Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Katrina

Beginning through First Landfall
Chalk another one up for the "bizarre". Looks like the remnants of T.D. 10 have re-entered the Navy site with the 10L.NONAME designator, and re-entered the TWD with "VISIBLE SATELLITE SHOW SOME SIGNS OF A LOW LEVEL CIRCULATION MAY BE DEVELOPING ALONG THE TROUGH." Though the TWD and TWO no longer mention it as the remnants of T.D. 10, the Navy site makes it very clear that it is. The Great Zo 19:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Recent TWOs have been referring to the system as "possibly the remnants of T.D. 10". The Great Zo 04:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like navy has it as 99L now to NOMAME 15:21:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, the Navy page just removed the 10L.NONAME designator (for a short period of time it looks like they used BOTH designators on the same system). That seems to suggest that this system will receive the TD12 name when it develops. The Great Zo 15:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

2:35 PM EDT - Tropical Depression 12 is forming, as per Recon data. Advisories will be initiated at 5. The Great Zo 18:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Florida is back in the crosshairs. The NHC puts it as a 70 mph tropical storm at landfall, but if the depression organizes only a little faster than is forecast, we could be looking at another Florida hurricane, this one not quite as menacing as the others (Charley,Frances,Ivan,Jeanne,and Dennis). The NHC also forecasts it to reach hurricane strength in the Gulf.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Look at the SST's that TD12/Katrina will be coming into (31-33°C/88-92°F). If she can hold up for the next 24-36 hours, this could be really bad, especially for the Gulf Coast. It would be worsened if Katrina goes over the Keys or misses land completely (still quite possible). In that case, I wouldn't be surprised if by Friday we see Katrina as a Category 3 or 4 hurricane. In water that warm, she could easily pull a Charley...she'll be "Walking on Sunshine" for a while (I just threw some humor in there...hehe!) CrazyC83 02:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear God, the (Hurricane) Katrina and the (Tropical) Waves jokes are gonna get old fast... and the storm hasn't even been named yet! Groan :D The Great Zo 04:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Eh, Dennis was overrated as far as the effects in Florida go, minimal damage at best, you could barely tell that a hurricane came through here afterwards, very few people lost power. I just hope it doesn't make people underestimate the next one.  I am sure Ivan is still fresh in everyone's minds. --Holderca1 03:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The NHC says they're having real problems forecasting the intensity of this storm because the range their models are giving is so broad.

E. Brown

I added a link to the Navy's forecast track map, I just prefer their tracking map since it has more info on it than the NHC's version. --Holderca1 14:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Holderca, with regards to the Dennis comment, I think a lot of people in Navarre Beach and St. Marks would strongly disagree with you on that. An estimated $5 billion in damage in Florida alone is far from minimal damage in my book.

E. Brown, hurricane enthusiast

Well, considering I live approximately 10 miles from Navarre Beach and have been there many times, I think I would know if there was major damage there or not. I drove through there a few days after Dennis made landfall and I could not see any major damage between Pensacola and Ft. Walton Beach. I am not sure where you saw that $5 billion value for Florida alone, I have seen values ranging from $1 billion to $2.5 billion for the entire U.S. in the storm (I personally think Alabama and Georgia faired worse than Florida did with all of the inland flooding) compared to Hurricane Ivan which caused ~$14 billion in damage in the U.S. Also, I never said the storm was weak, I said overrated. Of the five storms you listed, it caused by far the least amount of damage. --Holderca1 21:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about it, but I think we can all agree that Florida has had too many hurricanes in the past year.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The $1 billion to $2.5 billion dollar damage estimates you're hearing are probably for insured damages only. Since no damage figures are available for uninsured damages, the best estimates we can assume are approximately the same amount of uninsured damage as insured damage, so with uninsured damages those figures would double. bob rulz 02:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

From the discussions:

THIS FORECAST IS RATHER DIFFICULT SINCE ONE OF THE MORE RELIABLE MODELS...THE GFS...SHOWS THAT THE CYCLONE BARELY TOUCHES THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA BEFORE MOVING NORTHWARD....'''WHILE THE OUTSTANDING GFDL MOVES KATRINA SOUTH OF DUE WEST ACROSS EXTREME SOUTH FLORIDA AND THE KEYS AS A VERY INTENSE HURRICANE. THE GFDL SCENARIO WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS FOR SOUTH FLORIDA. THIS APPEARS TO BE UNREALISTIC AT THIS TIME BUT BECAUSE OF THE GOOD PAST PERFORMANCE OF THIS MODEL...WE MUST PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO FUTURE MODEL RUNS.'''

