Hurricane Irene: New York City dodges a potential storm surge mega-disaster
On August 24, 2011, I had good reason to fear New York City's worst-case storm surge disaster might be named Irene. As Category 3 Hurricane Irene ripped through the Bahamas on its way to North Carolina and New England, our most reliable hurricane forecasting model--the European (ECMWF) model--predicted that Irene would intensify to Category 4 strength with a 912 mb central pressure as it grazed the Outer Banks of North Carolina, then slowly weaken to a Category 3 hurricane before hitting southern New Jersey. Just a small perturbation from this scenario would bring Irene over New York City as a Category 2 hurricane. Since Irene was an exceptionally large storm with winds that covered a huge stretch of ocean, the storm had a much larger storm surge than it peak winds would suggest, and could have easily brought a storm surge of 15 - 20 feet to New York City. The storm would arrive during the new moon, when tides were at their highest levels of the month, compounding the storm surge risk.
Thankfully, the ECMWF model was wrong, and Irene's eyewall collapsed before the hurricane reached North Carolina. Irene made a direct hit on New York City as a tropical storm with 65 mph winds. Irene's storm surge reached 4.3 feet at the Battery on the south shore of Manhattan, which was high enough to top the city's seawall and flood low-lying park lands and roads near the shore. Fortunately, the water was not high enough to flood New York City's subway system, which could have easily occurred had Irene's winds been just 5 - 10 mph stronger.
Figure 1. Wind forecast for August 28, 2011 made on August 24, 2011 by the ECMWF model for Hurricane Irene. The model predicted that Irene would be a Category 3 or 4 hurricane with a 936 mb central pressure four days later, just south of New Jersey.
New York City: my number one storm surge disaster concern
I met last year with the head of the National hurricane Center's storm surge unit, Jaime Rhome, and asked him what his number one concern was for a future storm surge disaster. Without hesitation, he replied, "New York City." I agreed with him. Strong hurricanes don't make it to New York City very often, since storms must hit the city from the south or southeast in order to stay over water, and most hurricanes are moving northeast or north-northeast when they strike New England. New York also lies far to the north, where cold water and wind shear can tear up any hurricane that might approach. But if you throw the weather dice enough times, your number will eventually come up. New York City's number came up on September 3, 1821, when what was probably a Category 2 hurricane with 110 mph winds struck the city. The water rose 13 feet in just one hour at the Battery, and flooded lower Manhattan as far north as Canal Street--an area that now houses the nation's financial center. The maximum storm surge from this greatest New York City hurricane is unknown, but could have been 15 - 20 feet, which is what NOAA's SLOSH model predicts could occur for a mid-strength Category 2 hurricane with 100-mph winds.
Figure 2. The height above ground that a mid-strength Category 2 hurricane with 100 mph winds would would create in New York City in a worst-case scenario. The image was generated using the primary computer model used by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) to forecast storm surge--the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model. The accuracy of the SLOSH model is advertised as plus or minus 20%. This "Maximum Water Depth" image shows the water depth at each grid cell of the SLOSH domain. Thus, if you are inland at an elevation of ten feet above mean sea level, and the combined storm surge and tide (the "storm tide") is fifteen feet at your location, the water depth image will show five feet of inundation. This Maximum of the "Maximum Envelope of Waters" (MOM) image was generated for high tide and is a composite of the maximum storm surge found for dozens of individual runs of different Category 2 storms with different tracks. Thus, no single storm will be able to cause the level of flooding depicted in this SLOSH storm surge image. Consult our Storm Surge Inundation Maps for the U.S. coast for more imagery.
