Could Tampa Bay Be the Next New Orleans?

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
f5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: Waco,tx

#41 Postby f5 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:40 am

gatorcane wrote:
Ixolib wrote:
mountainspring wrote:Yes, it's true that if a massive hurricane hit the Tampa Bay area, it would be devasting. But the question is, what is the likelihood of this happening? I recall reading an article last summer that said it's actually not that likely that Tampa would be hit full bore by a CAT-3 or higher because of the curve it would have to make, and that Tampa is somewhat protected by its position. That doesn't mean it can't happen or won't happen, but it's less likely to.

I actually have no idea how likely it is, but considering I live 4 houses from the bay in the Tampa area, I sure hope it won't happen anytime soon. :eek: We are ready to evacuate, and quickly. We've got all of our papers together, we have hurricane bags packed, we have lists of hotels 30 miles inland that accept two large dogs, we have a doggy hurricane box ready complete with food .... So we are prepared at least physically, but I don't know about mentally.


Another 100 miles, and Charley might have been the one to dispel the notion of immaculate protection. But even Charley might not have brought the epic surge that is so feared because of his approach up the coastline, short-lived major status, and limited size, wind fetch, and duration.

As for being "mentally" prepared - you might as well forget that one!! But one out of two ain't bad... :wink:


Charley would have actually been weaker had it moved through Tampa Bay instead of 100 miles south over Port Charlotte. The reason is two-fold:

1) the shear was higher 100 miles north due to the approaching trough
2) Charley would have been undergoing an eye replacement cycle

Nonetheless, it certainly would have brought a decent storm surge to the area but the animation is for a CAT 4 and I am assuming it is considering a hurricane that is larger than Charley.


dude what if that trough would of been 100 miles further north Tampa Bay would of got slamed
0 likes   

User avatar
Cookiely
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3211
Age: 74
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:31 am
Location: Tampa, Florida

#42 Postby Cookiely » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:13 pm

HollynLA wrote:I
t will make the ninth ward look like Fairyland


Let's not get carried away with statements like that. i can only assume that you've personally been to the 9th? If so, you would NEVER make that statement.

With the wall to wall coverage of CNN and other networks I don't believe I need to see it first hand to get an idea of the damage. Have you been to the government housing near the port of Tampa or the extremely old homes and businesses in that area.
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 34093
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

#43 Postby CrazyC83 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:15 pm

If Charley had gone north and straight into Tampa with the trough 100 miles to the north, yes it would have got slammed, but gatorcane is correct - it would have been more of a wind event there as well. The storm surge would have been maybe 12 feet - while that would have caused significant damage, it would have not been the monster that was feared. Over 90% of the damage would have been from the winds, which at that point likely would have been at Category 5 due to longer time over warm water. It would have been a LOT more like Andrew than Katrina.

I doubt it would have been in an eyewall cycle yet; it would have taken until late that evening - when it was exiting back into the Atlantic - to reach that point in my view.
0 likes   

User avatar
jasons2k
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 8247
Age: 51
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX

#44 Postby jasons2k » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:21 pm

Per Stacy Stewart here in Houston a few weeks ago: Charley would have hit Tampa as a Cat. 5 if he had not turned.

No mention of the surge - but I agree that it would not have had a huge surge due to the small windfield.
0 likes   

User avatar
HollynLA
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: South Louisiana

#45 Postby HollynLA » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:40 pm

With the wall to wall coverage of CNN and other networks I don't believe I need to see it first hand to get an idea of the damage. Have you been to the government housing near the port of Tampa or the extremely old homes and businesses in that area.


I don't care how many media networks have shown images of the 9th ward, it's nothing like being there first hand. No, I haven't seen the areas in Tampa you're referring to (and didn't realize they were hit by catastrophic natural events for you to be so sure of your assumption), but to assume that these areas would make 9th ward look like fairyland, as you put it, is a far stretch. When I drove through 9th ward, I actually said to myself, this must have been what Hiroshema looked like after the bomb dropped. Honestly, it doesn't get much worse than that. I know the flooding would have be worse in NOLa had Katrina hit a little further to the east, but the 9th ward is as bad as it gets.
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 34093
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

#46 Postby CrazyC83 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:41 pm

jschlitz wrote:Per Stacy Stewart here in Houston a few weeks ago: Charley would have hit Tampa as a Cat. 5 if he had not turned.

No mention of the surge - but I agree that it would not have had a huge surge due to the small windfield.


I agree - I think sustained winds would have jumped to 165 mph over the four extra hours over water, and the pressure would have dropped to about 925 mb.
0 likes   

Patrick99
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1772
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 3:43 pm
Location: SW Broward, FL

#47 Postby Patrick99 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:25 pm

It wouldn't be worse than in New Orleans.....at least in Tampa, the surge would begin receding once the storm passed.

New Orleans is a very unique situation.
0 likes   

User avatar
bvigal
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2276
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:49 am
Location: British Virgin Islands
Contact:

#48 Postby bvigal » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:45 pm

Wow, I didn't know Stewart said that about Charley. That's pretty sobering. :( I've family in Tampa area, and always get nervous when something looks like it could move at an angle up the coast and into Tampa Bay.