I don't know...is that really unrealistic? If Katrina goes over the Keys or extreme southern Florida, this really could be problematic...I personally think this will only be a Category 1 hurricane at first landfall, but it will explode to a Category 4 storm in the Gulf of Mexico. CrazyC83 03:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it will be a category 4; I'll predict that it's only a category 2. However, stranger things have happened, and this IS the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season; climatology has no precedence here. ;) bob rulz 03:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Katrina would have to turn towards the southwest at this point if it were to scrape the southern tip of Florida. A due-west course at this point would still put it over land for quite a while. Jose looked poised for rapid intensification as it was making landfall... just, the "land" part of "landfall" got in the way. We may see something similar with Katrina, only it will have a bit more time over the water than Jose did. The Great Zo 04:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Katrina is showing up quite nicely now on Miami radar This is no Andrew, yet anyone who went through Andrew can hardly help but have some pretty strong emotions as they look at the oncoming storm. Pollinator 08:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was looking at the satellite image loop in the "visible" light and I think I see the beginning of an eye in the last frame. Ft. Lauderdale, look out! Awolf002 17:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Same here, sure looks like a hurricane to me...I wouldn't be surprised if they find 75-80 mph winds the next time they send a plane in...however, the real nasty stuff (I think) will come in the Gulf of Mexico - I still take it all the way up to 140 mph before second landfall in the Florida Panhandle... CrazyC83 17:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The eastern Gulf is incredibly warm right now (31-32°C), after seeing what Dennis did after entering the Gulf, I would not be surprised if Katrina reaches at least a Cat 3 before its second lanfall. --Holderca1 19:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In The Gulf
The latest computer models are in a lot better agreement and most are calling for the second landfall somewhere from the Alabama/Mississippi border to the western panhandle. models --Holderca1 19:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

CrazyC, you and the GFDL model would make a great team: GFDL brings Katrina to a 118 knot Category 4 hurricane in the Gulf. The official forecast says 80 knots. That's up from the previous advisory. This storm reminds me a little bit of Erin in 1995. By the way, this is Florida's sixth hurricane in less than a year.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting - maybe we would! That is almost exactly my prediction (120 kt) considering the 31-33°C SST's and favorable environment expected. I think most of the rapid deepening will take place as it is starting to approach the Panhandle...if Katrina gets that strong, we will definitely need the Hurricane Katrina article for this (we don't yet, a Cat 1 hurricane in Florida almost never gets its name retired)... CrazyC83 23:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sixth? Charley dissipated on Aug 14, eleven days ago. Since then, Florida's had Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, and Katrina. Five is still impressive though. (If another hits before Sept 5 - the day that Frances made its second landfall on Florida - then you'll have six in a year. The next milestone after that will be Ivan on Sept 16.)


 * And remember folks: we had four storms form in September last year, all hurricanes, two reaching category 4 and one reaching 5. And September began with the I storm; we're already two names beyond that. (Which honestly doesn't seem like that big of a lead - we're gonna fall behind in the earliest stats!)


 * Actually they are foreccasting the second landfall at 90 knots. --Holderca1 22:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

KATRINA IS EXPECTED TO STRENGTHEN TO 90 KT BEFORE LANDFALL OCCURS IN THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE.

"Sixth? Charley dissipated on Aug 14, eleven days ago." Details, details. Six is still too many in that time frame. Also, Katrina is hitting the most densely populated part of Florida and is moving at six mph. That's not good. This will increase the possibility of fatalities. Flooding could be severe, especially in the low lying Everglades. Holderca, I saw that. It is clearly a typo. The forecast calls for a landfall at 80 knots. 8 being right next to 9 on the keyboard, it is easy to see that one could err there.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think it is a typo, the forecast is calling for the storm to reach 80 knots while it is still well over water, don't see why it couldn't strengthen another 10 knots between that forecast and landfall. --Holderca1 23:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it could still become a Category 2 in the Gulf, but I think they meant to say 80 knots in that discussion. I don't see why they'd contradict themselves on the same advisory.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I am missing something, it wouldn't be the first time, but I only see the 90 knot prediction, the only place I see 80 knots in the forecast is at 72 hours. The coordinates for the 72 hour time is still over the Gulf. --Holderca1 00:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The path Katrina is taking over the peninsula is not a good thing for the Gulf Coast, swamps won't do much to weaken her compared to going over dry land. Also this jog to the WSW will bring over the Gulf sooner as well. Curious to see the next advisory to see the discussion. --Holderca1 02:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

From the 11 pm discussion:

"All indications are that Katrina will be a dangerous hurricane in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico in 3 days."

This could suck. What's more, the forecast intensity is now up to 85 knots. Holderca, don't you get sick of being right all the time? :)

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I probably wouldn't mind as much if I didn't live in the projected path of the storm. I will try to snap a few good pics of the storm if it does in fact come on shore here.  --Holderca1 11:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Katrina's looking really impressive at this point... the 11:00 AM advisory (Aug 26) was way under-done and they're going to issue a special advisory to bring it to a high-end Cat 1 with a pressure down 10 MB from the advisory estimation to 971 MB. EDIT: The special advisory is out. 11:30 AM EDT. Pressure of 971 MB. Winds of 85 knots - 100 MPH - they bumped it to Cat 2! The Great Zo 15:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

NHC now expects it to hit the Alabama/Mississippi border as a Category 4!.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I predicted all along! (I guess the early models didn't catch the fact that the SST's are 31-34°C in the eastern Gulf, which hurricanes love). I'm going with a landfall between Gulf Shores and Pascagoula... CrazyC83 22:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Great, I stop paying attention for a few days because it's not going to affect me, and look what happens. Starts heading west-southwest, and the forecast track starts shifting over in my direction. Grumble. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 23:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