New York City's storm surge history
During the December 12, 1992 Nor'easter, powerful winds from the 990 mb storm drove an 8.5-foot storm surge into the Battery Park on the south end of Manhattan. The ocean poured over the city's seawall for several hours, flooding the NYC subway, knocking out power to the entire system. One train had to be backed out of a tunnel that was filling with water, and hundreds of passengers were rescued from stranded trains. Portions of the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) train systems in New Jersey were shut down for ten days, after low points in the rail tunnels flooded and major damage occurred to the control signals. Passengers had to be rescued from a train stalled in the PATH tunnel. Surges only one to two feet higher may have caused massive flooding of the PATH train tunnels. La Guardia Airport was closed due to flooded runways. Roadway flooding was also widespread—FDR Drive in lower Manhattan flooded with 4 feet of water, which stranded more than 50 cars and required scuba divers to rescue some of the drivers. Battery Park Tunnel held six feet of water. Major parkways were flooded in Nassau County, Westchester County, and New Jersey. Mass transit between New Jersey and New York was down for ten days, and the storm did hundreds of millions in damage to the city. The situation was similar in September 1960 during Hurricane Donna, which brought a storm surge of 8.36 feet to the Battery, and flooded lower Manhattan to West and Cortland Streets. The November 25, 1950 Nor'easter brought sustained easterly winds of up to 62 mph to LaGuardia Airport, and pushed a large storm surge up Long Island Sound that breached the dikes guarding the airport, flooding the runways.
Figure 3. Water pours into the Hoboken, New Jersey underground PATH mass transit station during the December 12, 1992 Nor'easter. Image credit: Metro New York Hurricane Transport Study, 1995.
Figure 4. Flooded runways at New York's La Guardia Airport after the November 25, 1950 Nor'easter breached the dikes guarding the airport. Sustained easterly winds of up to 62 mph hit the airport, pushing a large storm surge up Long Island Sound. The storm's central pressure bottomed out at 978 mb. Image credit: Queens Borough Public Library, Long Island Division.
Sea level rise and New York City
According to tide gauge data, sea level at the Battery at the south end of Manhattan has risen about 1 foot since 1900. This is higher than the mean global sea level rise of 7 inches (18 cm) that occurred in the 20th century. Global sea level rise occurs because the oceans are expanding as they heat up, and due to melt water from glaciers. The higher sea level rise in New York is due to the fact the land is sinking along the coast. These processes will continue during the coming century.
The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), predicted in 2007 a 0.6 - 1.9 foot global average sea level rise by 2100. However, they did not include melting from Greenland and Antarctica in this estimate, due to the large uncertainties involved. A paper published by Pfeffer et al. (2008) in Science concluded that the "most likely" range of sea level rise by 2100 is 2.6 - 6.6 feet. Three major sea level papers published since the IPCC report was issued in 2007 all agree that the IPCC significantly underestimated the potential sea level rise by 2100. In a 2009 interview with New Scientist magazine, sea level expert/ glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, commented, "most of my community is comfortable expecting at least a meter (3.28') by the end of this century." Sea level expert Stephan Rahmstorf added, "I sense that now a majority of sea level experts would agree with me that the IPCC projections are much too low." However, he cautioned that the popular media tend to focus on the upper limits of these newer projections (1. 5 - 2.0 meters), and "reaching the upper limits is, by definition, extremely unlikely.""
The sea level rise situation will be worse in areas where ocean currents have a large impact on the local sea level. This is the case along the Northeast U.S. coast, where the balance of forces required to maintain the very strong and narrow Gulf Stream Current means that sea water is sucked away from the coast, lowering the relative sea level from North Carolina northwards. During the coming century, the addition of large amounts of heat and fresh water into the North Atlantic due to higher precipitation, river runoff, and increased melting of glaciers is expected to weaken the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) (also referred to as the thermohaline circulation), a global network of density-driven ocean currents. Weakening the thermohaline circulation will allow the Gulf Stream to spread out, resulting in sea level rise along the Northeast U.S. coast. Hu et al. (2009) found that a slow-down of the Meridional Overturning Circulation by 48% may occur by 2100, resulting in a 0.1 - 0.3 meter (0.25 - 1.0 ft) rise in sea level along the U.S. Northeast coast and Canadian Atlantic coast. This rise would be in addition to global sea level rise from melting glaciers and thermal expansion of the waters. A similar study by Yin et al. (2009) found a slow-down of the Meridional Overturning Circulation of 41% by 2100. New York City was in the region with the highest expected sea level rise from this ocean current effect--a rise of about 0.2 meters (0.75 feet) by the year 2100. If the Atlantic thermohaline circulation were to totally collapse, the authors predict a 4 ft (1.2 meter) rise in sea level along the U.S. Northeast coast solely due to the change in ocean currents. The IPCC predicts that such an abrupt climate change event (rather ridiculously depicted in the movie The Day After Tomorrow) will not occur in the coming century, though.
The future: Stronger hurricanes for New York City?
