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)
Looks like navy has it as 99L now to NOMAME 15:21:21, 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)
The NHC says they're having real problems forecasting the intensity of this storm because the range their models are giving is so broad.
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)
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)
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 [1]. 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)
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)
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)
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|✎ 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 [2]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Katrina = worst hurricane in recorded history --Revolución (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Based on what, $$$ of damage? Personally I think loss of life is more important and Katrina still falls behind the Galveston Hurricane and the Great Hurricane of 1780. --Holderca1 20:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Waaaay, behind.--E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The most common measure is by $$, 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)
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)