, for the next major doomsday storm, we will not have:
- a mayor who waits until the day that the storm is to hit before ordering an evac
- we will not have an ineffective federal government response
-we will not have people gathered at a convention center without food or water for 3 days killing each other
- we will not have scenes of men, women and children chanting "help help help"
- we will not have nursing home patients drown to death in their beds
-we will not have people shooting at coast guard helicopters trying to rescue people
-we will not have street battles between law enforcement and roving gangs of criminals
- we will have had everyone take the warning of the coming 5 very seriously and evacuated becaue they rememer what Katrina did
-the aid will be distributed far more effectively

Honestly, Katrina's power wasn't what it made it unique. It's the response to it that did. I cannot even begin to imagine something as bad as Katrina happening again. Charley wasn't as bad as Katrina although it was total devastation. Andrew had looting and some chaos but nothing on Katrina's scale.

Perhaps a future storm will wipe out more structures than Katrina but a fuure storm will not have the psychological, social and political life-altering effects that Katrina had.

No, Katrina will stand alone.

At least in my eyes and in my opinion. I feel very strongly about this.

[Ixolib]

...Honestly, Katrina's power wasn't what it made it unique. It's the response to it that did.

On that statement, I'll have to disagree. The response was questionable - and perhaps even a surprise - but because of the extreme circumstances brought on by the power of Katrina, it was an unprecedented event for which NO ONE was prepared - officials included. There is no doubt in my mind - and now in my daily existence - that the uniqueness of Katrina is solely the result of her power...

...Charley wasn't as bad as Katrina although it was total devastation.

Total devastation may be pushing things a bit. While some structures were totally devastated in Charley, certainly many more were not. Many of those structures that were totaled were mobile homes, boat storage sheds, and gas pump canopies. Not significantly different than the result of many other 'canes.

...Perhaps a future storm will wipe out more structures than Katrina but a fuure storm will not have the psychological, social and political life-altering effects that Katrina had. No, Katrina will stand alone.

On this point, I am thinking that folks in Miami, Tampa, NYC, and other large population centers - excluding N.O. - may not react based on the news and coverage of Katrina. Many humans forget quickly what they saw or heard in the news, and unless they experienced it directly, I don't know that the same sense of urgency will exist. I believe complacency will still be highly evident in places that have not had to deal directly and personally with a major landfall in a many years - if ever.

In regard to your list above, we can only hope that the lessons you outlined will have been learned by the next time a major (doomsday???) hits. History has proven, however, that some lessons never get learned to the degree they should....

[Audrey2Katrina]

Guys, for the next major doomsday storm, we will not have:
- a mayor who waits until the day that the storm is to hit before ordering an evac
- we will not have an ineffective federal government response
-we will not have people gathered at a convention center without food or water for 3 days killing each other- we will not have scenes of men, women and children chanting "help help help"
- we will not have nursing home patients drown to death in their beds
-we will not have people shooting at coast guard helicopters trying to rescue people-we will not have street battles between law enforcement and roving gangs of criminals
- we will have had everyone take the warning of the coming 5 very seriously and evacuated becaue they rememer what Katrina did
-the aid will be distributed far more effectively
Honestly, Katrina's power wasn't what it made it unique. It's the response to it that did. I cannot even begin to imagine something as bad as Katrina happening again. Charley wasn't as bad as Katrina although it was total devastation. Andrew had looting and some chaos but nothing on Katrina's scale.

Perhaps a future storm will wipe out more structures than Katrina but a fuure storm will not have the psychological, social and political life-altering effects that Katrina had.

No, Katrina will stand alone.

At least in my eyes and in my opinion. I feel very strongly about this.

Opinion respected however I've heard many times that some of the stories that followed Katrina were either exaggerations or outright proven to be utterly false. (bold print). I can't speak with authority one way or the other; but I've read and seen several reports countering both of these statements.

As far as the italicized... I find them dubious--my opinion. People will become complacent/irresponsible regardless of what history is supposed to have taught us. If anything history has shown time and time again that there are always those who do. As to the response... I agree with Ixolib; nobody could have remotely anticipated what Katrina wrought--that's not an excuse, just a reality. Doubtless a more responsive mayor and better preparation would have mitigated a lot of the calamity--but you would still have had a catastrophe of unprecedented nature.

A2K

[Extremeweatherguy]

...Honestly, Katrina's power wasn't what it made it unique. It's the response to it that did.

On that statement, I'll have to disagree. The response was questionable - and perhaps even a surprise - but because of the extreme circumstances brought on by the power of Katrina, it was an unprecedented event for which NO ONE was prepared - officials included. There is no doubt in my mind - and now in my daily existence - that the uniqueness of Katrina is solely the result of her power...

...Charley wasn't as bad as Katrina although it was total devastation.

Total devastation may be pushing things a bit. While some structures were totally devastated in Charley, certainly many more were not. Many of those structures that were totaled were mobile homes, boat storage sheds, and gas pump canopies. Not significantly different than the result of many other 'canes.

...Perhaps a future storm will wipe out more structures than Katrina but a fuure storm will not have the psychological, social and political life-altering effects that Katrina had. No, Katrina will stand alone.

On this point, I am thinking that folks in Miami, Tampa, NYC, and other large population centers - excluding N.O. - may not react based on the news and coverage of Katrina. Many humans forget quickly what they saw or heard in the news, and unless they experienced it directly, I don't know that the same sense of urgency will exist. I believe complacency will still be highly evident in places that have not had to deal directly and personally with a major landfall in a many years - if ever.

In regard to your list above, we can only hope that the lessons you outlined will have been learned by the next time a major (doomsday???) hits. History has proven, however, that some lessons never get learned to the degree they should....