According to a summary statement endorsed by 125 of the world's top hurricane scientists at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Sixth International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones, in San Jose Costa Rica, in November 2006. "it is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone intensity will occur if the climate continues to warm." This makes intuitive sense, since hurricanes are heat engines that convert the heat of the ocean waters into the mechanical energy of wind. Turn up the thermostat, and you increase the energy available to make the strongest storms stronger. One major reason hurricanes weaken quickly when they approach New England is that the coastal waters cool dramatically north of North Carolina. As ocean waters warm during the coming century, hurricanes will be more able to maintain their strength farther to the north. One of the reasons the ECMWF model was simulating a 936 mb Hurricane Irene hitting New Jersey was because ocean temperatures off the mid-Atlantic coast were 1°C (1.8°F) above average during August 2011--the 7th warmest in recorded history. These high ocean temperature were due to the exceptional heat wave that gripped much of the mid-Atlantic during the summer of 2011--every state along the coast from Florida to New Jersey had a summer that ranked in the top four warmest summers since 1895. Such heat waves and warm ocean temperature are expected to become the new normal by mid-century, resulting in increased chances for strong hurricanes to make it to New England.
Figure 5. Summer temperatures along the U.S. Atlantic coast during 2011 ranked as 2nd - 4th warmest on record from Florida to New Jersey, resulting in exceptionally warm waters along the coast for Hurricane Irene to feed off of in late August. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.
The other major reason that strong hurricanes have trouble making it to New England is that wind shear generally increases as one gets closer to the pole, due to the presence of the powerful winds of the polar jet stream. However, climate change theory predicts that the jet stream should migrate poleward during the coming decades, potentially reducing the amount of wind shear hurricanes arriving in New England will experience. A 2008 study by Archer and Caldeira found that the jet stream moved northwards 125 miles per decade during the 22-year period 1979 - 2001, in agreement with climate change theory. However, the migration of the jet stream northwards may also mean that hurricanes will be less likely to be caught up in a trough of low pressure embedded in the jet stream, resulting in fewer hurricanes swinging northwards to impact New England. At this point, it is hard to say whether or not changes to the jet stream due to climate change will alter the frequency of strong hurricanes reaching New England.
New York City's inadequate sea wall
The floodwalls protecting Manhattan are only five feet above mean sea level. At high tide, the water is only 3.5 feet below the top of the seawall, so clearly Manhattan is going to have a serious storm surge problem by the end of the century if sea level rise reaches the 3-foot plus figure many sea level rise scientists are predicting. As Ben Straus of Climate Central pointed out in a blog post on Irene, "sea level rise will amplify the impact of future hurricanes and Nor'easters. If we replay the 20th century but add an extra foot of sea level at the start (the extra foot we indeed started with in 2000, compared to 1900), about six events would produce higher water levels than the Nor'easter of 1992." Remember, the 1992 Nor'easter crippled the city's transportation system for ten days and caused hundreds of millions in damage. A Category 2 hurricane like the 1821 hurricane would be far worse, and could result in severe global economic consequences. A 15-foot storm surge from such a hurricane would swamp JFK and La Guardia airports. Manhattan would flood north to Canal Street, shutting down Wall Street and New York City's Financial District. The Holland Tunnel, much of the NYC subway system, and the New Jersey PATH mass transit systems would all flood. Many of the power plants that supply the city with electricity might be knocked out, or their docks to supply them with fuel could be destroyed. Nearly half a million people and almost 300,000 jobs lie within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood zones that would be inundated. As New York Times columnist Nate Silver wrote, such a disaster would likely cost near $100 billion. Furthermore, he makes the point, "Keep in mind that New York City's annual gross domestic product is about $1.4 trillion, one-tenth of the nation's gross domestic product, so if much of the city were to become dysfunctional for months or more, the damage to the global and domestic economies would be almost incalculable."
Figure 6. The seawall protecting Manhattan at Battery Park is only 5 feet above mean sea level. Tidal range at the Battery is plus or minus 1.5 feet, so at high tide a storm surge of just 3.5 feet is needed to send water over the seawall and into Manhattan.