CrazyC, your predictions have been so accurate lately it's creepy. This storm's forcast track, landfall location, and intensity at landfall are reminicent of Hurricane Frederic of 1979. This could be bad.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Katrina's now a Cat 4 with 145 MPH winds. I must concede that it's unlikely the storm really gained 30 MPH in a period of three hours, but that's largely irrelevant. The only enemy Katrina has right now is itself (i.e. concentric eyewall cycles). The intensification trend early this Sunday morning should prove it's capable of rapidly-intensifying with the best of 'em. The Great Zo 06:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Article shift
The forecast now is for landfall on the Panhandle as a major hurricane (100 knots). Should we move Katrina to a separate article, either Hurricane Katrina (2005) or (if we are really confident in the forecasts and expect even more) the main article Hurricane Katrina? CrazyC83 15:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Check that, the special advisory just issued calls for landfall at 110 knots. Its about to get nuts up here, already has at the gas stations. --Holderca1 15:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The deaths in the Miami area alone - plus the fact that it hit a major population center - are enough to warrant its own article. Clearly we'll have even more reasons later. I'd go for the (2005) version for now... that can be changed later if needed. The Great Zo 15:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Category Five
160 mph maximum sustained winds...I can't believe this. If you are in the path of this storm, especially in New Orleans area, please please please get the hell out of there. This storm is set to destroy everything in its path. --Revolución (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Will there be a need for a "Category Six" in the future? I hope not, but it seems hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent, most likely because of global warming. --Revolución (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I just read about some hokey FX made for TV movie which involved a "Category 6" hurricane hitting near Louisiana near Labor Day of 2005, and causing oil prices to hit 150 dollars a barrel. Aside from the fact that I laughed about "bad TV movie" factor (CAT 6?) the situation is rather... eerie. The Great Zo 15:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

They'll be posting another update at NHC within a few minutes. --Revolución (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Make it 175 mph winds, the NHC had this comment which left me speechless... KATRINA IS COMPARABLE IN INTENSITY TO HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969...ONLY LARGER. I agree with Revolución, if you are in the path of this storm, Get out NOW! This could very easily be the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. --Holderca1 15:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

OH MY F***ING GOD! 175 mph winds?! I'm completely speechless right now! --Revolución (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If there was a Category 6, it would likely start at around 185 mph. The worst part is, it could still strengthen more. I see the final damage toll, including inland damage, will be over $120 billion. Hopefully we can keep the death toll down though... CrazyC83 15:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Katrina is comparable in intensity more to Mitch than Camille. This is a perfect storm. A Category 5 hitting New Orleans, which Katrina is expected to do at this point, is one of a few models for the 'perfect storm'.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 16:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Katrina references
Probably not in good taste, but would it be appropriate to refer to Hurricane Katrina as Katrina and the Waves? --timc | Talk 14:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually someone already has, look under the 12L Katrina heading and the "Walking on Sunshine" reference in the 6th or 7th post. --Holderca1 14:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry about that. --timc | Talk 14:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I first got that line from several posting in the wunderground forums...anyway this looks a lot worse for those on the Panhandle (I think final landfall will be just west of Pensacola, near the AL-FL line). I am sticking to my prediction on intensity (120 knots). CrazyC83 14:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Early on, when a few models showed Kat crossing Florida and possibly making a hairpin back into the peninsula (yeah, I'm sure I miss-spelled that, P03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)~), my first thought was parodying the old classic song, "But the Kat Came Back". Donovan Ravenhull 03:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Battened down in Mobile, AL)

It's obvious now
Katrina = worst hurricane in recorded history --Revolución (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Based on what, $$$ of damage? Personally I think loss of life is more important and Katrina still falls behind the Galveston Hurricane and the Great Hurricane of 1780. --Holderca1 20:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * -And Hurricane Mitch. Probably we should stick to saying that it's the most costly in US history. And that's not proven yet, but I'm confident it will be. Pollinator 06:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Waaaay, behind.--E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, then. Worst named hurricane in recorded history. --Revolución (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The most common measure is by $$, yes. Look at it this way - you can evacuate every single person out of the area, so the death toll would be zero, but you can't evacuate buildings, so the dollar value of the damage could be said to be a better meter of how destructive the hurricane was. --Golbez 21:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * However, some hurricanes that affect a crowded area can have a low monetary damage toll, but extreme loss of life...i.e. Hurricane Jeanne last year in Haiti. CrazyC83 23:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My meter only works for areas where it's easy to evacuate: The United States, basically. Anywhere else, the dollar value will be much lower and the death toll much higher. 'twas ever thus. No one is saying Katrina is the worst ever - they're saying it's the worst ever in the United States. Other areas are too difficult to quantify in this fashion. --Golbez 02:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

If you multiply the damages done squared by the derivitave of 2xy times the number of people killed, it might be the worst ever (i.e. there's no real way to judge but I don't see any way it wouldn't rank in the top 5 in this hemisphere). The Great Zo 06:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)