I don't think this thread was asking if Tampa could have exactly the same flooding/levee conditions as New Orleans, but rather could it suffer catastrophic damage and death like New Orleans. And that is clearly a possibility, conditions being just right.

Ask the people along the Gulf Coast if it really matters how quickly the surge receeds, after it's crushed and blasted apart everything down to concrete slabs! Anyone who's ever tried to get to St. Pete's or back from Tampa knows the road system would take days to allow evacuation. I'm afraid many wouldn't leave soon enough.
0 likes   

User avatar
mf_dolphin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 17758
Age: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Contact:

#49 Postby mf_dolphin » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:56 pm

As far as worse I don't know how you categorize devastation. There's no doubt that any major hurricane striking the Tampa Bay area just north of the mouth of Tampa Bay would be a disaster. With our shallow continental shelf and even shallower bay, the surge would inundate a large area of the bay area. I live in South Pinellas County and 4 out of my 5 evacuation routes are over bridges. The 5th is so congested during normal traffic that evacuating that direction (north) would be out of the question. Looking at the damage done to bridges both in the New Orleans and Mississippi Gulf coast areas there's no doubt that a direct strike would have long lasting impacts. While we would not have the standing water situation that faced New Orleans we would have much more damage from direct storm surge. There's a good reason that the Tampa Bay area is high on the "major disaster just waiting to happen" list. Let's just all hope we don't have to find out....
0 likes   

User avatar
jasons2k
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 8247
Age: 51
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX

#50 Postby jasons2k » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:16 pm

Patrick99 wrote:It wouldn't be worse than in New Orleans.....at least in Tampa, the surge would begin receding once the storm passed.

New Orleans is a very unique situation.


It doesn't matter how fast it recedes - once the surge hits, the damage is done. Just look at the coast of MS.

The problem with Tampa is its unique geography combined with the population. It's not like Miami or even the MS Gulf Coast where you have a narrow strip of surge-prone coastline in a straight line along the coast. The Tampa Bay region consists of 2 bays and the Gulf Coast itself. There are many more square miles of developed land within the surge zone. There are three cities of over 100,000 residents where the downtown/central business district is located on the shoreline (Tampa, St. Pete, & Clearwater). Pinellas is the most populous county in the state of Florida and is surrounded by water on all sides except one. MacDill AFB, home of the US Central Command, is located on the southern end of the South Tampa Peninsula, barely above sea level. Both major airports are located very close to the shoreline. The port is the largest in Florida - handling over 1/2 the state's total cargo and one of the largest in the nation.

In summary, yes it would be different than NOLA. In terms of economic losses, it would probably be much worse.
0 likes   

Stratosphere747
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Surfside Beach/Freeport Tx
Contact:

#51 Postby Stratosphere747 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:27 pm

jschlitz,

Did Stewart make those remarks in a presentation, or was it more of a general comment?
0 likes   

User avatar
jasons2k
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 8247
Age: 51
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX

#52 Postby jasons2k » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:58 pm

Stratosphere747 wrote:jschlitz,

Did Stewart make those remarks in a presentation, or was it more of a general comment?


He was giving a presentation at the Houston Hurricane conference several weeks ago. During the presentation, he said there is "nothing sacred about the US coastline" and (to paraphrase) that it's just a matter of time before we have a storm like Wilma that bottoms-out right along the US coastline. He said Charley was an example of this.

Then he said - to paraphrase again b/c I can't recall the exact quote - if Charley had not turned it would have hit Tampa as a Cat. 5 -- it was well on its way.
0 likes   

User avatar
jasons2k
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 8247
Age: 51
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX

#53 Postby jasons2k » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:06 pm

jschlitz wrote:
Stratosphere747 wrote:jschlitz,

Did Stewart make those remarks in a presentation, or was it more of a general comment?


He was giving a presentation at the Houston Hurricane conference several weeks ago. During the presentation, he said there is "nothing sacred about the US coastline" and (to paraphrase) that it's just a matter of time before we have a storm like Wilma that bottoms-out right along the US coastline. He said Charley was an example of this.

Then he said - to paraphrase again b/c I can't recall the exact quote - if Charley had not turned it would have hit Tampa as a Cat. 5 -- it was well on its way.


OK - I wrote an article about this for the yet-to-be-published S2K newsletter. Here is a snippet with the exact quote about this particular subject:

Mr. Stewart explained that Wilma was an excellent example of explosive development in a very short period. He said “now imagine if the very same occurred just offshore of a major U.S. metropolitan area. There is nothing sacred about the U.S. coastline to shelter us. Eventually a storm will bottom-out just off the coast of Houston; it’s just a matter of time. Hurricane Charley was a good example of an exploding storm just off the U.S. coast. If Charley had not turned, he would have hit Tampa as a category 5 hurricane and the Tampa area would not be the same today.”
0 likes   

caneman

#54 Postby caneman » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:08 pm

Anyone who doubts this really ought to do more research. when Dennis passed by at a distance he actually sucked all the water out of the Bay. Can you imagine that? When Jeanne passed by she flooded parts of downtown Tampa, St. Pete and the Beaches. Many people didn't evacuate for Charley. It waso only suppose to be a cat.2 they thought but when it went from 2 to 4 it was too late anyhow. I can honestly say it was at that point that the it'll never happen to us crowd and we'll just ride it out crow actually became believers but it was too late anyhow. And now time and complacency will make them forget anyhow.
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#55 Postby Derek Ortt » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:15 pm

I highly doubt that Charley would have been anywhere near cat 5, and have to disagree with Stacy Stewart on this one.