Flooding of the NYC subway system
The U.S. Federal Transit Administration released a report in October 2011 called, "Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Public Transportation and Climate Change Adaptation". The report says that with three feet of sea-level rise, the flooding produced by a 100-year storm at current sea levels will require only a 10-year storm, in other words, a tenfold increase in the frequency of flooding. Even without sea-level rise, a 100-year flood (an 8-foot storm surge) would inundate substantial portions of the subway system, whose tunnels generally lie twenty feet below street level. With sea-level rise though, the flooding occurs more rapidly and is more severe. A 100-year flood with a four foot rise in sea level would flood a large fraction of Manhattan subways, including virtually all of the tunnels crossing into the Bronx beneath the Harlem River and the tunnels under the East River. Flood waters enter the subway tunnels mostly vertically via ventilation grates and entrances as the streets flood, but also via inclined rail and road tunnels. Hydraulic computations show complete flooding takes only 40 minutes. Recovery would require obtaining huge quantities of pumps and hoses, awaiting restoration of power to the electrical grid, pumping out the flood waters, cleaning out miles of muddy and debris-filled platforms, stairs, tunnels and trackway, assessing the damage, and repairing problems. Much of the signal equipment and controls in the tunnels would be damged by salt or brackish water and would need to be disassembled, cleaned, and repaired or replaced to avoid corrosion and irreparable long-term damage. This specialized equipment, some of it 100 years old, is difficult to obtain and in many cases no longer manufactured. Researchers estimate a minimum recovery time of three to four weeks to reach 90 percent capacity, although when engineers were presented with the question, they believed that it could take one to two years to recover fully. This also assumes trains were moved to portions of the system with elevations above flood levels, in anticipation of the storm and were thus not damaged. Additional problems could result if the flood waters were contaminated with toxins. Combined economic and physical damage losses from subway tunnel flooding under a 100-year storm surge were estimated at $58 billion at current sea levels and $84 billion with four feet of sea-level rise, assuming a linear recovery and an estimated subway outage time of three to four weeks.
Figure 7. New York City Subway vulnerability to a 100-year flood of 8 feet, with a 4-foot sea level rise. Blue lines are flooded subway tunnels. Orange areas have elevation less than 30 feet at present. Subway tracks are typically 20 feet below street level. Image credit: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), ClimAID: Responding to Climate Change in New York State, Draft Version, 2010.
What to do? Build a storm surge barrier
As I discussed in Part One of this series on U.S. storm surge risk, three cities in New England--Stamford, Providence, and New Bedford--have already built hurricane storm surge barriers that have more than paid for the cost of their construction in damages saved. Many coastal cities will need to substantially improve their flood defenses in coming decades due to rising sea levels. For New York, the best solution is to place three barriers at strategic "choke points"—the Verrazano Narrows, Throgs Neck, and the Arthur Kill, argues Douglas Hill of Stony Brook University's Storm Surge Research Group. I'll present his arguments in a guest post in Part Three of this series on storm surge risk in the U.S., coming up sometime in the next week.
Resources and references
Storm surge barriers: the New England experience: Part One of this series on U.S. storm surge risk.
The National Hurricane Center's Interactive Storm Surge Risk Map, which allows one to pick a particular Category hurricane and zoom in to see the height above ground level a worst-case storm surge may go.
Wunderground's Storm Surge Inundation Maps for the U.S. coast.
Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response: New York City Panel on Climate Change 2010 Report
Climate change information resources for NYC from Columbia University.
Landstrike is an entertaining fictional account of a Category 4 hurricane hitting New York City.
Colle, B.A., et al., 2008, New York City's vulnerability to coastal flooding: storm surge modeling of past cyclones, Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc. 89, 829–841 (2008).
Hu, A., G. A. Meehl, W. Han, and J. Yin (2009), "Transient response of the MOC and climate to potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the 21st century", Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L10707, doi:10.1029/2009GL037998 29 May 2009
Rignot, E., and P. Kanagaratnam (2006), Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet, Science, 311, 986. 990.
Yin, J., M.E. Schlesinger, and R.J. Stouffer, 2009, "Model projections of rapid sea-level rise on the northeast coast of the United States", Nature Geoscience 2, 262 - 266 (2009).