I think you are understating Charley's power. Charley was just 6mph shy of being a Cat. 5 at landfall and Charley had the strongest land falling winds since Andrew. True the area where it made landfall was full of trailers and mobile homes, but then again...so was most of the area Andrew affected. I would have to say that Charley was total devastation for those affected in Punta Gorda and surrounding areas and even major devastation up the I-4 corridor of FL (though not "total" once inland). Here are some examples of that "total devastation" in the landfall area around Punta Gorda:













..I think that classifies as Total Devastation (Especially since all this damage was done in about an hour)..

[Extremeweatherguy]

Guys, for the next major doomsday storm, we will not have:
- a mayor who waits until the day that the storm is to hit before ordering an evac
- we will not have an ineffective federal government response
-we will not have people gathered at a convention center without food or water for 3 days killing each other- we will not have scenes of men, women and children chanting "help help help"
- we will not have nursing home patients drown to death in their beds
-we will not have people shooting at coast guard helicopters trying to rescue people-we will not have street battles between law enforcement and roving gangs of criminals
- we will have had everyone take the warning of the coming 5 very seriously and evacuated becaue they rememer what Katrina did
-the aid will be distributed far more effectively
Honestly, Katrina's power wasn't what it made it unique. It's the response to it that did. I cannot even begin to imagine something as bad as Katrina happening again. Charley wasn't as bad as Katrina although it was total devastation. Andrew had looting and some chaos but nothing on Katrina's scale.

Perhaps a future storm will wipe out more structures than Katrina but a fuure storm will not have the psychological, social and political life-altering effects that Katrina had.

No, Katrina will stand alone.

At least in my eyes and in my opinion. I feel very strongly about this.

Opinion respected however I've heard many times that some of the stories that followed Katrina were either exaggerations or outright proven to be utterly false. (bold print). I can't speak with authority one way or the other; but I've read and seen several reports countering both of these statements.

As far as the italicized... I find them dubious--my opinion. People will become complacent/irresponsible regardless of what history is supposed to have taught us. If anything history has shown time and time again that there are always those who do. As to the response... I agree with Ixolib; nobody could have remotely anticipated what Katrina wrought--that's not an excuse, just a reality. Doubtless a more responsive mayor and better preparation would have mitigated a lot of the calamity--but you would still have had a catastrophe of unprecedented nature.

A2K

I agree with you on all of your points. History DOES repeat itself and most of those horrible stories at the beginning of the Katrina situation were indeed exagerrated or fake...example: Nagin said that there were rapes and murders going on at the superdome; this turned out to be false. People need to learn not to believe everything they hear. Overall, good post A2K. No arguements this time..

[Ixolib]

I think you are understating Charley's power. Charley was just 6mph shy of being a Cat. 5 at landfall and Charley had the strongest land falling winds since Andrew. True the area where it made landfall was full of trailers and mobile homes, but then again...so was most of the area Andrew affected. I would have to say that Charley was total devastation for those affected in Punta Gorda and surrounding areas and even major devastation up the I-4 corridor of FL (though not "total" once inland).

..I think that classifies as Total Devastation (Especially since all this damage was done in about an hour)..

Perhaps it's all in the eye of the beholder - or the definer. But in the pics you provided, most of the "solid" wooden or CBC structures looked to be "relatively" intact - not totally devastated. Conversely - and in agreement with my point above - the structures that are "devastated in your pics are those that are made of a steel skeleton with a sheet metal skin. Hence, my point that much of the destruction is seen primarily in those kinds of structures, i.e., mobile homes, storage sheds, and gas pump canopies.

While it does look quite destructive to see twisted steel and sheet metal, it is a historical fact that those kinds of structures seldom weather even a minimal hurricane without significant damage. OTOH, more solidly built wooden and concrete/steel structures fair much better - even in cat 4/5 winds. Consequently, they are often not totally devastated - nor were many of them in Charley.

I'm not trying to underestimate the strength of Charley. The report speaks for itself and I'm not contesting that. My point is simply that "total devastation" is perhaps a little extreme as a descriptor. Either that or my understanding of the definition is greatly different than the next guy's.....

[Ixolib]

...Doubtless a more responsive mayor and better preparation would have mitigated a lot of the calamity--but you would still have had a catastrophe of unprecedented nature.

A2K

I'll concede that a different human being in command at the time "might" have made a difference. But, I don't know that I would be willing to agree with the absolute word of "would".

Of course, we'll never know. And by most indicators, Nagin won't have another chance to give it another try - at least not for the next four hurricane seasons!!

[MiamiensisWx]

Well, with Charley and Ivan in 2004 and of course Katrina, I think we have pretty much seen doomsday storms depending on whether or not you are in Punta Gorda, Pensacola, or New Orleans. Other areas may get their doomsday storm this year as unfortunately, the trend year to year seems to be getting more and more destructive. So I think yes, the "doomsday" storm will happen again this year (for somebody).

Excellent point, and that is why I voted yes.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Wow... viewpoints all over the place; but I'm sticking to my original position. A few hits in the US.. maybe a Cat 3... but no "doomsday" scenario in '06...

optimistic? undoubtedly; but I'd rather take that viewpoint given recent events.

A2K

[MGC]

The doomsday storm was last year. We will get a break this season (I hope).....MGC

[johngaltfla]

I voted yes, but hope I'm wrong. The "Doomsday" storm, IMHO, would be a direct hit by a Cat 4 storm with substantial storm surge into Miami or Tampa.

God, do I hope I'm wrong.

[boca]

I think a doomsday storm would hit only if it hit a major area head on Ex. Andrew's eye over downtown Miami not 30 miles south in Homestead.