Storm of the century

[Jim Cantore]

Just for fun

If tommorow was January 1st 2100, Whats the storm of this century?

If you need a "guide" heres the credentials of the storms

Blizzard of 2003: Simple as this, It crippled the Northeast.

Hurricane Isabel: The most beautiful storm I've ever seen, on the list simply for its satelitte presentation.

Hurricane Ivan: Seemed to Purposely throw its eyewall at people, plus the loop and rebirth.

Hurricane Katrina: No comment

Hurricane Rita: Give her some love guys, she deserves to be here, she wiped Cameron off the map and dropped 70 millabars in a day. 897mb deserves SOME consideration.

Hurricane Wilma: No intro needed.

Blizzard of 2006: Came out of nowhere and broke NYC single storm snowfall record.

Just for kicks.....

Odds

Blizzard of 2003: 10-1
Hurricane Isabel: 100-1
Hurricane Ivan: 25-1
Blizzard of 2005: 50-1
Hurricane Katrina: 3-1
Hurricane Rita: 9-1
Hurricane Wilma: 2-1
Blizzard of 2006: 12-1
Other: 1,000,000-1 (I'd hope)

Other I dont think is THAT nessasary but I could see someone throwing Hurricane Emily in.

[wxmann_91]

Katrina, no doubt.

It's not about how strong a storm gets, it's about the devastation it causes. Records have some impact but devastation can override that in Katrina's case.

[Jim Cantore]

The winner should have most of these attached to it

1. Major Records attached to it
2. Uniqueness
3. Major Damage
4. widespread impact
5. Loss of life
6. The first to do something
7. Once in a lifetime storm (if there is such a thing anymore)

Some lesser things include

1. Effects on a major city
2. Compareable to a legendary storm


If you want my opinion, Katrina or Wilma should win.

[Hurricaneman]

I personally think Wilma takes the cake

[KWT]

Wilma simply because it was the strongest storm the atlantic basin has seen since recording these hurricanes started.

[cheezyWXguy]

I vote for Katrina...I dont think it will last long tho, considering it weakened so much before landfall.

P.S. call me crazy, but on Rita's description on the first post...shouldnt that be 897, not 987mb?

[AussieMark]

Rita was 895 mb

[tornadotony]

I think that if Ivan is up there, Charley should be too because of the rapid intensification RIGHT BEFORE LANDFALL and the fact that it did more damage than Ivan.

[spinfan4eva]

I think the march superstorm of 1993 should be there as that is the official storm of the century.

One of the most intense nor'eaters to ever strike the Eastern United States did so in the second week of March, 1993. Record low pressures, wind speeds, low temperatures and snowfall amounts were more than enough for this storm to gain the status of "Storm of the Century" even during its existence. Indeed, this storm was monumental, killing over 250 people and cancelling 25% of the United States' flights for two days. The purpose of this case study is to provide background on this storm, using surface maps and satellite images to demonstrate its full scope.

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/arch/cases/930312/home.rxml

[stormcrow]

Drive through the Ninth Ward in New Orleans today, 7 months later (or Waveland Ms.), then tell me you will not vote for Katrina.

[HURAKAN]

KATRINA.

BUT I WOULD CHANGE THE TITLE TO STORM OF THE DECADE. I THINK IT'S TOO EARLY TO CALL IT, THE STORM OF THE CENTURY. WORSE THINGS COULD HAPPEN IN 94 YEARS!

[gtalum]

I think the march superstorm of 1993 should be there as that is the official storm of the century.

That was sooo last century.

[HurricaneHunter914]

Wilma was beautiful, record breaking, destructive, and considered Gilbert's wife! I would give her the title but Katrina was all of that doubled.

[facemane]

Katrina, due to how widespread the devastation was.

[JonathanBelles]

katrina

[Weather Watcher]

Ivan because of his rebirth and flooding in my hometown Pittsburgh.

[Ivanhater]

I think that if Ivan is up there, Charley should be too because of the rapid intensification RIGHT BEFORE LANDFALL and the fact that it did more damage than Ivan.

I dont think it did more damage, it just hit more expensive things...not trying to take anything away from charley, it was a horrible storm, but I think the pictures speak for themselves

[Extremeweatherguy]

I think that if Ivan is up there, Charley should be too because of the rapid intensification RIGHT BEFORE LANDFALL and the fact that it did more damage than Ivan.

I dont think it did more damage, it just hit more expensive things...not trying to take anything away from charley, it was a horrible storm, but I think the pictures speak for themselves

I don't know about hitting more expensive things...most of the area it made landfall in was filled with mobile homes..where as in Pensacola..there were many well-built and more expensive homes. With 150mph winds, the wind damage far exceeded Ivans'...but the surge in Ivan was worse. I think Charley's widespread extent of hurricane force winds across the state, compared to Ivan's storm surge which was just at the coast, would win out in terms of overall damage.

[Ivanhater]

I think that if Ivan is up there, Charley should be too because of the rapid intensification RIGHT BEFORE LANDFALL and the fact that it did more damage than Ivan.

I dont think it did more damage, it just hit more expensive things...not trying to take anything away from charley, it was a horrible storm, but I think the pictures speak for themselves

I don't know about hitting more expensive things...most of the area it made landfall in was filled with mobile homes..where as in Pensacola..there were many well-built and more expensive homes. With 150mph winds, the wind damage far exceeded Ivans'...but the surge in Ivan was worse. I think Charley's widespread extent of hurricane force winds across the state, compared to Ivan's storm surge which was just at the coast, would win out in terms of overall damage.

No doubt Ivan was a surge storm, either way Ivan and charley are very close in expense

[jax]

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ridge/Katrina/k ... _black.gif

without question...