Lady Liberty not at risk from a storm surge
As a side note, the Statue of Liberty is not vulnerable to a storm surge, since the good lady stands atop a 65-foot high foundation and 89-foot high granite pedestal. However, the 305' height of the lady's torch above the foundation means the statue will experience winds a full Saffir-Simpson category higher than winds at the surface. The statue is rated to survive a wind load of 58 psf, which is roughly equivalent to 120 mph winds (Category 3 hurricane). However, a mid-strength Category 2 hurricane with 105 mph winds will be able to generate 120 mph winds at a height of 300 feet, and would theoretically be capable of toppling the Statue of Liberty.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
I think a thing to remember is that the US has not been hit by a Cat 3 in over 6 years, a record that was last seen over 100 years ago.
So much for those big hurricanes caused by man made global warming.
Tampa Bay would probably get it just as bad as NYC or even worse, because the surge would slosh around the bay and just get bigger.
Also the reason why so many "new" heat records are made is because so many new weater reporting sites has been put into service in the past 20 years... many are automated.
Thus naturally they will report new record highs over and over as their data period is so short.
Looking at stations with 120 year histories like Los Angeles and other major cities, most record highs are not in recent years. Many are still from the 1800's
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. – The secretive X-37B robotic space plane is about to set its own space-endurance record on a hush-hush project operated by the U.S. Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office.
The craft, also known as the Orbital Test Vehicle-2, was boosted into Earth orbit atop an Atlas 5 rocket from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on March 5. Tomorrow (Nov. 30), the X-37B spacecraft will mark its 270th day of flight — a lifetime in space that was heralded in the past as the vehicle's upper limit for spaceflight by project officials.
Related Stories
Secret Mission of Air Force's X-37B Robot Space Plane May Go Into Overtime
Secretive US X-37B Space Plane Could Evolve to Carry Astronauts
Air Force's Secret Space Plane Likely Testing Spy Satellite Tech
Air Force Launches Robotic Space Plane on Mystery MissionRelated Slideshow
Inside the Air Force's Secret Space Plane
The U.S. Air Force launched the robotic X-37B space plane in early 2010 on a space mission that remains a secret -- even after the craft touched ground 225 days later at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In early 2011, the ship took off again on its latest mission.
"It's still up there," U.S. Air Force Maj. Tracy Bunko of the Air Force Press Desk at the Pentagon, told SPACE.com, noting that project officials planned for a 9- month-plus mission, "so we're close to that now."
The X-37B's staying power is made feasible by its deployable solar array power system, unfurled from the vehicle's cargo bay. [Photos: Air Force's 2nd Secret X-37B Mission]
Built by Boeing's Phantom Works, the X-37B spacecraft is about 29 feet (8.8 meters) long and 15 feet (4.5 meters) wide. It has a payload bay about the size of a pickup truck bed.
The X-37B resembles a miniature version of NASA's space shuttle. Two X-37Bs could fit inside the 60-foot (18-meter) cargo bay of a space shuttle.
The U.S. Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office "expedites development and fielding of select Department of Defense combat support and weapon systems by leveraging defense-wide technology development efforts and existing operational capabilities," according to an office fact sheet.
"Currently, RCO is working on the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle to demonstrate a reliable, reusable, unmanned space test platform for the United States Air Force," the fact sheet explains.
Extended flight
As first reported by SPACE.com in early October, the extended flight of the craft was in the cards from the beginning, said Air Force Lt. Col. Tom McIntyre, the X-37 systems program director.
McIntyre said that X-37B controllers initially planned a 9-month mission but would try to extend it "as circumstances allow." He added that more flight time would give program officials additional experimentation opportunities and permit its operators to extract the maximum value out of the mission, he said.
The maiden voyage of the first winged X-37B took place in 2010, a mission that lasted 225 days. That inaugural trek started on April 22, and ended with a Dec. 3 touchdown at a specially prepared landing strip at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The vehicle now orbiting is the second craft of this type to be built by Boeing.
The X-37B is operated under the direction of Air Force Space Command's 3rd Space Experimentation Squadron, a space control unit located at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado.
The payload inside the vehicle flying in space is classified.
Future uses
When this second X-37B flight does end, it is designed to carry out an automatic guided-entry-and-wheels-down runway landing, likely at Vandenberg Air Force Base, with neighboring Edwards Air Force Base serving as a backup.
If the incoming space plane strays off its auto-pilot trajectory as it zooms over the Pacific Ocean, the craft has a self-destruct mechanism.
As for the future of the X-37B series, derivatives of the vehicle have been proposed as possibilities to fly cargo and even crew to the International Space Station.
