Suppose New Orleans was a regular city in the same location, just like any other in Mississippi hit by the hurricane. No unusual flood danger. Would the storm have been nearly as bad? I ask because there’s so much attention justifiably turned towards New Orleans that I realized that I really didn’t have a good idea of what the overall picture for this storm was like. Did NO account for most of this storm’s casualties, damage, and so on, or would it still have been a “top hurricane” under better circumstances?
Have you seen what most of the Gulf Coast of Mississippi looks like? It’s not a pretty sight and the damage is of a pretty wide area. And many people have died in Mississippi without their being any flooding.
Kat wasn’t that bad. The freaking inflow from the immediately adjacent lake was the real problem. If the levee hadn’t breached, they’d be back up by now.
:eek:
Wow, I hope that isn’t the general perception. At it’s peak, Katrina was a category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale – the most destructive.
According to the National Hurricane Center, Katrina was “the third strongest hurricane on record to make landfall on the United States.”
Even if you ignore the flooding in New Orleans, the area of devestation is massive. Wikipedia says: “Federal disaster declarations blanketed 90,000 square miles (233,000 km²) of the United States, an area almost as large as the United Kingdom.”
By almost every way of reckoning, Katrina is one of the worst hurricanes ever.
Almost every way of reckoning? The death toll is probably going to be in excess of 10,000 people, they’re talking about 100 billion dollars in damages now, and two states are pretty much trashed. This was the worst natural disaster to ever hit the US, no matter how you qualify it.
Please find and look at pictures of Gulfport and Biloxi Mississippi where the worst part of the storm hit. Just because there was a flood and very bad situation in New Orleans doesn’t mean these places weren’t walloped. It was a VERY, VERY BAD STORM.
Not that I don’t think anson2995 is capable of speaking for himself, but notice he said the worst hurricane, not the worst disaster. There have been a few hurricanes in recorded history with stronger winds, for instance, or lower barometric pressure.
For sheer human cost, obviously, Katrina is in a class of its own. But other measures do give it competition for “worst hurricane”.
As to how bad it would have been… We’ve mostly seen pictures of New Orleans on the news, with good reason, and it may be that people see the city flooded but otherwise largely intact, and think, That wasn’t so bad. But New Orleans didn’t bear the brunt of the winds or the storm surge! The towns and cities that did, along the Gulf coasts of Alabama, Mississippi, and eastern Louisiana, got hit and hit hard. Large areas have been smashed essentially flat. This would have been a severe natural disaster whether NOLA ended up wet or dry; the levee failures tipped the scale from “disaster” to “catastrophe”.
Yes. I concur with Diceman in asserting that this will prove to be the costliest natural disaster in US history, both in terms of lives lost and damage done.
My response to the OP was to comment on the physical severity of the storm rather than the amount of damge it caused. Since they started keeping data in 1886, there have only been about 25 category 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic. Only four of those hit the US mainland: Galveston 1900, Labor Day 1935, Andrew 1992, and now Katrina. Just on those simplest terms, Katrina ranks as one of the worst.
In terms of barometric pressure, Katrina’s 902 mB is the fourth worst Atlantic hurricane. The 175 mph sustained winds ranks Latrina as the second worst to hit the US (1969’s Camille hit 190 mph). I haven’t seen any data yet on the amount of rainfall or the intensity of the tidal waves, but I suspect the latter was very bad based on video footage I’ve seen. I also haven’t seen any data about the number of tornadoes spawned by the storm.
Speaking just about the severity of the storm itself (and not considering the damage it caused), this ranks as one of the worst in US history. And that’s why I have to disagree, in the strongest possible terms, to **cerberus ** saying “Kat wasn’t that bad.” It was as bad as they get.
The OP asked specifically about New Orleans, which is an entirely different story than Missisippi or Alabama. While a severe storm (for New Orleans), I agree with another poster who said things would be getting back to normal by now. Lights on, water running, repairing the damage, etc.
Specifically in terms of New Orleans, it wouldn’t rank in the top 15 or 20 most destructive.
Was the storm worse in Gulfport? Sure, but was this a substantially weaker event in New Orleans? Clearly not.
The eye of the hurricane passed over the eastern edge of the city, and with it the devestating winds. It was the winds, not the flooding, that brought down the I-10 twin span bridge and (likely) destroyed the Superdome. Many of the high-rise buildings downtown appear to have sustained damage. I’ve seen video of collapsed buildings and splintered trees from the Garden District. Is suspect that there were thousands of homes and other buildings in Orleans parrish that were flattened by the wind. A day before Katrina came ashore, the NOAA warned about how devestating the storm would be in New Orleans. They predicted:
We haven’t yet been able to assess whether these dire predictions came to pass, but I think they give us a good idea of what we’re going to find when the waters recede. The premise of the original question is how bad things would be in New Orleans if the levees had held. You and **cerebrus ** are saying things would be back to normal, and I’m baffled as to your reasoning.
You suggest that there have been 15 or 20 worse storms in New Orleans? The National Weather Service has a pretty good history section, and I think you’d be hard pressed to come up with 3.
Maybe more to the point, it’s almost impossible to say “New Orleans would have been fine if it hadn’t flooded.” It was the hurricane that caused the levees to breach, after all. The fact that this hasn’t happened before ought to say something about the intensity of Katrina in New Orleans.