The reasoning is that Charley likely would have been sheared just prior to impacting Tampa. ETA likely would have been about 8 p.m. EDT, about 1 hour before impacting Orlando, and Charley was already badly sheared at that time period. This rapid increase in shear, along with the small size of the storm, leads me to believe that under that particular set-up, Tampa likely would have had a category 3 hurricane, which still would have been a destructive event, probably rivaling Andrew's damage total


Now, had the trough been a little to the north... thats a completely different matter and could have led to a cat 5 landfall at Tampa
0 likes   

CrazyC83
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 34093
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Deep South, for the first time!

#56 Postby CrazyC83 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:19 pm

Even if Charley was a Category 5 and made landfall at the worst possible spot (Tarpon Springs), the storm surge certainly would not rival Katrina due to the small size and sudden development. It would resemble a large F4 tornado more than anything.

Nonetheless, the wind damage would be horrifying. Homes would be leveled by the winds, and the skyscrapers would have all their windows sheared onto the streets.
0 likes   

User avatar
skysummit
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5305
Age: 49
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Ponchatoula, LA
Contact:

#57 Postby skysummit » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:20 pm

Cookiely wrote:
HollynLA wrote:I
t will make the ninth ward look like Fairyland


Let's not get carried away with statements like that. i can only assume that you've personally been to the 9th? If so, you would NEVER make that statement.

With the wall to wall coverage of CNN and other networks I don't believe I need to see it first hand to get an idea of the damage. Have you been to the government housing near the port of Tampa or the extremely old homes and businesses in that area.


Dude, I hate to say it, but you have NO CLUE on what it's like by watching CNN and other networks. They can do wall to wall coverage 365 days a year, and it won't do half the justice of what it's like in person. Everyday I meet people who are witnessing it in person...now, almost a year later!, and all they can say is "I would've never known by watching TV". I have been seeing it in person almost every day for the past 10 months and everyday it's something new. You don't know until you've been there. It's that simple.

As for Tampa being worst....I'm not too sure about that. I guess if a Cat 5 were to hit Tampa, then yes it probably would be worst than NOLA's Katrina damage. Now if you compare a Cat 5 hitting NOLA and Tampa, there would be no comparison at all. The damage that New Orleans and the rest of Southeast La. would experience would blow it out the water....it would make Katrina's devistation look like a glitch in ordinary life.

I've been to Tampa twice, and I've lived here all my life so my knowledge of the Tampa area isn't as accurate as it is here, therefore my opinion is biased of course.
0 likes   

User avatar
jasons2k
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 8247
Age: 51
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX

#58 Postby jasons2k » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:31 pm

In theory, yes one could argue that a "Katrina" in LA would do damage to a larger area of SE Lousiana given the large swath of land at or below sea level. But the same storm would cause more losses in Tampa-St. Pete because there is significantly more urbanized and developed land that will be directly impacted. It's just that simple. It comes down to numbers and how many houses, office buildings, airports, etc. are crowded into a given space of land. That's exactly why a storm making landfall on Matagorda bay here in Texas is much less of a concern than one in Galveston. The surge itself may be similiar in size but the losses/outcome will be vastly different.

Bret '99 was a powerful hurricane but it didn't do much damage because it hit a sparesly populated area.
0 likes   

User avatar
TSmith274
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:11 am
Location: New Orleans, La.

#59 Postby TSmith274 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:46 pm

jschlitz wrote:In theory, yes one could argue that a "Katrina" in LA would do damage to a larger area of SE Lousiana given the large swath of land at or below sea level. But the same storm would cause more losses in Tampa-St. Pete because there is significantly more urbanized and developed land that will be directly impacted. It's just that simple. It comes down to numbers and how many houses, office buildings, airports, etc. are crowded into a given space of land. That's exactly why a storm making landfall on Matagorda bay here in Texas is much less of a concern than one in Galveston. The surge itself may be similiar in size but the losses/outcome will be vastly different.

Bret '99 was a powerful hurricane but it didn't do much damage because it hit a sparesly populated area.

Not sure how you can make that assumption. New Orleans is a highly industrialized area with a population density making it the 5th most densely populated city in the US. Tampa ranks 38th in population density. New Orleans was #2 on the FEMA list of worst possible disasters... #1 being a terrorist attack on NYC, and #3 being a major earthquake in L.A.

I'd love to be wrong, as it would make the case for investment in New Orleans easier. Unfortunately, I don't think I am.
0 likes   

f5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: Waco,tx

#60 Postby f5 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:36 pm

Dr Lyons on the TWC showed Katrina and Charley side by size and by far Katrina could eat a dozen charley's for lunch based on how huge she was
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Beef Stew and 40 guests