Arthur Grantz of Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems sketched out a host of future uses for the space plane design at a recent meeting of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Grantz said, for one, the X-37B as designed now can be flown to the space station and supply cargo services by docking to the facility's common berthing mechanism. A Boeing roadmap, he added, includes an X-37C winged vehicle, as well as a version able to carry up to seven astronauts into Earth orbit.
And whats wrong with the picture, 3 days notice prior to Katrina's arrival, those folks were told to leave, and before that, living in an area that are prone to Hurricane's one would have a hightened awareness!
I'm sorry, I'm the guy who has to risk my sorry butt to rescue these folks, I've asked many times before, why did you stay, they say, I thought I could ride it out, done it before, can do it again.
Not after one of these storms.
Besides, Government will save us, I always depend on government to be my savior.
That's the mindset of many Americans these day, folks Government can't get there to save everyone.
With budgets cuts, the rescue and first responders are the first place where budgets are cut, so the social programs can survive!
Los Angeles set their all time heat record last September.
Just like how Sean started.
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2011 /nov2011/nov2011.pdf
Also, their forecasts will be released on Dec 7th for the 2012 hurricane season.
Yeah, and the ones from the 1700 & 1800's were probably put right in the middle of airports so the record temperatures were even higher.
If your logic is correct, why would the preponderance of new temperature records be on the high side? It seems to me the number of high temp records and low temp records would be about the same over the long run. They're not. Why is that?
FWIW, the all-time high temperature in Los Angeles of 113 was set just last year.
Do you know of any credible climate scientist who predicted there'd be more land-falling hurricanes?
That was the Gov. and Mayor fault. The NHC had it pegged to move into the area 3 days in advance with incredible Model agreement.
Also if the proliferation of new stations were responsible for the increase in record high temperatures, then there should be the same increase in the number of record low temperatures.
Why must you be so......factual?!?!?! It's pretty annoying, ya know...
Not so. 3 days before on August 26 the forecast was for Katrina to hit the western part of the Florida panhandle or southern Alabama. Here is the discussion from August 26 at 11 a.m.
At that time Katrina was never forecast to go west of 86.3 W. That is about 55 miles east of Pensacola.
Bookmark and Share
Evening August 26, 2005: New Orleans Mayor, Other Parish Officials Urge Residents to Prepare, Pay Attention
Edit event
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin tells the Times-Picayune that he is alarmed with Hurricane Katrina’s potential path and the lack of time available to prepare for such a large storm. “This storm really scares me,” he says. The state’s new Contraflow Plan calls for evacuation plans to be implemented 50 hours before a storm hits. “That’s why I’m trying to stress to everyone now to get prepared,” Nagin says. City officials will not make a decision regarding emergency measures or evacuations until Saturday, which will not give residents much time to prepare. Officials from Jefferson Parish, St. Bernard Parish, and Plaquemines Parish also encourage residents to prepare for the storm. [Times-Picayune, 8/27/2005]
Entity Tags: Hurricane Katrina, Ray Nagin
Category Tags: Pre-Impact Katrina, Louisiana: NOLA, Evacuation, Execution of Emergency Plans
Beg to differ with you pal! but August 26th, 2005 is three day!
Don't mix facts with emotions!
NOT TRUE AT ALL..........3 days out...the NHC had already warned of the danger.....THAT IS A FACT along nearly every single model.....that is a fact!
Cold!!! You good?
TampaSpin what I said is true. I linked the NHC discussion from the time, 11 a.m. August 26. 3 days before landfall. The discussion had the center of Katrina's cone going into the Florida panhandle about 55-60 miles east of Pensacola.
Pensacola is at 87.2 west and the furthest west forecast position was 86.3 west.
You may believe your recollections, but they are completely wrong.
How is it not true? Three days before Katrina made landfall, it WAS expected to make landfall on the Florida panhandle.
THAT is a fact!
OK...now I'm not feelin' nearly so cold...
HERE IS THE 5PM CONE ON FRIDAY!!!!
KEEP in MIND the MODELS had ALREADY shifted before this UPDATE.....This is a FACT!
Which takes the center to the AL/MS border.
The 11 a.m forecast cone is here. Which is 3 days before Monday morning.
Yeah, just skip all of the ones that show it making landfall in Florida, and go to the one that showed it making landfall in Louisiana. Lol!
The Models had already shifted West tho....that was why the Cone was so large
Some people give him grief during the hurricane season when he posts on GW issues or other topics which might be considered "off topic" by some (even if we are in a lull period) but whether you may agree or not agree with him at times, this Blog is a great asset for weather enthusiasts and I have a great amount of respect for Dr. M; he is quite the "jack of all trades" weather wise and gives up plenty of very interesting topics to discuss and ponder on.
In closing, just want to wish Dr. Master's and all of the regulars a Happy Holiday Season; plenty of severe Winter weather, and the Spring tornado season, to "look forward" to between now and June of next year.
PEACE.
A voluntary evacuation order for New Orleanswas issued Saturday night. The mandatory evacuation order was not issued until 11 a.m. Sunday.
Here are the facts -
Hurricane KATRINA
ZCZC MIASPFAT2 ALL
TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM
HURRICANE KATRINA PROBABILITIES NUMBER 15
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
11 PM EDT FRI AUG 26 2005
PROBABILITIES FOR GUIDANCE IN HURRICANE PROTECTION
PLANNING BY GOVERNMENT AND DISASTER OFFICIALS
AT 11 PM EDT...0300Z...THE CENTER OF KATRINA WAS LOCATED NEAR
LATITUDE 24.6 NORTH...LONGITUDE 83.6 WEST
CHANCES OF CENTER OF THE HURRICANE PASSING WITHIN 65 NAUTICAL MILES
OF LISTED LOCATIONS THROUGH 8PM EDT MON AUG 29 2005
LOCATION A B C D E LOCATION A B C D E
25.0N 86.0W 46 X X X 46 BURAS LA X 2 11 6 19
26.0N 87.5W 20 10 X X 30 NEW ORLEANS LA X X 8 9 17
27.0N 89.0W 1 15 6 1 23 NEW IBERIA LA X X 2 12 14
MUAN 219N 850W 2 X X X 2 PORT ARTHUR TX X X X 9 9
JACKSONVILLE FL X X X 2 2 GALVESTON TX X X X 7 7
VENICE FL 1 1 X 1 3 FREEPORT TX X X X 5 5
TAMPA FL X 1 1 1 3 PORT O CONNOR TX X X X 3 3
CEDAR KEY FL X 1 1 3 5 GULF 29N 85W 1 9 3 2 15
ST MARKS FL X 1 4 4 9 GULF 29N 87W 1 13 5 2 21
APALACHICOLA FL X 5 5 3 13 GULF 28N 89W X 11 9 2 22
PANAMA CITY FL X 5 6 4 15 GULF 28N 91W X 1 11 5 17
PENSACOLA FL X 2 9 6 17 GULF 28N 93W X X 2 9 11
MOBILE AL X 1 8 8 17 GULF 28N 95W X X X 6 6
GULFPORT MS X 1 8 9 18 GULF 27N 96W X X X 3 3
COLUMN DEFINITION PROBABILITIES IN PERCENT
A IS PROBABILITY FROM NOW TO 8PM SAT
FOLLOWING ARE ADDITIONAL PROBABILITIES
B FROM 8PM SAT TO 8AM SUN
C FROM 8AM SUN TO 8PM SUN
D FROM 8PM SUN TO 8PM MON
E IS TOTAL PROBABILITY FROM NOW TO 8PM MON
X MEANS LESS THAN ONE PERCENT
FORECASTER AVILA
$$
NNNN
Link
The NHC's August 26, 2005 11 PM probabilities chart showed Buras, LA as having more that double the possibility for landfall than did NOLA. This places NOLA on the NW side of the storm which is generally the weaker side. ... Would I have left NOLA? Probably, if I could. Then again, I do not put much faith in levees. No matter who builds them.
That was 3 days before the landfall, after all :)
It's heat island effects, telling ya one day it's going to be the reason why temp readings are higher
LATITUDE 25.1 NORTH...LONGITUDE 82.2 WEST
CHANCES OF CENTER OF THE HURRICANE PASSING WITHIN 65 NAUTICAL MILES
OF LISTED LOCATIONS THROUGH 8AM EDT MON AUG 29 2005
The highest probability APALACHICOLA FL 1 7 5 6 19
New Orleans probability NEW ORLEANS LA X X 1 9 10
Which was lower than the probability for Jacksonville FL.
JACKSONVILLE FL X 2 5 6 13
Read the probabilites from 11 a.m. August 26, 3 days before landfall, here.
Well, they are not going to like this but, here it is:
Hurricane KATRINA
ZCZC MIASPFAT2 ALL
TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM
HURRICANE KATRINA PROBABILITIES NUMBER 12
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
11 AM EDT FRI AUG 26 2005
PROBABILITIES FOR GUIDANCE IN HURRICANE PROTECTION
PLANNING BY GOVERNMENT AND DISASTER OFFICIALS
AT 11 AM EDT...1500Z...THE CENTER OF KATRINA WAS LOCATED NEAR
LATITUDE 25.1 NORTH...LONGITUDE 82.2 WEST
CHANCES OF CENTER OF THE HURRICANE PASSING WITHIN 65 NAUTICAL MILES
OF LISTED LOCATIONS THROUGH 8AM EDT MON AUG 29 2005
LOCATION A B C D E LOCATION A B C D E
25.5N 84.3W 48 X X X 48 CEDAR KEY FL 4 8 3 3 18
26.2N 85.2W 32 1 X X 33 ST MARKS FL X 6 5 6 17
27.1N 85.9W 14 7 1 2 24 APALACHICOLA FL 1 7 5 6 19
MUHA 230N 824W 2 X X X 2 PANAMA CITY FL X 4 7 7 18
MARATHON FL 99 X X X 99 PENSACOLA FL X X 5 10 15
MIAMI FL X 1 X 2 3 MOBILE AL X X 2 11 13
W PALM BEACH FL X 1 1 2 4 GULFPORT MS X X 1 11 12
FT PIERCE FL X 2 2 3 7 BURAS LA X X 2 10 12
COCOA BEACH FL X 3 3 3 9 NEW ORLEANS LA X X 1 9 10
DAYTONA BEACH FL X 3 4 5 12 NEW IBERIA LA X X X 7 7
JACKSONVILLE FL X 2 5 6 13 PORT ARTHUR TX X X X 3 3
SAVANNAH GA X X 2 7 9 GALVESTON TX X X X 2 2
CHARLESTON SC X X X 5 5 GULF 29N 85W 4 9 4 3 20
MYRTLE BEACH SC X X X 3 3 GULF 29N 87W X 5 7 6 18
KEY WEST FL 99 X X X 99 GULF 28N 89W X 1 6 7 14
MARCO ISLAND FL 99 X X X 99 GULF 28N 91W X X 1 8 9
FT MYERS FL 58 X X X 58 GULF 28N 93W X X X 4 4
VENICE FL 35 X X X 35 GULF 28N 95W X X X 2 2
TAMPA FL 13 4 1 2 20
COLUMN DEFINITION PROBABILITIES IN PERCENT
A IS PROBABILITY FROM NOW TO 8AM SAT
FOLLOWING ARE ADDITIONAL PROBABILITIES
B FROM 8AM SAT TO 8PM SAT
C FROM 8PM SAT TO 8AM SUN
D FROM 8AM SUN TO 8AM MON
E IS TOTAL PROBABILITY FROM NOW TO 8AM MON
X MEANS LESS THAN ONE PERCENT
FORECASTER STEWART
$$
NNNN
Link
Looks like Florida was the expected landfall during the 11 AM adversary.
My opinion on evacuations is known here. I'm a runner not a fighter. ;-)
But anyway, one of the very few videos of Rita I've ever seen was of a first responder. He was a fireman from Los Angelas in Lake Charles for Rita. He was being interviewed inside a school I think? And he turns his head (and the camera turned) and you can see what looks like a very dark trailer park. I was like, wow it moved those concrete steps! My husband said, "No, the steps didn't move." The trailer had. What caught his attention was a light that kept bobbing behind the blinds. The fireman was like "You have got to be kidding me!" So he and at least the cameraman got into some kind of suv. The fireman got a young couple out of a window and ran them back to the suv. About 10 seconds before everything around them including their trailer was shredded and the windows of the suv blew out! He ended the interview by saying, if they tell you to leave LEAVE!
Wish I could post the video. But the weather channel hasn't given it up to youtube that I could find. Saw it on the tail end of storm stories one time.
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index